And while Dell dont do much R&D ( well.. actually they do), Intel is still putting a lot of R&D effort in their chip design. And Microsoft is putting a lot of R&D into Windows OS. In the end, a PC got this R&D baked into the price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just for perspective, it's worth checking out the recent SEC filings for DELL and AAPL. According to Apple's 10-K, their R&D expenditures have been 8% of net sales for the past two years. By contrast, Dell's numbers for last year were around 1.3%. In absolute terms, the numbers are almost identical, since Dell's net sales are about six times Apple's. And of course, Dell has the huge advantage that they don't have to pay for OS development out of that total.
Conclusion: The economics are stacked against Apple; Macs are always going to cost more.
[[[Part of that price is loss-leading by Dell, etc (They sell some products at an "accounting" loss to hold or increase market share). ]]]
The point is that Windows XP and the high GHz. processors aren't selling that well at *any* significant rate. What's worse, I expect this situation to continue for the consumer PC market. Most people already have more computer than they need. Let's just say that by some fate, all the PC OEMs sell a s*hit load of 3+ GHz. PCs in 2003.. More than they ever expected... What are they going to sell that will be compelling in 2004, 2005 or even 2006?? The vast majority of people won't be needing another faster machine EVERY 2 or 3 years, so it appears that it looks worse as time goes on... The question is, what will PC OEMs do to differentiate their systems in order to keep selling them at a reasonable rate while still making a significant profit? Not only that, what sets these cookie-cutter Wintelon boxes apart from each other? What differentiates them other than the name of the Windows repackager that's taped onto the side of the case? I'm betting Apple realized this long ago. The PC sector is in a shambles thanks to Dell's game and it's a good thing that Apple chose to take another rout. After all is said and done, what will compel people to buy new PCs as often as the OEMs would like them to?
[[[Right now, Dell appears to be doing exactly what they want, when they want.]]]
Key word being "appears". Assumption is the mother of all... *-ups\t
\t
[[[I'm sure it depends on how terrible your experiences with Windows are.]]]
That kinda reminds me of the story of the puppy that was beaten every day by its owner ... one day the owner stopped beating it and the puppy felt unloved... The point is that most Windows people have become used to the problems. M$ has done a fine job of intimidating most users; especially when a problem arises. It's amazing what they put up with and never think anything of it. They've been conditioned.
<strong>If that is representative of the overall market, and if the other two "serious customers" are leaving your store with Macs, then Apple's market share is set to quintuple. I'm sure Apple would be delighted to hear that they had a 20% share.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It isn't represenative of the entire market, it is represenative of those who were seriously looking at buying a Mac
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>I've heard it every time I've suggested a Mac. I doubt the people who are afraid of incompatibility even look at one.
As far as lowering prices, Steve himself has gone on record saying that he'd sell iMacs for $199 if he could. If you can figure out a way for Apple to sell cheaper Macs that a) are still Macs (not machines that are so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs only by their incompatibility), and b) will not cause Apple to lose their shirts, I'm sure they'd love to hear it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, that 8/8 is made up of people who had already decided they want to buy a Mac, not PC users picked at random
As for Steve, he says lots of things, he was being badgered by an esspecially bitchy analyst who was eating him and the rest of the panel alive, what did you think he was going to say?
And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'
And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>... low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Are Apple prices in Europe still mind-bogglingly high? Part of the blame for that goes to the steep VATs imposed by the countries themselves, and there's not much Apple can do about that, but still...
Unfortunately, Steve can't just put a G5 in a PowerMac, so it's not a matter of listening to customers. He knows full well what sort of bind they're in, which is why Apple stopped bake-offs and started bundling all kinds of goodies with PowerMacs. They're giving their customers two chips clocked 25% higher than their own manufacturer acknowledges, with the fastest standard RAM available on the market, and that's the best they can do for now. Steve will just have to grin and bear it until the next CPU starts rolling off the lines. That will happen when it happens, and not sooner.
On the bright side, at least we know there's a knockout PowerPC on the horizon, and we know when it's coming. Sure beats reading about the 7500 in the Register.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive. (Of course Apple hasn't even acknowledged that the PPC 970 is their next gen CPU, so in a way all of this is speculation. But we'll give them a pass here, and say it is.) And by the time the 970 does come out, all it may do is keep Apple at the same point it's at now, vs PC architecture. Because you're all assuming PC architecture will remain stagnant, and yeah compared to late 2002 Intel and AMD processors, the 970 sounds competitive. Then again, we haven't seen it yet, and real world performamce is what really matters. There's plenty Apple can screw up-just look at OS 10 and how that system was supposed to modernize things and yield speed dividends thanks to a cleaner system.
And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin.
You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Piece of cake for Jobs. In fact I am willing to make a several thousand dollar bet that he can do much in '03. Lest we forgat that when Jobs came in he added the iMac and began a new course for the company that none thought was possible. In fact it is common knowledge that every other company that could have been interested in Apple have pretty much followed that thought that only Apple could figure out their problems. When Jobs came in he was in a corner, now he is not. Given the economy, WallStreet meltdown, processor choices, and the fact that we are switching from OS9 to OSX, 2002 wasn't a bad year at all. I believe that durig the last conference call it was mentioned that 10% of Mac users are using OSX. 30% and 60% are the numbers to watch for here according to MS. 30% == Mindshare, all apps should be running the new OS by then and be on schedule to really use the new features. This should happen in 2003. When 60% are using the new OS, folks will start asking where is that next rabbit!
[quote]I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin.<hr></blockquote>
Problem is with the economy not recovering, consumers are especially price conscious these days, and Apple has to begin to realize that. Its not enough to be cool, or has to have decent specs--people are looking for a bargains cause thats all they can afford--even existing Mac heads can blow the farm on something that just measures up, if you begin to include all the other expenses of OSX migration (new software, new peripherals).
I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to tell you this, but ethernet and the GeForce 4MX isn't anything out of the ordinary and definately isn't more than necessary.
I knew that if I followed this thread long enough I would hear some intelligent responses. Someone said something to the effect that the ideal price (I refuse to say "price-point") is a guess. An educated one, yes. Even the most arrogant poster here does not know this optimum price. Let me just say 3 things.
1. Mercedes Benz seemed to respond with roughly competitive prices to the Lexus and Infiniti threat while maintaining quality and image. BMW too. BMW even put in cup holders eventually. A humble, yet intelligent move.
I think that Apple will have to, to some extent, respond to the falling PC prices.
2. Market share. Its scaring me. Might not trimming a bit of $ on the high-end Power Mac prices pay off by keeping current Mac owners from switching? The pro market is where I see the worst price/performance payoff.
<strong>You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He does, guaranteed, since Apple can go every single quarter from now till then with zero revenue and survive. Remember that great big pile of cash they're sitting on? It would hurt them, badly, but they could do it. They built the cash reserve up before, they can rebuild it if necessary.
My point, however, wasn't that Jobs or anyone else has any tricks to tide anyone over. My point was that regardless of any other factors, the 970 will be done when it's done, and the machines built around it will be done when they're done, and the day they're done will not significantly change in response to customer clamoring, nor in response to the number of tricks Steve has up his sleeve. There is nothing for Apple to do but make the best of what it has to work with. They might do very well, they might do poorly. It's a short enough amount of time (two quarters) that they'll weather it regardless, so it's not especially relevant.
[quote]<strong>And by the time the 970 does come out, all it may do is keep Apple at the same point it's at now, vs PC architecture. Because you're all assuming PC architecture will remain stagnant, and yeah compared to late 2002 Intel and AMD processors, the 970 sounds competitive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, we know that the P4 will get a 20% clock speed boost for the year, period, because Intel has said so. They're going to focus on reengineering the processor to consume a sane amount of power (again, they've said so). We know AMD has run into a wall with the Athlon, and we know the Opteron is delayed until about the time the 970 will come out. I'm not sure about the new Athlon variant coming out. The Itanic, well, is the Itanic.
So, in fact, the PC processor market will be stagnant, certainly relative to the previous two years. You have to understand that the massive speed increase was not in Intel's best interest. They prefer to bump MHz up gradually and soak a design for all its worth, and AMD forced them to tap out the P3 and push the P4 really hard, really fast. In that respect it didn't really help AMD either, except to cement their reputation as a credible manufacturer of high-end processors - but they had to take a bath in red ink to do it. Now both contestants are pausing for breath just as AIM is getting a second wind (so to speak). If Apple hews to an all-dual strategy, I think they'll have a convincing answer to the x86 CPUs next fall.
[quote]<strong>Then again, we haven't seen it yet, and real world performamce is what really matters. There's plenty Apple can screw up-just look at OS 10 and how that system was supposed to modernize things and yield speed dividends thanks to a cleaner system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In many, many ways it did. They just took advantage of that to make it do a lot more work under the covers than OS 9 could ever dream of doing. In some of those ways (the GUI, as an obvious instance), there was a slowdown. Especially on older hardware and/or hardware with less than 512MB RAM. On the other hand, I've done background compiles while playing MP3s on iTunes while browsing the web while rendering images on Canvas while Mail was download email, all on a 450MHz G4 - something that would utterly crush OS 9. If that isn't greater speed and efficiency then I don't know what is.
I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your comparing the $2000 17" iMac to entry level $500-$750 PC?
That is more than a little convoluted
Anyway, you can get a PC that will walk all over the 17" iMac for must less than $2000, not to mention the Geforce 4mx is the absolute rock bottom graphics card in the PC world and 100T ethernet has been standard for going on 4 or 5 years now.
Tell that to the delighted customers of the suicidal eMacs and G4 towers</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't refering to the G4, and I was mainly speaking of the iMac G3. Which is still better than PCs for "iApp" tasks.
I have yet to see a suicidal eMac (and I have seen hundreds of them - presumably you are talking about the alleged "raster shift"), and I don't know what you are refering to with the G4 towers.
just a general observation on debate on Mac pricing&specs.
most people seem to forget that Apple does not aim for 50% market share. they are out to harvest just another 5%, and they are not intending to give away profit margins to do so, and why should they? do not forget that Apple adresses the digital lifestyle, they're not a mere hardware wendor. this is their genius; hardware has a price but lifestyle hasn't.
we should try to better identify who the next 5% Apple goes for really are. studies allready shows that the average Apple user has high income and good education compared to general population.
I wasn't refering to the G4, and I was mainly speaking of the iMac G3. Which is still better than PCs for "iApp" tasks.
I have yet to see a suicidal eMac (and I have seen hundreds of them - presumably you are talking about the alleged "raster shift"), and I don't know what you are refering to with the G4 towers.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have to be kidding me, the iMac G3 isn't good for much of anything, except maybe a doorstop
the 'raster shift' isn't an alledged problem, and the Blue G3 and G4 motherboards are straight out of hell, prior to the eMac fiasco we were replacing more power mac motherboards than anything else.
....On the other hand, I've done background compiles while playing MP3s on iTunes while browsing the web while rendering images on Canvas while Mail was download email, all on a 450MHz G4 - something that would utterly crush OS 9. If that isn't greater speed and efficiency then I don't know what is.
Comments
<strong>
And while Dell dont do much R&D ( well.. actually they do), Intel is still putting a lot of R&D effort in their chip design. And Microsoft is putting a lot of R&D into Windows OS. In the end, a PC got this R&D baked into the price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just for perspective, it's worth checking out the recent SEC filings for DELL and AAPL. According to Apple's 10-K, their R&D expenditures have been 8% of net sales for the past two years. By contrast, Dell's numbers for last year were around 1.3%. In absolute terms, the numbers are almost identical, since Dell's net sales are about six times Apple's. And of course, Dell has the huge advantage that they don't have to pay for OS development out of that total.
Conclusion: The economics are stacked against Apple; Macs are always going to cost more.
The point is that Windows XP and the high GHz. processors aren't selling that well at *any* significant rate. What's worse, I expect this situation to continue for the consumer PC market. Most people already have more computer than they need. Let's just say that by some fate, all the PC OEMs sell a s*hit load of 3+ GHz. PCs in 2003.. More than they ever expected... What are they going to sell that will be compelling in 2004, 2005 or even 2006?? The vast majority of people won't be needing another faster machine EVERY 2 or 3 years, so it appears that it looks worse as time goes on... The question is, what will PC OEMs do to differentiate their systems in order to keep selling them at a reasonable rate while still making a significant profit? Not only that, what sets these cookie-cutter Wintelon boxes apart from each other? What differentiates them other than the name of the Windows repackager that's taped onto the side of the case? I'm betting Apple realized this long ago. The PC sector is in a shambles thanks to Dell's game and it's a good thing that Apple chose to take another rout. After all is said and done, what will compel people to buy new PCs as often as the OEMs would like them to?
[[[Right now, Dell appears to be doing exactly what they want, when they want.]]]
Key word being "appears". Assumption is the mother of all... *-ups\t
\t
[[[I'm sure it depends on how terrible your experiences with Windows are.]]]
That kinda reminds me of the story of the puppy that was beaten every day by its owner ... one day the owner stopped beating it and the puppy felt unloved... The point is that most Windows people have become used to the problems. M$ has done a fine job of intimidating most users; especially when a problem arises. It's amazing what they put up with and never think anything of it. They've been conditioned.
--
Ed M.
<strong>If that is representative of the overall market, and if the other two "serious customers" are leaving your store with Macs, then Apple's market share is set to quintuple. I'm sure Apple would be delighted to hear that they had a 20% share.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It isn't represenative of the entire market, it is represenative of those who were seriously looking at buying a Mac
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>I've heard it every time I've suggested a Mac. I doubt the people who are afraid of incompatibility even look at one.
As far as lowering prices, Steve himself has gone on record saying that he'd sell iMacs for $199 if he could. If you can figure out a way for Apple to sell cheaper Macs that a) are still Macs (not machines that are so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs only by their incompatibility), and b) will not cause Apple to lose their shirts, I'm sure they'd love to hear it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, that 8/8 is made up of people who had already decided they want to buy a Mac, not PC users picked at random
As for Steve, he says lots of things, he was being badgered by an esspecially bitchy analyst who was eating him and the rest of the panel alive, what did you think he was going to say?
And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'
<strong>
And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bullcrap.
<strong>... low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh...? Could you please elaborate on that.
Feature-crippled Mac's? In what way?
<strong>Are Apple prices in Europe still mind-bogglingly high? Part of the blame for that goes to the steep VATs imposed by the countries themselves, and there's not much Apple can do about that, but still...
Unfortunately, Steve can't just put a G5 in a PowerMac, so it's not a matter of listening to customers. He knows full well what sort of bind they're in, which is why Apple stopped bake-offs and started bundling all kinds of goodies with PowerMacs. They're giving their customers two chips clocked 25% higher than their own manufacturer acknowledges, with the fastest standard RAM available on the market, and that's the best they can do for now. Steve will just have to grin and bear it until the next CPU starts rolling off the lines. That will happen when it happens, and not sooner.
On the bright side, at least we know there's a knockout PowerPC on the horizon, and we know when it's coming. Sure beats reading about the 7500 in the Register.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive. (Of course Apple hasn't even acknowledged that the PPC 970 is their next gen CPU, so in a way all of this is speculation. But we'll give them a pass here, and say it is.) And by the time the 970 does come out, all it may do is keep Apple at the same point it's at now, vs PC architecture. Because you're all assuming PC architecture will remain stagnant, and yeah compared to late 2002 Intel and AMD processors, the 970 sounds competitive. Then again, we haven't seen it yet, and real world performamce is what really matters. There's plenty Apple can screw up-just look at OS 10 and how that system was supposed to modernize things and yield speed dividends thanks to a cleaner system.
<strong>
And why would that be an issue, low end macs already are 'so cheaply packaged and feature-crippled that they're distinguishable from low-end PCs'</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin.
<strong>
You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Piece of cake for Jobs. In fact I am willing to make a several thousand dollar bet that he can do much in '03. Lest we forgat that when Jobs came in he added the iMac and began a new course for the company that none thought was possible. In fact it is common knowledge that every other company that could have been interested in Apple have pretty much followed that thought that only Apple could figure out their problems. When Jobs came in he was in a corner, now he is not. Given the economy, WallStreet meltdown, processor choices, and the fact that we are switching from OS9 to OSX, 2002 wasn't a bad year at all. I believe that durig the last conference call it was mentioned that 10% of Mac users are using OSX. 30% and 60% are the numbers to watch for here according to MS. 30% == Mindshare, all apps should be running the new OS by then and be on schedule to really use the new features. This should happen in 2003. When 60% are using the new OS, folks will start asking where is that next rabbit!
<strong>
Bullcrap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quite a stunning linguist.
Problem is with the economy not recovering, consumers are especially price conscious these days, and Apple has to begin to realize that. Its not enough to be cool, or has to have decent specs--people are looking for a bargains cause thats all they can afford--even existing Mac heads can blow the farm on something that just measures up, if you begin to include all the other expenses of OSX migration (new software, new peripherals).
<strong>
Quite a stunning linguist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but I didn't have to outline the finer inaccuracies in such a false assertion.
Barto
<strong>
I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin.
I hate to tell you this, but ethernet and the GeForce 4MX isn't anything out of the ordinary and definately isn't more than necessary.
1. Mercedes Benz seemed to respond with roughly competitive prices to the Lexus and Infiniti threat while maintaining quality and image. BMW too. BMW even put in cup holders eventually. A humble, yet intelligent move.
I think that Apple will have to, to some extent, respond to the falling PC prices.
2. Market share. Its scaring me. Might not trimming a bit of $ on the high-end Power Mac prices pay off by keeping current Mac owners from switching? The pro market is where I see the worst price/performance payoff.
Maybe.
<strong>You're assuming Jobs has enough tricks up his sleeve to keep Apple afloat until late 2003, when the new processor should arrive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He does, guaranteed, since Apple can go every single quarter from now till then with zero revenue and survive. Remember that great big pile of cash they're sitting on? It would hurt them, badly, but they could do it. They built the cash reserve up before, they can rebuild it if necessary.
My point, however, wasn't that Jobs or anyone else has any tricks to tide anyone over. My point was that regardless of any other factors, the 970 will be done when it's done, and the machines built around it will be done when they're done, and the day they're done will not significantly change in response to customer clamoring, nor in response to the number of tricks Steve has up his sleeve. There is nothing for Apple to do but make the best of what it has to work with. They might do very well, they might do poorly. It's a short enough amount of time (two quarters) that they'll weather it regardless, so it's not especially relevant.
[quote]<strong>And by the time the 970 does come out, all it may do is keep Apple at the same point it's at now, vs PC architecture. Because you're all assuming PC architecture will remain stagnant, and yeah compared to late 2002 Intel and AMD processors, the 970 sounds competitive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, we know that the P4 will get a 20% clock speed boost for the year, period, because Intel has said so. They're going to focus on reengineering the processor to consume a sane amount of power (again, they've said so). We know AMD has run into a wall with the Athlon, and we know the Opteron is delayed until about the time the 970 will come out. I'm not sure about the new Athlon variant coming out. The Itanic, well, is the Itanic.
So, in fact, the PC processor market will be stagnant, certainly relative to the previous two years. You have to understand that the massive speed increase was not in Intel's best interest. They prefer to bump MHz up gradually and soak a design for all its worth, and AMD forced them to tap out the P3 and push the P4 really hard, really fast. In that respect it didn't really help AMD either, except to cement their reputation as a credible manufacturer of high-end processors - but they had to take a bath in red ink to do it. Now both contestants are pausing for breath just as AIM is getting a second wind (so to speak). If Apple hews to an all-dual strategy, I think they'll have a convincing answer to the x86 CPUs next fall.
[quote]<strong>Then again, we haven't seen it yet, and real world performamce is what really matters. There's plenty Apple can screw up-just look at OS 10 and how that system was supposed to modernize things and yield speed dividends thanks to a cleaner system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In many, many ways it did. They just took advantage of that to make it do a lot more work under the covers than OS 9 could ever dream of doing. In some of those ways (the GUI, as an obvious instance), there was a slowdown. Especially on older hardware and/or hardware with less than 512MB RAM. On the other hand, I've done background compiles while playing MP3s on iTunes while browsing the web while rendering images on Canvas while Mail was download email, all on a 450MHz G4 - something that would utterly crush OS 9. If that isn't greater speed and efficiency then I don't know what is.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
Bullcrap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tell that to the delighted customers of the suicidal eMacs and G4 towers
<strong>
I guess we differ here, I have always thought that the iMac had too many features. DVD burning, 17" monitor, Geforce4MX, 100mb ethernet. This is way more than the average home user will find "real" use for. Some will use all of the features frequently, most will not. Price a PC with these specs, and firewire, and the price is not bad. Add Apple quality, the OS, and us -their new loving community- and that iMac is a bargin.
Your comparing the $2000 17" iMac to entry level $500-$750 PC?
That is more than a little convoluted
Anyway, you can get a PC that will walk all over the 17" iMac for must less than $2000, not to mention the Geforce 4mx is the absolute rock bottom graphics card in the PC world and 100T ethernet has been standard for going on 4 or 5 years now.
<strong>
Tell that to the delighted customers of the suicidal eMacs and G4 towers</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't refering to the G4, and I was mainly speaking of the iMac G3. Which is still better than PCs for "iApp" tasks.
I have yet to see a suicidal eMac (and I have seen hundreds of them - presumably you are talking about the alleged "raster shift"), and I don't know what you are refering to with the G4 towers.
Barto
most people seem to forget that Apple does not aim for 50% market share. they are out to harvest just another 5%, and they are not intending to give away profit margins to do so, and why should they? do not forget that Apple adresses the digital lifestyle, they're not a mere hardware wendor. this is their genius; hardware has a price but lifestyle hasn't.
we should try to better identify who the next 5% Apple goes for really are. studies allready shows that the average Apple user has high income and good education compared to general population.
<strong>
I wasn't refering to the G4, and I was mainly speaking of the iMac G3. Which is still better than PCs for "iApp" tasks.
I have yet to see a suicidal eMac (and I have seen hundreds of them - presumably you are talking about the alleged "raster shift"), and I don't know what you are refering to with the G4 towers.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have to be kidding me, the iMac G3 isn't good for much of anything, except maybe a doorstop
the 'raster shift' isn't an alledged problem, and the Blue G3 and G4 motherboards are straight out of hell, prior to the eMac fiasco we were replacing more power mac motherboards than anything else.
<strong>
....On the other hand, I've done background compiles while playing MP3s on iTunes while browsing the web while rendering images on Canvas while Mail was download email, all on a 450MHz G4 - something that would utterly crush OS 9. If that isn't greater speed and efficiency then I don't know what is.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Definitely, OS X has been a big plus in multi-processing.