Apple does well enough without having to resort to begging for sales. I tend to think Mac users appreciate style a bit more and quite honestly that puts us in minority. Some people think a big square box is still cool
It's only cool if it has a big-ass window...and neon tubes...because those TOTALLY make the computer run faster...like putting flame stickers on the side of your car...
Saying PC users don't appreciate style is completely asinine. Sure, they appreciate style, but they don't care so much about it in their computer that they are willing to spend 2x-3x more than they need to for that style.
The PowerMac is pretty damned ugly and if any PC manufacturer had come out with it before Apple (well, aluminum towers were around for years, but let's ignore that) then Mac fans would have been apoplectic about how hideous it was. Plus, it's way too expensive. Seriously, the PowerMac case is laughable (like most computer hardware), it is the ugliest tower case Apple has ever made.
The Mac mini is in no way inspiring, plus it is way too expensive.
The iMac is pretty "meh", it's big front lip makes it look fat, and again, way too expensive. Nice enough.
The laptops are great, as usual.
As far as "square boxes"... what shape, exactly, are the PowerMac and the mini?
The idea that you have to spend as much on an iMac-equivalent PC to get iMac-equivalent performance is a laugh.
It is all about paying a very high premium for a very subjective increase in style. I happen to like black hardware, I'd buy a black MBP if I was in the market and my dream Powerbook is a Pismo with updated technology.
Not buying a Mac is not about being "computer dumb". A lot of idiots buy PCs, sure, but a lot of idiots also buy Macs.
The idea that you have to spend as much on an iMac-equivalent PC to get iMac-equivalent performance is a laugh.
That wasn't the point that person made. The point was that no other company is making a similarly shaped computer for that price. Of course, that argument only matters if that's the form factor that you want or is at least willing to spend a lot extra, which was my counter argument.
Also, keep in mind that the PowerMac is not intended to be a consumer tower. I think the PowerMac is priced about right for its target market, and the design reflects that target market as well. Apple doesn't seem to want to sell a consumer tower, and that is the real complaint, IMO.
Saying PC users don't appreciate style is completely asinine. Sure, they appreciate style, but they don't care so much about it in their computer that they are willing to spend 2x-3x more than they need to for that style.
The PowerMac is pretty damned ugly and if any PC manufacturer had come out with it before Apple (well, aluminum towers were around for years, but let's ignore that) then Mac fans would have been apoplectic about how hideous it was. Plus, it's way too expensive. Seriously, the PowerMac case is laughable (like most computer hardware), it is the ugliest tower case Apple has ever made.
The Mac mini is in no way inspiring, plus it is way too expensive.
The iMac is pretty "meh", it's big front lip makes it look fat, and again, way too expensive. Nice enough.
The laptops are great, as usual.
As far as "square boxes"... what shape, exactly, are the PowerMac and the mini?
By virtue of choosing Windows, it's pretty damn evident that style is not a primary or secondary motive for PC users. That's not an insult, just a difference of opinion.
The PowerMac is pretty interesting to look at, and is very functional. If a PC came out that looked like it, you'd have teenage fanboys making fun of it, and everyone else thinking it is pretty cool. Thing is, there weren't any PCs that looked like it.
There is no small-form-factor PC that is as cheap as the Mini. The Asus one that was supposed to be such a big deal is larger than the mini and $1000.
There is no PC quite like the iMac. There is a premium for the enclosure and the silence, yes, but is not purely a form vs. function argument. The iMac encloure doesn't take up much desk space, which is great because my desk has all sorts of room for other stuff PLUS the row of potted plants I have behind the iMac. It's a very accomodating work environment.
Someone said "some people will never get it." Perhaps that's correct. On the flip side, I will never understand Windows. It's your own fault for connoting the line as an insult, rather than a mere observation of personal preferences. What's more confusing is why a person who continually berates Apple and the mac platform has spent so much time on a mac website and forum.
I do see your point but you get what you pay for. I don't have a problem paying the prices Apple sets on their systems because IMO, they are superior systems to PC's that cost a lot less. Apple doesn't make cheap sysetms because they have a standard to live up to. The people who are serious about computers and technology will see that they have to pay for quality, which Apple offers in abundance. It's also not like Apple systems are overpriced either, I think what they charge is still a fair price for their systems.
First sensible thing I have to agree with. If it costs more because it's higher quality then you really can't argue with that. And people will pay a premium for quality.
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Apple doesn't seem to want to sell a consumer tower, and that is the real complaint, IMO.
I agree that is the complaint here, that Apple should offer more then just the imac in it's price range. They should offer a comparable tower system as well.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
By virtue of choosing Windows, it's pretty damn evident that style is not a primary or secondary motive for PC users. That's not an insult, just a difference of opinion.
It really is, because there are those out there who prefer the look of Windows and believe it has more style then OSX.
Just like I hate the look of 70's muscle cars but other people think they are the nicest styles ever made.
Price plays a big role. Apple as a company will refuse to admit they are not a hardware company, their powerhouse is their software. When you look at all current iMac's the hardware is no different then any standard midgrade pc. They run the same core duo chips as all other intel pc's, last time I checked an ATI 1600 card can be put in any fairly new computer wiht pci express. DDR ram is DDR ram. So tell me other then the case design what is Mac offering that is so out there? They charge 75.00 extra for a video card memory upgrade when the card itself isnt worth 75.00 anywhere in pricewatch.
Apple is the sellout as I see it, did you ever think Mac would allow Windows to dual boot on a Mac computer? Intel chips in Macs, go figure.
The iMac was rushed to market what idiot would roll out a 32bit chip when the rest of the world has been 64bit ready for well over a year. Even worse a computer that you are going to allow Vista in dual boot. The iMac comes with 512meg of ram that was great years ago, 1meg should be an upgrade, neither should a 256 video card.
With all the talk and all the hype Mac for the last 20 years at best can hold 3% of the market, right now they just currently dropped from 2.7 to 2.0%
When we talk about Ipods the fact is if the only worked on Macs they would have been discontinued already. Based on pure market shares it doesnt take much to understand most Ipods are owned by PC users. If you want to claim you are this elite group then why does apple make its money makers available to all windows users?
Look at PowerMac specs for 3200.00 its pathetic. Should we talk about contrast ratios and response times in relationship to 300.00 monitors.
I work for IBM and have for 20 years ive used both Macs and PC's throughout my entire career, they are tools not something to fall in love with or hate. Each tool has its advantages and weakness. Mac hardware is always a set or two behind standard and is always twice as much, hense the reason they have not been able to grab more then 3% of the market for 20 years.
If apple wanted to put Microsoft out of business they would code their software to run on the pc platform but for some reason they cant seem to catch on to that.
Show me a PC similar to the iMac. The ones that are even in the same universe as the iMac cost the same, or more. [/B][/QUOTE]
A cool plastic case, a motherboard that can't be upgraded, not sure I would call that an equal trade off.
My first post here hope it wasn't too abrassive. Having used both for many years the elite attitude gets a bit old.
It really is, because there are those out there who prefer the look of Windows and believe it has more style then OSX.
Just like I hate the look of 70's muscle cars but other people think they are the nicest styles ever made.
These are minorities. Even so, I once had a debate with some folks on this board over the objective vs. subjective qualities of "taste." There's going to be some give and take, but there are definitely good arguments towards the understanding of "taste" or "style" as an objective absolute. In that regard, the people who like the Windows theme are just plain wrong.
Quote:
A cool plastic case, a motherboard that can't be upgraded, not sure I would call that an equal trade off.
My first post here hope it wasn't too abrassive. Having used both for many years the elite attitude gets a bit old.
This isn't a discussion of trade-offs, this is a challenge to see if anyone can find a PC that's similar to the iMac and sells for a notably lower price. People who want commodity PCs aren't in the market for iMacs -- this has already been addressed.
I thought I would share this with all you good people. As ?extremeskater? mentioned in a post here - computers - IBM compatibles, Apples, Sun (Unix), Et cetera are ?tools? which, in my mind, means it?s a personal preference as to which tool one chooses to use. Personally, I have always held ?Craftsman? tools in high regard - not that they are the best, just my personal preference. Now, back to computers, I worked as a computer technician starting with Sperry Univac and ?mini - computers? in 1978, moving on to other types of systems, such as Data Entry or key to disk, communication and terminal devices, among others, and finally to micro-computers or PC?s along about 1984. I was mesmerized, to say the least, by DOS, Linux, and each successive incarnation of Windows. I devoted 20 plus years to the PC and various operating systems, including but not limited to, and in no particular order: OS/2, BeOS, Linux (various - Suse, Redhat, Mandrake - Mandriva now), MS / PC / DR DOS and Windows (3.0 - XP). Now I?ve decided to devote the next 20 plus years to Apple and the Mac. I guess you could say I?m changing tools ?
I?m no longer interested in which is better, prettier, what have you - just in which pleases ?me? the most when using it and, at least for now, it?s the Mac running OS X ?Tiger? 8).
Thanks for allowing me to share. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion .
This isn't a discussion of trade-offs, this is a challenge to see if anyone can find a PC that's similar to the iMac and sells for a notably lower price. People who want commodity PCs aren't in the market for iMacs -- this has already been addressed. [/B]
Actually the thread was about is the iMac a mistake because of price. Sony makes a self contained until that has better hardware specs and a bigger screen for the same price as the iMac. Its not popular because most people want a machine they can upgrade at least midlevel to advanced users.
I will say it again, Apple just cant figure it out they are not a hardware company. Im sure the G5 chip would still be in Macs today if Apple had gained more of the market. IBM isnt going to dump money into changing for 2% of the desktop and notebook market.
Steve Jobs has a vision the problem is his vision hasn't worked for 20 years, you would think he would listen to his advisors that have told him for a while to market the software and get out of the hardware business.
Apple has tried at last three major attempts to gain market share and have failed in the long run each time.
I am not against Mac what get me annoyed is I would like to see them get a clue and do better because competition not only creates real innovation it also creates better prices for end users. Intel/AMD, ATI/Nvidia are perfect examples of true competition, what Apple does means nothing to Microsoft because there is no risk.
Vista will dominate the market for good or bad, most likely bad, Instead of making Windows available on the Mac they should be working towards making OSX available on all computers and every other OEM product they own.
The reason Mac computers are so expensive is supply and demand there isnt much of a demand which pushes up the price point. The same 256meg ATI card in the Mac cost 50% less in the pc and its the exact same card.
When you talk about Monitors same deal. A macmini for 799.00 I mean get real, emachines have better hardware specs.
The numbers speak for themselves the fact that Apple introduced a fair amount of new products this year and market share dropped 0.7% pretty much tells it all.
MS will give away Mpods and not even blink and eye so that gravy train is coming to an end soon.
With all that being said I would love to see Apple truly restructure and make all their software products avail no matter what hardware you use. That way if you like the hardware design of a Mac fine you can get one but your not bound to one because of the software.
Lets be honest a cool design is fine but your really using your mac because of how the OS performs and how the OEM products work with the OS. Apple is good as providing good software standards so all their software works well they should focus on that, at least thats my opinion.
I asked a lot of my PC friends what would stop them from buying a Mac now that Mac's are x86 based and can run both OSX and Windows. Most said something along the lines of "I like the mac design but the price is too high, if they brought the price down I'd buy one".
Are you refering to macs in general or just the imac?
Quote:
We'll what about the mini or the imac?
A mini is not something a lot of them want to replace their tower with. Let's just say it has something to do with not feeling like you are getting as much for their money as a cheap full sized tower that can be upgraded easily.
That is true. However I think you're asking the wrong people... very few people who are looking for a cheap tower would consider mini or the imac! When you're looking for a full size SUV, you're not going to consider a mini-cooper or a Honda Accord... and the other way around. Money is an issue, but the only difference that separates the cheap tower and the mini and iMac.
Quote:
As for the imac, it's kind of the same way. Everything is all in one. And while Apple touts this as a feature, many PC users (at least my friends anyway)see it as a hindrance.
Depends on which PC users you're talking about. I have plenty of friends who buy prebuilt desktops and laptop... two years later they through everything away and buy a new one... all-in-one.
Quote:
And they don't or can't pay $2000+ dollars to do it. And these people are not die hard computer users/gamers either. Just regular joe's and jane's.
A decent PC tower from a brand name company will run you $1300 with keboard and mouse. A decent 21'' TFT will run you $500-600. Speakers, software, etc... and you're at the $2000 price tag.
If you're skilled and have, you can cut that cost down a bit, but not much... however that is IF you're skilled and have time.
Quote:
So while the imac is nice for some people I think it's a mistake for Apple to make it the only mid range machine they offer. And it's probably getting in the way of Apple bringing out a lower cost tower for switchers.
That maybe, but that is saparate question and does make iMac a "mistake" as you point out.
Quote:
A tower in the $600-$1200 range. Something that would actually entice PC users to switch.
Here is what I don't understand... the whole reason you're pitching a consumer price level tower is so that you can swap out all sorts of hardware inside the case, right?
Problem is, that I'm not sure if that is what Apple has in mind! Their entire approach is that "it just works"... judging by their product line and sales pitch they don't want their customers opening the box... ever! If you want to upgrade... head to the Apple Store. If you want to expand, connect externally. Apple wants to control internal hardware themselves and has always done it except for the momentary lapse back in the 90s.
The whole "switcher" thing is that one switches to "unreliable, undependable PC" to a sleek, fast, maintenance free Mac that you don't have to do squat with to make it work properly... in otherwords, it's more of a lifestyle change than a technology change.
I maybe wrong here, but an "upgradable enthusiast" tower will not be quite in line with their companies plan.
Instead of making Windows available on the Mac they should be working towards making OSX available on all computers and every other OEM product they own.
Amen brother that's the real secret right there. I think Apple will eventually do this when their market share drops low enough. Their hardware might come in nice quality cases but the parts inside are all standard PC fare these days. Some people are willing to pay for that style but it's obvious that alot more are not. I'm sure more would be willing to buy OSX then a new imac.
What does Apple really have to lose by offering OSX for the masses? Certainly not hardware sales. That could easily be made up for in software sales alone.
Actually the thread was about is the iMac a mistake because of price. Sony makes a self contained until that has better hardware specs and a bigger screen for the same price as the iMac. Its not popular because most people want a machine they can upgrade at least midlevel to advanced users.
It appears that you're wrong: worse specs, higher cost, uninspired design. Also, bad reviews.
Quote:
Originally posted by ApplePi
Considering Apples decreasing market share in the computer sector they should probably change their plan rather then try and change consumers minds.
Man, you trolls have got your information all wrong. First, Sony doesn't have an appealing AIO, next, Apple's market share isn't declining. There's also very little evidence that any more than a small minority of computer users buy PCs with the intent of upgrading them.
I'm wondering how many people would have bought an imac if Apple had offered a tower with the same specs and for the same price (less the monitor cost of course)?
Man, you trolls have got your information all wrong. First, Sony doesn't have an appealing AIO, next, Apple's market share isn't declining. There's also very little evidence that any more than a small minority of computer users buy PCs with the intent of upgrading them.
Thus why he's a troll
Note how in his first post he claimed to work for IBM, and then proceeded to denounce IBM hardware as two years behind the times.
We're not exactly dealing with an intelligent person, here
Note how in his first post he claimed to work for IBM, and then proceeded to denounce IBM hardware as two years behind the times.
We're not exactly dealing with an intelligent person, here
There isn't anyone here that is a troll. Get a grip. Just because someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't make them a troll. As ive already stated I use both machines and have for the better part of my career.
I work for IGS mainframe computing which really has no bearing on anything we are talking about in this thread. Could care less that IBM made Mac chips.
There isnt anything in my posts that aren't logical, didn't say the sony was a great idea in fact said it wasnt popular. For members that are part of the Insider forum I just assumed you read the Insider article about Apple market shares dropping however I was incorrect it wsa only 0.2% the end result however is still 2% of the woldwide market.
I still find it interesting that new iMac owners aren't upset that they bought a new computer that cant be upgraded with one of the biggest single step processor upgrades in the last five years around the corner. And you call me a fool?
Apple put out a product that wasnt truly ready and was more than happy to take your money. Other than maybe getting the price of the Sony incorrect there isnt anything in my last post that you can debate.
Instead of just being negative next time you post maybe you might try something new like making a valid post about the topic.
It appears that you're wrong: worse specs, higher cost, uninspired design. Also, bad reviews.
Man, you trolls have got your information all wrong. First, Sony doesn't have an appealing AIO, next, Apple's market share isn't declining. There's also very little evidence that any more than a small minority of computer users buy PCs with the intent of upgrading them.
I bet the number of users that upgrade their pc is greater than 2%. You asked for a AIO and I gave you an example didnt say it was a great computer in fact I said it wasnt popular.
Most computer owners understand having an AIO isnt an advantage. Anyone that recently bought any core duo mac should be feeling that right about now as the new core duo chips ship in the same calendar year.
With an AIO it will cost you 1700.00 to upgrade to a new iMac 20", so wheres the advantage?
Trolls spam a forum with no logic, other than maybe not knowing the price of the sony you couldnt debate anything in my last post. You picked the only thing you could talk about.
Comments
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Some people will never get it.
So what? Do you have a point that can be put in a non-irritating way?
Originally posted by hmurchison
Macs aren't for everyone.
Apple does well enough without having to resort to begging for sales. I tend to think Mac users appreciate style a bit more and quite honestly that puts us in minority. Some people think a big square box is still cool
It's only cool if it has a big-ass window...and neon tubes...because those TOTALLY make the computer run faster...like putting flame stickers on the side of your car...
The PowerMac is pretty damned ugly and if any PC manufacturer had come out with it before Apple (well, aluminum towers were around for years, but let's ignore that) then Mac fans would have been apoplectic about how hideous it was. Plus, it's way too expensive. Seriously, the PowerMac case is laughable (like most computer hardware), it is the ugliest tower case Apple has ever made.
The Mac mini is in no way inspiring, plus it is way too expensive.
The iMac is pretty "meh", it's big front lip makes it look fat, and again, way too expensive. Nice enough.
The laptops are great, as usual.
As far as "square boxes"... what shape, exactly, are the PowerMac and the mini?
The idea that you have to spend as much on an iMac-equivalent PC to get iMac-equivalent performance is a laugh.
It is all about paying a very high premium for a very subjective increase in style. I happen to like black hardware, I'd buy a black MBP if I was in the market and my dream Powerbook is a Pismo with updated technology.
Not buying a Mac is not about being "computer dumb". A lot of idiots buy PCs, sure, but a lot of idiots also buy Macs.
Originally posted by groverat
The idea that you have to spend as much on an iMac-equivalent PC to get iMac-equivalent performance is a laugh.
That wasn't the point that person made. The point was that no other company is making a similarly shaped computer for that price. Of course, that argument only matters if that's the form factor that you want or is at least willing to spend a lot extra, which was my counter argument.
Also, keep in mind that the PowerMac is not intended to be a consumer tower. I think the PowerMac is priced about right for its target market, and the design reflects that target market as well. Apple doesn't seem to want to sell a consumer tower, and that is the real complaint, IMO.
Originally posted by groverat
Saying PC users don't appreciate style is completely asinine. Sure, they appreciate style, but they don't care so much about it in their computer that they are willing to spend 2x-3x more than they need to for that style.
The PowerMac is pretty damned ugly and if any PC manufacturer had come out with it before Apple (well, aluminum towers were around for years, but let's ignore that) then Mac fans would have been apoplectic about how hideous it was. Plus, it's way too expensive. Seriously, the PowerMac case is laughable (like most computer hardware), it is the ugliest tower case Apple has ever made.
The Mac mini is in no way inspiring, plus it is way too expensive.
The iMac is pretty "meh", it's big front lip makes it look fat, and again, way too expensive. Nice enough.
The laptops are great, as usual.
As far as "square boxes"... what shape, exactly, are the PowerMac and the mini?
By virtue of choosing Windows, it's pretty damn evident that style is not a primary or secondary motive for PC users. That's not an insult, just a difference of opinion.
The PowerMac is pretty interesting to look at, and is very functional. If a PC came out that looked like it, you'd have teenage fanboys making fun of it, and everyone else thinking it is pretty cool. Thing is, there weren't any PCs that looked like it.
There is no small-form-factor PC that is as cheap as the Mini. The Asus one that was supposed to be such a big deal is larger than the mini and $1000.
There is no PC quite like the iMac. There is a premium for the enclosure and the silence, yes, but is not purely a form vs. function argument. The iMac encloure doesn't take up much desk space, which is great because my desk has all sorts of room for other stuff PLUS the row of potted plants I have behind the iMac. It's a very accomodating work environment.
Someone said "some people will never get it." Perhaps that's correct. On the flip side, I will never understand Windows. It's your own fault for connoting the line as an insult, rather than a mere observation of personal preferences. What's more confusing is why a person who continually berates Apple and the mac platform has spent so much time on a mac website and forum.
Originally posted by lakingsfn
I do see your point but you get what you pay for. I don't have a problem paying the prices Apple sets on their systems because IMO, they are superior systems to PC's that cost a lot less. Apple doesn't make cheap sysetms because they have a standard to live up to. The people who are serious about computers and technology will see that they have to pay for quality, which Apple offers in abundance. It's also not like Apple systems are overpriced either, I think what they charge is still a fair price for their systems.
First sensible thing I have to agree with. If it costs more because it's higher quality then you really can't argue with that. And people will pay a premium for quality.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Apple doesn't seem to want to sell a consumer tower, and that is the real complaint, IMO.
I agree that is the complaint here, that Apple should offer more then just the imac in it's price range. They should offer a comparable tower system as well.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
By virtue of choosing Windows, it's pretty damn evident that style is not a primary or secondary motive for PC users. That's not an insult, just a difference of opinion.
It really is, because there are those out there who prefer the look of Windows and believe it has more style then OSX.
Just like I hate the look of 70's muscle cars but other people think they are the nicest styles ever made.
Apple is the sellout as I see it, did you ever think Mac would allow Windows to dual boot on a Mac computer? Intel chips in Macs, go figure.
The iMac was rushed to market what idiot would roll out a 32bit chip when the rest of the world has been 64bit ready for well over a year. Even worse a computer that you are going to allow Vista in dual boot. The iMac comes with 512meg of ram that was great years ago, 1meg should be an upgrade, neither should a 256 video card.
With all the talk and all the hype Mac for the last 20 years at best can hold 3% of the market, right now they just currently dropped from 2.7 to 2.0%
When we talk about Ipods the fact is if the only worked on Macs they would have been discontinued already. Based on pure market shares it doesnt take much to understand most Ipods are owned by PC users. If you want to claim you are this elite group then why does apple make its money makers available to all windows users?
Look at PowerMac specs for 3200.00 its pathetic. Should we talk about contrast ratios and response times in relationship to 300.00 monitors.
I work for IBM and have for 20 years ive used both Macs and PC's throughout my entire career, they are tools not something to fall in love with or hate. Each tool has its advantages and weakness. Mac hardware is always a set or two behind standard and is always twice as much, hense the reason they have not been able to grab more then 3% of the market for 20 years.
If apple wanted to put Microsoft out of business they would code their software to run on the pc platform but for some reason they cant seem to catch on to that.
Show me a PC similar to the iMac. The ones that are even in the same universe as the iMac cost the same, or more. [/B][/QUOTE]
A cool plastic case, a motherboard that can't be upgraded, not sure I would call that an equal trade off.
My first post here hope it wasn't too abrassive. Having used both for many years the elite attitude gets a bit old.
Brian
Originally posted by groverat
...
The PowerMac is pretty damned ugly
...
Once upon time there was the beige theme...
Uh, excuse me, in these times the Apple Tower has been called
"Power Macintosh", anyway.
Originally posted by ApplePi
It really is, because there are those out there who prefer the look of Windows and believe it has more style then OSX.
Just like I hate the look of 70's muscle cars but other people think they are the nicest styles ever made.
These are minorities. Even so, I once had a debate with some folks on this board over the objective vs. subjective qualities of "taste." There's going to be some give and take, but there are definitely good arguments towards the understanding of "taste" or "style" as an objective absolute. In that regard, the people who like the Windows theme are just plain wrong.
A cool plastic case, a motherboard that can't be upgraded, not sure I would call that an equal trade off.
My first post here hope it wasn't too abrassive. Having used both for many years the elite attitude gets a bit old.
This isn't a discussion of trade-offs, this is a challenge to see if anyone can find a PC that's similar to the iMac and sells for a notably lower price. People who want commodity PCs aren't in the market for iMacs -- this has already been addressed.
I?m no longer interested in which is better, prettier, what have you - just in which pleases ?me? the most when using it and, at least for now, it?s the Mac running OS X ?Tiger? 8).
Thanks for allowing me to share. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion
This isn't a discussion of trade-offs, this is a challenge to see if anyone can find a PC that's similar to the iMac and sells for a notably lower price. People who want commodity PCs aren't in the market for iMacs -- this has already been addressed. [/B]
Actually the thread was about is the iMac a mistake because of price. Sony makes a self contained until that has better hardware specs and a bigger screen for the same price as the iMac. Its not popular because most people want a machine they can upgrade at least midlevel to advanced users.
I will say it again, Apple just cant figure it out they are not a hardware company. Im sure the G5 chip would still be in Macs today if Apple had gained more of the market. IBM isnt going to dump money into changing for 2% of the desktop and notebook market.
Steve Jobs has a vision the problem is his vision hasn't worked for 20 years, you would think he would listen to his advisors that have told him for a while to market the software and get out of the hardware business.
Apple has tried at last three major attempts to gain market share and have failed in the long run each time.
I am not against Mac what get me annoyed is I would like to see them get a clue and do better because competition not only creates real innovation it also creates better prices for end users. Intel/AMD, ATI/Nvidia are perfect examples of true competition, what Apple does means nothing to Microsoft because there is no risk.
Vista will dominate the market for good or bad, most likely bad, Instead of making Windows available on the Mac they should be working towards making OSX available on all computers and every other OEM product they own.
The reason Mac computers are so expensive is supply and demand there isnt much of a demand which pushes up the price point. The same 256meg ATI card in the Mac cost 50% less in the pc and its the exact same card.
When you talk about Monitors same deal. A macmini for 799.00 I mean get real, emachines have better hardware specs.
The numbers speak for themselves the fact that Apple introduced a fair amount of new products this year and market share dropped 0.7% pretty much tells it all.
MS will give away Mpods and not even blink and eye so that gravy train is coming to an end soon.
With all that being said I would love to see Apple truly restructure and make all their software products avail no matter what hardware you use. That way if you like the hardware design of a Mac fine you can get one but your not bound to one because of the software.
Lets be honest a cool design is fine but your really using your mac because of how the OS performs and how the OEM products work with the OS. Apple is good as providing good software standards so all their software works well they should focus on that, at least thats my opinion.
Originally posted by ApplePi
I asked a lot of my PC friends what would stop them from buying a Mac now that Mac's are x86 based and can run both OSX and Windows. Most said something along the lines of "I like the mac design but the price is too high, if they brought the price down I'd buy one".
Are you refering to macs in general or just the imac?
We'll what about the mini or the imac?
A mini is not something a lot of them want to replace their tower with. Let's just say it has something to do with not feeling like you are getting as much for their money as a cheap full sized tower that can be upgraded easily.
That is true. However I think you're asking the wrong people... very few people who are looking for a cheap tower would consider mini or the imac! When you're looking for a full size SUV, you're not going to consider a mini-cooper or a Honda Accord... and the other way around. Money is an issue, but the only difference that separates the cheap tower and the mini and iMac.
As for the imac, it's kind of the same way. Everything is all in one. And while Apple touts this as a feature, many PC users (at least my friends anyway)see it as a hindrance.
Depends on which PC users you're talking about. I have plenty of friends who buy prebuilt desktops and laptop... two years later they through everything away and buy a new one... all-in-one.
And they don't or can't pay $2000+ dollars to do it. And these people are not die hard computer users/gamers either. Just regular joe's and jane's.
A decent PC tower from a brand name company will run you $1300 with keboard and mouse. A decent 21'' TFT will run you $500-600. Speakers, software, etc... and you're at the $2000 price tag.
If you're skilled and have, you can cut that cost down a bit, but not much... however that is IF you're skilled and have time.
So while the imac is nice for some people I think it's a mistake for Apple to make it the only mid range machine they offer. And it's probably getting in the way of Apple bringing out a lower cost tower for switchers.
That maybe, but that is saparate question and does make iMac a "mistake" as you point out.
A tower in the $600-$1200 range. Something that would actually entice PC users to switch.
Here is what I don't understand... the whole reason you're pitching a consumer price level tower is so that you can swap out all sorts of hardware inside the case, right?
Problem is, that I'm not sure if that is what Apple has in mind! Their entire approach is that "it just works"... judging by their product line and sales pitch they don't want their customers opening the box... ever! If you want to upgrade... head to the Apple Store. If you want to expand, connect externally. Apple wants to control internal hardware themselves and has always done it except for the momentary lapse back in the 90s.
The whole "switcher" thing is that one switches to "unreliable, undependable PC" to a sleek, fast, maintenance free Mac that you don't have to do squat with to make it work properly... in otherwords, it's more of a lifestyle change than a technology change.
I maybe wrong here, but an "upgradable enthusiast" tower will not be quite in line with their companies plan.
Originally posted by extremeskater
Instead of making Windows available on the Mac they should be working towards making OSX available on all computers and every other OEM product they own.
Amen brother that's the real secret right there. I think Apple will eventually do this when their market share drops low enough. Their hardware might come in nice quality cases but the parts inside are all standard PC fare these days. Some people are willing to pay for that style but it's obvious that alot more are not. I'm sure more would be willing to buy OSX then a new imac.
What does Apple really have to lose by offering OSX for the masses? Certainly not hardware sales. That could easily be made up for in software sales alone.
Originally posted by skatman
I maybe wrong here, but an "upgradable enthusiast" tower will not be quite in line with their companies plan.
Considering Apples decreasing market share in the computer sector they should probably change their plan rather then try and change consumers minds.
Originally posted by extremeskater
Actually the thread was about is the iMac a mistake because of price. Sony makes a self contained until that has better hardware specs and a bigger screen for the same price as the iMac. Its not popular because most people want a machine they can upgrade at least midlevel to advanced users.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4566-3118_7-...7_&tag=dffl3_1
It appears that you're wrong: worse specs, higher cost, uninspired design. Also, bad reviews.
Originally posted by ApplePi
Considering Apples decreasing market share in the computer sector they should probably change their plan rather then try and change consumers minds.
Man, you trolls have got your information all wrong. First, Sony doesn't have an appealing AIO, next, Apple's market share isn't declining. There's also very little evidence that any more than a small minority of computer users buy PCs with the intent of upgrading them.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Man, you trolls have got your information all wrong. First, Sony doesn't have an appealing AIO, next, Apple's market share isn't declining. There's also very little evidence that any more than a small minority of computer users buy PCs with the intent of upgrading them.
Thus why he's a troll
Note how in his first post he claimed to work for IBM, and then proceeded to denounce IBM hardware as two years behind the times.
We're not exactly dealing with an intelligent person, here
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Thus why he's a troll
Note how in his first post he claimed to work for IBM, and then proceeded to denounce IBM hardware as two years behind the times.
We're not exactly dealing with an intelligent person, here
There isn't anyone here that is a troll. Get a grip. Just because someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't make them a troll. As ive already stated I use both machines and have for the better part of my career.
I work for IGS mainframe computing which really has no bearing on anything we are talking about in this thread. Could care less that IBM made Mac chips.
There isnt anything in my posts that aren't logical, didn't say the sony was a great idea in fact said it wasnt popular. For members that are part of the Insider forum I just assumed you read the Insider article about Apple market shares dropping however I was incorrect it wsa only 0.2% the end result however is still 2% of the woldwide market.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1781
I still find it interesting that new iMac owners aren't upset that they bought a new computer that cant be upgraded with one of the biggest single step processor upgrades in the last five years around the corner. And you call me a fool?
Apple put out a product that wasnt truly ready and was more than happy to take your money. Other than maybe getting the price of the Sony incorrect there isnt anything in my last post that you can debate.
Instead of just being negative next time you post maybe you might try something new like making a valid post about the topic.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
http://reviews.cnet.com/4566-3118_7-...7_&tag=dffl3_1
It appears that you're wrong: worse specs, higher cost, uninspired design. Also, bad reviews.
Man, you trolls have got your information all wrong. First, Sony doesn't have an appealing AIO, next, Apple's market share isn't declining. There's also very little evidence that any more than a small minority of computer users buy PCs with the intent of upgrading them.
I bet the number of users that upgrade their pc is greater than 2%. You asked for a AIO and I gave you an example didnt say it was a great computer in fact I said it wasnt popular.
Most computer owners understand having an AIO isnt an advantage. Anyone that recently bought any core duo mac should be feeling that right about now as the new core duo chips ship in the same calendar year.
With an AIO it will cost you 1700.00 to upgrade to a new iMac 20", so wheres the advantage?
Trolls spam a forum with no logic, other than maybe not knowing the price of the sony you couldnt debate anything in my last post. You picked the only thing you could talk about.