No, the price argument is way more interesting than the slab/tablet on an arm mira wannabe rehash.
Apple doesn't have a single compelling desktop model at or near 999, when any serious desktop competitor has at least 2-3 models at or BELOW 999. It can be done. A few years ago, I had to buy computers for a lab, I got quoted an insane amount by the guy my boss had been dealing with (forever). I called him up and asked to give me a real price or drop dead. With 5 minutes on the phone I had myself 4 computer for just a touch more than the price of two, with exactly the same spec but 17" monitors instead of 15". Apple was never even a consideration, they cost as much (and more) than the first idiot wanted to charge.
People on this board like to pretend that budget PC's are a disaster, but unless we're talking the very cheapest 299 PC, a 799 complete (15" LCD) machine in the PC world is often a very reliable Office/Internet/casual gaming machine. A 999 (monitorless tower) is not only reliable but a great performer in most cases. And they all have complete I/O at 999, just like an iMac. USB2, 10/100 ethernet, 56K modem, firewire. Some lack firewire, but you can add that, or any of these I/O features for about 30 dollars.
Apple has to get real with their desktop prices and feature set.
The iMac is overpriced. I think Matsu is right in saying that they should make it much cheaper. Right now the only venue for people looking for a sub-$1000 computer is the tired old CRT iMac.
I don't think it's quite as bad as Matsu makes it seem though. Generally, to get a PC that comes with a graphics card, you have to pay over a grand anyway. Sure, most consumers don't care, but people who know a thing or two know that one of the biggest ways that PC companies skimp on their low end is to include an "Intel Extreme" graphics system that shares system memory for the buffer instead of having its own buffer. The nVidia GeForce 2MX integrated into the iMac, though outdated, kicks the snot out of any shared video memory system.
I took a look at the iMac's closest counterpart, the Gateway Profile 4. It does cost a bit less for each configuration, though a 17" screen + DVD burner isn't an option and the best you can do is a 17" screen + combo drive for the same price. The counterpart to the low end iMac, with a 2 GHz Celeron (which balances out somewhat by only having 128 kb of L2 cache...), CD-RW, and 15" screen, is almost $1100. So I don't think that making it $699 is totally realistic. I still think it should be reduced in price.
Also, the combo drive Profile with 256 MB RAM, speakers, and a combo drive like the middle iMac cost $1258. Again, cheaper than the iMac but not by a ton.
Look at decent towers, which is what people buy. AIO's are dead in the wintel world. People want expandability. There are very good compaq and Dell towers for 999USD, which is hardly an entry level price, that's MID RANGE in this day and age. All the ones I see at the price hae an AGP graphics SLOT. There was compaq model with built in graphics but it too had an open AGP slot besides.
I don't think most people NEED expandability. They WANT it for no other reason than to be assured that it's there Just In Case(tm). We have thousands of PCs at my job and the most PCI cards ANY of them have are a network card or AGP card. That's it. For these users and most home users there really isn't any need for a solution with all the expandibility we see in these 6 PCI motherboards. Give them everything they need right off the bat and make it cheap so when they need to upgrade again they won't bitch and moan about it. A consumer/business Mac IMO should have an AGP slot and a PCI slot at the max. A Professional workstation would do well to keep the present 4 PCI slots. I thought with the advent of the Cube and ADC the AIO desktop Mac would be seeing it's last days. Something went wrong (and i know what! $$$) and they had to return to the AIO.
<strong>The iMac is overpriced. I think Matsu is right in saying that they should make it much cheaper. Right now the only venue for people looking for a sub-$1000 computer is the tired old CRT iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or (until a week ago) the most beautyful portable ever made.
But I think Apple is trying to get a sub 1000 g4 asap. Next eMac rev. will sport a 999 intro model and in 2003 the iMac FPD will do the same.
Neither the eMac nor the iMac will fit the cheap tower/cube-redux formula. That's what people WANT and that's what they BUY. The cube should have been a smash, but for the price. When it came out, I've never seen more reviews (even in the Apple world) that said basically, "WOW, I wish they had a realistic price."
Even Apple wouldn't sell near as many AIO's as it does if they had a competitive tower or other headless/expandable/upgradeable machine. That sounds like a bad thing at first, but I guarantee you that a box could have a better margin while still being cheaper. They don't need more than one model of AIO. The iMac is enough. The eMac is too late and only sells because the iMac is too expensive, which in turn only sells as well as it does because there is no compelling mac boxen on offer. Apple certainly doesn't need a dockable tablet masquerading as an AIO. They need a 999 BOX.
<strong>Apple doesn't have a single compelling desktop model at or near 999, when any serious desktop competitor has at least 2-3 models at or BELOW 999. It can be done. </strong><hr></blockquote>
To begin with, they could keep single CPU machines. Our pre-press bureau needs a couple of new towers (not iMacs because we already have 21" monitors) but not for $1700 + more RAM + country-specific taxes. The lowest-end PowerMac is overkill for some things while Apple no longer makes even-lower-end machines without a monitor. So we are buying a used PM.
Why not make a single G4 @ 1.2 GHz PowerMac? I just don't get it.
To begin with, they could keep single CPU machines. Our pre-press bureau needs a couple of new towers (not iMacs because we already have 21" monitors) but not for $1700 + more RAM + country-specific taxes. The lowest-end PowerMac is overkill for some things while Apple no longer makes even-lower-end machines without a monitor. So we are buying a used PM.
Why not make a single G4 @ 1.2 GHz PowerMac? I just don't get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They once had a dual with two lower-MHz G4s, and a single with a higher-MHz G4, and the result was confusion. They will not introduce a single processor machine with a faster clockspeed than a dual. The pricing in your idea would be reversed, with the SP machine less expensive, but that might even be more confusing.
I know it sounds silly, but they tried it and it didn't work.
Don't retired workstations usually get repurposed for this kind of thing anyway? If so, it's not like Apple's losing sales if you get a used machine instead...
They should offer the education-only $1200 single 867 Quicksilver to everyone. I don't know how long Apple has offered an entry level G4 tower for education, but it's a perfect way to clear out old machines and get more people interested in the Mac. $1200 is a pretty good price for a single processor G4. The configuration offered is very similar to the dual 867, but it has the older case design, a smaller hard drive, a CD-RW drive, no L3 cache, and just one processor. More than enough for someone who wants to get an inexpensive Mac and keep their current monitor. And it's definitely more powerful than any of the current iMac offerings, although a superdrive is not an option and you do have to supply a screen.
My friend suggested a headless iBook for a low cost consumer Mac. It would be tiny and portable and it would cost almost nothing to make. Just rotate it 90° clockwise to put the ports on the back and the CD drive on the front, and remove the keyboard and trackpad. Maybe Apple could even offer a 12" or 14" standalone LCD with a matching stand to put on top of the computer. The LCD could use a VGA connection and would cost very little, just $200 or so. Hell, I'd buy one, I got an iBook because I needed to easily move my computer between home and the dorm, but a little portable desktop like that would fit the bill so well that I'd gladly sacrifice total mobility if I could spend a bit less to get a portable desktop instead. They'd have to change how the hard drive is mounted, though, because on a desktop the hard drive should at least be dealer-serviceable.
<strong>Neither the eMac nor the iMac will fit the cheap tower/cube-redux formula. That's what people WANT and that's what they BUY.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Matsu,
I agree with all your posts regarding this issue. Apple is really being stupid about this. They need to offer their FASTEST G4 chip in their FASTEST G4 mobo, but offer it as a single and not a dual proc. It should be a mini tower like the Cube but a bit larger to accommodate a normal size graphics card. The only thing I do not agree with is the pricing. Although a $999 USD was a good ceiling a year ago, in today?s market this is becoming somewhat pricey.
Here?s my iCube config:
*** $599 USD
1.4 GHz G4
166 MHz bus
60 Gig HD
Combo Drive
4 USB ports
3 FW ports (2 FW1)
BlueTooth
Pro speakers
Keyboard ala 17? PB w
Multi-button mouse w scroll wheel
4x AGP
* Graphics Card and RAM modules not included.
* Build to order Graphics card and RAM modules.
* Apple's 17" (widescreen) LCD when bought w "iCube" $599
Same as above, but a dual proc config G4 start at $999 USD.
Drop the iMac/eMac altogether.
These should be available prior to the 970 introduction, where the 970 sp should start at $1,699 and dual at $2,199 bottom end.
I am constantly amazed at the armchair economists here!
zMench, that is your own personal digital wet dream and nothing short.
I won't go so far a a full justification of Apple's prices versus PC, but sufficed to say the costs and such of each are vastly different.
The esoteric Apples R&D/whole widget versus PCs of-the-shelf & ship mentality are just not directly comparable nor arguable.
Still, you can say Apple should give X, Y and Z, away for free and cut all costs...so on and so on; yet in the end they are barely breaking even as of now... and short of Dell (who is also dangerously close to the edge) no one is making any money.
How long can that go on? The PC industry is in a Cash Surplus Trench War and only those with the deepest pockets will emerge. When that happens, expect prices to steadily rise. Expect it!
Apple is in its own sort of semi-vacuum and disassociated from most of that. Their prices are a better reflection of actual cost of business and, dare I say, the product line is better appointed en masse than the PC counterparts.
They are computers and, economically, that is where the similarities end.
This message will be flamed and discounted. :cool:
I won't go so far a a full justification of Apple's prices versus PC, but sufficed to say the costs and such of each are vastly different.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong. The costs are not vastly different at all. They're actually frustratingly similar and it has been demonstrated many times over in our discussions here.
[quote]<strong>How long can that go on? The PC industry is in a Cash Surplus Trench War and only those with the deepest pockets will emerge. When that happens, expect prices to steadily rise. Expect it!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prices will not ever rise, long term. Periodic spikes? Sure. A leveling off, yep, but there will never be a dramatic increase in the relative cost of hardware. The companies that must resort to it will die, simple.
[quote]<strong>
This message will be flamed and discounted. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Becuase it deserves to be, it trades in standard apologetic Apple myths. About price wars and financial woes? It just isn't true, please don't believe everything execs and analysts tell you. Most any computing company in trouble today can trace its woes back to a series (within a culture) of very poor investments. Tech bubbles, energy bubbles, exec pet projects of dubious merit, mergers and acqusitions that make little sense. Go on, pick a company and see for yourself exactly how badly behaved America's (and the world's) corporate caste has been with investor money (yours and mine). Price wars are very convenient excuses, and they surely shave a few points from the profit margins but they are NOT the reason why those points have become so critical in the first place.
Comments
Apple doesn't have a single compelling desktop model at or near 999, when any serious desktop competitor has at least 2-3 models at or BELOW 999. It can be done. A few years ago, I had to buy computers for a lab, I got quoted an insane amount by the guy my boss had been dealing with (forever). I called him up and asked to give me a real price or drop dead. With 5 minutes on the phone I had myself 4 computer for just a touch more than the price of two, with exactly the same spec but 17" monitors instead of 15". Apple was never even a consideration, they cost as much (and more) than the first idiot wanted to charge.
People on this board like to pretend that budget PC's are a disaster, but unless we're talking the very cheapest 299 PC, a 799 complete (15" LCD) machine in the PC world is often a very reliable Office/Internet/casual gaming machine. A 999 (monitorless tower) is not only reliable but a great performer in most cases. And they all have complete I/O at 999, just like an iMac. USB2, 10/100 ethernet, 56K modem, firewire. Some lack firewire, but you can add that, or any of these I/O features for about 30 dollars.
Apple has to get real with their desktop prices and feature set.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
I don't think it's quite as bad as Matsu makes it seem though. Generally, to get a PC that comes with a graphics card, you have to pay over a grand anyway. Sure, most consumers don't care, but people who know a thing or two know that one of the biggest ways that PC companies skimp on their low end is to include an "Intel Extreme" graphics system that shares system memory for the buffer instead of having its own buffer. The nVidia GeForce 2MX integrated into the iMac, though outdated, kicks the snot out of any shared video memory system.
I took a look at the iMac's closest counterpart, the Gateway Profile 4. It does cost a bit less for each configuration, though a 17" screen + DVD burner isn't an option and the best you can do is a 17" screen + combo drive for the same price. The counterpart to the low end iMac, with a 2 GHz Celeron (which balances out somewhat by only having 128 kb of L2 cache...), CD-RW, and 15" screen, is almost $1100. So I don't think that making it $699 is totally realistic. I still think it should be reduced in price.
Also, the combo drive Profile with 256 MB RAM, speakers, and a combo drive like the middle iMac cost $1258. Again, cheaper than the iMac but not by a ton.
<strong>The iMac is overpriced. I think Matsu is right in saying that they should make it much cheaper. Right now the only venue for people looking for a sub-$1000 computer is the tired old CRT iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or (until a week ago) the most beautyful portable ever made.
But I think Apple is trying to get a sub 1000 g4 asap. Next eMac rev. will sport a 999 intro model and in 2003 the iMac FPD will do the same.
Even Apple wouldn't sell near as many AIO's as it does if they had a competitive tower or other headless/expandable/upgradeable machine. That sounds like a bad thing at first, but I guarantee you that a box could have a better margin while still being cheaper. They don't need more than one model of AIO. The iMac is enough. The eMac is too late and only sells because the iMac is too expensive, which in turn only sells as well as it does because there is no compelling mac boxen on offer. Apple certainly doesn't need a dockable tablet masquerading as an AIO. They need a 999 BOX.
I said it before and I'll say it again. A simple bump to 1Ghz with a 15" display for $699 will do wonders.
The eMac will then be history (or relegated to special educational needs).
<strong>Apple doesn't have a single compelling desktop model at or near 999, when any serious desktop competitor has at least 2-3 models at or BELOW 999. It can be done. </strong><hr></blockquote>
To begin with, they could keep single CPU machines. Our pre-press bureau needs a couple of new towers (not iMacs because we already have 21" monitors) but not for $1700 + more RAM + country-specific taxes. The lowest-end PowerMac is overkill for some things while Apple no longer makes even-lower-end machines without a monitor. So we are buying a used PM.
Why not make a single G4 @ 1.2 GHz PowerMac? I just don't get it.
<strong>A simple bump to 1Ghz with a 15" display for $699 will do wonders.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will send you my shipping address. Immediately.
<strong>
To begin with, they could keep single CPU machines. Our pre-press bureau needs a couple of new towers (not iMacs because we already have 21" monitors) but not for $1700 + more RAM + country-specific taxes. The lowest-end PowerMac is overkill for some things while Apple no longer makes even-lower-end machines without a monitor. So we are buying a used PM.
Why not make a single G4 @ 1.2 GHz PowerMac? I just don't get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They once had a dual with two lower-MHz G4s, and a single with a higher-MHz G4, and the result was confusion. They will not introduce a single processor machine with a faster clockspeed than a dual. The pricing in your idea would be reversed, with the SP machine less expensive, but that might even be more confusing.
I know it sounds silly, but they tried it and it didn't work.
Don't retired workstations usually get repurposed for this kind of thing anyway? If so, it's not like Apple's losing sales if you get a used machine instead...
My friend suggested a headless iBook for a low cost consumer Mac. It would be tiny and portable and it would cost almost nothing to make. Just rotate it 90° clockwise to put the ports on the back and the CD drive on the front, and remove the keyboard and trackpad. Maybe Apple could even offer a 12" or 14" standalone LCD with a matching stand to put on top of the computer. The LCD could use a VGA connection and would cost very little, just $200 or so. Hell, I'd buy one, I got an iBook because I needed to easily move my computer between home and the dorm, but a little portable desktop like that would fit the bill so well that I'd gladly sacrifice total mobility if I could spend a bit less to get a portable desktop instead. They'd have to change how the hard drive is mounted, though, because on a desktop the hard drive should at least be dealer-serviceable.
<strong>Neither the eMac nor the iMac will fit the cheap tower/cube-redux formula. That's what people WANT and that's what they BUY.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Matsu,
I agree with all your posts regarding this issue. Apple is really being stupid about this. They need to offer their FASTEST G4 chip in their FASTEST G4 mobo, but offer it as a single and not a dual proc. It should be a mini tower like the Cube but a bit larger to accommodate a normal size graphics card. The only thing I do not agree with is the pricing. Although a $999 USD was a good ceiling a year ago, in today?s market this is becoming somewhat pricey.
Here?s my iCube config:
*** $599 USD
1.4 GHz G4
166 MHz bus
60 Gig HD
Combo Drive
4 USB ports
3 FW ports (2 FW1)
BlueTooth
Pro speakers
Keyboard ala 17? PB w
Multi-button mouse w scroll wheel
4x AGP
* Graphics Card and RAM modules not included.
* Build to order Graphics card and RAM modules.
* Apple's 17" (widescreen) LCD when bought w "iCube" $599
Same as above, but a dual proc config G4 start at $999 USD.
Drop the iMac/eMac altogether.
These should be available prior to the 970 introduction, where the 970 sp should start at $1,699 and dual at $2,199 bottom end.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
zMench, that is your own personal digital wet dream and nothing short.
I won't go so far a a full justification of Apple's prices versus PC, but sufficed to say the costs and such of each are vastly different.
The esoteric Apples R&D/whole widget versus PCs of-the-shelf & ship mentality are just not directly comparable nor arguable.
Still, you can say Apple should give X, Y and Z, away for free and cut all costs...so on and so on; yet in the end they are barely breaking even as of now... and short of Dell (who is also dangerously close to the edge) no one is making any money.
How long can that go on? The PC industry is in a Cash Surplus Trench War and only those with the deepest pockets will emerge. When that happens, expect prices to steadily rise. Expect it!
Apple is in its own sort of semi-vacuum and disassociated from most of that. Their prices are a better reflection of actual cost of business and, dare I say, the product line is better appointed en masse than the PC counterparts.
They are computers and, economically, that is where the similarities end.
This message will be flamed and discounted. :cool:
The cube, unlike the eMac, was a great looking product that could have been tweaked to improve design and price.
It is the machine that could have shift boxes.
iCube? Yes please. I'd buy.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
I won't go so far a a full justification of Apple's prices versus PC, but sufficed to say the costs and such of each are vastly different.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong. The costs are not vastly different at all. They're actually frustratingly similar and it has been demonstrated many times over in our discussions here.
[quote]<strong>How long can that go on? The PC industry is in a Cash Surplus Trench War and only those with the deepest pockets will emerge. When that happens, expect prices to steadily rise. Expect it!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prices will not ever rise, long term. Periodic spikes? Sure. A leveling off, yep, but there will never be a dramatic increase in the relative cost of hardware. The companies that must resort to it will die, simple.
[quote]<strong>
This message will be flamed and discounted. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Becuase it deserves to be, it trades in standard apologetic Apple myths. About price wars and financial woes? It just isn't true, please don't believe everything execs and analysts tell you. Most any computing company in trouble today can trace its woes back to a series (within a culture) of very poor investments. Tech bubbles, energy bubbles, exec pet projects of dubious merit, mergers and acqusitions that make little sense. Go on, pick a company and see for yourself exactly how badly behaved America's (and the world's) corporate caste has been with investor money (yours and mine). Price wars are very convenient excuses, and they surely shave a few points from the profit margins but they are NOT the reason why those points have become so critical in the first place.
<strong>I am constantly amazed at the armchair economists here!
zMench, that is your own personal digital wet dream and nothing short.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I?m constantly amazed at peoples lack of marketing savvy.
Ok, let?s see..
iCube $599
17? LCD $599
GPU $199
RAM $99
Total = $1,500
iMac 17? LCD $1,999
minus $199 for the Combo Drive downgrade
Total = $1,800
What can I say, my iCube proposal is a total digital wet dream and nothing short.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>