I think the prices will have to drop. If it was hard to justify a base price of $2000 before, it will be even more so when we'll be able to directly compare the components of a Mactel to an all-but-identical Wintel.
It depends who it is made by. Look at Alienware. Assuming all things being equal, you can bet that Apple will be at least as expensive.
It is the high quality PC vendors that Apple will have to compete with, not Dell.
I think the prices will have to drop. If it was hard to justify a base price of $2000 before, it will be even more so when we'll be able to directly compare the components of a Mactel to an all-but-identical Wintel.
I think Apple will still be using lots of not-identical parts, both to differentiate and make it harder to run OS X on any beige box...
I don't expect much of a price change. The Intel chips Apple will want to use are, if anything, more expensive than the IBM chips apple used.
Did we ever have any firm data on the prices Apple was paying for the 970 chips? I find it hard to believe that Apple will be paying more per chip for an Intel offering (which almost everyone else will be using) than they were for IBM's chips (which I think only Apple and IBM were using).
Having said that, I don't think pricing will be much lower than what we are used to. Despite whatever chip/mobo combo is in the new Mac offerings, the case/screen/other parts/OS/apps/design/materials/etc. etc. etc. will still be the same. Apple charges a premium for their "computers," they didn't charge a premium because they are using IBM/Mot chips. Nor will they suddenly be competitive price wise with the Dells of the world just because they switched to Intel.
Did we ever have any firm data on the prices Apple was paying for the 970 chips? I find it hard to believe that Apple will be paying more per chip for an Intel offering (which almost everyone else will be using) than they were for IBM's chips (which I think only Apple and IBM were using).
Having said that, I don't think pricing will be much lower than what we are used to. Despite whatever chip/mobo combo is in the new Mac offerings, the case/screen/other parts/OS/apps/design/materials/etc. etc. etc. will still be the same. Apple charges a premium for their "computers," they didn't charge a premium because they are using IBM/Mot chips. Nor will they suddenly be competitive price wise with the Dells of the world just because they switched to Intel.
*crossing my fingers that I am wrong...*
\
Further, Apple recoups a lot of the money it invests in R&D (both hardware and software) from the hardware sales of the Mac platform. I would imagine that there has been a lot of money spent on the design of the various ASICs and Apple specific components for the 970 (if not a large part of the chip development itself). Whilst now they may not have to stump up for the development of the various Intel chips, they will still probably have proprietry designs for various things on the motherboard, and this still costs money.
Agreed, Apple may become slightly more competitive but not very much more. I would imagine a pricing structure similar to today...
Did we ever have any firm data on the prices Apple was paying for the 970 chips? I find it hard to believe that Apple will be paying more per chip for an Intel offering (which almost everyone else will be using) than they were for IBM's chips (which I think only Apple and IBM were using).
If chip size is an indication of price, then yes, the IBM chips should be cheaper. Sorry, I don't remember the exact numbers.
If chip size is an indication of price, then yes, the IBM chips should be cheaper. Sorry, I don't remember the exact numbers.
Can you explain that a little more? If more people use intel chips, and they're made in huge qauntity, they would be cheaper than the PPC chips wouldn't they?
Also, just talking about the dev box, there is a crumb-load of free space in there, maybe Apple won't have to shell out so much for expensive R&D (ie the G5 case).
It is "MacIntel," which has the same number of syllables as "Macintosh" and rolls of the tongue better than "Mactel." "Mactel" sounds like a cheap long distance phone company, and InMac sounds like a porn flick.
I guess none of this matters since Apple won't put any part of "Intel" in the name of these new computers. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple didn't change any computer names at all, in an effort to cover up the transition and make it appear smoother.
As far as prices, they probably won't change much. Apple will be saving money on motherboards, and on R&D, but they probably want to roll those savings into either profits or other R&D. The Intel CPUs are similar in price to the G4s and G5s, so no change there.
What I really want are competitive prices on Apple displays, but I guess that's nearly impossible.
There is going to chage there naming schemes for sure. They couldn't really get away with having a PowerBook G4 if it has a yonah chip in it, same goes for the g5. Mmmm, I now recall earlier rumors that Apple wasn't going to use the G6 monkier. Maby that was because of the intel switch.
PowerBook and PowerMac woiuld probably reamain but witch ending to us.
I think the big variable with the pricing is whether a Macintel is as upgradable as a regular PC. I don't mind paying a premium for the OS if I can swap components and upgrade my mac. An overpriced PC with a pretty GUI but a CPU that is soldered to the motherboard a la the G5..? Now that's a different story.
I think the big variable with the pricing is whether a Macintel is as upgradable as a regular PC. I don't mind paying a premium for the OS if I can swap components and upgrade my mac. An overpriced PC with a pretty GUI but a CPU that is soldered to the motherboard a la the G5..? Now that's a different story.
An Intel based Mac (sorry I can't bring myself to bastardize the Macintosh name with any combonation of Intel) will never be as "upgradeable" as a regular X86 PC for the simple fact that you won't (ever) be able to buy a third party system board. Sorry, isn't gonna happen. Once you remove that factor, the new Macs will be about as upgradeable as the G3/G4/G5 series desktops in that you can already replace proc/ram/gpu/optical & hard drives/pci cards/etc. We don't currently have 970xx upgrades yet but had we stuck with IBM you would have had them sooner or later. They may still come.
Anyway people, just because we will be using an Intel based system shortly doesn't mean that it is going to be the same inside as the $499 DOOD YUR GETN' A DELL. Get over it. Now. The new Macs may be a little cheaper than we are used to but don't expect much.
intel-based-mac would suit i think... a bit long. but suitable.. and as for the prices.. hmm.. i would suspect them to be cheaper then current mac machines b/c of the fact they're not pure macs and they should be quite a bit cheaper i'd think, right?\
How many friggin times do we have to go through this? THEY ARE NOT 100% MACS NOW EITHER! The processor is Motorola (G4) or IBM (G5), not Apple. If you need proof, a similar processor is being used in a Microsoft product: the new XBox. The motherboards are Asus. The HDD's are Maxtor or WD (could be wrong on that, but they're still not Apple anyway). etc. etc. etc.
How many friggin times do we have to go through this? THEY ARE NOT 100% MACS NOW EITHER! The processor is Motorola (G4) or IBM (G5), not Apple. If you need proof, a similar processor is being used in a Microsoft product: the new XBox. The motherboards are Asus. The HDD's are Maxtor or WD (could be wrong on that, but they're still not Apple anyway). etc. etc. etc.
I think he was referring to being able to charge more for a computer with a PPC chip inside vs. Intel Inside. I'm gonna go "against the grain" here and say we'll see a price drop in the $300-$500 range. Apple is getting cheaper chips from Intel, and they can gain massive marketshare with a simple price drop on a few select items. Laptops and Towers especially. It's alot easier to look at something for $1999 and think it's a little pricey, but if the same item was say $1599, it makes a pretty huge difference, especially when there's going to be computers with the exact same chip inside them sitting right next to it, for about 1/3rd of the cost. I know everyone is on the whole ''Apple sells the whole widget and won't lower prices" wagon, but it just seems like a hella good opportunity for Apple to pass up. Cheaper comps, more marketshate, getting OSX out into the open. I think it would be good.
I'm gonna go "against the grain" here and say we'll see a price drop in the $300-$500 range. Apple is getting cheaper chips from Intel...
Are you just assuming this or do you have a link? How much cheaper are they? Do you have any info on what their new system boards will cost? Are they going to do a case redesign? What will they use gpu-wise and what will those cost? etc.
Are you just assuming this or do you have a link? How much cheaper are they? Do you have any info on what their new system boards will cost? Are they going to do a case redesign? What will they use gpu-wise and what will those cost? etc.
Too many variables the dark side has...
I wasn't trying to pass that off as factual information, merely a guess of what I think should happen. I don't see why the chips wouldn't be cheaper, I know Intel gives discounts for large purchases, and also to companies that only use Intel chips. IBM pretty much made the G5 for Apple, as opposed to the Intel chips, which pretty much everyone else uses.
I agree with you in thinking that the Intel chip pricing "should" be a little bit cheaper than what IBM was selling, but I just hate to see people using this line of reasoning to justify thinking that the new Macs will be $300-$500+ cheaper.
Don't get me wrong though, I'd love to be eating my words in the next couple years...
Comments
Originally posted by Mithras
I think the prices will have to drop. If it was hard to justify a base price of $2000 before, it will be even more so when we'll be able to directly compare the components of a Mactel to an all-but-identical Wintel.
It depends who it is made by. Look at Alienware. Assuming all things being equal, you can bet that Apple will be at least as expensive.
It is the high quality PC vendors that Apple will have to compete with, not Dell.
Originally posted by Mithras
I think the prices will have to drop. If it was hard to justify a base price of $2000 before, it will be even more so when we'll be able to directly compare the components of a Mactel to an all-but-identical Wintel.
I think Apple will still be using lots of not-identical parts, both to differentiate and make it harder to run OS X on any beige box...
...mind you I wouldn't say no to cheaper Macs.
Originally posted by wormboy
I don't expect much of a price change. The Intel chips Apple will want to use are, if anything, more expensive than the IBM chips apple used.
Did we ever have any firm data on the prices Apple was paying for the 970 chips? I find it hard to believe that Apple will be paying more per chip for an Intel offering (which almost everyone else will be using) than they were for IBM's chips (which I think only Apple and IBM were using).
Having said that, I don't think pricing will be much lower than what we are used to. Despite whatever chip/mobo combo is in the new Mac offerings, the case/screen/other parts/OS/apps/design/materials/etc. etc. etc. will still be the same. Apple charges a premium for their "computers," they didn't charge a premium because they are using IBM/Mot chips. Nor will they suddenly be competitive price wise with the Dells of the world just because they switched to Intel.
*crossing my fingers that I am wrong...*
Originally posted by opuscroakus
Did we ever have any firm data on the prices Apple was paying for the 970 chips? I find it hard to believe that Apple will be paying more per chip for an Intel offering (which almost everyone else will be using) than they were for IBM's chips (which I think only Apple and IBM were using).
Having said that, I don't think pricing will be much lower than what we are used to. Despite whatever chip/mobo combo is in the new Mac offerings, the case/screen/other parts/OS/apps/design/materials/etc. etc. etc. will still be the same. Apple charges a premium for their "computers," they didn't charge a premium because they are using IBM/Mot chips. Nor will they suddenly be competitive price wise with the Dells of the world just because they switched to Intel.
*crossing my fingers that I am wrong...*
Further, Apple recoups a lot of the money it invests in R&D (both hardware and software) from the hardware sales of the Mac platform. I would imagine that there has been a lot of money spent on the design of the various ASICs and Apple specific components for the 970 (if not a large part of the chip development itself). Whilst now they may not have to stump up for the development of the various Intel chips, they will still probably have proprietry designs for various things on the motherboard, and this still costs money.
Agreed, Apple may become slightly more competitive but not very much more. I would imagine a pricing structure similar to today...
Originally posted by opuscroakus
Did we ever have any firm data on the prices Apple was paying for the 970 chips? I find it hard to believe that Apple will be paying more per chip for an Intel offering (which almost everyone else will be using) than they were for IBM's chips (which I think only Apple and IBM were using).
If chip size is an indication of price, then yes, the IBM chips should be cheaper. Sorry, I don't remember the exact numbers.
Originally posted by PB
If chip size is an indication of price, then yes, the IBM chips should be cheaper. Sorry, I don't remember the exact numbers.
Can you explain that a little more? If more people use intel chips, and they're made in huge qauntity, they would be cheaper than the PPC chips wouldn't they?
Also, just talking about the dev box, there is a crumb-load of free space in there, maybe Apple won't have to shell out so much for expensive R&D (ie the G5 case).
It is "MacIntel," which has the same number of syllables as "Macintosh" and rolls of the tongue better than "Mactel." "Mactel" sounds like a cheap long distance phone company, and InMac sounds like a porn flick.
I guess none of this matters since Apple won't put any part of "Intel" in the name of these new computers. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple didn't change any computer names at all, in an effort to cover up the transition and make it appear smoother.
As far as prices, they probably won't change much. Apple will be saving money on motherboards, and on R&D, but they probably want to roll those savings into either profits or other R&D. The Intel CPUs are similar in price to the G4s and G5s, so no change there.
What I really want are competitive prices on Apple displays, but I guess that's nearly impossible.
PowerBook and PowerMac woiuld probably reamain but witch ending to us.
A PowerMac P4 wouldn't really be that sexy.
Hmmm......
Viktor
Originally posted by LeoinNYC
I think the big variable with the pricing is whether a Macintel is as upgradable as a regular PC. I don't mind paying a premium for the OS if I can swap components and upgrade my mac. An overpriced PC with a pretty GUI but a CPU that is soldered to the motherboard a la the G5..? Now that's a different story.
An Intel based Mac (sorry I can't bring myself to bastardize the Macintosh name with any combonation of Intel) will never be as "upgradeable" as a regular X86 PC for the simple fact that you won't (ever) be able to buy a third party system board. Sorry, isn't gonna happen. Once you remove that factor, the new Macs will be about as upgradeable as the G3/G4/G5 series desktops in that you can already replace proc/ram/gpu/optical & hard drives/pci cards/etc. We don't currently have 970xx upgrades yet but had we stuck with IBM you would have had them sooner or later. They may still come.
Anyway people, just because we will be using an Intel based system shortly doesn't mean that it is going to be the same inside as the $499 DOOD YUR GETN' A DELL. Get over it. Now. The new Macs may be a little cheaper than we are used to but don't expect much.
Originally posted by ragingloogie
intel-based-mac would suit i think... a bit long. but suitable.. and as for the prices.. hmm.. i would suspect them to be cheaper then current mac machines b/c of the fact they're not pure macs and they should be quite a bit cheaper i'd think, right?
How many friggin times do we have to go through this? THEY ARE NOT 100% MACS NOW EITHER! The processor is Motorola (G4) or IBM (G5), not Apple. If you need proof, a similar processor is being used in a Microsoft product: the new XBox. The motherboards are Asus. The HDD's are Maxtor or WD (could be wrong on that, but they're still not Apple anyway). etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by mynamehere
How many friggin times do we have to go through this? THEY ARE NOT 100% MACS NOW EITHER! The processor is Motorola (G4) or IBM (G5), not Apple. If you need proof, a similar processor is being used in a Microsoft product: the new XBox. The motherboards are Asus. The HDD's are Maxtor or WD (could be wrong on that, but they're still not Apple anyway). etc. etc. etc.
I think he was referring to being able to charge more for a computer with a PPC chip inside vs. Intel Inside. I'm gonna go "against the grain" here and say we'll see a price drop in the $300-$500 range. Apple is getting cheaper chips from Intel, and they can gain massive marketshare with a simple price drop on a few select items. Laptops and Towers especially. It's alot easier to look at something for $1999 and think it's a little pricey, but if the same item was say $1599, it makes a pretty huge difference, especially when there's going to be computers with the exact same chip inside them sitting right next to it, for about 1/3rd of the cost. I know everyone is on the whole ''Apple sells the whole widget and won't lower prices" wagon, but it just seems like a hella good opportunity for Apple to pass up. Cheaper comps, more marketshate, getting OSX out into the open. I think it would be good.
Originally posted by spyder
I'm gonna go "against the grain" here and say we'll see a price drop in the $300-$500 range. Apple is getting cheaper chips from Intel...
Are you just assuming this or do you have a link? How much cheaper are they? Do you have any info on what their new system boards will cost? Are they going to do a case redesign? What will they use gpu-wise and what will those cost? etc.
Too many variables the dark side has...
Originally posted by opuscroakus
Are you just assuming this or do you have a link? How much cheaper are they? Do you have any info on what their new system boards will cost? Are they going to do a case redesign? What will they use gpu-wise and what will those cost? etc.
Too many variables the dark side has...
I wasn't trying to pass that off as factual information, merely a guess of what I think should happen. I don't see why the chips wouldn't be cheaper, I know Intel gives discounts for large purchases, and also to companies that only use Intel chips. IBM pretty much made the G5 for Apple, as opposed to the Intel chips, which pretty much everyone else uses.
Don't get me wrong though, I'd love to be eating my words in the next couple years...