Apple to re-structure G5 prices?

addisonaddison
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
It seems that few people are buying either the 1.6 or 1.8ghz G5, the majority of sales are going straight for the 2 X 2ghz machine.



Apple cannot sit by and allow 2/3rds of it line to stagnate there is gong to be a lost opertunity in the current structure. What will Apple do?



a. Increase the spces of the 1.6 and 1.8 - I don't think so the 1.8 is quite well spec'd.



b. Lower the prices of each of these, a possibility but could compromise iMac sales further.



c. Raise the price of the 2 x 2ghz - again a possibility, we have seen Apple raise the price of the iMac in the face of very strong demand.



I would think that C is a strong possibility, but mabe the re-alignment will take place at the first speed bump.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    I wouldn't be surprised to see them leave it exactly as it is. They're basically upselling a huge amount of people by having the lower end towers as such poor value compared to the top of the line option. Since there is such pent up demand I doubt that's really they're concern so they can wait out their first release and revise prices on the revision. That's what I'd do at least but I don't have access to all their data.
  • Reply 2 of 21
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Apple gets an extra several hundred pounds for an extra cpu. Sounds like Apple are going to make a mint by 'forcing' the top machine to be the sweet spot. (There's not much extra to the dual 2 gigger over the 1.8...) A slight speed bump but an extra 970? It looks like a bargain...it is...and there's a slight premium for it...but not TOO MUCH of a premium. It makes Apple look like Santa Claus...



    If 970s are so much cheaper than the 1.4 gig G4s...this is a killer strategy. You have zillions of pent up Quark 6 and POWERMac demand in print, in server, in games, in consumer, in pro, in audio, in workstation...and you're getting them to buy you're premium machine!



    Apple will print money!



    An unoptimised G5 is at least circa a Pentium 4 3 gigger. Dual 2 gigger creams it and Xeons for waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper. Come the end of the year, Photoshop, Panther and the compilers will be eeking out more performance before we EVEN GET TO THE REV B machines!



    It's impressive now and things are far from perfect in terms of a G5 cpu starting its life on the Mac platform. ie OS not finished for you...Compilers and apps unoptimised, developers needing time to take advantage of the architecture and extra power of the G5.



    Some may argue to indeed wait for a dual 2.5 gig 970 by Feb 04 at the latest?



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 3 of 21
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Makes you wonder if Apple increased the price of the G5 machines at the last minute due to the well received "unofficial leak specifications".



    I don't know why Apple didn't increase the dual 2.0 GHz model by $200-300 dollars and lower the low-end and mid machines?



    Oh well, maybe in 6 months at the first G5 revision.
  • Reply 4 of 21
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Dave K.

    Makes you wonder if Apple increased the price of the G5 machines at the last minute due to the well received "unofficial leak specifications".



    I don't know why Apple didn't increase the dual 2.0 GHz model by $200-300 dollars and lower the low-end and mid machines?



    Oh well, maybe in 6 months at the first G5 revision.



    That's ridiculous. Those prices have probably been set for a while now. And, they knew this would be well received. I mean, suddenly Macs are faster than WinBlows machines, and Apple knows it. They know that we want it. They know that G4 PM sales have been more than just a little anemic over the past two years. They know there is pent up demand.



    It's all really obvious that we will receive these machines well. They didn't need to see the flurry of web activity after Thursday night.
  • Reply 5 of 21
    verbal assassinverbal assassin Posts: 74member
    What confuses me is how on their website Apple pimps the G5 as a processor being "built for SMP" yet they only have one dual processor model in their lineup. They go on and on about it, so why cant we have an all dual processor lineup? I think then the prices would be justified. After all the last generation had 2 out of 3 of the configurations sportin DP.
  • Reply 6 of 21
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    because they want to milk the high end?



    hey I don't blame them, they are going to make a killing...
  • Reply 7 of 21
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Addison



    Apple cannot sit by and allow 2/3rds of it line to stagnate there is gong to be a lost opertunity in the current structure.



    The whole point of pricing is to get the customer to drop the biggest wad for product as possible .. Apple has executed flawlessly. Even if all they sell are Duals, their laughing, because that's where they make the most money. It's not like they have already made 50 000 1.6, 40 000 1.8, and 30 000 high end machines, the ones that don't sell will be cut back in production.
  • Reply 8 of 21
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Apple has 3 G5 Models? I only see one model.



    Just for fun I evened out all 3 models with same RAM, HD size and video card.







    So we have:



    $1,436.87 per GHz for the 1.6

    $1,360.55 per GHz for the 1.8

    $749.75 per GHz for the 2x2



    Hmmmmmmmmm, ya think Apple is interested in selling anything but the Dual 2 GHz? I'm thinking the 1.6 and 1.8 G5s chips must be very expensive.
  • Reply 9 of 21
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    they got me to bite, i will be buying one once they come out (perhaps ill preorder)



    that is unless they would update teh powebook sometime soon, then i'd be tempted to get that cuz after using my friends 12", well im very impressed
  • Reply 10 of 21
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    The DP 2.0 is certainly the best value of the bunch. Though the 1.6 sans superdrive for $1799 isn't that bad either.





    I would love to see the 1.6 selling for $1499 without a superdrive, that would be awesome.
  • Reply 11 of 21
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,294member
    There seems to be a consensus on these boards that the 1.6 G5 is a bad deal. I don't understand why. If the G5 Hype is to be believed, then the low end G5 might well be comparable to the high end G4. The G5 architecture and that big fat bus have got to reap some major performance benefits. On any future 64 bit app, the G5 should blow any configuration of G4 completely away. The subsystem and enclosure enhancements have to be figured into the equation as well. The underlying architecture alone should make MHz comparisons between the two processors even more difficult. It would seem that the G5 should have even more advantage in such a race as the G4. Are Mac users falling victim to the same type of MHz myth as some PC users do? Or, am I just missing something obvious. I do not know enough to hang in on a debate of technical merits. I just look at the hype and the RDF and on the surface, it appears as if the 1.6 G5 is a a $700 value over the previous top of the line. At least it seems that it should have a better price/performance ratio than the previous generation of machines.



    On the other hand, the 1.8 seems to fall short in the value department. Is the 200 MHz really worth $500? Once again, I may just be missing something obvious.
  • Reply 12 of 21
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Well, with the 1.8 model you also get Pc 2700 ram, and upto 8 gigs(the 1.6 has PC2100 and upto 4 gigs) you also get the 100 mhz. faster FSB, 512 RAM, 160 GB HD, and PCI-X



    All that stuff would probably equal more than $500
  • Reply 13 of 21
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robust

    Well, with the 1.8 model you also get Pc 2700 ram, and upto 8 gigs(the 1.6 has PC2100 and upto 4 gigs) you also get the 100 mhz. faster FSB, 512 RAM, 160 GB HD, and PCI-X



    All that stuff would probably equal more than $500



    It's PC3200 and PC2700...



    Indeed, Apple does want you to buy the high-end models. PC makers typically go with the flow...as in Intel and AMD put a high premium on the top of the line CPUs, which is represented in the pricing structure at Dell, HP, Sony, etc.



    I guess they figure the high-end is just out of reach for some, but the lower-end models are within reason...
  • Reply 14 of 21
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    Meh, nomatter what the pricing structure is, you always look at the next model up and say: well, for $x more, I get y more features; and then the Sales reps always try and upsell you. It's all a part of the game
  • Reply 15 of 21
    oldcodger73oldcodger73 Posts: 707member
    <<There seems to be a consensus on these boards that the 1.6 G5 is a bad deal. I don't understand why.>>



    I guess some people feel that the 1.6 is a crippled G5-- only 4 memory slots and no PCI-X slots. No one will really know until the G5s are actually out. Who knows, perhaps the "new" old dual G4 1.25 will be a better and equally as fast deal.
  • Reply 16 of 21
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Hope they re-structure PowerMac G4 prices!
  • Reply 17 of 21
    anna matedanna mated Posts: 113member
    Im wondering if the lineup would be better as such



    Single Processor 1.8GHZ (lowend)

    Dual Processor 1.6 GHZ (mid)

    Dual Processsor 2.0 GHZ (high)



    That way, all machines are better specced with the parts available now, and there is enough of a difference in performance to justifiy each machine.



    Also consider the fact that Apple must know that the Dual 2GHZ as is current is the best deal, so there must be very good yields of the high end PPC970. Looks like a decent speed bump in the next revision.



    Hopefully something like



    Single Pro 2.2

    Dual 2.0

    Dual 2.5
  • Reply 18 of 21
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Quote:

    If the G5 Hype is to be believed, then the low end G5 might well be comparable to the high end G4.



    The 'low end' G5 trounces the dual Xeon on Photoshop benches. It is not to be underestimated. It will smoke a 1.42 G4 on Lightwave benches. What you getting with a dual 1.42? 2 gig G4 on average? A 1.6 has four times the bandwidth and an fpu unit that will fun the dual G4 ragged and altivec on superior bandwidth. It's a blood bath.



    Aquatic. I feel Apple have done a fair job of re-structuring the G4 towers price wise. They'll stay, I suspect, until the current speed grades are dropped in there when the 0.09 G5 enters town and the higher speed grades where the G5 towers currently are. So we may have a low cost and high cost G5 Tower line. That's a good thing in my view. Something the G4 didn't really allow Apple the flexibility to do.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 19 of 21
    t'hain esh kelcht'hain esh kelch Posts: 1,274member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

    The 'low end' G5 trounces the dual Xeon on Photoshop benches.



    Uhm... Where?
  • Reply 20 of 21
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    Uhm... Where?



    apple.com
Sign In or Register to comment.