Look at Chucker's "woo $100 extra buys me soooo much wooooo" - which Chucker, sounds like there is an aspect of Apple in the Mac Mini which you do not feel there is value for money.
What is it with you guys reading the craziest of things into my posts? All I'm saying is that the Mac product line is no more and no less valuable than it was when it was entirely PowerPC. The Intel transition hasn't "reduced the Apple tax", "improved competitiveness" or "made Macs more comparable" (architectural similarities aside).
A PowerPC Mac mini was a great value. An Intel mac mini is a great value.
You are so warped. That "Apple Tax" myth it's not even funny any more. Give it a rest. The so called Apple Tax has been disproved many times over, but for some reason people keep going on about it like it's a given truth. It's just PC weenie propaganda now.
I guess I'm not saying that it is true, I'm saying the perception of it still exists. Just look at all the "I can buy a Dell cheaper" and "I expected cheaper Macs with Intel" posts littering this thread...!
Look at Chucker's "woo $100 extra buys me soooo much wooooo" - which Chucker, sounds like there is an aspect of Apple in the Mac Mini which you do not feel there is value for money.
I guess that's what I'm referring to when talking bout the Apple Tax, not that it definitely exists, but what is clear is that there is a widespread perception for a number of people that they do not get value for money buying a Mac.
I see. I can't disagree with that. There are plenty of people that don't even look under the hood before buying a car. Most of them don't know what DOHC is, what 5.0 stands for, or even what a Turbo really is. There will always be the ignorance of those that shop for price reguardless of performance, or longevity.
Although, with todays gas prices and the condition of our planet my next car is going be a hybrid, or something a lot more eco friendly.
A PowerPC Mac mini was a great value. An Intel mac mini is a great value.
Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy. Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it, they raised the specs across the board. In doing so, the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture. For the consumer, all of the improvements are well worth $100, regardless of what Apple's actual costs are.
So yeah, the cost of the Intel mini is $100 more, but I'd be willing to bet that Apple's profit margin is lower, which esentially means Apple is getting more price competitive.
Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy.
Look above. Assuming your Yonah price quote is for one unit, the G4 is almost two and a half times as expensive.
Quote:
Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it.
Well, no. I never claimed they did.
Quote:
They did it because the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture.
I don't undersand why they add features, then realize they can't sell it for the old price, then ditch the previous mid-end model and raise the low-end price to that.
If all these extras like the Remote, WiFi and Bluetooth, GigaBit Ethernet, two more USB ports (woopdeedoo) really are worth $100, why doesn't Apple offer a $499 machine that doesn't have them?
Look above. Assuming your Yonah price quote is for one unit, the G4 is almost two and a half times as expensive.
Well, no. I never claimed they did.
I don't undersand why they add features, then realize they can't sell it for the old price, then ditch the previous mid-end model and raise the low-end price to that.
If all these extras like the Remote, WiFi and Bluetooth, GigaBit Ethernet, two more USB ports (woopdeedoo) really are worth $100, why doesn't Apple offer a $499 machine that doesn't have them?
(That's not a rhetorical question.)
That's a good question, but I personally believe that Apple is raising the bar and setting up for some un-released service or feature where things like wi-fi, bluetooth, iSight cams etc. will be required.
I am a systems software developer and I like the 2x2Ghz option because it gives me good concurrency at a very cheap price ($315/Socket). Speed of the processor is less important to me. Of course, I may be in the minority ...
For a single socket (2 cores) machine, its better to go with Conroe - it will save you hundreds of dollars in cheaper motherboard, CPU, and memory.
You're out of your mind. There will be several single-processor configurations. In many cases, people will be running apps that only take advantage of two processors, or even one. So the more cores there are, the more money they're wasting. Expecting an all-quad lineup is a little too much.
I think there should be as much choice as possible, though, in the BTO configuration. As in, select the number of processors you want, select their speeds. That way nobody gets pushed into buying too much or too little power for themselves.
Apple competes with Windows PC manufacturers no more, or less, than it did before. We can, IMO, neglect the small number of people that would buy an Apple computer but use Windows as the primary OS.
The competition is between Windows and OS X, and changing the hardware hasn't affected that.
They can't say "MY MAGICAL 2GHz PROCESSOR BEATS YOUR 4GHz THROUGH MAGIC QUANTUM-PHYSICAL LAWS THAT ONLY APPLY TO COMPUTERS PLACED IN STEVE JOBS' OFFICE" anymore, because they're using the same processor type as the competition.
Like, look at it this way: they had some benchmarks of questionable real-world validity with the G5. If they try the same shit with an Intel processor, it's going to look stupid. People are going to say "hay the Dell has the same proc for $500 less than the mac", where as before, there was a certain level of ambiguity in that mysterious rift between the land of PPC and the land of x86, wherein it could be claimed that the Mac is faster.
Personally, I have faith that Mac OS X is the faster OS when multiple cores and processors are involved, and the Mac Pro will show this.
It is simply not logical that Apple paid $505 for a chip that went into a $499 computer.
Of course not. That's why I said:
Quote:
Maybe this gives you an idea of how meaningless alleged "component prices" are.
Even if we did know the exact prices Apple paid Freescale and now pays Intel, we still wouldn't know additional costs such as R&D. The G4 R&D is probably far lower than the Intel R&D, simply because they had years and years of G4 experience.
Heck, the Mac mini was the first integrated graphics Mac, so a lot of R&D probably went into optimizing that. THAT kind of stuff justifies the price bump. Not a completely hypothetical "the CPU is more expensive" idea.
Quote:
I wish I could find the article, but I clearly remember Apple's cost being $75 for the G4 and $209 for the Yonah.
No article has proper sources. These kinds of deals are inked directly, with no outside information. Any such article would be based on statistics, speculation and perhaps some wishful thinking. Not on information.
Even if we did know the exact prices Apple paid Freescale and now pays Intel, we still wouldn't know additional costs such as R&D. The G4 R&D is probably far lower than the Intel R&D, simply because they had years and years of G4 experience.
Heck, the Mac mini was the first integrated graphics Mac, so a lot of R&D probably went into optimizing that. THAT kind of stuff justifies the price bump. Not a completely hypothetical "the CPU is more expensive" idea.
Still, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to see that these upgrades resulted in a more expensive machine for Apple to manufacture.
- the Intel chip cost considerably more than the g4 chip that it replaced.
- Bluetooth and Wi-Fi added standard (previously $100 upgrade)
The day before the Intel Mini was announced, Apple charged $100 for wifi and bluetooth.
One day later, they said they were including it, an intel processor, front row with remote, Gigabit ethernet upgrade, updated RAM motherboard, more USB ports, digital audio, faster and larger HD, and improved RAM -- all for the that same amount.
If you're trying to argue something completely different, that Apple should offer an even cheaper, lower priced consumer desktop -- than this is the wrong thread for that and you're simply trolling.
Comments
Originally posted by dmwogan
Woo, you should start selling your own computers since you have access to these wonderful prices that no one else does.
Oh, really? Last I checked, I didn't really have a potential customer base to buy components in stacks of hundreds of thousands, whereas Apple does.
Which, mind you, drives component prices down.
A lot.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Look at Chucker's "woo $100 extra buys me soooo much wooooo" - which Chucker, sounds like there is an aspect of Apple in the Mac Mini which you do not feel there is value for money.
What is it with you guys reading the craziest of things into my posts? All I'm saying is that the Mac product line is no more and no less valuable than it was when it was entirely PowerPC. The Intel transition hasn't "reduced the Apple tax", "improved competitiveness" or "made Macs more comparable" (architectural similarities aside).
A PowerPC Mac mini was a great value. An Intel mac mini is a great value.
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
You are so warped. That "Apple Tax" myth it's not even funny any more. Give it a rest. The so called Apple Tax has been disproved many times over, but for some reason people keep going on about it like it's a given truth. It's just PC weenie propaganda now.
I guess I'm not saying that it is true, I'm saying the perception of it still exists. Just look at all the "I can buy a Dell cheaper" and "I expected cheaper Macs with Intel" posts littering this thread...!
Look at Chucker's "woo $100 extra buys me soooo much wooooo" - which Chucker, sounds like there is an aspect of Apple in the Mac Mini which you do not feel there is value for money.
I guess that's what I'm referring to when talking bout the Apple Tax, not that it definitely exists, but what is clear is that there is a widespread perception for a number of people that they do not get value for money buying a Mac.
I see. I can't disagree with that. There are plenty of people that don't even look under the hood before buying a car. Most of them don't know what DOHC is, what 5.0 stands for, or even what a Turbo really is. There will always be the ignorance of those that shop for price reguardless of performance, or longevity.
Although, with todays gas prices and the condition of our planet my next car is going be a hybrid, or something a lot more eco friendly.
Originally posted by solsun
The cost for the mini's single-core Yonah was $209.
Single? 1000 rebate? 100,000 rebate? Magical random number?
I still am looking for the cost of the G4, but I believe it was around $75.00.
FWIW, the KMC7447AHX1420LB (PowerPC 7447A, 1.42 GHz) is $505.4300 at Newark, Freescale's only listed US distributor for this part number.
Maybe this gives you an idea of how meaningless alleged "component prices" are.
Originally posted by Chucker
Oh, really? Last I checked, I didn't really have a potential customer base to buy components in stacks of hundreds of thousands, whereas Apple does.
Which, mind you, drives component prices down.
A lot.
You fail to see the sarcasm in my post. I'll spell it out for you: I was making fun of you.
Originally posted by dmwogan
You fail to see the sarcasm in my post. I'll spell it out for you: I was making fun of you.
Quite the contrary. You fail to see the sarcasm in my post. I'll spell it out for you: your making fun of me was low.
Originally posted by Chucker
A PowerPC Mac mini was a great value. An Intel mac mini is a great value.
Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy. Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it, they raised the specs across the board. In doing so, the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture. For the consumer, all of the improvements are well worth $100, regardless of what Apple's actual costs are.
So yeah, the cost of the Intel mini is $100 more, but I'd be willing to bet that Apple's profit margin is lower, which esentially means Apple is getting more price competitive.
Originally posted by solsun
Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy.
Look above. Assuming your Yonah price quote is for one unit, the G4 is almost two and a half times as expensive.
Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it.
Well, no. I never claimed they did.
They did it because the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture.
I don't undersand why they add features, then realize they can't sell it for the old price, then ditch the previous mid-end model and raise the low-end price to that.
If all these extras like the Remote, WiFi and Bluetooth, GigaBit Ethernet, two more USB ports (woopdeedoo) really are worth $100, why doesn't Apple offer a $499 machine that doesn't have them?
(That's not a rhetorical question.)
Originally posted by dmwogan
What were we talking about again?
Woodcrest in the Mac mini.
?or something.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Finally some news on the Mac Pro. This is all good news. I can't wait until Monday, August 7. Only 26 days to go, but who's counting?!
SOMEBODY MAKE A WIDG-
oh wait, somebody did.
Originally posted by Chucker
Look above. Assuming your Yonah price quote is for one unit, the G4 is almost two and a half times as expensive.
Well, no. I never claimed they did.
I don't undersand why they add features, then realize they can't sell it for the old price, then ditch the previous mid-end model and raise the low-end price to that.
If all these extras like the Remote, WiFi and Bluetooth, GigaBit Ethernet, two more USB ports (woopdeedoo) really are worth $100, why doesn't Apple offer a $499 machine that doesn't have them?
(That's not a rhetorical question.)
That's a good question, but I personally believe that Apple is raising the bar and setting up for some un-released service or feature where things like wi-fi, bluetooth, iSight cams etc. will be required.
Originally posted by mwswami
I am a systems software developer and I like the 2x2Ghz option because it gives me good concurrency at a very cheap price ($315/Socket). Speed of the processor is less important to me. Of course, I may be in the minority ...
For a single socket (2 cores) machine, its better to go with Conroe - it will save you hundreds of dollars in cheaper motherboard, CPU, and memory.
You're out of your mind. There will be several single-processor configurations. In many cases, people will be running apps that only take advantage of two processors, or even one. So the more cores there are, the more money they're wasting. Expecting an all-quad lineup is a little too much.
I think there should be as much choice as possible, though, in the BTO configuration. As in, select the number of processors you want, select their speeds. That way nobody gets pushed into buying too much or too little power for themselves.
Originally posted by Chucker
Woodcrest in the Mac mini.
?or something.
Touche.
Originally posted by Chucker
Single? 1000 rebate? 100,000 rebate? Magical random number?
FWIW, the KMC7447AHX1420LB (PowerPC 7447A, 1.42 GHz) is $505.4300 at Newark, Freescale's only listed US distributor for this part number.
Maybe this gives you an idea of how meaningless alleged "component prices" are.
It is simply not logical that Apple paid $505 for a chip that went into a $499 computer.
I wish I could find the article, but I clearly remember Apple's cost being $75 for the G4 and $209 for the Yonah.
Originally posted by krispie
I don't understand this comment.
Apple competes with Windows PC manufacturers no more, or less, than it did before. We can, IMO, neglect the small number of people that would buy an Apple computer but use Windows as the primary OS.
The competition is between Windows and OS X, and changing the hardware hasn't affected that.
They can't say "MY MAGICAL 2GHz PROCESSOR BEATS YOUR 4GHz THROUGH MAGIC QUANTUM-PHYSICAL LAWS THAT ONLY APPLY TO COMPUTERS PLACED IN STEVE JOBS' OFFICE" anymore, because they're using the same processor type as the competition.
Like, look at it this way: they had some benchmarks of questionable real-world validity with the G5. If they try the same shit with an Intel processor, it's going to look stupid. People are going to say "hay the Dell has the same proc for $500 less than the mac", where as before, there was a certain level of ambiguity in that mysterious rift between the land of PPC and the land of x86, wherein it could be claimed that the Mac is faster.
Personally, I have faith that Mac OS X is the faster OS when multiple cores and processors are involved, and the Mac Pro will show this.
Originally posted by solsun
It is simply not logical that Apple paid $505 for a chip that went into a $499 computer.
Of course not. That's why I said:
Maybe this gives you an idea of how meaningless alleged "component prices" are.
Even if we did know the exact prices Apple paid Freescale and now pays Intel, we still wouldn't know additional costs such as R&D. The G4 R&D is probably far lower than the Intel R&D, simply because they had years and years of G4 experience.
Heck, the Mac mini was the first integrated graphics Mac, so a lot of R&D probably went into optimizing that. THAT kind of stuff justifies the price bump. Not a completely hypothetical "the CPU is more expensive" idea.
I wish I could find the article, but I clearly remember Apple's cost being $75 for the G4 and $209 for the Yonah.
No article has proper sources. These kinds of deals are inked directly, with no outside information. Any such article would be based on statistics, speculation and perhaps some wishful thinking. Not on information.
Originally posted by Chucker
Even if we did know the exact prices Apple paid Freescale and now pays Intel, we still wouldn't know additional costs such as R&D. The G4 R&D is probably far lower than the Intel R&D, simply because they had years and years of G4 experience.
Heck, the Mac mini was the first integrated graphics Mac, so a lot of R&D probably went into optimizing that. THAT kind of stuff justifies the price bump. Not a completely hypothetical "the CPU is more expensive" idea.
Still, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to see that these upgrades resulted in a more expensive machine for Apple to manufacture.
- the Intel chip cost considerably more than the g4 chip that it replaced.
- Bluetooth and Wi-Fi added standard (previously $100 upgrade)
- Front Row and Remote added
- Gigabit ethernet added
- Max Ram capacity was increased from 1 to 2 gig
- Extra USB ports (2) added
- digital and analog audio in/out added
- Faster HD (5400 rpm vs. 4200 rpm)
- Larger HD (60 gig vs. 40 gig)
- Faster RAM used
Originally posted by solsun
Still, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to see that these upgrades resulted in a more expensive machine for Apple to manufacture.
Assuming it would have been manufactured at the same moment as the original one, that may be true. However, there was a gap of about 14 months.
- the Intel chip cost considerably more than the g4 chip that it replaced.
Again, not proven. Could be cheaper, could be roughly the same price.
The gap was not 14 months. The gap was one day.
The day before the Intel Mini was announced, Apple charged $100 for wifi and bluetooth.
One day later, they said they were including it, an intel processor, front row with remote, Gigabit ethernet upgrade, updated RAM motherboard, more USB ports, digital audio, faster and larger HD, and improved RAM -- all for the that same amount.
If you're trying to argue something completely different, that Apple should offer an even cheaper, lower priced consumer desktop -- than this is the wrong thread for that and you're simply trolling.