1) Apple's market share would increase if Apple cut their prices on existing models or had a new Macintosh product that would be less expensive.
i don't believe apple's market share will increase if they cut prices. i'll still buy one computer for less money and don't think of buying two, because they are cheaper.
what is market share anyway? are we looking at new sold computers? or computers used in a daily base?
do you know how many 3.5-4 years old BW G3towers are still in use out there? if you look at that part of market share it isn't that bad. the only way apple can increase that kind of market share you opt is by making computers that are obsolete as fast as wintel machines. and i don't like that idea.
it's power by numbers. the wintel world grows faster than apple because of it's penetration in the market and the pase of obsolence.
even if apple does well, a marketshare of 5% of new sold machines is a awfull lot. the only way apple's market share can grow is by making better systems than other pc-builders and the ability to market that. the ppc970 processor is the killer marketing tool they can shove into the pc-users throat.
they have to prove and show they are better. and even then it probally won't help: the avarege pc-owner is very conservative and hates changes. they buy a computer and stick with the os they get with it. if they want a new os or use new programs (games) they have to buy a new pc because it run's poorly on their current computer. that are changes enough. not the price will stop the pc-owner to buy a mac but fear for a unknown computer they have to get used to...
learning something new is very tasking and often a traumatic exercise. (you know how many people sufferd under the problems they had to get their wintel box to do what it had to do?) they don't want to start that all over again.
Education likes to be able to replace computers and save money by reusing the monitor for several generations.
The useful life of a good quality monitor is damn near 10 years, opposed to the three or four year useful life of computers.
Steve Jobs thinks the education market prefers the simplicity of all-in-one, there is a difference, Steve Jobs thinks alots of things
I would disagree with this. If you have a really high quality, large monitor then you might have a point. However monitor technology and prices move down just like everything else in the computer industry. To have schools buying new Mac's to atttach to say 3 year old 15 inch monitors from Compaq or Dell would just likely look terrible.
Our school loved the 15 inch iMac for a couple of reasons. One it was hard for the kids to get at and damage. It had two headphone jacks in front so kids could share and still keep the room quiet. Two it was silent and fanless itself. Three there were times it was pretty cheap when Apple was switching generations.
A school that doesn't even want to buy new monitors with new machines is likely not going to go Mac. They want a cheap, crappy solution and they will get what they deserve.
My current school (I had to transfer last year due to budget cuts) has nothing but the cheapest PC's you can imagine. They have fans and power supplies going out all the time. They run Windows 2000 with a program called PLATO and they do nothing but crash, crash, crash.
The school got what it paid for. Meantime I will be writing some grants to get some eMacs/iBooks in my classroom.
When the local school district abandoned the Macintosh during the 2000-2001 school year price was the ONLY factor.
There was a mandate that the Humanities and Science had to intergrate computers into their program, all of the sudden schools needed hundrads more computers.
They could get 250% more computers from Dell than they could from Apple with the same money. Game Over.
The fact Dell offered 3 years onsite support in the purchase price also worked greatly to their advantage.
Had Apple made an even remotely competitive bid it would have worked greatly to their advantage
I guess it kinda depends on where in the world you are and how much you are willing to believe the decision makers public statements. we've just taken delivery of over 40 PCs. each one cost more than the mid range emac. it would have been cheaper to have bought 40 emacs plus peripherals than this lot of PCs - 4 of which failed out of the box. its not even a question of MS Office costs eiter as we have a college wide license for Office - mac or PC.
the official line? - "Macs are just too expensive and they're not compatible"
Well, Spooky, I'll be glad to start work at a college that is all Mac.
It's nice to see Lightwave on a suite of Macs.
I think the case for Macs in Colleges will grow when the 970 hits if it is aggressively priced.
Hopefully when Apple has the 970 and Panther...and another great digital device then Apple can really begin reaching out to that other 95%.
They could do with some Apple stores on UK highstreets though.
Lemon Bon Bon
Me too! Unfortunately, our establishment is becoming more and more pc centric and has been doing so for five or so years now. our department on my campus is the only one that steadfastedly refuses to budge from macos - much to the detriment of all our careers. Sadly, I can see a time when XP is forced on us in place of our macs and that, i'm afraid is the time for me to find a new career. There are so many simple things that apple could do with regards to edu I just can't understand why they won't. For example, apple runs offers for education such as free Jagwire for teachers. Further Education buys more macs than secondary schools put together yet FE institutions and staff are not eligible! so when we wanted to upgrade to Mac OS X and proudly parade the next gen operating system to all and sundry we had to find over £1k!! needless to say, the money men turned it down. the upshot? all of our students think that the pcs are far more stable and reliable than macs becuase they're comparing OS9 with XP!
I've been in the embarassing situation of a manager bringing his vaio along and running animations and cd roms more smoothly than on my ibook - it doesn't matter that the vaio is more expensive - as far as he was concerned the mac was not competitive.
why doesn't apple offer .mac to schools and colleges? how about offering .mac accounts per room for £100 a year? its got to be better than no .mac accounts from us.
I've asked apple to come and demo XServe and Xserve cluster kit for us (we're interested in a LAN and render farm before the college imposes an XP solution). the people I've spoken to so far at various apple gatherings in the Uk seem to know about as much about the Xserve as I do - ie very little.
I went to PC World today as I do now and again and just posed as a prospective customer hovering arund the single mac shelf. they had an imac crt, imac II, 2 ibooks, a powerbook and an emac. none of the machines were turned on. when I turned them on only the emac and imac crt had been set up - and even then the drive and desktop was full of crap files with names like "vjghfbh$$0183nb" !!
A sales assisstant came up to me and I played dumb. he claimed that macs were slow and too expensive for what you get. according to him you et far more for your money with PCs. he claimed that macs were not compatible (!), you couldn't get software easily for them, were very expensive to fix, easy to scratch (I gotta admit I agreed with him on this one!), they didn't sell many of them, blah blah blah. he then put his am around me shoulder and led me to the copius PC stands and began trying to sell me a PC!
shudder.
this more than anything is hindering apple's market share growth.
if only they could go on national television and say:
"hey folks, we've just relased the most powerful line of computers in the world. And that's not all, just look at what they can now do . . ."
I don't know how long Apple can maintain its education market niche at this pace. It's a miracle that it's kept it so long...
Dell has stolen a lot of market share from districts in my area, as well as from my college alma mater. Their deal looks cheaper on paper "250% more" as Steve said, but even with tech support, the IT costs of my college have risen exponentially.
The same thing has happened at my sister's high school, where suddenly they were forced to carry a laptop around, adding next to nothing to their educational experience. Pity my poor sister who weighs 90lbs and has to carry 50 lbs of books AND a fragile laptop to class as well.
The problem with Apple and schools is not really a PC vs. Mac thing. It's an "education vs. business" problem. When teachers and school administrators decide computre purchases, their choice is usually Mac. Before the internet, computers in the classroom usually served a supplementary purpose, much like educational filmstrips or library use...
But since the advent of the Internet, there's been a push to involve a computer in every step of the educational process. Many schools have taken on IT professionals. These IT professionals are don't know or care to know about the Mac, so they choose Dell or another PC maker. It looks cheaper on paper, but of course paying an IT pro full-time is much more expensive than dropping a few hundred more on Macs.
The downside to all of this is that buying up tons of computers ends up costing schools more in the long run. And the fact that education professionals aren't making choices about what educational tools they can use is a lot more disturbing than people choosing one computer platform over another.
Many schools have taken on IT professionals. These IT professionals are don't know or care to know about the Mac, so they choose Dell or another PC maker. It looks cheaper on paper, but of course paying an IT pro full-time is much more expensive than dropping a few hundred more on Macs.
This was true in the Mac OS 9 days, however Mac OS X has eliminated that perceived advantage. Unix pro's are alot more expensive than A+\\MCSE nerds.
I heard about a school in California that went to Mac OS X from 9/8 and they had to hire 3 more people on top of the 4 they already had.
i don't believe apple's market share will increase if they cut prices. i'll still buy one computer for less money and don't think of buying two, because they are cheaper.
do you know how many 3.5-4 years old BW G3towers are still in use out there? if you look at that part of market share it isn't that bad. the only way apple can increase that kind of market share you opt is by making computers that are obsolete as fast as wintel machines. and i don't like that idea.
Well I don't know about that. I would think there would be many who use a desktop at work who would love to get a Mac for the home if the price was right. Or those who have a laptop but would love to get a low cost mac for their kids.
And the reason I (and many others) haven't upgraded my G4/450 tower, is because of the high prices. Although, I the entire computer industry is in a funk these days and most people are hanging on to what they have for as long as they can.
This was true in the Mac OS 9 days, however Mac OS X has eliminated that perceived advantage. Unix pro's are alot more expensive than A+\\MCSE nerds.
I heard about a school in California that went to Mac OS X from 9/8 and they had to hire 3 more people on top of the 4 they already had.
"I heard about a school...." Well, I attended and worked at a school whose IT budget almost tripled when they went from Mac to PC. They signed a contract that gave them huge discounts on Dell computers in return for guaranteeing that the labs would be 100% Dell in the future. (Oh, how everyone but IT has regretted that deal!)
Mac OS X still "just works," and it's a lot more stable than OS 9 ever was. It does not require any kind of Unix professionals to administer. In fact, one of my close friends (a Mac user since the early 90s who is just now learning UNIX) admins a group of 21 medium-traffic servers and 40+ workstations without any trouble whatsoever.
Yes, Mac OS X might be a bigger security risk than OS 9, but what isn't? It's still far behind Windows and even Linux in that regard. Plus, people don't load iMesh, Kazaa, and other spyware bullshit on the Mac.
Point is: the Mac can be administered by nontechies. Mac OS X doesn't change that fact...I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks Mac OS X is worse in a network environment than Mac OS 9.
ANY large network made up of any type of computer needs major frontline support, Mac OS X is no exception and is far more complicated than Mac OS 9 was.
Those guys in California were not moving from Macs to PCs, they were just upgrading to Mac OS X.
The major expense usually associated with moving to PC's is when PC's are deployed a real IT infrastructure is usually installed with them that the macs didn't have before.
Replacing stand alone or local talked macs with a real PC network with servers and network printers and everything that goes along with it and then claiming it tripled the cost isn't really fair because you could do the same for the macs and it would cost just as much.
ANY large network made up of any type of computer needs major frontline support, Mac OS X is no exception and is far more complicated than Mac OS 9 was.
Those guys in California were not moving from Macs to PCs, they were just upgrading to Mac OS X.
The major expense usually associated with moving to PC's is when PC's are deployed a real IT infrastructure is usually installed with them that the macs didn't have before.
Replacing stand alone or local talked macs with a real PC network with servers and network printers and everything that goes along with it and then claiming it tripled the cost isn't really fair because you could do the same for the macs and it would cost just as much.
There was an ethernet network in place at the college for years, which accommodated hundreds of Macs, a few PCs, and any number of expensive workstations in the CompSci department (mostly HP-UX machines).
There were no major upgrades to the network backbone that I know of...and there was network infrastructure since at least the mid-80's. I mean, you could walk into some offices and still see the thinnet cables hanging from the ceiling tiles.
And as for Mac OS X being "far more complicated," could you expand on that a bit? I find it really amazing that you think that Mac OS 9 is easier to maintain than OS X, especially in a network environment. True, OS 9 may have less options, but that doesn't really mean it's easier.
Apple's most affordable computer for education is now more affordable than ever. New prices start at only $779 for an eMac with a 17-inch flat CRT display (16-inch viewable) and powered by a G4 processor. For just $1149, you can get one with a SuperDrive and more speed, memory, and storage.
Though Apple Store still lists the low-end model for $999, it is the sign. So if you subtract the CRT monitor, it is indeed possible to sell a sub-$700 box even for Apple. Why won't they just up and do it?!
Several people have made the observation that a low priced Mac would be much less damaging to the sales of high end Macs if the performance gap between them is great. I believe this is true. Apple may believe this too. If so, we won't see a low priced Mac until the G5 PowerMacs appear with a IBM 970 processor. At that time, Apple might finally produce a PCI expandable consumer Mac with no monitor. This appears to be the most wanted low price Mac of all, if the number of posts is any indication. Such a product might replace the eMac, maybe? It could have the fastest G4 and still not hurt G5 PowerMac sales much at all.
A few posts see the need for still another Mac at even lower price. Though fewer in number, these posts have made some strong points for having an economy Mac for general business needs. Such a Mac could sell to schools and some homes too. Again, a performance gap is essential to prevent loss of sales to the Macs in the next higher performance / feature level.
Comments
Originally posted by jwdawso
Can we agree on:
1) Apple's market share would increase if Apple cut their prices on existing models or had a new Macintosh product that would be less expensive.
i don't believe apple's market share will increase if they cut prices. i'll still buy one computer for less money and don't think of buying two, because they are cheaper.
what is market share anyway? are we looking at new sold computers? or computers used in a daily base?
do you know how many 3.5-4 years old BW G3towers are still in use out there? if you look at that part of market share it isn't that bad. the only way apple can increase that kind of market share you opt is by making computers that are obsolete as fast as wintel machines. and i don't like that idea.
it's power by numbers. the wintel world grows faster than apple because of it's penetration in the market and the pase of obsolence.
even if apple does well, a marketshare of 5% of new sold machines is a awfull lot. the only way apple's market share can grow is by making better systems than other pc-builders and the ability to market that. the ppc970 processor is the killer marketing tool they can shove into the pc-users throat.
they have to prove and show they are better. and even then it probally won't help: the avarege pc-owner is very conservative and hates changes. they buy a computer and stick with the os they get with it. if they want a new os or use new programs (games) they have to buy a new pc because it run's poorly on their current computer. that are changes enough. not the price will stop the pc-owner to buy a mac but fear for a unknown computer they have to get used to...
learning something new is very tasking and often a traumatic exercise. (you know how many people sufferd under the problems they had to get their wintel box to do what it had to do?) they don't want to start that all over again.
Originally posted by Stagflation Steve
no they don't, they hate them.
Education likes to be able to replace computers and save money by reusing the monitor for several generations.
The useful life of a good quality monitor is damn near 10 years, opposed to the three or four year useful life of computers.
Steve Jobs thinks the education market prefers the simplicity of all-in-one, there is a difference, Steve Jobs thinks alots of things
I would disagree with this. If you have a really high quality, large monitor then you might have a point. However monitor technology and prices move down just like everything else in the computer industry. To have schools buying new Mac's to atttach to say 3 year old 15 inch monitors from Compaq or Dell would just likely look terrible.
Our school loved the 15 inch iMac for a couple of reasons. One it was hard for the kids to get at and damage. It had two headphone jacks in front so kids could share and still keep the room quiet. Two it was silent and fanless itself. Three there were times it was pretty cheap when Apple was switching generations.
A school that doesn't even want to buy new monitors with new machines is likely not going to go Mac. They want a cheap, crappy solution and they will get what they deserve.
My current school (I had to transfer last year due to budget cuts) has nothing but the cheapest PC's you can imagine. They have fans and power supplies going out all the time. They run Windows 2000 with a program called PLATO and they do nothing but crash, crash, crash.
The school got what it paid for. Meantime I will be writing some grants to get some eMacs/iBooks in my classroom.
Nick
Originally posted by Stagflation Steve
It sure as hell would,
When the local school district abandoned the Macintosh during the 2000-2001 school year price was the ONLY factor.
There was a mandate that the Humanities and Science had to intergrate computers into their program, all of the sudden schools needed hundrads more computers.
They could get 250% more computers from Dell than they could from Apple with the same money. Game Over.
The fact Dell offered 3 years onsite support in the purchase price also worked greatly to their advantage.
Had Apple made an even remotely competitive bid it would have worked greatly to their advantage
I guess it kinda depends on where in the world you are and how much you are willing to believe the decision makers public statements. we've just taken delivery of over 40 PCs. each one cost more than the mid range emac. it would have been cheaper to have bought 40 emacs plus peripherals than this lot of PCs - 4 of which failed out of the box. its not even a question of MS Office costs eiter as we have a college wide license for Office - mac or PC.
the official line? - "Macs are just too expensive and they're not compatible"
It's nice to see Lightwave on a suite of Macs.
I think the case for Macs in Colleges will grow when the 970 hits if it is aggressively priced.
Hopefully when Apple has the 970 and Panther...and another great digital device then Apple can really begin reaching out to that other 95%.
They could do with some Apple stores on UK highstreets though.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Well, Spooky, I'll be glad to start work at a college that is all Mac.
It's nice to see Lightwave on a suite of Macs.
I think the case for Macs in Colleges will grow when the 970 hits if it is aggressively priced.
Hopefully when Apple has the 970 and Panther...and another great digital device then Apple can really begin reaching out to that other 95%.
They could do with some Apple stores on UK highstreets though.
Lemon Bon Bon
Me too! Unfortunately, our establishment is becoming more and more pc centric and has been doing so for five or so years now. our department on my campus is the only one that steadfastedly refuses to budge from macos - much to the detriment of all our careers. Sadly, I can see a time when XP is forced on us in place of our macs and that, i'm afraid is the time for me to find a new career. There are so many simple things that apple could do with regards to edu I just can't understand why they won't. For example, apple runs offers for education such as free Jagwire for teachers. Further Education buys more macs than secondary schools put together yet FE institutions and staff are not eligible! so when we wanted to upgrade to Mac OS X and proudly parade the next gen operating system to all and sundry we had to find over £1k!! needless to say, the money men turned it down. the upshot? all of our students think that the pcs are far more stable and reliable than macs becuase they're comparing OS9 with XP!
I've been in the embarassing situation of a manager bringing his vaio along and running animations and cd roms more smoothly than on my ibook - it doesn't matter that the vaio is more expensive - as far as he was concerned the mac was not competitive.
why doesn't apple offer .mac to schools and colleges? how about offering .mac accounts per room for £100 a year? its got to be better than no .mac accounts from us.
I've asked apple to come and demo XServe and Xserve cluster kit for us (we're interested in a LAN and render farm before the college imposes an XP solution). the people I've spoken to so far at various apple gatherings in the Uk seem to know about as much about the Xserve as I do - ie very little.
I went to PC World today as I do now and again and just posed as a prospective customer hovering arund the single mac shelf. they had an imac crt, imac II, 2 ibooks, a powerbook and an emac. none of the machines were turned on. when I turned them on only the emac and imac crt had been set up - and even then the drive and desktop was full of crap files with names like "vjghfbh$$0183nb" !!
A sales assisstant came up to me and I played dumb. he claimed that macs were slow and too expensive for what you get. according to him you et far more for your money with PCs. he claimed that macs were not compatible (!), you couldn't get software easily for them, were very expensive to fix, easy to scratch (I gotta admit I agreed with him on this one!), they didn't sell many of them, blah blah blah. he then put his am around me shoulder and led me to the copius PC stands and began trying to sell me a PC!
shudder.
this more than anything is hindering apple's market share growth.
if only they could go on national television and say:
"hey folks, we've just relased the most powerful line of computers in the world. And that's not all, just look at what they can now do . . ."
Dell has stolen a lot of market share from districts in my area, as well as from my college alma mater. Their deal looks cheaper on paper "250% more" as Steve said, but even with tech support, the IT costs of my college have risen exponentially.
The same thing has happened at my sister's high school, where suddenly they were forced to carry a laptop around, adding next to nothing to their educational experience. Pity my poor sister who weighs 90lbs and has to carry 50 lbs of books AND a fragile laptop to class as well.
The problem with Apple and schools is not really a PC vs. Mac thing. It's an "education vs. business" problem. When teachers and school administrators decide computre purchases, their choice is usually Mac. Before the internet, computers in the classroom usually served a supplementary purpose, much like educational filmstrips or library use...
But since the advent of the Internet, there's been a push to involve a computer in every step of the educational process. Many schools have taken on IT professionals. These IT professionals are don't know or care to know about the Mac, so they choose Dell or another PC maker. It looks cheaper on paper, but of course paying an IT pro full-time is much more expensive than dropping a few hundred more on Macs.
The downside to all of this is that buying up tons of computers ends up costing schools more in the long run. And the fact that education professionals aren't making choices about what educational tools they can use is a lot more disturbing than people choosing one computer platform over another.
Originally posted by Chinney
Yup, but the persistence of the discussion indicates the demand for the product. Are you listening Apple?
Try this link
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Many schools have taken on IT professionals. These IT professionals are don't know or care to know about the Mac, so they choose Dell or another PC maker. It looks cheaper on paper, but of course paying an IT pro full-time is much more expensive than dropping a few hundred more on Macs.
This was true in the Mac OS 9 days, however Mac OS X has eliminated that perceived advantage. Unix pro's are alot more expensive than A+\\MCSE nerds.
I heard about a school in California that went to Mac OS X from 9/8 and they had to hire 3 more people on top of the 4 they already had.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by gar
i don't believe apple's market share will increase if they cut prices. i'll still buy one computer for less money and don't think of buying two, because they are cheaper.
do you know how many 3.5-4 years old BW G3towers are still in use out there? if you look at that part of market share it isn't that bad. the only way apple can increase that kind of market share you opt is by making computers that are obsolete as fast as wintel machines. and i don't like that idea.
Well I don't know about that. I would think there would be many who use a desktop at work who would love to get a Mac for the home if the price was right. Or those who have a laptop but would love to get a low cost mac for their kids.
And the reason I (and many others) haven't upgraded my G4/450 tower, is because of the high prices. Although, I the entire computer industry is in a funk these days and most people are hanging on to what they have for as long as they can.
Originally posted by Stagflation Steve
This was true in the Mac OS 9 days, however Mac OS X has eliminated that perceived advantage. Unix pro's are alot more expensive than A+\\MCSE nerds.
I heard about a school in California that went to Mac OS X from 9/8 and they had to hire 3 more people on top of the 4 they already had.
"I heard about a school...." Well, I attended and worked at a school whose IT budget almost tripled when they went from Mac to PC. They signed a contract that gave them huge discounts on Dell computers in return for guaranteeing that the labs would be 100% Dell in the future. (Oh, how everyone but IT has regretted that deal!)
Mac OS X still "just works," and it's a lot more stable than OS 9 ever was. It does not require any kind of Unix professionals to administer. In fact, one of my close friends (a Mac user since the early 90s who is just now learning UNIX) admins a group of 21 medium-traffic servers and 40+ workstations without any trouble whatsoever.
Yes, Mac OS X might be a bigger security risk than OS 9, but what isn't? It's still far behind Windows and even Linux in that regard. Plus, people don't load iMesh, Kazaa, and other spyware bullshit on the Mac.
Point is: the Mac can be administered by nontechies. Mac OS X doesn't change that fact...I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks Mac OS X is worse in a network environment than Mac OS 9.
Those guys in California were not moving from Macs to PCs, they were just upgrading to Mac OS X.
The major expense usually associated with moving to PC's is when PC's are deployed a real IT infrastructure is usually installed with them that the macs didn't have before.
Replacing stand alone or local talked macs with a real PC network with servers and network printers and everything that goes along with it and then claiming it tripled the cost isn't really fair because you could do the same for the macs and it would cost just as much.
Originally posted by Stagflation Steve
ANY large network made up of any type of computer needs major frontline support, Mac OS X is no exception and is far more complicated than Mac OS 9 was.
Those guys in California were not moving from Macs to PCs, they were just upgrading to Mac OS X.
The major expense usually associated with moving to PC's is when PC's are deployed a real IT infrastructure is usually installed with them that the macs didn't have before.
Replacing stand alone or local talked macs with a real PC network with servers and network printers and everything that goes along with it and then claiming it tripled the cost isn't really fair because you could do the same for the macs and it would cost just as much.
There was an ethernet network in place at the college for years, which accommodated hundreds of Macs, a few PCs, and any number of expensive workstations in the CompSci department (mostly HP-UX machines).
There were no major upgrades to the network backbone that I know of...and there was network infrastructure since at least the mid-80's. I mean, you could walk into some offices and still see the thinnet cables hanging from the ceiling tiles.
And as for Mac OS X being "far more complicated," could you expand on that a bit? I find it really amazing that you think that Mac OS 9 is easier to maintain than OS X, especially in a network environment. True, OS 9 may have less options, but that doesn't really mean it's easier.
Originally posted by MacRumors
Apple's most affordable computer for education is now more affordable than ever. New prices start at only $779 for an eMac with a 17-inch flat CRT display (16-inch viewable) and powered by a G4 processor. For just $1149, you can get one with a SuperDrive and more speed, memory, and storage.
Though Apple Store still lists the low-end model for $999, it is the sign. So if you subtract the CRT monitor, it is indeed possible to sell a sub-$700 box even for Apple. Why won't they just up and do it?!
A few posts see the need for still another Mac at even lower price. Though fewer in number, these posts have made some strong points for having an economy Mac for general business needs. Such a Mac could sell to schools and some homes too. Again, a performance gap is essential to prevent loss of sales to the Macs in the next higher performance / feature level.