The problem is, at $1500 the price/performance premium for the Mac over the Dell PC mentioned in this thread is about 50-60%. If the price goes up to $1800, that premium goes up to 80-100%... That just reduces their audience.
One would hope that as their manufacturing capacity rises, the price will come down.
Add to that people will not compare today's low end to yesterday's high end. They will be looking at the bottom line, todays low end vs. yesterdays low end. There is only so much mark up that Apple will be able to make and stay competative. If the 970 is on par in price to the G4, or less, then one would expect that the mid model Mac would actually drop in price becouse it is loosing a processor. The ballance of the stated architecture changes are things that one would expect to pay in a "high-end" computer and help to justify paying a premium for an Apple. (After all who would buy a BMW with vynal upholstery?)
That saying isn't limited to Apple, but applicable to consumer goods manufacturing in general.
BTW, PCI-X slots are *ALSO* PCI slots, IIRC... the -X comes from an extra little connector at one end that supports further capabilities. So, every PCI-X slot is 'a PCI or PCI-X' slot. Vaguely worded, but accurate. Why word it that way? Possibly to forestall potential customers from thinking they'd have to ditch their PCI cards and buy all new ones?
Also, 'up to 8GB of RAM'? Well geez, that just means that you can order it with (drum roll) *up to* a maximum of 8GB of RAM. Nothing there indicating two motherboards.
I doubt we'll see two mobos. The added engineering effort isn't worth it to Apple.
and yet. (and i really wish i had a link for this) they just won some award for best quality or lowest defects or something like that from a trade group.
Do you have any hard evidence of this decline in quality? Or is this purely anecdotal?
Fish
Also - as for the 2 motherboard thing - moki's comment there was a bit cryptic (in the thread titled, appropriately, "two new motherboards" I think). But applenut also seems to recall moki saying 2 motherboards, so who knows.
In other words, your answer is "no - purely anecdotal".
Which is fine, but not enough to make a definitive statement, as there are TONS of people who will offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary (my own experience included).
In other words, your answer is "no - purely anecdotal".
Which is fine, but not enough to make a definitive statement, as there are TONS of people who will offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary (my own experience included).
Fish
But there also will be another group of people doing the same to you
Seriously....considering Apple's high prices they must be problem free (or at least less problematic)
What pissed me off the most is the Graphite 21" Studio Display I had.
Paid over 2300 CDN and died too many times. At the same time my SONY 21" had no problem and it costed less than half of the Apple's. The image quality of the SONY is even better....color....sharpness...also SONY is flatscreen vs Apple's curve screen
Ther rumours about 2 mother boards break them into single and dual mother boards. There was discussion at some length about the need to do this due to 970 archatecture. If so I would imagine that the 1.6 and 1.8 single processors wil have the same number of memory slots and the same PCI architecture. The dual 2.0 would have PCI-X and more memory slots.
Yes, that is what I am thinking. The other is that all the mobo's have PCI-X and the leaked graphic was just poorly written. (For all we know, it may have been an early proof that wasn't even approved yet.) PCI-X is backword compatible. Three PCI-X slots would also work with three PCI cards. Hence the "or" that probably should have been "and/or" Unless there is a significant cost differential, it would not make sense use two different specs.
While I would like to see Apple hold the current price structure, I actually expect them to raise prices. However I expect each model to come well loaded.
Also any idea of a price cookoff on Monday is still silly. We will not have any real world idea of the performance to compare against. But if my suspicions are correct, we will have to compare against the highest end P4", such as the 3.06 and 3.2 as well as dual Xeon's or nothing at all. After some 970s are out in the real world, then we will know for sure what we are dealing with.
I expect that if anything, the real problem will be the performance differential between the iMacs and Power Macs will really hurt iMac sales. I would like to see a lower cost basic tower, but don't expect it yet.
The simple truth is that Apple cannot match PC prices, because of current sales volume. Cutting prices further might increase sales volume (though there is no certainty) but would be selling without a profit margin and they would end up going out of business.
The trick is to balance the price/performance/quality structure relative to the market. Not to match the PC manufacturers pricing. Sorry, but you cannot sell below cost and stay in business. The only way to lower prices is to increase volume. In Apple's case, since they don't have the volume, the only way to increase volume is to provide a better product and do a better job selling it. With the G4, that was difficult to do. However with the 970, they may have what they need. Increase sales to the currently stagnant professional markets with a superior product. While the increase is nominal, every small increase in volume allows for a lower overall cost of production. This in turn allows for incremental price drops. It is a "gradual" step by step process. It can't and won't happen over night.
Apple now has the product to help make it happen. Give them time to do it. They have already demonstrated a capability to make the most out of what they have to work with. The problem has been they just didn't have much to work with the last couple of years, and now they do. The tide will turn, but not overnight.
Right leonis - there WOULD be a ton of people presenting anecdotal evidence on both sides....which is why I tend to ignore it, especially when there are more objective measures we can turn to (like awards, consumer reports, etc).
I started to list my own experiences, but realized that that is pulling this thread off-topic a bit, and it would not convince anyone. Suffice it to say, between my wife and I, 14 Macs (portables included) starting with a Mac Plus, and almost no problems (except for the PB 5300, but Apple replaced the whole machine, and did it promptly!).
I empathize with those who have had bad experiences, but even with a low incidence rate, you would expect some subsets of the users to encounter a lot of problems....
The only way to lower prices is to increase volume. In Apple's case, since they don't have the volume, the only way to increase volume is to provide a better product and do a better job selling it. .
So to lower price, you have to increase volume. But to increase volume, don't you have to lower the price? Not to levels that lose money, but enough to actually make customers consider the product? Why can't Apple just drop their margin to 5 or 10% to gain marketshare? Sure, they don't "need" to drop prices as long as demand exceeds supply, but the supply limit is of their choosing. Why not increase suppy to match the demand and take advantage of the demand to build marketshare? Why don't they EVER do this?
Comments
Originally posted by Gamblor
The problem is, at $1500 the price/performance premium for the Mac over the Dell PC mentioned in this thread is about 50-60%. If the price goes up to $1800, that premium goes up to 80-100%... That just reduces their audience.
One would hope that as their manufacturing capacity rises, the price will come down.
Add to that people will not compare today's low end to yesterday's high end. They will be looking at the bottom line, todays low end vs. yesterdays low end. There is only so much mark up that Apple will be able to make and stay competative. If the 970 is on par in price to the G4, or less, then one would expect that the mid model Mac would actually drop in price becouse it is loosing a processor. The ballance of the stated architecture changes are things that one would expect to pay in a "high-end" computer and help to justify paying a premium for an Apple. (After all who would buy a BMW with vynal upholstery?)
BTW, PCI-X slots are *ALSO* PCI slots, IIRC... the -X comes from an extra little connector at one end that supports further capabilities. So, every PCI-X slot is 'a PCI or PCI-X' slot. Vaguely worded, but accurate. Why word it that way? Possibly to forestall potential customers from thinking they'd have to ditch their PCI cards and buy all new ones?
Also, 'up to 8GB of RAM'? Well geez, that just means that you can order it with (drum roll) *up to* a maximum of 8GB of RAM. Nothing there indicating two motherboards.
I doubt we'll see two mobos. The added engineering effort isn't worth it to Apple.
Fish
Originally posted by Messiah
There's an old Apple saying (which I just about remember), that's mentioned in the Apple Industrial Design book that I have.
I think it's something along the lines of: "Speed, quality and price - pick any two."
Yeah. They have high quality and a high price.
Originally posted by fishdoc
Didn't moki say 2 motherboards somewhere recently?
Fish
Dunno, did he?
But... what makes you think those two are for the same product line?
but a mobo for lowend and having the middle use the highend moboard even though its not dual. i don't buy.
Originally posted by MrSparkle
Yeah. They have high quality and a high price.
*laugh* Good one.
The more correct way of phrasing that quote is: "You can have it quickly, you can have it good, or you can have it cheaply. Pick two."
Originally posted by MrSparkle
Yeah. They have high quality and a high price.
Don't mean to rain your paradise....but the built quality of recent Apple products really is (or has been) going downhill
perception is everything i guess.
Originally posted by Leonis
Don't mean to rain your paradise....but the built quality of recent Apple products really is (or has been) going downhill
You say that as though I have no contact with current apple hardware. My MDD G4 at work is great.
Fish
Also - as for the 2 motherboard thing - moki's comment there was a bit cryptic (in the thread titled, appropriately, "two new motherboards" I think). But applenut also seems to recall moki saying 2 motherboards, so who knows.
Originally posted by fishdoc
Do you have any hard evidence of this decline in quality? Or is this purely anecdotal?
Fish
The quality has been declining since the day of B/W G3
B/W G3 - Dead motherboard, Hard drive failure, defective video card and RAM (Apple)
iBook- DVD-ROM drive problem
Pismo - Hinge problem
TiBook - Stuck DVD-ROM drive
Dual GHz SlowSilver - Processor module died 3 times in 10 months
Dual 500 Mystic - Power Supply died, video card died
Cinema Display - Auto shut down and had to get two replacements
21" Studio Display (Graphite) - Deflection board died FOUR F*CKING TIMES. Imagine you have to carry this bulky monitor (70 pounds!) to repair shop?
My friend's Yikes G4 - Motherboard died five times
My aunt's eMac - Defective display (and it's only one month old!)
My father's CRT iMac - replaced the CRT tube twice
Can I say Apple's quality good? I don't think so. Especially for the price premium they charge
The most reliable machine I have used is the beige G3
and for all the creation this wondeful tool has allowed me, they have been underpriced.
edt: i did do the fan upgrade on my MDD. but i would call that a defect really.
Which is fine, but not enough to make a definitive statement, as there are TONS of people who will offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary (my own experience included).
Fish
Originally posted by Leonis
The quality has been declining since the day of B/W G3
B/W G3 - Dead motherboard, Hard drive failure, defective video card and RAM (Apple)
iBook- DVD-ROM drive problem
Pismo - Hinge problem
TiBook - Stuck DVD-ROM drive
Dual GHz SlowSilver - Processor module died 3 times in 10 months
Dual 500 Mystic - Power Supply died, video card died
Cinema Display - Auto shut down and had to get two replacements
21" Studio Display (Graphite) - Deflection board died FOUR F*CKING TIMES. Imagine you have to carry this bulky monitor (70 pounds!) to repair shop?
My friend's Yikes G4 - Motherboard died five times
My aunt's eMac - Defective display (and it's only one month old!)
My father's CRT iMac - replaced the CRT tube twice
Can I say Apple's quality good? I don't think so. Especially for the price premium they charge
The most reliable machine I have used is the beige G3
Originally posted by fishdoc
In other words, your answer is "no - purely anecdotal".
Which is fine, but not enough to make a definitive statement, as there are TONS of people who will offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary (my own experience included).
Fish
But there also will be another group of people doing the same to you
Seriously....considering Apple's high prices they must be problem free (or at least less problematic)
What pissed me off the most is the Graphite 21" Studio Display I had.
Paid over 2300 CDN and died too many times. At the same time my SONY 21" had no problem and it costed less than half of the Apple's. The image quality of the SONY is even better....color....sharpness...also SONY is flatscreen vs Apple's curve screen
Originally posted by @homenow
Ther rumours about 2 mother boards break them into single and dual mother boards. There was discussion at some length about the need to do this due to 970 archatecture. If so I would imagine that the 1.6 and 1.8 single processors wil have the same number of memory slots and the same PCI architecture. The dual 2.0 would have PCI-X and more memory slots.
Yes, that is what I am thinking. The other is that all the mobo's have PCI-X and the leaked graphic was just poorly written. (For all we know, it may have been an early proof that wasn't even approved yet.) PCI-X is backword compatible. Three PCI-X slots would also work with three PCI cards. Hence the "or" that probably should have been "and/or" Unless there is a significant cost differential, it would not make sense use two different specs.
While I would like to see Apple hold the current price structure, I actually expect them to raise prices. However I expect each model to come well loaded.
Also any idea of a price cookoff on Monday is still silly. We will not have any real world idea of the performance to compare against. But if my suspicions are correct, we will have to compare against the highest end P4", such as the 3.06 and 3.2 as well as dual Xeon's or nothing at all. After some 970s are out in the real world, then we will know for sure what we are dealing with.
I expect that if anything, the real problem will be the performance differential between the iMacs and Power Macs will really hurt iMac sales. I would like to see a lower cost basic tower, but don't expect it yet.
The simple truth is that Apple cannot match PC prices, because of current sales volume. Cutting prices further might increase sales volume (though there is no certainty) but would be selling without a profit margin and they would end up going out of business.
The trick is to balance the price/performance/quality structure relative to the market. Not to match the PC manufacturers pricing. Sorry, but you cannot sell below cost and stay in business. The only way to lower prices is to increase volume. In Apple's case, since they don't have the volume, the only way to increase volume is to provide a better product and do a better job selling it. With the G4, that was difficult to do. However with the 970, they may have what they need. Increase sales to the currently stagnant professional markets with a superior product. While the increase is nominal, every small increase in volume allows for a lower overall cost of production. This in turn allows for incremental price drops. It is a "gradual" step by step process. It can't and won't happen over night.
Apple now has the product to help make it happen. Give them time to do it. They have already demonstrated a capability to make the most out of what they have to work with. The problem has been they just didn't have much to work with the last couple of years, and now they do. The tide will turn, but not overnight.
I started to list my own experiences, but realized that that is pulling this thread off-topic a bit, and it would not convince anyone. Suffice it to say, between my wife and I, 14 Macs (portables included) starting with a Mac Plus, and almost no problems (except for the PB 5300, but Apple replaced the whole machine, and did it promptly!).
I empathize with those who have had bad experiences, but even with a low incidence rate, you would expect some subsets of the users to encounter a lot of problems....
Fish
Originally posted by Shaktai
The only way to lower prices is to increase volume. In Apple's case, since they don't have the volume, the only way to increase volume is to provide a better product and do a better job selling it. .
So to lower price, you have to increase volume. But to increase volume, don't you have to lower the price? Not to levels that lose money, but enough to actually make customers consider the product? Why can't Apple just drop their margin to 5 or 10% to gain marketshare? Sure, they don't "need" to drop prices as long as demand exceeds supply, but the supply limit is of their choosing. Why not increase suppy to match the demand and take advantage of the demand to build marketshare? Why don't they EVER do this?
Originally posted by Messiah
There's an old Apple saying (which I just about remember), that's mentioned in the Apple Industrial Design book that I have.
I think it's something along the lines of: "Speed, quality and price - pick any two."
That's a variant of an old engineering saying: "Cheap, fast, good: pick any two."
Fast == rapid time-to-market in this case. Apple vacillates between fast+good and cheap+good. Wintel usually hangs in the cheap+fast neighborhood.