Look, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but as long as people display an inability to read a thread properly, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.
I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?
Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.
I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.
The machine they should have produced is:
Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.
The base configuration, for $399, could then be:
40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.
The BTO options should then be:
More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit
If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.
People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.
There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.
Here's portable macmini from dell:
Dell Home has the new Dell Inspiron E1505 Dual Core Notebook priced at $979 - $250 rebate = $729 with free shipping. Free Dell Color Printer 720.
10/100 + 56k + 802.11g, Intel 950 Video, 53 WHr Battery, XP Media Center
This is good value for $725 + printer + 15" LCD + portability... Okay it runs on XP so add another $100 in inconvenience, so all this for $825.... and it will get fast and cheaper......
Steve that doesn't make him a moron. You guys think the pathway to profits is just cutting the price down. It's always a balancing act.
Celeron? You would have heard bigger howls from the Mac faithful.
Would I like a Shuttle sized Mac mini with a PCI Express 16x slot and a 3.5" HD. Yup...but that wouldn't have had the same effect as the first time you lay your eyes on a Mac mini and think "That can't be the whole computer"
I respect Jobs for his keen ability to tread that line between art and the common tool.
We all want Apple to focus more on saving us money but hell I think the same thing everytime I get a bill.
I think the mistake he made was trying to make the Mini more than it can or should be.
The Mini came out as an easy and cheap way to go on the internet, play a few games, and just get to experience the Mac.
What I was expecting and hoping to get was basically the same thing as before, with a 64 mb Graphics Chip (certainly not integrated crap), same RAM of 512Mb, a faster Intel Chip, a faster larger Hard Drive, and iWork, for the same $499 price point.
The Modem should still be inside, I think thats more important than a remote control.
Had Apple done this, I think the new Mini would have been an unqualified hit. As is, I think he made a big mistake. JMHO.
Look, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but as long as people display an inability to read a thread properly, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.
I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?
Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.
I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.
The machine they should have produced is:
Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.
The base configuration, for $399, could then be:
40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.
The BTO options should then be:
More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit
If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.
People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.
There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.
Don't kid yourself about making a computer that everyone would like. Complaints vary from price to features. Anyone whose been around long enough, knows you can't make everyone happy. AS far as the celeron 4xx, it os not currently available. When it comes out maybe it will be a BTO at a lower price. Franky, I don't understand what market the mini is after. It isn't cheap enough to appeal to price sensitve buyers and not really feature rich enough for die hard enthusiasts. That's probably why it generates as much discussion as it does. IMO Apple should forget the low end buyer anyway. As Murch has mentioned they just aren't worth it.
Yeah but, Mercedes smokes the crap out of any "cheap" car out there. Can't say the same thing about Apple computers unfortunately.
But it's not all about speed. If you truly enjoy the windows experience, why are you here? BTW I could buy a ford mustang gt and smoke the crap out of an s500. Does that make the mustang better? It's a matter of opinion and taste but I know what I think.
We don't know what Apple could have done for $399, or $499.
I imagine that they weren't any happier about raising the price than many here are. But, these days WiFi and Bluetooth are becoming marketing necessities. They don't add that much to the price either. Broadcom is charging $5-$7 for their WiFi chips. Other companies are charging (don't have the names here) $4-$6 for Bluetooth 2 chips. A couple bucks for a small circuit board and resistors, capacators, coils, etc. round up the rest. If you don't believe it, look up those prices.
We know that the chips cost much more than the G4's they replace. The extra features also add up. I'm sure Apple didn't want to use IG, but felt they had to. for this class of machine it should be fine.
Arguing about what Dell has, or doesn't have, has no bearing on the issue. If someone wants to buy a Mac, they will buy a Mac. Why do you think the iMacs are so popular with switchers? And, if you don't believe that either, read the PC mag sites.
Arguing about what Dell has, or doesn't have, has no bearing on the issue.
Huh? It has plenty bearing on the issue. Dell make computers. So does Apple. Now, Apple even uses the same platform as Dell. Your comment would have made more, although not total, sense, in the PPC days.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If someone wants to buy a Mac, they will buy a Mac.
Only if the Macs that are available have the features that they want.
Apple have so much to gain from increasing their market share, and they could do it really quite easily. Don't forget that Apple are the only company that make computers that will edit legitimately/legally /edit run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share (and if they don't there's something very wrong with them), they are going to have to broaden their appeal on the hardware side. There are plenty of people who like OS X, but don't consider the benefits of it great enough to purchase hardware that has more features than they want for more money than they can afford/are willing to spend.
Seeing as you don't own an Apple computer yet (from what you've been saying around in these boards) - I'm not surprised.
Wait 'til you get that mini and compare it to an Athlon X2 with 2GB of RAM and a 256MB card (about the same price as a core duo mini), then you will.
I have older Mac 7200, 7500 with no OS X and that sucks because I've used XP for years now and it's just a bland OS.
I'll build an Athlon based system to run Vista by 2007. However right now PCs are all go...no show.
Quote:
We don't know what Apple could have done for $399, or $499.
Me either. Best Buy sells Blue Tooth adapters for like $40. Most PC desktops still have wireless as an option. Any cuts would have been met with
"Apple sucks!!...no xxxx included!"
I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.
Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap. If you notice...Job's is a perfectionist when it comes to looks. Ultra cheap stuff generally has to eschew good looks to hit the low price. A Jobs' led Apple is simply not going to do that. Every announcement we get the same whining about price.
Apple have so much to gain from increasing their market share, [/B]
Why does Apple have to increase market share? To attract 3rd party developers? Apple is pushing the apps out the door not adobe and MS. Why give computers away just to get market share? It doesn't make sense to me. As long as Apple is profitable, they can continue to develope products that mac users will want. Thats all that counts.
I have older Mac 7200, 7500 with no OS X and that sucks because I've used XP for years now and it's just a bland OS.
Oh man ... I've got a PM 6500/225. Sucker still runs great ... for an older OS 9 machine. Computers get passed down in my family, and now since there's a G3, G4 and now a G5 iMac in the house, the 6500 (8 years later) is now relegated his original box in the closet.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.
Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap. If you notice...Job's is a perfectionist when it comes to looks. Ultra cheap stuff generally has to eschew good looks to hit the low price. A Jobs' led Apple is simply not going to do that. Every announcement we get the same whining about price.
Oh man, I hear you there. I really do get tired of listening to the doomsayers and chepos complain about that after EVERY announcement. They keep adding more features and keep it at the same price level. WHat's wrong with that?
I think this year will seriously define where Apple is headed and how well it is going to do. We're halfway through the transitions and we're only in March. COME ON PEOPLE ... there are 9 months left, and just because it didn't happen at a really small even at HQ doesn't mean Apple is doomed or Apple isn't listening to their customers. Jobs is a CEO, but he is also a master showman with Apple as his stage. People complain because Apple get's 5% market share, but 95% of the press. I've always thought that was because you never knew what Apple was going to do. No one knows what Steve will have up his sleeve when he gets on stage. A DVR Mini? A New iPod? A computer that will fit into the Palm of your hand and will revolutionize the way you organize your life and digital media (but for only $199) ? Being the showman that he is, I think Steve WANTED to disappoint people with the 2-28 event. It lowers yearly expectations keeps the stock from fluctuating drastically and blindsides people to new products and new releases in the future. Don't forget ... he said "We'll see you all soon" at the end ... is this the new "One more thing..." ... we'll know soon enough.
Why does Apple have to increase market share? To attract 3rd party developers? Apple is pushing the apps out the door not adobe and MS. Why give computers away just to get market share? It doesn't make sense to me. As long as Apple is profitable, they can continue to develope products that mac users will want. Thats all that counts.
So as long as everyone moves to the music and movie industries, Apple will be fine. Adobe and Micrsoft make app types which are much more commonly used in business, which believe it or not has a much high userbase than the creative fields.
I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.
Yeah, that's why some of us are so frustrated.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap.
I never said Apple should produce a "cheap computer". The specs I listed in my previous post are sold by the likes of Dell for just under $299. That extra $100 can be spent on more aesthetically pleasing casework.
And, what is all this rubbish about "we don't know what Apple could do for $399"? We know what they can do for $499 with the G4 Mini, and what they can do for $599 with the Intel Mini. Take the Intel Mini, take out the wireless (yes, I know that the cost comes to about $10 - $15 for the components + PCB, but that is a significant percentage of the Mini's component costs), the Apple Remote, a full-size hard drive and full-size optical drive (significantly cheaper than their laptop equivalents), and desktop RAM, and you easily have a $499 machine. Put in smaller-capacity hard drive, lower capability optical drive, and a cheaper CPU, and you have a $399 machine. But you don't have a "cheap" machine. It could easily have Apple's trademark style.
Why does Apple have to increase market share? To attract 3rd party developers? Apple is pushing the apps out the door not adobe and MS. Why give computers away just to get market share? It doesn't make sense to me. As long as Apple is profitable, they can continue to develope products that mac users will want. Thats all that counts.
Are you kidding me?
Apple dies without developers, period.
And without market share, Apple is dead.
Apple HAS to continue to gain PC converts and first time buyers. Period.
Comments
Originally posted by steve666
What does that have to do with anything? I told you I thought he was a genius in many ways.
He just cannot bring himself to produce a worthy low end Computer for the common man.
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.
Originally posted by backtomac
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.
Yeah but, Mercedes smokes the crap out of any "cheap" car out there. Can't say the same thing about Apple computers unfortunately.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Look, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but as long as people display an inability to read a thread properly, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.
I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?
Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.
I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.
The machine they should have produced is:
Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.
The base configuration, for $399, could then be:
40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.
The BTO options should then be:
More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit
If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.
People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.
There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.
Here's portable macmini from dell:
Dell Home has the new Dell Inspiron E1505 Dual Core Notebook priced at $979 - $250 rebate = $729 with free shipping. Free Dell Color Printer 720.
Intel Core Duo 1.66GHz, 15.4" WXGA, 512MB DDR2, 40GB SATA, 24x CDRW/DVD
10/100 + 56k + 802.11g, Intel 950 Video, 53 WHr Battery, XP Media Center
This is good value for $725 + printer + 15" LCD + portability... Okay it runs on XP so add another $100 in inconvenience, so all this for $825.... and it will get fast and cheaper......
Originally posted by hmurchison
Steve that doesn't make him a moron. You guys think the pathway to profits is just cutting the price down. It's always a balancing act.
Celeron? You would have heard bigger howls from the Mac faithful.
Would I like a Shuttle sized Mac mini with a PCI Express 16x slot and a 3.5" HD. Yup...but that wouldn't have had the same effect as the first time you lay your eyes on a Mac mini and think "That can't be the whole computer"
I respect Jobs for his keen ability to tread that line between art and the common tool.
We all want Apple to focus more on saving us money but hell I think the same thing everytime I get a bill.
I think the mistake he made was trying to make the Mini more than it can or should be.
The Mini came out as an easy and cheap way to go on the internet, play a few games, and just get to experience the Mac.
What I was expecting and hoping to get was basically the same thing as before, with a 64 mb Graphics Chip (certainly not integrated crap), same RAM of 512Mb, a faster Intel Chip, a faster larger Hard Drive, and iWork, for the same $499 price point.
The Modem should still be inside, I think thats more important than a remote control.
Had Apple done this, I think the new Mini would have been an unqualified hit. As is, I think he made a big mistake. JMHO.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah but, Mercedes smokes the crap out of any "cheap" car out there. Can't say the same thing about Apple computers unfortunately.
You can't but I can
Originally posted by backtomac
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.
And the Mini never was, but it was close enough to get people to buy them without having to worry about it.
Originally posted by hmurchison
You can't but I can
Seeing as you don't own an Apple computer yet (from what you've been saying around in these boards) - I'm not surprised.
Wait 'til you get that mini and compare it to an Athlon X2 with 2GB of RAM and a 256MB card (about the same price as a core duo mini), then you will.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Look, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but as long as people display an inability to read a thread properly, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.
I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?
Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.
I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.
The machine they should have produced is:
Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.
The base configuration, for $399, could then be:
40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.
The BTO options should then be:
More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit
If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.
People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.
There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.
Don't kid yourself about making a computer that everyone would like. Complaints vary from price to features. Anyone whose been around long enough, knows you can't make everyone happy. AS far as the celeron 4xx, it os not currently available. When it comes out maybe it will be a BTO at a lower price. Franky, I don't understand what market the mini is after. It isn't cheap enough to appeal to price sensitve buyers and not really feature rich enough for die hard enthusiasts. That's probably why it generates as much discussion as it does. IMO Apple should forget the low end buyer anyway. As Murch has mentioned they just aren't worth it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah but, Mercedes smokes the crap out of any "cheap" car out there. Can't say the same thing about Apple computers unfortunately.
But it's not all about speed. If you truly enjoy the windows experience, why are you here? BTW I could buy a ford mustang gt and smoke the crap out of an s500. Does that make the mustang better? It's a matter of opinion and taste but I know what I think.
I imagine that they weren't any happier about raising the price than many here are. But, these days WiFi and Bluetooth are becoming marketing necessities. They don't add that much to the price either. Broadcom is charging $5-$7 for their WiFi chips. Other companies are charging (don't have the names here) $4-$6 for Bluetooth 2 chips. A couple bucks for a small circuit board and resistors, capacators, coils, etc. round up the rest. If you don't believe it, look up those prices.
We know that the chips cost much more than the G4's they replace. The extra features also add up. I'm sure Apple didn't want to use IG, but felt they had to. for this class of machine it should be fine.
Arguing about what Dell has, or doesn't have, has no bearing on the issue. If someone wants to buy a Mac, they will buy a Mac. Why do you think the iMacs are so popular with switchers? And, if you don't believe that either, read the PC mag sites.
Originally posted by melgross
Arguing about what Dell has, or doesn't have, has no bearing on the issue.
Huh? It has plenty bearing on the issue. Dell make computers. So does Apple. Now, Apple even uses the same platform as Dell. Your comment would have made more, although not total, sense, in the PPC days.
Originally posted by melgross
If someone wants to buy a Mac, they will buy a Mac.
Only if the Macs that are available have the features that they want.
Apple have so much to gain from increasing their market share, and they could do it really quite easily. Don't forget that Apple are the only company that make computers that will edit legitimately/legally /edit run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share (and if they don't there's something very wrong with them), they are going to have to broaden their appeal on the hardware side. There are plenty of people who like OS X, but don't consider the benefits of it great enough to purchase hardware that has more features than they want for more money than they can afford/are willing to spend.
Originally posted by steve666
If Apple is paying more for Intel chips than what the hell did they switch for?
Better performance/watt, Intel R&D, platform standardisation to name but a few.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Seeing as you don't own an Apple computer yet (from what you've been saying around in these boards) - I'm not surprised.
Wait 'til you get that mini and compare it to an Athlon X2 with 2GB of RAM and a 256MB card (about the same price as a core duo mini), then you will.
I have older Mac 7200, 7500 with no OS X and that sucks because I've used XP for years now and it's just a bland OS.
I'll build an Athlon based system to run Vista by 2007. However right now PCs are all go...no show.
We don't know what Apple could have done for $399, or $499.
Me either. Best Buy sells Blue Tooth adapters for like $40. Most PC desktops still have wireless as an option. Any cuts would have been met with
"Apple sucks!!...no xxxx included!"
I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.
Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap. If you notice...Job's is a perfectionist when it comes to looks. Ultra cheap stuff generally has to eschew good looks to hit the low price. A Jobs' led Apple is simply not going to do that. Every announcement we get the same whining about price.
Originally posted by Mr. H
[B
Apple have so much to gain from increasing their market share, [/B]
Why does Apple have to increase market share? To attract 3rd party developers? Apple is pushing the apps out the door not adobe and MS. Why give computers away just to get market share? It doesn't make sense to me. As long as Apple is profitable, they can continue to develope products that mac users will want. Thats all that counts.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I have older Mac 7200, 7500 with no OS X and that sucks because I've used XP for years now and it's just a bland OS.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.
Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap. If you notice...Job's is a perfectionist when it comes to looks. Ultra cheap stuff generally has to eschew good looks to hit the low price. A Jobs' led Apple is simply not going to do that. Every announcement we get the same whining about price.
Oh man, I hear you there. I really do get tired of listening to the doomsayers and chepos complain about that after EVERY announcement. They keep adding more features and keep it at the same price level. WHat's wrong with that?
I think this year will seriously define where Apple is headed and how well it is going to do. We're halfway through the transitions and we're only in March. COME ON PEOPLE ... there are 9 months left, and just because it didn't happen at a really small even at HQ doesn't mean Apple is doomed or Apple isn't listening to their customers. Jobs is a CEO, but he is also a master showman with Apple as his stage. People complain because Apple get's 5% market share, but 95% of the press. I've always thought that was because you never knew what Apple was going to do. No one knows what Steve will have up his sleeve when he gets on stage. A DVR Mini? A New iPod? A computer that will fit into the Palm of your hand and will revolutionize the way you organize your life and digital media (but for only $199)
Originally posted by backtomac
Why does Apple have to increase market share? To attract 3rd party developers? Apple is pushing the apps out the door not adobe and MS. Why give computers away just to get market share? It doesn't make sense to me. As long as Apple is profitable, they can continue to develope products that mac users will want. Thats all that counts.
So as long as everyone moves to the music and movie industries, Apple will be fine. Adobe and Micrsoft make app types which are much more commonly used in business, which believe it or not has a much high userbase than the creative fields.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Better performance/watt, Intel R&D, platform standardisation to name but a few.
They should be cheaper, not more expensive.
Wasn't everyone saying Macs were more expensive because they were paying more for their chips?
Why doesn't Apple just use AMD Chips?
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.
Yeah, that's why some of us are so frustrated.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap.
I never said Apple should produce a "cheap computer". The specs I listed in my previous post are sold by the likes of Dell for just under $299. That extra $100 can be spent on more aesthetically pleasing casework.
And, what is all this rubbish about "we don't know what Apple could do for $399"? We know what they can do for $499 with the G4 Mini, and what they can do for $599 with the Intel Mini. Take the Intel Mini, take out the wireless (yes, I know that the cost comes to about $10 - $15 for the components + PCB, but that is a significant percentage of the Mini's component costs), the Apple Remote, a full-size hard drive and full-size optical drive (significantly cheaper than their laptop equivalents), and desktop RAM, and you easily have a $499 machine. Put in smaller-capacity hard drive, lower capability optical drive, and a cheaper CPU, and you have a $399 machine. But you don't have a "cheap" machine. It could easily have Apple's trademark style.
Originally posted by backtomac
Why does Apple have to increase market share? To attract 3rd party developers? Apple is pushing the apps out the door not adobe and MS. Why give computers away just to get market share? It doesn't make sense to me. As long as Apple is profitable, they can continue to develope products that mac users will want. Thats all that counts.
Are you kidding me?
Apple dies without developers, period.
And without market share, Apple is dead.
Apple HAS to continue to gain PC converts and first time buyers. Period.