I think his point is that the image most people have still for Apple, is the old graphics-related software/hardware one, due to poor/failed advertising on Apple's part of the new technologies present in OS X. And there is the case of supervisors or IT stuff, that know very well what Apple is about today, and they avoid it like <insert your favorite expression here>, since they love their jobs.
I most certainly understood the point. I think that most of us understood the point. The fact that we understood the point doesn't make it any less stupid. What Format2C and a lot of other people don't understand is that the stupidity has a purpose. His supervisors know which side their bread is buttered on. If they were to replace their "inexpensive" WinTel computers with "expensive" Apple computers, they would have a lot less to do. Less work for them means fewer of them. Until Apple figures out a way to sell computers with high support costs, it is going to have trouble with poeple like Format2C's supervisors.
I most certainly understood the point. I think that most of us understood the point. The fact that we understood the point doesn't make it any less stupid. What Format2C and a lot of other people don't understand is that the stupidity has a purpose. His supervisors know which side their bread is buttered on. If they were to replace their "inexpensive" WinTel computers with "expensive" Apple computers, they would have a lot less to do. Less work for them means fewer of them. Until Apple figures out a way to sell computers with high support costs, it is going to have trouble with poeple like Format2C's supervisors.
Are you for real? Do people on this board actually believe that you can go into an organization and replace PC's with Mac's? For real, do ya'll believe this? Okay lets say I want to replace all the pc's in my organization. I had my buddy who is on the Network Team run a Hiena report on the # of PC's we have (876 to be exact local on this campus, not counting offsite Community Health clinics). Okay now lets say I replace all those with Mac's. Exactly what in the he!! am I gonna put on those? I work in a hospital. Tell me what Apps are gonna run the millions of dollars of inventory tracking? How are we gonna pay our employees? What apps are gonna link our lab results to our nurse order entry and results viewer? What about our Med Rec apps? What about our time entry? What about our ER system? What about our Radiology system?
I can go on and on and on and on and on. My point is that lots of people here think that organizations simply run email, photoshop (what is this for in the real world? j/k or am i?) and word/excel. Um guess what they don't just run those little baby apps. There are too many organizations that run specialty apps that just don't exist for Mac's. Thats what Apple's problem is!
There are too many organizations that run specialty apps that just don't exist for Mac's. Thats what Apple's problem is!
There are a lot of organizations that don't run anything but standard software, and if Apple can get it's foot inside that door, specialty apps will appear on the Mac too.
The up-front cost may be higher but the Mac resale values are typically very good. If you want to compare between platforms, there are many factors that enter into the equation.
ummmmmmm.....I wouldnt buy ANYTHING based on resale value, I buy for usefullness and macs, since my last upgrade cycle have with the intro of osx and the g5, beat the hell out of windows, thus my next new system will be a G5 or a PBg5 depending on the cost and proformance comparisons of the laptop to the desktop
I most certainly understood the point. I think that most of us understood the point. The fact that we understood the point doesn't make it any less stupid. What Format2C and a lot of other people don't understand is that the stupidity has a purpose. His supervisors know which side their bread is buttered on. If they were to replace their "inexpensive" WinTel computers with "expensive" Apple computers, they would have a lot less to do. Less work for them means fewer of them. Until Apple figures out a way to sell computers with high support costs, it is going to have trouble with poeple like Format2C's supervisors.
Interesting point of view, Mr. Me.
Let me give you ANOTHER point of view.
A great deal of American industry deals with Windows software and applications on a daily basis. Engineering firms utilize Windows-based Configuration Management tools. Real Estate firms utilize Windows-based actuarial software and tools. And I'd wager that most all business here in the U.S. utilizes Microsoft Office/Microsoft Project for all official presentations, schedules, and other documents.
So when you rant on about how a secondhand observer sees his/her managers' intentions about switching to a completely new platform, you might just be assuming that the Macintosh solution is viable. In some cases, it's not.
After all, if said company were to switch, say, 100 users from Wintel to Macintosh, there's the matter of:
* Paying for the new Apple machines
* Paying for all new Microsoft Office suites and licenses
* Paying software companies to completely re-design all proprietary Windows applications for the MacOS
* Paying for (limited) tech support to hook up and maintain the machines and the network for a limited time (months?)
* Re-purchasing scanners, printers, and other peripherals that do NOT have Apple drivers.
* Training (some) users to become familiar with the MacOS.
Seems a little more involved than your first synopsis, eh?
I had my buddy who is on the Network Team run a Hiena report on the # of PC's we have (876 to be exact local on this campus, not counting offsite Community Health clinics).
First off, that's Hyena. secondly you don't have to get rid of all your PC's. In particular you don't have get rid of your servers running your specialty apps like inventory control apps, payroll, Radiology, etc. Odds are most of these have Java clients that wil run just fine on Mac desktops, however. So you could replace your desktops while keeping your AD servers, etc.
Quote:
There are too many organizations that run specialty apps that just don't exist for Mac's. Thats what Apple's problem is!
That's a good point. And it's one that Apple is addressing by working closely with enterprise software vendors like Oracle who is in Beta with a 10g version of their database solution for the G5 Xserve. So there is hope yet.
Sure, it's fair. Pound for pound, Apples really don't cost much more than PCs. People always quote the price/performance ratio, and what you're saying is that essentially, a PC with less performance (check the other specs besides add-ons, like RAM hard-drive size and speed, ethernet, video card, bundled software) costs less. Sure, fine. You want less, get less. Cheaper is not automatically better. Apple, and hooray for them, I say, won't sell a machine that's functionally crippled.
But pound for pound you are, in some cases, getting pounds you don't want. I don't want an Apple monitor, or I don't use Firewire, or whatever. Choice is good. When someone says they can get an equivalent Dell for $200 less, it's because they'll never use gigabit ethernet and they shouldn't have to pay for it.
But after talking to some of the mods on this board, I've changed my mind. It seems to me that Apple's manufacturing process is probably the #1 reason why the price/performance ratio is so poor.
Then you weren't really listening.
Apple doesn't have the economies of scale that WinTel does for several crucial components (like, say, the motherboard). It also has a higher standard feature baseline, which their "digital hub" and even their OS strategy requires.
Quote:
Because, if apple can't take $300 worth of outdated, cheap computer parts (re: eMac)
Price a G4 recently? Apple can't buy parts for what you think they're worth. They have to pay whatever the negotiated price is. If eMacs are $799, and Apple's margin is relatively slim, then guess what? The parts don't cost $300.
Sure, it's fair. Pound for pound, Apples really don't cost much more than PCs. People always quote the price/performance ratio, and what you're saying is that essentially, a PC with less performance (check the other specs besides add-ons, like RAM hard-drive size and speed, ethernet, video card, bundled software) costs less. Sure, fine. You want less, get less. Cheaper is not automatically better. Apple, and hooray for them, I say, won't sell a machine that's functionally crippled.
CV
Actually you are mistaken, Apple's are still more than PCs. I recently configured a Sony with an equivalent software bundle to the ilife suite. This sony had faster RAM than the comparative imac, a better video card, and a larger hard drive. While still being cheaper than the equivalent imac. And we all know Sony's are typically the most expensive of the PCs, and most PC customers considering Apple shop them against Sony's.
Microsoft Works 7.0 with Office 2003 Business Trial Edition
VAIO Creation Suite VIDEO Software:
Video PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite PHOTO Software:
Photo PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite MUSIC Software:
Music PLUS Package
Accessories:
SDM-HS73/L - HS-model 17" Flat Panel LCD
total $1674
So not only does this include twice the RAM, twice the VRAM and 50% more Hard drive space. It also includes Photoshop Elements (a step up from iphoto), Abode Premier LE (like imovie), Sony''s click to DVD, and SonicStage Mastering Studio and Screenblast Acid LE (never used them but functionally equivalent to garageband). And you save $125 on the deal.
Sorry but that really doesn't look like an inferior machine to me...and before people start going on about how tou get the elegant all in one design of the imac and the superior gui of OS X. Bill Gates proved already that the vast majority of people will settle for good enough.
So to conquer this problem, Apple needs a monetary breakdown of why the equivalent but slightly more expensive machines are worth top dollar, and how you actually save money buying and Apple, and absolute concrete benfits of using one in a clear concise manner, most people are just going to get the cheaper w/ better specs PC. And thats the bottom line.
The problem is a combination of price performance, slow updates, technology marketing (as opposed to brand marketing which apple excels at), and PC inertia.
There is a lot to do: overcoming the Apple is for Artists and kids sterotypes is going to be hard work, and the best way to get around it is more business customers using Macs across their enterprise, and publicizing government contracts. And actually explaining what OS X is about, for IT guys and home users.
Until it is clear things will stay where they are Apple is for rich people or artists.
First off, that's Hyena. secondly you don't have to get rid of all your PC's. In particular you don't have get rid of your servers running your specialty apps like inventory control apps, payroll, Radiology, etc. Odds are most of these have Java clients that wil run just fine on Mac desktops, however. So you could replace your desktops while keeping your AD servers, etc.
That's a good point. And it's one that Apple is addressing by working closely with enterprise software vendors like Oracle who is in Beta with a 10g version of their database solution for the G5 Xserve. So there is hope yet.
Since we are in the habit of correcting...forgot to CAPS your "s" on secondly.
Um NO on the Java clients thingy. God forbid they try that.
Funny, I thought I gleaned that from you in some earlier discussions we'd had.
Quote:
Apple doesn't have the economies of scale that WinTel does for several crucial components (like, say, the motherboard). It also has a higher standard feature baseline, which their "digital hub" and even their OS strategy requires.
Well, Amorph, I'm just gonna have to take your word for that, I guess. To this day, I've not seen numbers that tell me what Apple is paying for the motherboards vs. what Dell or eMachines or HP/Compaq is paying for THEIR motherboards. All I can do is look at the RETAIL price for motherboards for motherboards made by Asus, etc. that have the SAME OR MORE FEATURES as the eMac motherboard. I'm sorry, their retail, boxed, prices just don't seem that steep.
Perhaps outdated, slow G4s DO cost more than cutting-edge Pentium IVs and AMD Bartons. But I really can't see how--even WITH economies of scale. I'd love some numbers on this if you can point me to them.
Quote:
Price a G4 recently? Apple can't buy parts for what you think they're worth. They have to pay whatever the negotiated price is. If eMacs are $799, and Apple's margin is relatively slim, then guess what? The parts don't cost $300.
Actually, yes I have priced a g4 eMac lately. Those parts (RETAIL) are incredibly cheap--except for the case and the motherboard (possibly processor; see above). Which goes back to the original discussion of 'how much does manufacturing cost Apple, and is it the thorn in their side'? Because the SAME eMac case has been on the SAME line using the SAME plastics for over 2 years now. I'm thinking they're pretty close to recouping the R&D by now. Same goes for the motherboard, save a graphics chip update (nVidia -> ATI).
Actually you are mistaken, Apple's are still more than PCs. I recently configured a Sony with an equivalent software bundle to the ilife suite. This sony had faster RAM than the comparative imac, a better video card, and a larger hard drive. While still being cheaper than the equivalent imac. And we all know Sony's are typically the most expensive of the PCs, and most PC customers considering Apple shop them against Sony's.
(snip..)
I'm not saying that you can get a cheaper Mac, I'm saying the desparity isn't what people think it is, and that much of that desparity (which is definitely worse in desktops than laptops, yes) can be made up in the intangibles that apple offers, and people need to be educated as to why an Apple might be worth $125.00 more. It's not like they're twice as much or anything, like a BMW being $50,000.00 compared to a Chevy that's $25,000.00
Laptops, and Xserves are really where the hidden bargains are right now for Apple. iMacs are definitely pricey when you just consider specs, and not the intangibles, like form-factor, ease-of-use and the OS. It still boils down to perception, so in essence, I'm really agreeing with you that Apple marketing has their work cut out for them in a big way. It is frustrating as an Apple user to see them miss the mark on this over and over again, like never really showing people what OS X can do, or how their stuff works. They're trying to promote a brand identity and an image, but to an extent that has backfired, because people percieve them as a premium brand too much, and they get written off as unaffordable, because they don't present people with the facts.
We all know the hardware looks great, now let's show everyone why they should buy it.
Microsoft Works 7.0 with Office 2003 Business Trial Edition
VAIO Creation Suite VIDEO Software:
Video PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite PHOTO Software:
Photo PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite MUSIC Software:
Music PLUS Package
Accessories:
SDM-HS73/L - HS-model 17" Flat Panel LCD
total $1674
Oddly enough, I get $2250.43 for the same system. Of course, I included anti-virus software and the MS Office SBE since the Works package is only a trial edition. Even without those, the price comes to $2K.
But hey, what the heck, if price is all you're worried about, run on down to WalMart and pick up a $300.00 box.
Apple, and hooray for them, I say, won't sell a machine that's functionally crippled.
So, the iBooks video-out is not artificially crippled to suit some market segmentation plans? The G5 1.6Ghz has no crippled board? The DDR-Interface on each and every G4-powered CPU is not a crude hack? The eMac is not sold with 128MB which means effectively it is swapping all the time you have Safari, Mail and iTunes running concurrently?
So, the iBooks video-out is not artificially crippled to suit some market segmentation plans? The G5 1.6Ghz has no crippled board? The DDR-Interface on each and every G4-powered CPU is not a crude hack? The eMac is not sold with 128MB which means effectively it is swapping all the time you have Safari, Mail and iTunes running concurrently?
Are you for real? Do people on this board actually believe that you can go into an organization and replace PC's with Mac's? For real, do ya'll believe this? Okay lets say I want to replace all the pc's in my organization. I had my buddy who is on the Network Team run a Hiena report on the # of PC's we have (876 to be exact local on this campus, not counting offsite Community Health clinics). Okay now lets say I replace all those with Mac's. Exactly what in the he!! am I gonna put on those? I work in a hospital. Tell me what Apps are gonna run the millions of dollars of inventory tracking? How are we gonna pay our employees? What apps are gonna link our lab results to our nurse order entry and results viewer? What about our Med Rec apps? What about our time entry? What about our ER system? What about our Radiology system?
I can go on and on and on and on and on. My point is that lots of people here think that organizations simply run email, photoshop (what is this for in the real world? j/k or am i?) and word/excel. Um guess what they don't just run those little baby apps. There are too many organizations that run specialty apps that just don't exist for Mac's. Thats what Apple's problem is!
hey Trailmix.
I Swear to god I hope I never have to go to your hospital. Frankly you proberbly tell me Im a mac user and I cant be admitted. MAJOR APPS DO RUN ON MAC ever heard of the UNIX base to MAC OSX? You are misinformed. I run a very large Ad agency ( Im a partner. ) We are a total mac oufit. thats 600 macs on 2 continents. And not all of them are for the creatives. One of our focus business unit also develops high end databases YEP ON MACS. Try collating 3 million mail samples on a PC effectively. As for your Insinuation that photoshop is not used in the real world you obviously have NEVER stepped into a creative business. LOTS of very large companies do more than emailing and word. Sure macs are not for every purpose macs are the primary choice for creative business. Apple problem is that users like you want them to be all things to you. Macs belong to the creative and when all the fuss over macs being cool has died there will be always the installed user base the creatives developers and creative businesses. Apple may only have 5% Mkt share but its the most lucrative around. YOU WOULDNT HAVE MOST OF THE INNOVATIONS YOU ENJOY ON PCS WITHOUT APPLE. THANK GOD THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WINDOWS.
Oh my the way:
CITRIX - on a mac
MAJOR MOVIES - ( finding nemo ) MAC
All major DVD mastering ( DVD STUDIO PRO ) MAC
Music - (ITMS) Hey guess what a mac ...
oh and of course you cant do anything scientific on a mac. ( NOTE MY SCARCASM) but dont tell that to Noah Johnson?s
OR Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He ONLY built the world 3rd fastest supercomputer from macs at a TENTH OF THE PRICE.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
I think his point is that the image most people have still for Apple, is the old graphics-related software/hardware one, due to poor/failed advertising on Apple's part of the new technologies present in OS X. And there is the case of supervisors or IT stuff, that know very well what Apple is about today, and they avoid it like <insert your favorite expression here>, since they love their jobs.
I most certainly understood the point. I think that most of us understood the point. The fact that we understood the point doesn't make it any less stupid. What Format2C and a lot of other people don't understand is that the stupidity has a purpose. His supervisors know which side their bread is buttered on. If they were to replace their "inexpensive" WinTel computers with "expensive" Apple computers, they would have a lot less to do. Less work for them means fewer of them. Until Apple figures out a way to sell computers with high support costs, it is going to have trouble with poeple like Format2C's supervisors.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
I most certainly understood the point. I think that most of us understood the point. The fact that we understood the point doesn't make it any less stupid. What Format2C and a lot of other people don't understand is that the stupidity has a purpose. His supervisors know which side their bread is buttered on. If they were to replace their "inexpensive" WinTel computers with "expensive" Apple computers, they would have a lot less to do. Less work for them means fewer of them. Until Apple figures out a way to sell computers with high support costs, it is going to have trouble with poeple like Format2C's supervisors.
Are you for real? Do people on this board actually believe that you can go into an organization and replace PC's with Mac's? For real, do ya'll believe this? Okay lets say I want to replace all the pc's in my organization. I had my buddy who is on the Network Team run a Hiena report on the # of PC's we have (876 to be exact local on this campus, not counting offsite Community Health clinics). Okay now lets say I replace all those with Mac's. Exactly what in the he!! am I gonna put on those? I work in a hospital. Tell me what Apps are gonna run the millions of dollars of inventory tracking? How are we gonna pay our employees? What apps are gonna link our lab results to our nurse order entry and results viewer? What about our Med Rec apps? What about our time entry? What about our ER system? What about our Radiology system?
I can go on and on and on and on and on. My point is that lots of people here think that organizations simply run email, photoshop (what is this for in the real world? j/k or am i?) and word/excel. Um guess what they don't just run those little baby apps. There are too many organizations that run specialty apps that just don't exist for Mac's. Thats what Apple's problem is!
Originally posted by trailmaster308
There are too many organizations that run specialty apps that just don't exist for Mac's. Thats what Apple's problem is!
There are a lot of organizations that don't run anything but standard software, and if Apple can get it's foot inside that door, specialty apps will appear on the Mac too.
Originally posted by Bigc
The up-front cost may be higher but the Mac resale values are typically very good. If you want to compare between platforms, there are many factors that enter into the equation.
ummmmmmm.....I wouldnt buy ANYTHING based on resale value, I buy for usefullness and macs, since my last upgrade cycle have with the intro of osx and the g5, beat the hell out of windows, thus my next new system will be a G5 or a PBg5 depending on the cost and proformance comparisons of the laptop to the desktop
Originally posted by Mr. Me
I most certainly understood the point. I think that most of us understood the point. The fact that we understood the point doesn't make it any less stupid. What Format2C and a lot of other people don't understand is that the stupidity has a purpose. His supervisors know which side their bread is buttered on. If they were to replace their "inexpensive" WinTel computers with "expensive" Apple computers, they would have a lot less to do. Less work for them means fewer of them. Until Apple figures out a way to sell computers with high support costs, it is going to have trouble with poeple like Format2C's supervisors.
Interesting point of view, Mr. Me.
Let me give you ANOTHER point of view.
A great deal of American industry deals with Windows software and applications on a daily basis. Engineering firms utilize Windows-based Configuration Management tools. Real Estate firms utilize Windows-based actuarial software and tools. And I'd wager that most all business here in the U.S. utilizes Microsoft Office/Microsoft Project for all official presentations, schedules, and other documents.
So when you rant on about how a secondhand observer sees his/her managers' intentions about switching to a completely new platform, you might just be assuming that the Macintosh solution is viable. In some cases, it's not.
After all, if said company were to switch, say, 100 users from Wintel to Macintosh, there's the matter of:
* Paying for the new Apple machines
* Paying for all new Microsoft Office suites and licenses
* Paying software companies to completely re-design all proprietary Windows applications for the MacOS
* Paying for (limited) tech support to hook up and maintain the machines and the network for a limited time (months?)
* Re-purchasing scanners, printers, and other peripherals that do NOT have Apple drivers.
* Training (some) users to become familiar with the MacOS.
Seems a little more involved than your first synopsis, eh?
Perhaps stupidity DOES have its purpose.
-Antithesis
Originally posted by trailmaster308
I had my buddy who is on the Network Team run a Hiena report on the # of PC's we have (876 to be exact local on this campus, not counting offsite Community Health clinics).
First off, that's Hyena. secondly you don't have to get rid of all your PC's. In particular you don't have get rid of your servers running your specialty apps like inventory control apps, payroll, Radiology, etc. Odds are most of these have Java clients that wil run just fine on Mac desktops, however. So you could replace your desktops while keeping your AD servers, etc.
There are too many organizations that run specialty apps that just don't exist for Mac's. Thats what Apple's problem is!
That's a good point. And it's one that Apple is addressing by working closely with enterprise software vendors like Oracle who is in Beta with a 10g version of their database solution for the G5 Xserve. So there is hope yet.
Originally posted by chris v
Sure, it's fair. Pound for pound, Apples really don't cost much more than PCs. People always quote the price/performance ratio, and what you're saying is that essentially, a PC with less performance (check the other specs besides add-ons, like RAM hard-drive size and speed, ethernet, video card, bundled software) costs less. Sure, fine. You want less, get less. Cheaper is not automatically better. Apple, and hooray for them, I say, won't sell a machine that's functionally crippled.
But pound for pound you are, in some cases, getting pounds you don't want. I don't want an Apple monitor, or I don't use Firewire, or whatever. Choice is good. When someone says they can get an equivalent Dell for $200 less, it's because they'll never use gigabit ethernet and they shouldn't have to pay for it.
Originally posted by Antithesis
I used to think that, too.
But after talking to some of the mods on this board, I've changed my mind. It seems to me that Apple's manufacturing process is probably the #1 reason why the price/performance ratio is so poor.
Then you weren't really listening.
Apple doesn't have the economies of scale that WinTel does for several crucial components (like, say, the motherboard). It also has a higher standard feature baseline, which their "digital hub" and even their OS strategy requires.
Because, if apple can't take $300 worth of outdated, cheap computer parts (re: eMac)
Price a G4 recently? Apple can't buy parts for what you think they're worth. They have to pay whatever the negotiated price is. If eMacs are $799, and Apple's margin is relatively slim, then guess what? The parts don't cost $300.
Originally posted by chris v
Sure, it's fair. Pound for pound, Apples really don't cost much more than PCs. People always quote the price/performance ratio, and what you're saying is that essentially, a PC with less performance (check the other specs besides add-ons, like RAM hard-drive size and speed, ethernet, video card, bundled software) costs less. Sure, fine. You want less, get less. Cheaper is not automatically better. Apple, and hooray for them, I say, won't sell a machine that's functionally crippled.
CV
Actually you are mistaken, Apple's are still more than PCs. I recently configured a Sony with an equivalent software bundle to the ilife suite. This sony had faster RAM than the comparative imac, a better video card, and a larger hard drive. While still being cheaper than the equivalent imac. And we all know Sony's are typically the most expensive of the PCs, and most PC customers considering Apple shop them against Sony's.
Let me dig up the specs on this model:
PCV-RS500C Series
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 2.80C GHz supporting Hyper-Threading
512 MB DDR-SDRAM (DDR333, 256 MBx2)
120 GB Hard Disk Drive
ATi Radeon 9200 (128MB)
DVD+-RW Drive
CD-ROM Drive
Microsoft Works 7.0 with Office 2003 Business Trial Edition
VAIO Creation Suite VIDEO Software:
Video PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite PHOTO Software:
Photo PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite MUSIC Software:
Music PLUS Package
Accessories:
SDM-HS73/L - HS-model 17" Flat Panel LCD
total $1674
So not only does this include twice the RAM, twice the VRAM and 50% more Hard drive space. It also includes Photoshop Elements (a step up from iphoto), Abode Premier LE (like imovie), Sony''s click to DVD, and SonicStage Mastering Studio and Screenblast Acid LE (never used them but functionally equivalent to garageband). And you save $125 on the deal.
Sorry but that really doesn't look like an inferior machine to me...and before people start going on about how tou get the elegant all in one design of the imac and the superior gui of OS X. Bill Gates proved already that the vast majority of people will settle for good enough.
So to conquer this problem, Apple needs a monetary breakdown of why the equivalent but slightly more expensive machines are worth top dollar, and how you actually save money buying and Apple, and absolute concrete benfits of using one in a clear concise manner, most people are just going to get the cheaper w/ better specs PC. And thats the bottom line.
The problem is a combination of price performance, slow updates, technology marketing (as opposed to brand marketing which apple excels at), and PC inertia.
There is a lot to do: overcoming the Apple is for Artists and kids sterotypes is going to be hard work, and the best way to get around it is more business customers using Macs across their enterprise, and publicizing government contracts. And actually explaining what OS X is about, for IT guys and home users.
Until it is clear things will stay where they are Apple is for rich people or artists.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
First off, that's Hyena. secondly you don't have to get rid of all your PC's. In particular you don't have get rid of your servers running your specialty apps like inventory control apps, payroll, Radiology, etc. Odds are most of these have Java clients that wil run just fine on Mac desktops, however. So you could replace your desktops while keeping your AD servers, etc.
That's a good point. And it's one that Apple is addressing by working closely with enterprise software vendors like Oracle who is in Beta with a 10g version of their database solution for the G5 Xserve. So there is hope yet.
Since we are in the habit of correcting...forgot to CAPS your "s" on secondly.
Um NO on the Java clients thingy. God forbid they try that.
And exactly how would we push our builds?
Originally posted by Amorph
Then you weren't really listening.
Funny, I thought I gleaned that from you in some earlier discussions we'd had.
Apple doesn't have the economies of scale that WinTel does for several crucial components (like, say, the motherboard). It also has a higher standard feature baseline, which their "digital hub" and even their OS strategy requires.
Well, Amorph, I'm just gonna have to take your word for that, I guess. To this day, I've not seen numbers that tell me what Apple is paying for the motherboards vs. what Dell or eMachines or HP/Compaq is paying for THEIR motherboards. All I can do is look at the RETAIL price for motherboards for motherboards made by Asus, etc. that have the SAME OR MORE FEATURES as the eMac motherboard. I'm sorry, their retail, boxed, prices just don't seem that steep.
Perhaps outdated, slow G4s DO cost more than cutting-edge Pentium IVs and AMD Bartons. But I really can't see how--even WITH economies of scale. I'd love some numbers on this if you can point me to them.
Price a G4 recently? Apple can't buy parts for what you think they're worth. They have to pay whatever the negotiated price is. If eMacs are $799, and Apple's margin is relatively slim, then guess what? The parts don't cost $300.
Actually, yes I have priced a g4 eMac lately. Those parts (RETAIL) are incredibly cheap--except for the case and the motherboard (possibly processor; see above). Which goes back to the original discussion of 'how much does manufacturing cost Apple, and is it the thorn in their side'? Because the SAME eMac case has been on the SAME line using the SAME plastics for over 2 years now. I'm thinking they're pretty close to recouping the R&D by now. Same goes for the motherboard, save a graphics chip update (nVidia -> ATI).
Regards,
-Antithesis
Originally posted by jade
Actually you are mistaken, Apple's are still more than PCs. I recently configured a Sony with an equivalent software bundle to the ilife suite. This sony had faster RAM than the comparative imac, a better video card, and a larger hard drive. While still being cheaper than the equivalent imac. And we all know Sony's are typically the most expensive of the PCs, and most PC customers considering Apple shop them against Sony's.
(snip..)
I'm not saying that you can get a cheaper Mac, I'm saying the desparity isn't what people think it is, and that much of that desparity (which is definitely worse in desktops than laptops, yes) can be made up in the intangibles that apple offers, and people need to be educated as to why an Apple might be worth $125.00 more. It's not like they're twice as much or anything, like a BMW being $50,000.00 compared to a Chevy that's $25,000.00
Laptops, and Xserves are really where the hidden bargains are right now for Apple. iMacs are definitely pricey when you just consider specs, and not the intangibles, like form-factor, ease-of-use and the OS. It still boils down to perception, so in essence, I'm really agreeing with you that Apple marketing has their work cut out for them in a big way. It is frustrating as an Apple user to see them miss the mark on this over and over again, like never really showing people what OS X can do, or how their stuff works. They're trying to promote a brand identity and an image, but to an extent that has backfired, because people percieve them as a premium brand too much, and they get written off as unaffordable, because they don't present people with the facts.
We all know the hardware looks great, now let's show everyone why they should buy it.
CV
Originally posted by jade
Let me dig up the specs on this model:
PCV-RS500C Series
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 2.80C GHz supporting Hyper-Threading
512 MB DDR-SDRAM (DDR333, 256 MBx2)
120 GB Hard Disk Drive
ATi Radeon 9200 (128MB)
DVD+-RW Drive
CD-ROM Drive
Microsoft Works 7.0 with Office 2003 Business Trial Edition
VAIO Creation Suite VIDEO Software:
Video PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite PHOTO Software:
Photo PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite MUSIC Software:
Music PLUS Package
Accessories:
SDM-HS73/L - HS-model 17" Flat Panel LCD
total $1674
Oddly enough, I get $2250.43 for the same system. Of course, I included anti-virus software and the MS Office SBE since the Works package is only a trial edition. Even without those, the price comes to $2K.
But hey, what the heck, if price is all you're worried about, run on down to WalMart and pick up a $300.00 box.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
But hey, what the heck, if price is all you're worried about, run on down to WalMart and pick up a $300.00 box.
That's an absurd argument. Price isn't what I'm worried about, it's Apple's viability. End user cost of entry into the market is important.
Originally posted by Antithesis
Actually, yes I have priced a g4 eMac lately.
That's not what I asked.
I asked if you'd priced a G4.
Last I checked, for the 7457, Motorola's asking $250 per CPU in lots of 10,000, in case you're wondering.
Originally posted by Amorph
That's not what I asked.
I asked if you'd priced a G4.
Last I checked, for the 7457, Motorola's asking $250 per CPU in lots of 10,000, in case you're wondering.
Ah, my bad.
I thought you were asking about a G4 SYSTEM.
Anyways, I appreciate the price check. It's food for thought. Just out of curiosity, what SPEED are those G4s?
Oh, and do you have any prices on mobos?
Regards,
-Antithesis
Originally posted by chris v
Apple, and hooray for them, I say, won't sell a machine that's functionally crippled.
So, the iBooks video-out is not artificially crippled to suit some market segmentation plans? The G5 1.6Ghz has no crippled board? The DDR-Interface on each and every G4-powered CPU is not a crude hack? The eMac is not sold with 128MB which means effectively it is swapping all the time you have Safari, Mail and iTunes running concurrently?
Please...
Originally posted by Smircle
The DDR-Interface on each and every G4-powered CPU is not a crude hack?
No it's not. A lot more than the CPU needs access to the RAM.
Originally posted by Smircle
So, the iBooks video-out is not artificially crippled to suit some market segmentation plans? The G5 1.6Ghz has no crippled board? The DDR-Interface on each and every G4-powered CPU is not a crude hack? The eMac is not sold with 128MB which means effectively it is swapping all the time you have Safari, Mail and iTunes running concurrently?
Please...
That's it... I'm gettin' a Dell.
See y'all on Cnet.
CV
Originally posted by trailmaster308
Are you for real? Do people on this board actually believe that you can go into an organization and replace PC's with Mac's? For real, do ya'll believe this? Okay lets say I want to replace all the pc's in my organization. I had my buddy who is on the Network Team run a Hiena report on the # of PC's we have (876 to be exact local on this campus, not counting offsite Community Health clinics). Okay now lets say I replace all those with Mac's. Exactly what in the he!! am I gonna put on those? I work in a hospital. Tell me what Apps are gonna run the millions of dollars of inventory tracking? How are we gonna pay our employees? What apps are gonna link our lab results to our nurse order entry and results viewer? What about our Med Rec apps? What about our time entry? What about our ER system? What about our Radiology system?
I can go on and on and on and on and on. My point is that lots of people here think that organizations simply run email, photoshop (what is this for in the real world? j/k or am i?) and word/excel. Um guess what they don't just run those little baby apps. There are too many organizations that run specialty apps that just don't exist for Mac's. Thats what Apple's problem is!
hey Trailmix.
I Swear to god I hope I never have to go to your hospital. Frankly you proberbly tell me Im a mac user and I cant be admitted.
Oh my the way:
CITRIX - on a mac
MAJOR MOVIES - ( finding nemo ) MAC
All major DVD mastering ( DVD STUDIO PRO ) MAC
Music - (ITMS) Hey guess what a mac ...
oh and of course you cant do anything scientific on a mac. ( NOTE MY SCARCASM) but dont tell that to Noah Johnson?s
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/proteinfolding/
OR Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He ONLY built the world 3rd fastest supercomputer from macs at a TENTH OF THE PRICE.