The "apple premium" I refer to is the perceived expensiveness of apple hardware. You see, average computer buyers don't really look at "similar parts" they just look at the price for a complete system (being computer + screen + Keyb. + mouse). Now i could have gotten a complete system from dell for ?763 including a 19" monitor (average joe remark: "and it has a faster processor too!" -P4 2.8 GHz)
Apple doesn't build that shit. They could care less about a sale or two to nitpickers that can easily build their own if they feeel their hardware is too much. They would rather make quality products.
Hey I could take a shit in a box, and throw a guaranteed sticker on the box and sell it to you, but then all you'd really have a guaranteed piece of shit.
-Chris Farley
It's like going to the store and buying what appears to be a can of mushrooms, but you open it, and it's actually a can of shit. If I were planting a flower bed that can of shit might be real handy, but I was trying to make mushroom soup, and my mushroom soup recipe does not call for shit.
Sure, some mushrooms grow on shit, so there is a slight relation, but I still by no means need shit in my soup.
No, you're under the misconception that Apple somehow means extraordinary build quality deserving of a $300+ premium. Frankly, lately build quality hasn't been too great. And second of all, the failure rate of home-built PCs is extraordinarily low in my experience.
Mind translating your noteworthy thoughts? What I meant is, if somebody has to pay an extra $500 for a Mac over a PC (yes I know Macs run Windows hurrrrrr), they're going to buy a PC that runs Windows exclusively.
No, you're under the misconception that Apple somehow means extraordinary build quality deserving of a $300+ premium. Frankly, lately build quality hasn't been too great.
I agree (and it's hard to disagree) that Apple's build quality in the past few years has been comparably bad.
Quote:
And second of all, the failure rate of home-built PCs is extraordinarily low in my experience.
It's hard to statistically prove or disprove that, seeing as home-built PCs are inherently custom, and particular configurations are thus rare, but in my experience (that being hundreds of computers that I built and/or maintained), the rate is significantly higher than that of decent brands.
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Mind translating your noteworthy thoughts? What I meant is, if somebody has to pay an extra $500 for a Mac over a PC (yes I know Macs run Windows hurrrrrr), they're going to buy a PC that runs Windows exclusively.
And what I meant is, if somebody has been considering Macs for a while already, but always worried that they might end up preferring Windows anyway, they now have the chance to keep going back and forth without changing machines, thanks to Mactels / Boot Camp / Parallels / etc.
Even if the premium for that is $500, which I'd disagree with, it may be a worthwhile compromise.
I'm sorry but unless you work for a full service reseller and have access to returns, defective info and the whole gamut any statement you make regarding build quality is tantamount to hearsay.
While Apple has had some highly publicized issues the majority of their computers are indeed a cut above what we see on the PC side.
#1 for Mac issues tends to be memory. We have very little issues with the LCD screens. Very few motherboards issues.
I find it odd that I'm still spending $2000 on PC laptops and getting VGA ports instead of DVI. I'm still getting 4-pin firewire instead of 6 pin powered.
Apple is not a Diet Computer Company. You get world class design and you do pay a premium. Some people see value in this and buy in others don't. More power to them.
No, you're under the misconception that Apple somehow means extraordinary build quality deserving of a $300+ premium. Frankly, lately build quality hasn't been too great. And second of all, the failure rate of home-built PCs is extraordinarily low in my experience.
I'm not sure who you were talking to, or exactly what your getting at, but what I was originally referring to was that there is no premium. If you configure component to equal component the price is almost identical, and in the past 3 years I have been watching this I've seen Apples price less than DELL in that respect on a few occasions. So IMO the premium does not exist. But, the person I was quoting was talking about any machine with lesser quality, and/or lesser performing parts, that has a faster processor then can state "why is this one faster, but cheaper than a Mac?". My response was - Apple doesn't build machines like that. You always get a quality product. I don't see that as a premium. It's a correct value - part to part wise.
What is this "Apple premium"? I hope this is just the premium you spend for not building your own, because unless you compared an Apple branded machine to a DELL, HP, or any other manufacturers computers with similar parts you should before you make such a statement. Because we have done this in here many times before, and in the past 3 years that I have noticed people doing it I have not seen any real escalated prices from Apple on anything they produce. It's a toss up IMO. Because some times they even had better prices than DELL comparatively.
Agreed. Apple being overpriced or higher priced is a very very tiresome argument. And it is often cited by otherwise knowledgeable people that should know better.
That's not what I was talking about, so I guess you missed it.
If you look in this thread you'll see the first post I am on top with ZachPruckowski below me. THe thread was started by AppleInsider
Kasper's Automated Slave, who should have the top position because he started it, but for some reason I jumped all the way ahead of him in the order. I have the post was quoting in a quote which was the last post posted at the time. THat post is about #20, or so, so mine should haver been #21, but for strange reasons I was thrown up to spot #1. It did that to me all night.
I wasn't looking at that. The problem I had was that when I posted, it told me that I couldn't post less than 30 seconds apart, even though I hadn't posted for hours. Later, when I came back again,in addition to still having that problem, the time listed on the page was for 1.0.9 PM, even though it was actually 1.0.9 AM. Besides that, there were a lot of posts in my mailbox that weren't in the thread. That remained true today, even after I was able to post again. I then posted the reply that should have been posted yesterday.
Apple's machines can cost more. But Apple has custom cases that are very expensive compared to PC cases. PC cases are basically off the shelf, except for the plastics, whick don't cost too much more to make. Apple's cases are entirely designed, and made for Apple. Each model has its own custom design. Apple also uses expensive materials in the manufacture of those cases. Polycarbonate costs several times the butylate, or other plastics commonly used. The heavy anodized aluminum Apple uses for the towers is several gauges heavier than the aluminum cases others use, and the handles and feet add to that cost.
Use cheaper cases, and $100 to $200 could come off the top.
And that's just the start.
Sadly, Apple has had some problems, but they are more of the nature of design than quality. When they try to make the thinnest, and lightest machines (portables), there are bound to be problems, such as heat. Other problems come because some area in the design doesn't perform in the field, with many machines, the way the few engineering samples did. That's not too uncommon. But Apple's fanatical secrecy prevents them from putting more samples into the hands of users before they go to production, so they don't catch everything.
Apple's machines can cost more. But Apple has custom cases that are very expensive compared to PC cases. PC cases are basically off the shelf, except for the plastics, whick don't cost too much more to make. Apple's cases are entirely designed, and made for Apple. Each model has its own custom design. Apple also uses expensive materials in the manufacture of those cases. Polycarbonate costs several times the butylate, or other plastics commonly used. The heavy anodized aluminum Apple uses for the towers is several gauges heavier than the aluminum cases others use, and the handles and feet add to that cost.
Use cheaper cases, and $100 to $200 could come off the top.
And that's just the start.
Sadly, Apple has had some problems, but they are more of the nature of design than quality. When they try to make the thinnest, and lightest machines (portables), there are bound to be problems, such as heat. Other problems come because some area in the design doesn't perform in the field, with many machines, the way the few engineering samples did. That's not too uncommon. But Apple's fanatical secrecy prevents them from putting more samples into the hands of users before they go to production, so they don't catch everything.
They more than make up for it with cheap labor, just joking.
I've seen too many price comparisons between Apple and other manufacturers. When compared feature for feature Apple is more than competitive and some times cheaper, as is the case with the mini and it's only close competition from AOpen(re: which in the case with AOpen the mini is/was? $100 cheaper)
I think dual-2.33 in the low end is out. Apple wants a reason to upgrade each step. With the current PMs, the first jump up gets you 250 GB more HDD, .3 GHz speed, and a non-crippled (but still subpar) video card. The next jump adds another dual-core processor.
In the Mac Pros, the first jump (from 2.0 to 2.33) can add a better video card (maybe a 7900GT versus 7800GT or 7800GT versus 7600). The second jump adds a lot of speed if it goes from 2.33 GHz to 3.0 GHz. I also don't think you can get quad 3.0 in $3000. Each 3.0 GHz processor will run about $800 or so.
$851 Retail price rite, APPLE may be getting better discounts.
Dual 3.00 Ghz Mac Pro - $3299 - may be the high end remains same. I remember PM price increased when apple introduced Quad Machine, previously was it $2999?
When Dual core is new normal, i see the price doable or i could be wrong. More over apple like to show atleast one machine @ 3.0 Ghz
Close but your prices are too low. I'd say you're prices may be feasible with a 2/2.33/2.66 span of speeds.
A dual Xeon 5160 would be $3499 at the very least. We're talking about $1600 of processors alone here.
I wonder what Apple actually pays. The prices we always see is for one bin ? 1,000 chips. Prices go down again for ten bins, and then again for 100. After that, I don't know. But Intel did say that they were dropping the manufacturer by manufacturer pricing they were using. I imagine that's because of the lawsuit.
While this isn't a Powermac/Conroe tidbit, I though it might be of interest. The next to last paragraph is what interests us.
Comments
Originally posted by dutch pear
The "apple premium" I refer to is the perceived expensiveness of apple hardware. You see, average computer buyers don't really look at "similar parts" they just look at the price for a complete system (being computer + screen + Keyb. + mouse). Now i could have gotten a complete system from dell for ?763 including a 19" monitor (average joe remark: "and it has a faster processor too!" -P4 2.8 GHz)
Apple doesn't build that shit. They could care less about a sale or two to nitpickers that can easily build their own if they feeel their hardware is too much. They would rather make quality products.
Hey I could take a shit in a box, and throw a guaranteed sticker on the box and sell it to you, but then all you'd really have a guaranteed piece of shit.
-Chris Farley
It's like going to the store and buying what appears to be a can of mushrooms, but you open it, and it's actually a can of shit. If I were planting a flower bed that can of shit might be real handy, but I was trying to make mushroom soup, and my mushroom soup recipe does not call for shit.
Sure, some mushrooms grow on shit, so there is a slight relation, but I still by no means need shit in my soup.
~onlooker
Originally posted by Chucker
T;ftfy.
Mind translating your noteworthy thoughts? What I meant is, if somebody has to pay an extra $500 for a Mac over a PC (yes I know Macs run Windows hurrrrrr), they're going to buy a PC that runs Windows exclusively.
Originally posted by Placebo
No, you're under the misconception that Apple somehow means extraordinary build quality deserving of a $300+ premium. Frankly, lately build quality hasn't been too great.
I agree (and it's hard to disagree) that Apple's build quality in the past few years has been comparably bad.
And second of all, the failure rate of home-built PCs is extraordinarily low in my experience.
It's hard to statistically prove or disprove that, seeing as home-built PCs are inherently custom, and particular configurations are thus rare, but in my experience (that being hundreds of computers that I built and/or maintained), the rate is significantly higher than that of decent brands.
Originally posted by Placebo
Mind translating your noteworthy thoughts? What I meant is, if somebody has to pay an extra $500 for a Mac over a PC (yes I know Macs run Windows hurrrrrr), they're going to buy a PC that runs Windows exclusively.
And what I meant is, if somebody has been considering Macs for a while already, but always worried that they might end up preferring Windows anyway, they now have the chance to keep going back and forth without changing machines, thanks to Mactels / Boot Camp / Parallels / etc.
Even if the premium for that is $500, which I'd disagree with, it may be a worthwhile compromise.
Originally posted by Placebo
Why the premium?
What?
While Apple has had some highly publicized issues the majority of their computers are indeed a cut above what we see on the PC side.
#1 for Mac issues tends to be memory. We have very little issues with the LCD screens. Very few motherboards issues.
I find it odd that I'm still spending $2000 on PC laptops and getting VGA ports instead of DVI. I'm still getting 4-pin firewire instead of 6 pin powered.
Apple is not a Diet Computer Company. You get world class design and you do pay a premium. Some people see value in this and buy in others don't. More power to them.
Originally posted by Chucker
What?
Why do Apple products cost more?
Originally posted by Placebo
No, you're under the misconception that Apple somehow means extraordinary build quality deserving of a $300+ premium. Frankly, lately build quality hasn't been too great. And second of all, the failure rate of home-built PCs is extraordinarily low in my experience.
I'm not sure who you were talking to, or exactly what your getting at, but what I was originally referring to was that there is no premium. If you configure component to equal component the price is almost identical, and in the past 3 years I have been watching this I've seen Apples price less than DELL in that respect on a few occasions. So IMO the premium does not exist. But, the person I was quoting was talking about any machine with lesser quality, and/or lesser performing parts, that has a faster processor then can state "why is this one faster, but cheaper than a Mac?". My response was - Apple doesn't build machines like that. You always get a quality product. I don't see that as a premium. It's a correct value - part to part wise.
Originally posted by onlooker
What is this "Apple premium"? I hope this is just the premium you spend for not building your own, because unless you compared an Apple branded machine to a DELL, HP, or any other manufacturers computers with similar parts you should before you make such a statement. Because we have done this in here many times before, and in the past 3 years that I have noticed people doing it I have not seen any real escalated prices from Apple on anything they produce. It's a toss up IMO. Because some times they even had better prices than DELL comparatively.
Agreed. Apple being overpriced or higher priced is a very very tiresome argument. And it is often cited by otherwise knowledgeable people that should know better.
Originally posted by onlooker
That's not what I was talking about, so I guess you missed it.
If you look in this thread you'll see the first post I am on top with ZachPruckowski below me. THe thread was started by AppleInsider
Kasper's Automated Slave, who should have the top position because he started it, but for some reason I jumped all the way ahead of him in the order. I have the post was quoting in a quote which was the last post posted at the time. THat post is about #20, or so, so mine should haver been #21, but for strange reasons I was thrown up to spot #1. It did that to me all night.
I wasn't looking at that. The problem I had was that when I posted, it told me that I couldn't post less than 30 seconds apart, even though I hadn't posted for hours. Later, when I came back again,in addition to still having that problem, the time listed on the page was for 1.0.9 PM, even though it was actually 1.0.9 AM. Besides that, there were a lot of posts in my mailbox that weren't in the thread. That remained true today, even after I was able to post again. I then posted the reply that should have been posted yesterday.
This could have been part of the same problem.
Use cheaper cases, and $100 to $200 could come off the top.
And that's just the start.
Sadly, Apple has had some problems, but they are more of the nature of design than quality. When they try to make the thinnest, and lightest machines (portables), there are bound to be problems, such as heat. Other problems come because some area in the design doesn't perform in the field, with many machines, the way the few engineering samples did. That's not too uncommon. But Apple's fanatical secrecy prevents them from putting more samples into the hands of users before they go to production, so they don't catch everything.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple's machines can cost more. But Apple has custom cases that are very expensive compared to PC cases. PC cases are basically off the shelf, except for the plastics, whick don't cost too much more to make. Apple's cases are entirely designed, and made for Apple. Each model has its own custom design. Apple also uses expensive materials in the manufacture of those cases. Polycarbonate costs several times the butylate, or other plastics commonly used. The heavy anodized aluminum Apple uses for the towers is several gauges heavier than the aluminum cases others use, and the handles and feet add to that cost.
Use cheaper cases, and $100 to $200 could come off the top.
And that's just the start.
Sadly, Apple has had some problems, but they are more of the nature of design than quality. When they try to make the thinnest, and lightest machines (portables), there are bound to be problems, such as heat. Other problems come because some area in the design doesn't perform in the field, with many machines, the way the few engineering samples did. That's not too uncommon. But Apple's fanatical secrecy prevents them from putting more samples into the hands of users before they go to production, so they don't catch everything.
They more than make up for it with cheap labor, just joking.
I've seen too many price comparisons between Apple and other manufacturers. When compared feature for feature Apple is more than competitive and some times cheaper, as is the case with the mini and it's only close competition from AOpen(re: which in the case with AOpen the mini is/was? $100 cheaper)
--------
Dual 2.33 Ghz Mac Pro - $1999
Dual 2.66 Ghz Mac Pro - $2499
Dual 3.00 Ghz Mac Pro - $2999
apart from this any chances of
Mac Cube
--------
Dual/Single 2.33 LV
250 GB -
512 MB - two slots
128 MB ATI Radeon XXX
Super Drive
$1699
possible?
In the Mac Pros, the first jump (from 2.0 to 2.33) can add a better video card (maybe a 7900GT versus 7800GT or 7800GT versus 7600). The second jump adds a lot of speed if it goes from 2.33 GHz to 3.0 GHz. I also don't think you can get quad 3.0 in $3000. Each 3.0 GHz processor will run about $800 or so.
Originally posted by shanmugam
Mac Pro
--------
Dual 2.33 Ghz Mac Pro - $1999
Dual 2.66 Ghz Mac Pro - $2499
Dual 3.00 Ghz Mac Pro - $2999
apart from this any chances of
Close but your prices are too low. I'd say you're prices may be feasible with a 2/2.33/2.66 span of speeds.
A dual Xeon 5160 would be $3499 at the very least. We're talking about $1600 of processors alone here.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Close but your prices are too low. I'd say you're prices may be feasible with a 2/2.33/2.66 span of speeds.
A dual Xeon 5160 would be $3499 at the very least. We're talking about $1600 of processors alone here.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archi...060626comp.htm
$851 Retail price rite, APPLE may be getting better discounts.
Dual 3.00 Ghz Mac Pro - $3299 - may be the high end remains same. I remember PM price increased when apple introduced Quad Machine, previously was it $2999?
When Dual core is new normal, i see the price doable or i could be wrong. More over apple like to show atleast one machine @ 3.0 Ghz
Originally posted by hmurchison
Close but your prices are too low. I'd say you're prices may be feasible with a 2/2.33/2.66 span of speeds.
A dual Xeon 5160 would be $3499 at the very least. We're talking about $1600 of processors alone here.
I wonder what Apple actually pays. The prices we always see is for one bin ? 1,000 chips. Prices go down again for ten bins, and then again for 100. After that, I don't know. But Intel did say that they were dropping the manufacturer by manufacturer pricing they were using. I imagine that's because of the lawsuit.
While this isn't a Powermac/Conroe tidbit, I though it might be of interest. The next to last paragraph is what interests us.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32628