Apple LOWERED eMac and iMac by $200!!!
I want to make a thorough analysis of what happened with the eMac and iMac updates because the whining is very, very tiresome. What happened is that Apple lowered prices across the board by $200 and held nothing back. That's all there is to it. There is nothing to gripe about. Apple has finally done what we asked and lowered prices.
Let's first look at the processor speeds. When the LCD iMac originally came out at 700MHZ and 800MHZ, the PowerMacs were introduced at the same time at 800, 933, and dual 1GHZ. So Apple has done the same thing now as it did then. The high end iMac has the same processor as lowest PowerMac. This is reasonable as faster processors cost more, Apple has to save them for the dual PowerMacs, and Apple has always charged a premium for its fastest Macs. So it is true that Apple has not changed their policy that you have to pay a high premium to get the fastest or second fastest G4 available. But they still upped the processor speeds and lowered the price by $200. They're doing the same thing as before but the prices now are $200 less.
Apple's scheme behind this update was that there were certain configurations selling much better than others. People didn't want the low end iMac. It might sound nice to a person sitting here reading these boards that you could get an iMac for $1199. But that doesn't mean much if the person walks into the store and thinks "I don't want to buy an all-in-one that can't play DVD's."
So look at the eMac. The previous $1099 model had a CD-ROM drive. Not many people today are going to be satisfied with a computer that can't burn CDs or play DVDs. So Apple dropped that model. Now the $999 model has a Combo drive. That would have been $1299 before. So now for $999 you get a completely satisfying entry level computer instead of one with a lame CD-ROM drive. That means the computer you want is $200 cheaper. The model that was $1499 with the Superdrive that is a hot item is now $1299. Another $200 price drop. The only complaint about the eMac is that they didn't up the speed to 800MHZ. I guess they didn't feel it would make much of a difference in the eMac buying experience and that the better features were the priority for potential eMac buyers. Every dollar counts on a low end model and Apple was wise to cut the price and add the better drive.
The 17-inch iMac model that is clearly a dream machine is now $200 cheaper and has a faster processor. Perhaps Apple could have also made a $1499 model with a combo drive instead of the Superdrive. Since they didn't, it seems that they concluded that it wouldn't sell well. They have no reason to hold it back if it would. DVD burning is the future and perhaps people willing to pay a premium for a 17 inch screen were more likely to get the Superdrive.
So Apple did the best it could with Motorola's slow processors, dropped the less popular configurations, and lowered the price by $200. They could have taken a different strategy of keeping the same prices but adding even more features. I think they made a wise decision and made the computer that people really wanted easier to buy.
As a final note, you could say that Apple dropped the choices of the iMacs from 4 to 2. But one of the previous iMacs was a 15 inch screen with a Superdrive. It's highly unlikely that someone who is going to want a high end feature like a $350 Superdrive is going to be happy with a small 15 inch screen. So that model hardly counted anyway.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: spindler ]</p>
Let's first look at the processor speeds. When the LCD iMac originally came out at 700MHZ and 800MHZ, the PowerMacs were introduced at the same time at 800, 933, and dual 1GHZ. So Apple has done the same thing now as it did then. The high end iMac has the same processor as lowest PowerMac. This is reasonable as faster processors cost more, Apple has to save them for the dual PowerMacs, and Apple has always charged a premium for its fastest Macs. So it is true that Apple has not changed their policy that you have to pay a high premium to get the fastest or second fastest G4 available. But they still upped the processor speeds and lowered the price by $200. They're doing the same thing as before but the prices now are $200 less.
Apple's scheme behind this update was that there were certain configurations selling much better than others. People didn't want the low end iMac. It might sound nice to a person sitting here reading these boards that you could get an iMac for $1199. But that doesn't mean much if the person walks into the store and thinks "I don't want to buy an all-in-one that can't play DVD's."
So look at the eMac. The previous $1099 model had a CD-ROM drive. Not many people today are going to be satisfied with a computer that can't burn CDs or play DVDs. So Apple dropped that model. Now the $999 model has a Combo drive. That would have been $1299 before. So now for $999 you get a completely satisfying entry level computer instead of one with a lame CD-ROM drive. That means the computer you want is $200 cheaper. The model that was $1499 with the Superdrive that is a hot item is now $1299. Another $200 price drop. The only complaint about the eMac is that they didn't up the speed to 800MHZ. I guess they didn't feel it would make much of a difference in the eMac buying experience and that the better features were the priority for potential eMac buyers. Every dollar counts on a low end model and Apple was wise to cut the price and add the better drive.
The 17-inch iMac model that is clearly a dream machine is now $200 cheaper and has a faster processor. Perhaps Apple could have also made a $1499 model with a combo drive instead of the Superdrive. Since they didn't, it seems that they concluded that it wouldn't sell well. They have no reason to hold it back if it would. DVD burning is the future and perhaps people willing to pay a premium for a 17 inch screen were more likely to get the Superdrive.
So Apple did the best it could with Motorola's slow processors, dropped the less popular configurations, and lowered the price by $200. They could have taken a different strategy of keeping the same prices but adding even more features. I think they made a wise decision and made the computer that people really wanted easier to buy.
As a final note, you could say that Apple dropped the choices of the iMacs from 4 to 2. But one of the previous iMacs was a 15 inch screen with a Superdrive. It's highly unlikely that someone who is going to want a high end feature like a $350 Superdrive is going to be happy with a small 15 inch screen. So that model hardly counted anyway.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: spindler ]</p>
Comments
poor decisions. especially the low end. even if it is there just get rid of inventory. there shouldnt be inventory. it's apple's fault for sitting on a product for13 months
<strong>there shouldnt be inventory. it's apple's fault for sitting on a product for13 months</strong><hr></blockquote>
Riiiiiiiiiight. Nevermind the rest of the comatose computer industry. It's entirely Apple problem alone. Don't over-generalize, it weakens your point.
<strong>
Riiiiiiiiiight. Nevermind the rest of the comatose computer industry. It's entirely Apple problem alone. Don't over-generalize, it weakens your point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
huh?
weak computer market... then they should adjust their output to demand..... so you're saying its not apple's fault for filling the channel and having huge inventory of a product that wasnt selling?
who's fault is it? and weak computer market or not, you aint gonna sell a lot of machines when you dont update them for 13 months. after 6 months people tend to wait for the next release since they usually see an update every 6-8 months
<strong>The point is that people are overlooking that Apple made definite progress today. The models available now are a better deal than the models before. Macs have always been more expensive and now the difference is a little less. I have convinced one person to buy a Mac for the first time and she is happy about the $200 price drop on the 17 inch iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
of course they are better.... the old ones were 13 months OLD!!!
why is this so hard for some to understand.
if this update had occured last summer or even last fall... fine... nice, impressive update.... but apple nearly was reaching the point where they needed to "skip" an update cycle and go to whatever they had planned for next.
again, the imac of yesterday was outdated last summer.... just because they received what basically turns out to be a bump on the high end and a price cut does not make these impressive.
<strong>weak computer market... then they should adjust their output to demand..... so you're saying its not apple's fault for filling the channel and having huge inventory of a product that wasnt selling?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously, my point was that you're over-generalizing, not that your point was completely off-base. Anyway, I'd like to see you predict demand, especially after sales numbers on its initial release and making sure channels are saturated during the holiday rush. Monday morning quarterbacking sure is easy.
Anyway, I just can't get excited over this.
<strong>
Obviously, my point was that you're over-generalizing, not that your point was completely off-base. Anyway, I'd like to see you predict demand, especially after sales numbers on its initial release and making sure channels are saturated during the holiday rush. Monday morning quarterbacking sure is easy.
Anyway, I just can't get excited over this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i do believe they have employees who's JOB it is to PREDICT and ANALYZE demand.
<strong>
of course they are better.... the old ones were 13 months OLD!!!
why is this so hard for some to understand.
if this update had occured last summer or even last fall... fine... nice, impressive update.... but apple nearly was reaching the point where they needed to "skip" an update cycle and go to whatever they had planned for next.
again, the imac of yesterday was outdated last summer.... just because they received what basically turns out to be a bump on the high end and a price cut does not make these impressive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Outdated compared to what?
Agreed.
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
of course they are better.... the old ones were 13 months OLD!!!
why is this so hard for some to understand.
if this update had occured last summer or even last fall... fine... nice, impressive update.... but apple nearly was reaching the point where they needed to "skip" an update cycle and go to whatever they had planned for next.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple is in this to make money, and the 17 inch, despite the age of its innards was selling, and well. Slashing prices on the iMacs, to satisfy the pipe dream's of some of this board's members, is not going to sell enough more iMacs to make it up. Despite what you believe, cost is not the major factor keeping users from switching.
The Mac industry is not the PC industry, price and raw performance matter much less than you think.
[quote]why is this so hard for some to understand. <hr></blockquote>
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: serrano ]</p>
Not 13 months out.
The L3 Cacheless (Celeron) G4 is absurd and the GeForce 2mx is practically an embarrasment.
The GeForce 2mx was the lowend GeForce 2 when it was introduced in the spring of the year 2000. It has not improved with age since then. The lack of L3 cache is unexcusable, SRAM is cheap and the 7450 class G4 is seriously retarded without it.
And although I have not had a look at one yet, if the DDR model uses Notebook DDR memory people are going to be pissed because that stuff is really expensive and unexploited by the current G4.
I don't anticipate selling more than 15 of these things total.
<strong>The Mac industry is not the PC industry, price and raw performance matter much less than you think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uhh Huh?
Why don't you try telling my customers that, the only people who are buying that line are the Apple Apologists and they already bought their macs.
the price will come down and the specs will go up, but they need computers now so they buy computers now...even this basically 1 year old iMac design will last them many years of good computing....g
the third person i have switching is getting a laptop...she wants the 17" lapzilla, but i am talking to her about maybe getting the 12 or 15" PB and a 17 or 20 inch lcd instead....span it at home for a very nice desktop system and the 12 or 15" will seem more portable when she is on the road....i figure a 12" PB and a 17" lcd is cheaper than the 17" and the 12" PB and 20" lcd are about the same price....the 15" PB and 17" LCD are close to the 17" lapzilla...lots of options....the 17" lapzilla has the WOW factor, but she would use it 95% of the time at home...i think the 20" lcd would have more WOW factor at home....g
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>
And although I have not had a look at one yet, if the DDR model uses Notebook DDR memory people are going to be pissed because that stuff is really expensive and unexploited by the current G4.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to let you know, the user-accessible slot is a SO-DIMM slot. From Apple's iMac tech specs page:
[quote]
17-inch model includes 256MB of PC2100 (266MHz) DDR SDRAM expandable to 1GB; one 184-pin DIMM and one open user-accessible SO-DIMM slot
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>the third person i have switching is getting a laptop...she wants the 17" lapzilla, but i am talking to her about maybe getting the 12 or 15" PB and a 17 or 20 inch lcd instead....span it at home for a very nice desktop system and the 12 or 15" will seem more portable when she is on the road....i figure a 12" PB and a 17" lcd is cheaper than the 17" and the 12" PB and 20" lcd are about the same price....the 15" PB and 17" LCD are close to the 17" lapzilla...lots of options....the 17" lapzilla has the WOW factor, but she would use it 95% of the time at home...i think the 20" lcd would have more WOW factor at home....g
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting combination and justification on all counts... Good on ya, mate.
<strong> the 12" PB and 20" lcd are about the same price....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know I'm a bit off-topic, but keep in mind that you can NOT use the 12" PowerBook with any of Apple's ADC displays out-of-the-box. Using one through an [expensive] conversion box will degrade the quality as well. (CRT output, however, is wonderful -- I love it.)
<strong>
Uhh Huh?
Why don't you try telling my customers that, the only people who are buying that line are the Apple Apologists and they already bought their macs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't argue the fact that the 17" was selling well before this little update, at a higher price with much older hardware.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: serrano ]</p>
<strong>
You can't argue the fact that the 17" was selling well before this little update, at a higher price with much older hardware.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: serrano ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
show me.
and selling well compared to what? even if it sold twice as many as the 15 inch models it would be FAAAAARRRRRRR below what the iMac used to sell. FAAAAR.
Remember how everyone was 'dying' for a 17" CRT iMac before the flat panel iMacs hit? Then one finally hits but it's totally forgotten about. I've heard so many people say how much better the 15" iMac is compared to the eMac.
But look at how the eMac at $1299 compares with the iMac at $1299:
iMac: 15" LCD--------------eMac: 17" Flat CRT
800 MHz G4---------------800 MHz G4
Combo Drive---------------SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 2 MX 32 MB--NVIDIA GeForce 2 MX 32 MB
256 MB RAM---------------256 MB RAM
60 GB HD------------------60 GB HD
2 Firewire 400 Ports---------2 Firewire 400 Ports
5 USB Ports----------------5 USB Ports
10/100 Ethernet------------10/100 Ethernet
56k Modem----------------56k Modem
Airport Ready--------------Airport Ready
Bluetooth Optional----------Bluetooth Optional
They are nearly identical machines! In fact, the eMac has a slight edge over the iMac since it has a SuperDrive. The iMac's LCD supports up to 1024 x 768 while the eMac's CRT supports up to 1280 x 960.
Do I think the eMac could be priced even lower? Yes. I'd like to see the eMac's pricing start at $799 and the iMac CRT's pricing start at $599 (or $499). But this isn't a bad start.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
750 MHz Duron
128 MB SDRAM
20 GB 5400 RPM Hard Disk
GeForce 2MX 16MB
48x CD-ROM
17" Samsung 753DF
...for the same price as (or perhaps less than) an eMac today. The eMac, which is the current Mac I find most attractive, still seems to be a bit too much considering that in terms of hardware capability, it wouldn't be a huge upgrade over what I have now. Perhaps I'd still buy one, but I already know what the Mac has to offer over the PC.