Um... are there any PC makers that don't offer a "$500" computer?
I mean, is it only Apple, Dell, HP, etc. that are required to attempt to compete in that arena, or are all computer makers required to offer such a low cost computer?
Um... are there any PC makers that don't offer a "$500" computer?
I mean, is it only Apple, Dell, HP, etc. that are required to attempt to compete in that arena, or are all computer makers required to offer such a low cost computer?
I'd have to actually check their website to be sure, but I'm fairly certain that new Sony computers do NOT retail that low.
I'd have to actually check their website to be sure, but I'm fairly certain that new Sony computers do NOT retail that low.
-Antithesis
Their cheapest seems to start at $700. 2.4GHz Celeron, 256MB RAM, 80GB HDD, DVD-ROM, CD-R/W, Radeon 9200, NO monitor.... about $100 less than an eMac... but if you tack on a monitor (since it's not included) it will likely run you more than an eMac. So Sony's entry level PC is in the same ballpark as Apple's. Interesting that they have chosen to stay clear of the lower end also... especially when you're in the dog-eat-dog PC world. I think it just goes to show... you don't HAVE to go into the low end market to stay alive (of course... Sony could lose their whole computer line and probably never notice).
Um... are there any PC makers that don't offer a "$500" computer?
I mean, is it only Apple, Dell, HP, etc. that are required to attempt to compete in that arena, or are all computer makers required to offer such a low cost computer?
There are a lot of makers that compete in this area... such as Emachines (I'm still bitter about them trying to rip off the original iMac design)
So Sony's entry level PC is in the same ballpark as Apple's. Interesting that they have chosen to stay clear of the lower end also... especially when you're in the dog-eat-dog PC world. I think it just goes to show... you don't HAVE to go into the low end market to stay alive
I guess that's what I was getting at when I asked my question. Does anybody lambast Sony for not selling a $500 PC? If you're one of those people that believes Apple must sell a $500 Mac, you have to think Sony, likewise, must sell a $500 PC. Or is it only PC makers that are allowed to choose their market?
I guess that's what I was getting at when I asked my question. Does anybody lambast Sony for not selling a $500 PC? If you're one of those people that believes Apple must sell a $500 Mac, you have to think Sony, likewise, must sell a $500 PC. Or is it only PC makers that are allowed to choose their market?
Well... I actually thought about that before I made my post. Sony can really afford to do pretty much whatever they want. Their computer sales aren't going to make or break them. Apple on the other hand has to rely on it's computer sales (and iPod) to stay afloat in this market. Also... it's not so much a "name" thing in the PC side. If you can't get an inexpensive PC from Sony, you can get one from Dell, if not, eMachines, etc... You don't have that luxury with Macs. Apple sets the price and there isn't a "Mac compatible" that you can get that might be less expensive.
I guess that's what I was getting at when I asked my question. Does anybody lambast Sony for not selling a $500 PC? If you're one of those people that believes Apple must sell a $500 Mac, you have to think Sony, likewise, must sell a $500 PC. Or is it only PC makers that are allowed to choose their market?
In addition to what Joey said (above), I'd like to add that I've never seen Sony in ANY of the top 5 with respect to:
reliability
value
profit
when it comes to PC rankings in any of the online reports I've seen.
Mind you, I've not seen EVERY report out there, but I've seen enough to know that Dell and Apple are in the rankings, whereas Sony is not.
In addition to what Joey said (above), I'd like to add that I've never seen Sony in ANY of the top 5 with respect to:
reliability
value
profit
when it comes to PC rankings in any of the online reports I've seen.
Mind you, I've not seen EVERY report out there, but I've seen enough to know that Dell and Apple are in the rankings, whereas Sony is not.
Regards,
-Antithesis
Yes! This is really an arguement over whether Apple's long-term survival is best ensured by expanding market share with a low cost computer versus maintaining higher margins and an upscale image. Sony is in a different position. Interestingly, Apple looks like its trying to go the way of Sony with devices such as the iPod. However, they have a very long way to go to becoming another Sony.
Another thing that really strikes me is that we are discussing a couple of hundred bucks here between an eMac and a low end PC. I know, I know, this will affect some peoples decisions of which to buy. However, when I think of the cost of software and all the other things that go into really using a computer for anything more than e-mail and the web, really its not that much of a difference, IMHO.
I see Joey already answered this question, but I'd like to add something I already wrote.
Quote:
Originally posted by spotcatbug
I guess that's what I was getting at when I asked my question. Does anybody lambast Sony for not selling a $500 PC? If you're one of those people that believes Apple must sell a $500 Mac, you have to think Sony, likewise, must sell a $500 PC. Or is it only PC makers that are allowed to choose their market?
This is a valid point but can be misinterpreted. A Windows PC maker might decide to narrow its product line and sell to those market segments where the company is strong and profitable. This can be done because other PC makers sell to the remaining market segments, and the X86 Windows platform stays healthy and viable. The platform does not rely on one company, and is unaffected by one such decision.
The Mac OS X platform does rely on a single company, Apple. If Apple does not sell to certain important market segments, the Mac OS X platform is not represented there and buyers have just one platform choice, Windows. This in turn cuts Apple out of more sales than that particular market segment. It has a domino effect.
People and companies tend to be conformists and don't want a hodgepodge of computer systems to deal with. If Windows is the only platform that is able to meet all their needs, that is what they likely go with. Some of you know how difficult it is to get a Mac approved in a company that is essentially all Windows. I confess that I am such a conformist. I don't want a Windows PC in the house. I fill that low end segment with old, used Macs like my two Beige G3s. I'm using one right now. It runs Jaguar and is dedicated to internet and email.
So it is a little amusing to read reasons why Apple should not make a low cost Mac. I'd likely buy one to replace what I'm typing on. I'm not unhappy with the Beige G3, and its performance is acceptable. Yet something like a 1.0 GHz 750GX would be noticeably better, plus I could run Panther and get the latest Safari updates. These are not sufficient reasons for me to spend 800 dollars for an eMac however.
Another thing that really strikes me is that we are discussing a couple of hundred bucks here between an eMac and a low end PC. I know, I know, this will affect some peoples decisions of which to buy. However, when I think of the cost of software and all the other things that go into really using a computer for anything more than e-mail and the web, really its not that much of a difference, IMHO.
Careful, though. I see what you're saying, but it's that 'cost of software' that is often a 'deal-braker' when someone is switching platforms.
Now, if all you needed was the iApps and AppleWorks, there'd be no question of how much the move from Wintel -> Macintosh would cost you. But consider the user who has PC software that they want to use on their new $799 eMac. By the time they re-invest in PC software for the MacOS, they could very well have spent HUNDREDS of dollars (re: Microsoft, games, etc.).
Now that 'couple of hundred bucks' is suddenly closer to half a grand.
I get your point Antithesis. It also probably goes further than that when you think about the number of people taking software from their PC at work etc. I know that my move to OSX was held back by the need for not only a new computer but also the good chunk of change I had to spend on updating my software. On the otherhand, what Apple provides is pretty good for most basic tasks and you can open most MS word documents without problems. Whether people know this or not is, offcourse, an issue. If they really need that much more software, then I wonder if these are the people that are really in the low-end market to begin with. Can you, or would you, get a $500 PC to run Photoshop well?
Careful, though. I see what you're saying, but it's that 'cost of software' that is often a 'deal-braker' when someone is switching platforms.
Now, if all you needed was the iApps and AppleWorks, there'd be no question of how much the move from Wintel -> Macintosh would cost you. But consider the user who has PC software that they want to use on their new $799 eMac. By the time they re-invest in PC software for the MacOS, they could very well have spent HUNDREDS of dollars (re: Microsoft, games, etc.).
Now that 'couple of hundred bucks' is suddenly closer to half a grand.
Just my $0.02,
-Antithesis
Speaking of which... does anyone know if there is something like OpenOffice for X? or Star Office? Both of these are completely acceptable alternatives to a $500 office suite from Microsoft (although... almost everyone uses MS Office instead). I guess the general thought there is if it's free (OpenOffice) it must be crap... if MS Office costs $500 it must be much better than StarOffice at <$100.
Speaking of which... does anyone know if there is something like OpenOffice for X? or Star Office? Both of these are completely acceptable alternatives to a $500 office suite from Microsoft (although... almost everyone uses MS Office instead). I guess the general thought there is if it's free (OpenOffice) it must be crap... if MS Office costs $500 it must be much better than StarOffice at <$100.
Can't speak for everyone, but I've found that there's only ONE really good program for opening, editing, and sharing Microsoft programs cross-platform.
Microsoft Office.
I've experimented with AppleWorks and OpenOffice using PC files. My experience is that, if the Word file is SIMPLE (re: no heavy formatting), either suite will work. However, ANY complex formatting will pretty much TRASH your conversion. Likewise with Excel, etc.
I would think Sun could port over StarOffice 8.0 (I'd believe it's Java making it cross platform friendly)... Unfortunately... with every new version of MS Office... they add little things here and there that break compatability with other office suites.
On the topic of Sony's prices. They can sell one machine a year for a million dollars if they want. The user who buys it can still go down to compusa and pick up windows software for it. The fact that the machine was expensive doesnt affect its usability, because developers dont target Sony machines, they target windows.
If Apple sold machine a year, for a million dollars how much software would be developed for it? If you sell a lot of machines then developers will write software. It _IS_ software that makes a machine valuable. The bundled apps _are_ good, and _will_ satisfy most of most users needs. But pretty much every user will need additional software, and the _fear_ that it wont be available in any form drives users to windows and software availability, even in mediocre form.
There is a fear that no one would buy Macs if they ran windows software. People already dont buy Macs buy the million Apple could still have the best applications, just running on windows ( and only on Macs ).
Personally I don't think Apple needs to match up to the $500 PCs. Apple needs to have equvalent features for the price class it competes in.
Powerac g5s
in the cost bracket of $1800 CPUs you will get: 128-256 VRAM, 512-1gb RAM, 160-250GB hard drive and 8x superdrives/17"LCDs
on the 1.6 g5 you get 256/80/64VRAM/4x
In the $1299 price range you get
DVD-burners/120gb hard drive/128VRAM/512 RAM/17"LCD
on a 15" imac you get 256/80/32VRAM/combo drive/15"LCD
So half of the people who were on the leftside of getting a mac stick with a pc because they get more specs for the money. No the intangibles like processors and software, but compareable across platform numbers.
So for $800 the emac should give you minimum 256RAM and 80GB hard drive, and a larger percentage of the cheap people will get an emac, but for $800 on a PC you get 2x the memory and hard drive of the entry level emac.
From reading this thread it seems to me that the obstacle here is the double edged sword known as "product perception." While Wall Street and many consumers may percieve a cheap box to be a good idea, Apple sees it as demeaning to its brand and not substantial enough of a contributor to the bottom line. Whether or not the specs on the whole line is in order with the industry is an entire other story...
Personally I don't think Apple needs to match up to the $500 PCs. Apple needs to have equvalent features for the price class it competes in. . .
A business may have very modest needs for computers doing basic office applications, but the most they will pay, let's say, is $650 with a 17 inch CRT monitor. This business will not pay $800 for an eMac, even if Apple were to double its performance and features. Business does not pay for performance and features it does not need. Without something at the right price, Apple simply misses out on the entire market segment.
Yes! This is really an arguement over whether Apple's long-term survival is best ensured by expanding market share with a low cost computer versus maintaining higher margins and an upscale image.
That pretty much sums it up, and it's fairly clear that Apple is currently going the latter route.
Which brings us back to the marketing. If you recall Apple's classic marketing, it's was very much focused on educating consumers on the Mac's superiority and trying to expand their market. The current marketing is virtually 100% aimed at selling Image and Brand Name and not at all on selling the Macintosh platform
The problem with the current marketing is that it really is only targeting the installed base, telling them they made the right choice with the "inherently better" Macintosh and hoping they'll buy another. When combined with high prices and outdated hardware, a old pattern in the computer industry appears -- Apple is soaking its installed base.
Unfortunately, this is one of the signs of the "death spiral" which computer platforms go through -- the company gives up on gaining marketshare, focuses on the high-end market exclusively, prices go up and up, the application base gets smaller and smaller, until the few remaining loyal users finally say Uncle.
However, I'm really hoping this is only a temporary strategy: Apple knew their hardware wasn't competitve, the "Switcher" campaign largely bombed, and they decided to retreat to their base. The sign will be how Apple introduces the G5 iMac (and hopefully xMac) -- If the machines are price and feature competitive with PCs and backed by a big marketing campaign, then it really means that Apple 100% behind keeping the Mac platform alive and competitive.
OTOH, if we see something meh like 1.6Ghz G5 iMac at the same price points, it's a good sign that Apple's planning on letting the Mac platform dry up for short term profits.
Comments
I mean, is it only Apple, Dell, HP, etc. that are required to attempt to compete in that arena, or are all computer makers required to offer such a low cost computer?
Originally posted by spotcatbug
Um... are there any PC makers that don't offer a "$500" computer?
I mean, is it only Apple, Dell, HP, etc. that are required to attempt to compete in that arena, or are all computer makers required to offer such a low cost computer?
I'd have to actually check their website to be sure, but I'm fairly certain that new Sony computers do NOT retail that low.
-Antithesis
Originally posted by Antithesis
I'd have to actually check their website to be sure, but I'm fairly certain that new Sony computers do NOT retail that low.
-Antithesis
Their cheapest seems to start at $700. 2.4GHz Celeron, 256MB RAM, 80GB HDD, DVD-ROM, CD-R/W, Radeon 9200, NO monitor.... about $100 less than an eMac... but if you tack on a monitor (since it's not included) it will likely run you more than an eMac. So Sony's entry level PC is in the same ballpark as Apple's. Interesting that they have chosen to stay clear of the lower end also... especially when you're in the dog-eat-dog PC world. I think it just goes to show... you don't HAVE to go into the low end market to stay alive (of course... Sony could lose their whole computer line and probably never notice).
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
And this is in future hardware because?
And you haven't read this thread because?
Originally posted by spotcatbug
Um... are there any PC makers that don't offer a "$500" computer?
I mean, is it only Apple, Dell, HP, etc. that are required to attempt to compete in that arena, or are all computer makers required to offer such a low cost computer?
There are a lot of makers that compete in this area... such as Emachines (I'm still bitter about them trying to rip off the original iMac design)
emachines sux
Originally posted by Joey
So Sony's entry level PC is in the same ballpark as Apple's. Interesting that they have chosen to stay clear of the lower end also... especially when you're in the dog-eat-dog PC world. I think it just goes to show... you don't HAVE to go into the low end market to stay alive
I guess that's what I was getting at when I asked my question. Does anybody lambast Sony for not selling a $500 PC? If you're one of those people that believes Apple must sell a $500 Mac, you have to think Sony, likewise, must sell a $500 PC. Or is it only PC makers that are allowed to choose their market?
Originally posted by spotcatbug
I guess that's what I was getting at when I asked my question. Does anybody lambast Sony for not selling a $500 PC? If you're one of those people that believes Apple must sell a $500 Mac, you have to think Sony, likewise, must sell a $500 PC. Or is it only PC makers that are allowed to choose their market?
Well... I actually thought about that before I made my post. Sony can really afford to do pretty much whatever they want. Their computer sales aren't going to make or break them. Apple on the other hand has to rely on it's computer sales (and iPod) to stay afloat in this market. Also... it's not so much a "name" thing in the PC side. If you can't get an inexpensive PC from Sony, you can get one from Dell, if not, eMachines, etc... You don't have that luxury with Macs. Apple sets the price and there isn't a "Mac compatible" that you can get that might be less expensive.
Originally posted by spotcatbug
I guess that's what I was getting at when I asked my question. Does anybody lambast Sony for not selling a $500 PC? If you're one of those people that believes Apple must sell a $500 Mac, you have to think Sony, likewise, must sell a $500 PC. Or is it only PC makers that are allowed to choose their market?
In addition to what Joey said (above), I'd like to add that I've never seen Sony in ANY of the top 5 with respect to:
reliability
value
profit
when it comes to PC rankings in any of the online reports I've seen.
Mind you, I've not seen EVERY report out there, but I've seen enough to know that Dell and Apple are in the rankings, whereas Sony is not.
Regards,
-Antithesis
Originally posted by Antithesis
In addition to what Joey said (above), I'd like to add that I've never seen Sony in ANY of the top 5 with respect to:
reliability
value
profit
when it comes to PC rankings in any of the online reports I've seen.
Mind you, I've not seen EVERY report out there, but I've seen enough to know that Dell and Apple are in the rankings, whereas Sony is not.
Regards,
-Antithesis
Yes! This is really an arguement over whether Apple's long-term survival is best ensured by expanding market share with a low cost computer versus maintaining higher margins and an upscale image. Sony is in a different position. Interestingly, Apple looks like its trying to go the way of Sony with devices such as the iPod. However, they have a very long way to go to becoming another Sony.
Another thing that really strikes me is that we are discussing a couple of hundred bucks here between an eMac and a low end PC. I know, I know, this will affect some peoples decisions of which to buy. However, when I think of the cost of software and all the other things that go into really using a computer for anything more than e-mail and the web, really its not that much of a difference, IMHO.
Originally posted by spotcatbug
I guess that's what I was getting at when I asked my question. Does anybody lambast Sony for not selling a $500 PC? If you're one of those people that believes Apple must sell a $500 Mac, you have to think Sony, likewise, must sell a $500 PC. Or is it only PC makers that are allowed to choose their market?
This is a valid point but can be misinterpreted. A Windows PC maker might decide to narrow its product line and sell to those market segments where the company is strong and profitable. This can be done because other PC makers sell to the remaining market segments, and the X86 Windows platform stays healthy and viable. The platform does not rely on one company, and is unaffected by one such decision.
The Mac OS X platform does rely on a single company, Apple. If Apple does not sell to certain important market segments, the Mac OS X platform is not represented there and buyers have just one platform choice, Windows. This in turn cuts Apple out of more sales than that particular market segment. It has a domino effect.
People and companies tend to be conformists and don't want a hodgepodge of computer systems to deal with. If Windows is the only platform that is able to meet all their needs, that is what they likely go with. Some of you know how difficult it is to get a Mac approved in a company that is essentially all Windows. I confess that I am such a conformist. I don't want a Windows PC in the house. I fill that low end segment with old, used Macs like my two Beige G3s. I'm using one right now. It runs Jaguar and is dedicated to internet and email.
So it is a little amusing to read reasons why Apple should not make a low cost Mac. I'd likely buy one to replace what I'm typing on. I'm not unhappy with the Beige G3, and its performance is acceptable. Yet something like a 1.0 GHz 750GX would be noticeably better, plus I could run Panther and get the latest Safari updates. These are not sufficient reasons for me to spend 800 dollars for an eMac however.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Another thing that really strikes me is that we are discussing a couple of hundred bucks here between an eMac and a low end PC. I know, I know, this will affect some peoples decisions of which to buy. However, when I think of the cost of software and all the other things that go into really using a computer for anything more than e-mail and the web, really its not that much of a difference, IMHO.
Careful, though. I see what you're saying, but it's that 'cost of software' that is often a 'deal-braker' when someone is switching platforms.
Now, if all you needed was the iApps and AppleWorks, there'd be no question of how much the move from Wintel -> Macintosh would cost you. But consider the user who has PC software that they want to use on their new $799 eMac. By the time they re-invest in PC software for the MacOS, they could very well have spent HUNDREDS of dollars (re: Microsoft, games, etc.).
Now that 'couple of hundred bucks' is suddenly closer to half a grand.
Just my $0.02,
-Antithesis
Originally posted by Antithesis
Careful, though. I see what you're saying, but it's that 'cost of software' that is often a 'deal-braker' when someone is switching platforms.
Now, if all you needed was the iApps and AppleWorks, there'd be no question of how much the move from Wintel -> Macintosh would cost you. But consider the user who has PC software that they want to use on their new $799 eMac. By the time they re-invest in PC software for the MacOS, they could very well have spent HUNDREDS of dollars (re: Microsoft, games, etc.).
Now that 'couple of hundred bucks' is suddenly closer to half a grand.
Just my $0.02,
-Antithesis
Speaking of which... does anyone know if there is something like OpenOffice for X? or Star Office? Both of these are completely acceptable alternatives to a $500 office suite from Microsoft (although... almost everyone uses MS Office instead). I guess the general thought there is if it's free (OpenOffice) it must be crap... if MS Office costs $500 it must be much better than StarOffice at <$100.
Originally posted by Joey
Speaking of which... does anyone know if there is something like OpenOffice for X? or Star Office? Both of these are completely acceptable alternatives to a $500 office suite from Microsoft (although... almost everyone uses MS Office instead). I guess the general thought there is if it's free (OpenOffice) it must be crap... if MS Office costs $500 it must be much better than StarOffice at <$100.
Can't speak for everyone, but I've found that there's only ONE really good program for opening, editing, and sharing Microsoft programs cross-platform.
Microsoft Office.
I've experimented with AppleWorks and OpenOffice using PC files. My experience is that, if the Word file is SIMPLE (re: no heavy formatting), either suite will work. However, ANY complex formatting will pretty much TRASH your conversion. Likewise with Excel, etc.
Regards,
-Antithesis
P.S. Hope this didn't derail the thread TOO much.
If Apple sold machine a year, for a million dollars how much software would be developed for it? If you sell a lot of machines then developers will write software. It _IS_ software that makes a machine valuable. The bundled apps _are_ good, and _will_ satisfy most of most users needs. But pretty much every user will need additional software, and the _fear_ that it wont be available in any form drives users to windows and software availability, even in mediocre form.
There is a fear that no one would buy Macs if they ran windows software. People already dont buy Macs buy the million
Powerac g5s
in the cost bracket of $1800 CPUs you will get: 128-256 VRAM, 512-1gb RAM, 160-250GB hard drive and 8x superdrives/17"LCDs
on the 1.6 g5 you get 256/80/64VRAM/4x
In the $1299 price range you get
DVD-burners/120gb hard drive/128VRAM/512 RAM/17"LCD
on a 15" imac you get 256/80/32VRAM/combo drive/15"LCD
So half of the people who were on the leftside of getting a mac stick with a pc because they get more specs for the money. No the intangibles like processors and software, but compareable across platform numbers.
So for $800 the emac should give you minimum 256RAM and 80GB hard drive, and a larger percentage of the cheap people will get an emac, but for $800 on a PC you get 2x the memory and hard drive of the entry level emac.
Originally posted by jade
Personally I don't think Apple needs to match up to the $500 PCs. Apple needs to have equvalent features for the price class it competes in. . .
A business may have very modest needs for computers doing basic office applications, but the most they will pay, let's say, is $650 with a 17 inch CRT monitor. This business will not pay $800 for an eMac, even if Apple were to double its performance and features. Business does not pay for performance and features it does not need. Without something at the right price, Apple simply misses out on the entire market segment.
Are you saying Apple should ignore such markets?
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Yes! This is really an arguement over whether Apple's long-term survival is best ensured by expanding market share with a low cost computer versus maintaining higher margins and an upscale image.
That pretty much sums it up, and it's fairly clear that Apple is currently going the latter route.
Which brings us back to the marketing. If you recall Apple's classic marketing, it's was very much focused on educating consumers on the Mac's superiority and trying to expand their market. The current marketing is virtually 100% aimed at selling Image and Brand Name and not at all on selling the Macintosh platform
The problem with the current marketing is that it really is only targeting the installed base, telling them they made the right choice with the "inherently better" Macintosh and hoping they'll buy another. When combined with high prices and outdated hardware, a old pattern in the computer industry appears -- Apple is soaking its installed base.
Unfortunately, this is one of the signs of the "death spiral" which computer platforms go through -- the company gives up on gaining marketshare, focuses on the high-end market exclusively, prices go up and up, the application base gets smaller and smaller, until the few remaining loyal users finally say Uncle.
However, I'm really hoping this is only a temporary strategy: Apple knew their hardware wasn't competitve, the "Switcher" campaign largely bombed, and they decided to retreat to their base. The sign will be how Apple introduces the G5 iMac (and hopefully xMac) -- If the machines are price and feature competitive with PCs and backed by a big marketing campaign, then it really means that Apple 100% behind keeping the Mac platform alive and competitive.
OTOH, if we see something meh like 1.6Ghz G5 iMac at the same price points, it's a good sign that Apple's planning on letting the Mac platform dry up for short term profits.