A lot of misunderstanding about who is the customer. Many valid issues brought up apply to a particular market, but not all markets. What interests or excites one group or people means little or nothing to another. A manager who simply needs network computers isn't going to value the same features as someone wanting to make home movies or work with digital photography.
Also, Apple does not need to go head to head with Dell on price. They cannot. But when a manager gets fed up with something about good old MS, Apple's prices need to be close enough to justify purchasing Macs. The difference needs to be small enough so the pain of switching is less than the pain of continuing with a Windows network.
Also, there is misunderstanding of the Mac I proposed. I suggested an optional monitor that could be somehow attached to the top of this Mac. This idea was a minor point, just frosting on the cake for someone who likes the AIO. The Mac might have a standard video connector. The optional special monitor would include a short cable (just long enough) that would reduce cable clutter. The monitor would have to be designed for attaching to the top of the Mac. It would be a way Apple could entice customers to spend more on the whole purchase if the end result was cool enough. If not, scrap the idea.
...Apple needs to stay away from porprietary in the business market. The ADC is bad enough. t least they give you standrad DVI/VGA port as well. But proprietary + small market = high cost to recoup R & D.
Apple needs to stick with plain simple tray loading CD-RWs, USB2, FW800, standard AGP all in an industry standard type enclosure.
Apple needs to KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Apple pissed off a lot of school and small business customers with the iMac. Monitors started fritzing out (actually, the A/D power supply board) out of warranty and it was costing as much as a new iMac to fix the damn things.
Not to mention the batch of iMacs with bad ethernet ports. Until very recently there was no USB/Eth adapter for OS X. So when people lost their ports it was a $450 mobo replacement for a 3 year old computer to get LAN connectivity back.
Hardly the way to creat happy customers.
PCI slots. AGP slot. Keep It Simple. The software and OS is, now give us a consumer/business Mac that is as well.
The argument that the a lower price machine will take away sales from the higher end machine is false.
People who want a powerful expandable box will still buy them. People looking for affordable boxes will still buy those, only not from Apple if Apple doesn't offer them.
People looking for an affordable box and thinking about switching will definitely not buy Apple.
The argument that the a lower price machine will take away sales from the higher end machine is false.
Well, that is not necessarily fact either. Take a look at the iPod mini, Apple wont release sales figures of the regular, higher priced iPods. Why? I bet the sales of them pale in comparisson to the smaller, less expensive model. Is it just product launch hype? Some of it could be, maybe the whole sales explosion is, but I tend to doubt that.
I talk to people about their computers everyday, it is my job. There are still some people on the pc side that will gladly spend 2500+ to get a top of the line machine. These are the people that Apple wants. They are not going after Joe Blow who can only afford a 500 pc that will be obsolete in 6 months... I know I enjoy Apple's quality even though it costs more. cheapness != quality
Well I'm a loyal mac user and own several Macs at home, however at work I ended up purchasing Dells over macs a couple of years ago largely because of price. I'm planing on upgrading to a G5 but I'm not sure at all how my boss is going to take it price wise and in our current economic climate.
In addition I know quite a few Joe Blows who are very price conscious and don't really understand the nuances between platforms. There are and have been quite a few Joe Blows who are Apple users and have left Apple for PC's and there are a lot of Joe Blows I would welcome open armed into the Apple fold.
With the iPod Mini I don't think the price argument holds out. I do think the lower end takes away sales from the higher end models. I definitely bought the cheapest iPod I could get my hands on. I am completely satisfied with the a referub first generation 20 GB.
However, If I didn't have the choice of getting that cheaper model, I wouldn't have bought my wife or myself one at all.
If there was a cheaper Mac my wife would have been using it rather then the emachine she bought.
As for Tink's argument that a cheper mac wouldn't take sales away from the towers.. That depends on what it is and when and if it comes out!!!!
Not all the towers are in rendering farms, video editing or HIGH end graphics departments. If I can plug a monitor in, make my layouts in Quark or Indesign and get some average photoshop work done then I am not going to spend 3 or 4 times as much buying 100 Towers, am I. If I can stick a bigger drive and more ram in then I have a machine that will last me until the next Creative Suite release, which is probably 1.5 - 2 years from now. Having saved 3 or 4 x the price I can then buy the next cheap machine instead of a tower.
Snoopy I am fed up with MS because of officex but I still have to support it.
Lots of IT people are scared s**tless by macs. There needs to be more done to make Mr PC IT-MANAGER think of macs as more than a nice looking luxury toy.
Sideshow
I guess we should say which sectors we work in.. Mine is advertising.
When my retired neighbor was shopping for a computer, he wanted to know the cheapest Mac he could buy, which was a $799 eMac. He discovered that Windows PCs had much lower entry level prices, and he never consider the Mac again. He ended up buying a Dell. Yesterday, I asked what he paid. Well it started out much lower, but by the time the order was finished he paid about $700. This represents a typical consumer buying scenario. Attracted by initial low price, they often end up paying more. Because Apple didn''t have a low entry point, they were never even considered. So a low price model is important for consumer behavior as well as for business and classrooms.
If Apple had a $499 entry point, without monitor, my neighbor would have kept them in the running as he weighed the differences. He may have bought a Mac too. I certainly would have kept encouraging him in that direction. Few consumers would buy a $499 entry Mac, however. Sure there are those who know how to work the system and they upgrade selectively afterward, but the majority do not. A typical consumer would see the benefit of paying an extra $149 for the high end model if it provides a software bundle (including iLife), more RAM, FireWire (for which Dell charges $50), a modem and possibly a couple extra USB ports.
If Apple can get a much cheaper G4, when IBM starts making the Mojave chip, I think Apple can achieve the $499 point with reasonable profit and without sacrificing their standards of reliability and quality. Remember, most buyers will pay more, if only to add more RAM, get a larger hard drive or upgrade the optical drive beyond a CD-ROM.
I guess we should say which sectors we work in.. Mine is advertising.
Programmer by day, Tech Support by night... Ok so I do Tech Support for a living and web design/Cocoa Programming for fun! I have a BS in CS so the programming is more fun
Not all the towers are in rendering farms, video editing or HIGH end graphics departments. If I can plug a monitor in, make my layouts in Quark or Indesign and get some average photoshop work done then I am not going to spend 3 or 4 times as much buying 100 Towers, am I. If I can stick a bigger drive and more ram in then I have a machine that will last me until the next Creative Suite release, which is probably 1.5 - 2 years from now. Having saved 3 or 4 x the price I can then buy the next cheap machine instead of a tower.
Exactly. I've been getting lots of graphics work done with a 350Mhz G4 for years. Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator; all work just fine at that speed. I don't do a lot of high-end work on multi-megabyte files, but still... I think there are fewer people who really need wicked-fast computers than some folks here think. There had been a lot of pent-up demand for fast Macs before the first G5s. If sales of the duals have been better than sales of the cheaper singles, this may be why. We'll see if that continues.
CErtain segements fo the pro market will always go for the fastest of what ever Apple makes. The issue with the G5 Towers is or was that the top of the line model represented very good value relative to the others. AT this time the G5's top of the line model is likely to remain a best seller.
The trick at the lower end is delivering a machine that appeals to people with more modest needs. These would be the same people that give the world of PC's a serious look. Like it or not pricing is a big consideration here, selling 2 year old technology at a large premium does not cut it.
Sure it is poosible to get reasonable work done on a 350MHz machine, but I think we can agree that buying a new machine that runs at that clock rate is not smart. Around my house I still have a 400MHz machine sitting in the basement, sure it is still usefull but I'd be the first to admit that I wouuld not go back to using it on a permenant basis. The additional speed of my new machine allows me to do more things and to do things differrently than I could with the old geezzer.
So do I really need the faster computer that currently sits on my desk? Well yes, it was responsiveness issues with the old one that resulted in its replacement. Will I upgrade in the future to an even faster machine - yep it is almost a given. That will probally happen when the frustration level ratchets up or a kick ass software package comes out that demands it. Eventually every one finds limitations with their hardware.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
Exactly. I've been getting lots of graphics work done with a 350Mhz G4 for years. Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator; all work just fine at that speed. I don't do a lot of high-end work on multi-megabyte files, but still... I think there are fewer people who really need wicked-fast computers than some folks here think. There had been a lot of pent-up demand for fast Macs before the first G5s. If sales of the duals have been better than sales of the cheaper singles, this may be why. We'll see if that continues.
CErtain segements fo the pro market will always go for the fastest of what ever Apple makes. The issue with the G5 Towers is or was that the top of the line model represented very good value relative to the others. AT this time the G5's top of the line model is likely to remain a best seller.
The trick at the lower end is delivering a machine that appeals to people with more modest needs. These would be the same people that give the world of PC's a serious look. Like it or not pricing is a big consideration here, selling 2 year old technology at a large premium does not cut it.
Sure it is poosible to get reasonable work done on a 350MHz machine, but I think we can agree that buying a new machine that runs at that clock rate is not smart. Around my house I still have a 400MHz machine sitting in the basement, sure it is still usefull but I'd be the first to admit that I wouuld not go back to using it on a permenant basis. The additional speed of my new machine allows me to do more things and to do things differrently than I could with the old geezzer.
So do I really need the faster computer that currently sits on my desk? Well yes, it was responsiveness issues with the old one that resulted in its replacement. Will I upgrade in the future to an even faster machine - yep it is almost a given. That will probally happen when the frustration level ratchets up or a kick ass software package comes out that demands it. Eventually every one finds limitations with their hardware.
Dave
True but it's just how they do it that makes us wonder. The single G5 is not a bad machine it is just one that we would all avoid because the savings are not really there to be made. If we think well ok for $700 more we get a much much better machine that will last us much much longer then we will avoid the single cpu one. If it is reduced in price even more then a whole lot of us would really consider it.
I am certain that Apple is waiting until they have a big enough variety of chips and hardware to make the move into the cheaper market (if they are going to). This still makes me think that the 970fx based machines will be the same price as the current towers when they come out. Then it will happen with each speed bump that things cost less.
Still I cant see anything happening until the Powerbooks are G5 based and there is more variety in their available desktop chips. Atleast this is something IBM is working on pretty quickly. Intel did take much longer to update the P4 range than IBM are taking with the 970 so we all have hope.
. . . I am certain that Apple is waiting until they have a big enough variety of chips and hardware to make the move into the cheaper market (if they are going to). . .
I agree.
I believe the processor is a key element in achieving better value Macs. I'm very pleased with what is happening with the IBM 970 and successors. The prices are so good, if we can believe reports, that people are suggesting Apple use it in all Macs. Hopefully, IBM can keep these prices below similar performing chips from Intel. If so, Apple could be more price competitive with the Power Macs, despite Apple's other cost disadvantages.
At the low end, however, these high performance chips are not a good choice. They will always cost more than a chip designed with low cost as one of the primary goals. For the 970 and 970FX, lower than expected cost is just a happy side effect for now. IBM, Apple and most Mac users would gladly sacrifice some of that low-cost advantage if it means we can get significantly more performance.
The bottom line: Apple needs a really low cost G4, which should be low power too for the iBook. When Apple gets such a chip, a low cost desktop Mac is possible. Mojave?
I guess we should say which sectors we work in.. Mine is advertising.
....the Rev A-D CRT iMacs.
In fact, I have an iRack courtesy of one of the power supply issues. Had an iMac DV go bad and popped the mobo in one of the Marathon iRacks and now have a nifty little 400MHz G3 1U server.
In fact, I have an iRack courtesy of one of the power supply issues. Had an iMac DV go bad and popped the mobo in one of the Marathon iRacks and now have a nifty little 400MHz G3 1U server.
Is the video output a vga connector on the converted iMac?
If it's not too far off topic, I'd like to hear some opinions about why Apple selected a 1 GHz G4 with 256K of L2 cache for the iBook, rather than going with the IBM 750 GX, the G3 Gobi that everyone was looking forward to. It is also 1 GHz but with 1 M L2 cache, four times as much, and dissipates less than 10 W. It likely costs less and would have been an easy and good value upgrade for the iBook, which was already a G3. The iBook could have moved to a G4 when the IBM Mojave is here. I'm pretty sure Mojave will be lower cost than a Motorola G4, probably significantly so.
Apple's decision to ignore the Gobe has puzzled me, but evidently no one else. The only comment I've seen are like, "Great, the iBook has a G4." With the larger L2 cache, I would think the G3 would perform as well as the G4 overall. Gobe would be faster on everything except AltiVec accelerated applications. From a value standpoint, it looks to me like Apple jumped to a G4 too soon. Comments?
Comments
Originally posted by snoopy
A lot of misunderstanding about who is the customer. Many valid issues brought up apply to a particular market, but not all markets. What interests or excites one group or people means little or nothing to another. A manager who simply needs network computers isn't going to value the same features as someone wanting to make home movies or work with digital photography.
Also, Apple does not need to go head to head with Dell on price. They cannot. But when a manager gets fed up with something about good old MS, Apple's prices need to be close enough to justify purchasing Macs. The difference needs to be small enough so the pain of switching is less than the pain of continuing with a Windows network.
Also, there is misunderstanding of the Mac I proposed. I suggested an optional monitor that could be somehow attached to the top of this Mac. This idea was a minor point, just frosting on the cake for someone who likes the AIO. The Mac might have a standard video connector. The optional special monitor would include a short cable (just long enough) that would reduce cable clutter. The monitor would have to be designed for attaching to the top of the Mac. It would be a way Apple could entice customers to spend more on the whole purchase if the end result was cool enough. If not, scrap the idea.
...Apple needs to stay away from porprietary in the business market. The ADC is bad enough. t least they give you standrad DVI/VGA port as well. But proprietary + small market = high cost to recoup R & D.
Apple needs to stick with plain simple tray loading CD-RWs, USB2, FW800, standard AGP all in an industry standard type enclosure.
Apple needs to KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Apple pissed off a lot of school and small business customers with the iMac. Monitors started fritzing out (actually, the A/D power supply board) out of warranty and it was costing as much as a new iMac to fix the damn things.
Not to mention the batch of iMacs with bad ethernet ports. Until very recently there was no USB/Eth adapter for OS X. So when people lost their ports it was a $450 mobo replacement for a 3 year old computer to get LAN connectivity back.
Hardly the way to creat happy customers.
PCI slots. AGP slot. Keep It Simple. The software and OS is, now give us a consumer/business Mac that is as well.
People who want a powerful expandable box will still buy them. People looking for affordable boxes will still buy those, only not from Apple if Apple doesn't offer them.
People looking for an affordable box and thinking about switching will definitely not buy Apple.
Originally posted by tink
The argument that the a lower price machine will take away sales from the higher end machine is false.
Well, that is not necessarily fact either. Take a look at the iPod mini, Apple wont release sales figures of the regular, higher priced iPods. Why? I bet the sales of them pale in comparisson to the smaller, less expensive model. Is it just product launch hype? Some of it could be, maybe the whole sales explosion is, but I tend to doubt that.
In addition I know quite a few Joe Blows who are very price conscious and don't really understand the nuances between platforms. There are and have been quite a few Joe Blows who are Apple users and have left Apple for PC's and there are a lot of Joe Blows I would welcome open armed into the Apple fold.
However, If I didn't have the choice of getting that cheaper model, I wouldn't have bought my wife or myself one at all.
If there was a cheaper Mac my wife would have been using it rather then the emachine she bought.
As for Tink's argument that a cheper mac wouldn't take sales away from the towers.. That depends on what it is and when and if it comes out!!!!
Not all the towers are in rendering farms, video editing or HIGH end graphics departments. If I can plug a monitor in, make my layouts in Quark or Indesign and get some average photoshop work done then I am not going to spend 3 or 4 times as much buying 100 Towers, am I. If I can stick a bigger drive and more ram in then I have a machine that will last me until the next Creative Suite release, which is probably 1.5 - 2 years from now. Having saved 3 or 4 x the price I can then buy the next cheap machine instead of a tower.
Snoopy I am fed up with MS because of officex but I still have to support it.
Lots of IT people are scared s**tless by macs. There needs to be more done to make Mr PC IT-MANAGER think of macs as more than a nice looking luxury toy.
Sideshow
I guess we should say which sectors we work in.. Mine is advertising.
If Apple had a $499 entry point, without monitor, my neighbor would have kept them in the running as he weighed the differences. He may have bought a Mac too. I certainly would have kept encouraging him in that direction. Few consumers would buy a $499 entry Mac, however. Sure there are those who know how to work the system and they upgrade selectively afterward, but the majority do not. A typical consumer would see the benefit of paying an extra $149 for the high end model if it provides a software bundle (including iLife), more RAM, FireWire (for which Dell charges $50), a modem and possibly a couple extra USB ports.
If Apple can get a much cheaper G4, when IBM starts making the Mojave chip, I think Apple can achieve the $499 point with reasonable profit and without sacrificing their standards of reliability and quality. Remember, most buyers will pay more, if only to add more RAM, get a larger hard drive or upgrade the optical drive beyond a CD-ROM.
Originally posted by SideShowBob
I guess we should say which sectors we work in.. Mine is advertising.
Programmer by day, Tech Support by night... Ok so I do Tech Support for a living and web design/Cocoa Programming for fun! I have a BS in CS so the programming is more fun
Originally posted by SideShowBob
Not all the towers are in rendering farms, video editing or HIGH end graphics departments. If I can plug a monitor in, make my layouts in Quark or Indesign and get some average photoshop work done then I am not going to spend 3 or 4 times as much buying 100 Towers, am I. If I can stick a bigger drive and more ram in then I have a machine that will last me until the next Creative Suite release, which is probably 1.5 - 2 years from now. Having saved 3 or 4 x the price I can then buy the next cheap machine instead of a tower.
Exactly. I've been getting lots of graphics work done with a 350Mhz G4 for years. Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator; all work just fine at that speed. I don't do a lot of high-end work on multi-megabyte files, but still... I think there are fewer people who really need wicked-fast computers than some folks here think. There had been a lot of pent-up demand for fast Macs before the first G5s. If sales of the duals have been better than sales of the cheaper singles, this may be why. We'll see if that continues.
The trick at the lower end is delivering a machine that appeals to people with more modest needs. These would be the same people that give the world of PC's a serious look. Like it or not pricing is a big consideration here, selling 2 year old technology at a large premium does not cut it.
Sure it is poosible to get reasonable work done on a 350MHz machine, but I think we can agree that buying a new machine that runs at that clock rate is not smart. Around my house I still have a 400MHz machine sitting in the basement, sure it is still usefull but I'd be the first to admit that I wouuld not go back to using it on a permenant basis. The additional speed of my new machine allows me to do more things and to do things differrently than I could with the old geezzer.
So do I really need the faster computer that currently sits on my desk? Well yes, it was responsiveness issues with the old one that resulted in its replacement. Will I upgrade in the future to an even faster machine - yep it is almost a given. That will probally happen when the frustration level ratchets up or a kick ass software package comes out that demands it. Eventually every one finds limitations with their hardware.
Dave
Originally posted by iDave
Exactly. I've been getting lots of graphics work done with a 350Mhz G4 for years. Photoshop, Quark, Illustrator; all work just fine at that speed. I don't do a lot of high-end work on multi-megabyte files, but still... I think there are fewer people who really need wicked-fast computers than some folks here think. There had been a lot of pent-up demand for fast Macs before the first G5s. If sales of the duals have been better than sales of the cheaper singles, this may be why. We'll see if that continues.
Originally posted by wizard69
CErtain segements fo the pro market will always go for the fastest of what ever Apple makes. The issue with the G5 Towers is or was that the top of the line model represented very good value relative to the others. AT this time the G5's top of the line model is likely to remain a best seller.
The trick at the lower end is delivering a machine that appeals to people with more modest needs. These would be the same people that give the world of PC's a serious look. Like it or not pricing is a big consideration here, selling 2 year old technology at a large premium does not cut it.
Sure it is poosible to get reasonable work done on a 350MHz machine, but I think we can agree that buying a new machine that runs at that clock rate is not smart. Around my house I still have a 400MHz machine sitting in the basement, sure it is still usefull but I'd be the first to admit that I wouuld not go back to using it on a permenant basis. The additional speed of my new machine allows me to do more things and to do things differrently than I could with the old geezzer.
So do I really need the faster computer that currently sits on my desk? Well yes, it was responsiveness issues with the old one that resulted in its replacement. Will I upgrade in the future to an even faster machine - yep it is almost a given. That will probally happen when the frustration level ratchets up or a kick ass software package comes out that demands it. Eventually every one finds limitations with their hardware.
Dave
True but it's just how they do it that makes us wonder. The single G5 is not a bad machine it is just one that we would all avoid because the savings are not really there to be made. If we think well ok for $700 more we get a much much better machine that will last us much much longer then we will avoid the single cpu one. If it is reduced in price even more then a whole lot of us would really consider it.
I am certain that Apple is waiting until they have a big enough variety of chips and hardware to make the move into the cheaper market (if they are going to). This still makes me think that the 970fx based machines will be the same price as the current towers when they come out. Then it will happen with each speed bump that things cost less.
Still I cant see anything happening until the Powerbooks are G5 based and there is more variety in their available desktop chips. Atleast this is something IBM is working on pretty quickly. Intel did take much longer to update the P4 range than IBM are taking with the 970 so we all have hope.
Sideshow
TFWORLD
Originally posted by SideShowBob
. . . I am certain that Apple is waiting until they have a big enough variety of chips and hardware to make the move into the cheaper market (if they are going to). . .
I agree.
I believe the processor is a key element in achieving better value Macs. I'm very pleased with what is happening with the IBM 970 and successors. The prices are so good, if we can believe reports, that people are suggesting Apple use it in all Macs. Hopefully, IBM can keep these prices below similar performing chips from Intel. If so, Apple could be more price competitive with the Power Macs, despite Apple's other cost disadvantages.
At the low end, however, these high performance chips are not a good choice. They will always cost more than a chip designed with low cost as one of the primary goals. For the 970 and 970FX, lower than expected cost is just a happy side effect for now. IBM, Apple and most Mac users would gladly sacrifice some of that low-cost advantage if it means we can get significantly more performance.
The bottom line: Apple needs a really low cost G4, which should be low power too for the iBook. When Apple gets such a chip, a low cost desktop Mac is possible. Mojave?
Originally posted by SideShowBob
Which imac are you talking about mooseman?
Sideshow
I guess we should say which sectors we work in.. Mine is advertising.
....the Rev A-D CRT iMacs.
In fact, I have an iRack courtesy of one of the power supply issues. Had an iMac DV go bad and popped the mobo in one of the Marathon iRacks and now have a nifty little 400MHz G3 1U server.
Originally posted by mooseman
....the Rev A-D CRT iMacs.
In fact, I have an iRack courtesy of one of the power supply issues. Had an iMac DV go bad and popped the mobo in one of the Marathon iRacks and now have a nifty little 400MHz G3 1U server.
Is the video output a vga connector on the converted iMac?
Sorry, OT.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Is the video output a vga connector on the converted iMac?
Sorry, OT.
...yep.
I wish there was some sort of S-video out on those iMacs, it would make the perfect entertainment center Mac, well, except for the noisy ass PS fan.
Apple's decision to ignore the Gobe has puzzled me, but evidently no one else. The only comment I've seen are like, "Great, the iBook has a G4." With the larger L2 cache, I would think the G3 would perform as well as the G4 overall. Gobe would be faster on everything except AltiVec accelerated applications. From a value standpoint, it looks to me like Apple jumped to a G4 too soon. Comments?
Originally posted by mooseman
...yep.
I wish there was some sort of S-video out on those iMacs, it would make the perfect entertainment center Mac, well, except for the noisy ass PS fan.
I assume the noisy fan is the one provided with the iRack?
I have looked at this option and thought that $300+ was a bit much for converting 5 year old hardware. Can/Will you share more thoughts on this?