The consumer typically does not buy what they want. They buy what they can afford.
I have worked in marketing and we sort of disagree.
Consumer typically DO BUY what they want, AND can afford. There is a selection of products they can afford, but the one they choose is the one they WANT. A minor difference.
Most consumer buyers don't expand their computer. Likely TRUE.
iMac is perfect for that segment. TRUE.
Therefore these consumers want and buy iMacs. FALSE!
This is your conclusion this isn't what I was saying at all. You took a whole conversation and condensed it into this simple conclusion.
There are many choices that have to be made for a consumer to narrow their decision down to the iMac. You have to want a Mac to begin with, be in the market for a $1200 computer, feel comfortable to not use Windows.
The most consumer "wants" what he/she can't afford.
The most consumer settles for what he/she can afford.
However, many consumers "buy" what they can't afford.
semantics
We all want the best/most expensive.
We usually settle for something less expensive but often more expensive than we can afford.
I might say, "I've looked at all the cars in my price range, and I WANT a Honda Civic. That does not mean I don't like a Lexus more. Let's not make it complicated.
This is your conclusion this isn't what I was saying at all. You took a whole conversation and condensed it into this simple conclusion. . .
I took YOUR concluding remarks, which are:
"But you have to recognize a sizable portion (I believe the majority) of the consumer market does not really bother with expanding their computers."
"The iMac is perfect for that segment of the market."
I basically agreed with your remarks, and indicate so. I then pointed out that these concluding remarks do not mean that the consumer will then WANT and BUY an iMac. That's all there is to it.
You are correct in that the first remarks are yours, but the final observation is mine. I thought that would be obvious to readers, so I kept it simple. I really wasn't trying to put words in you mouth.
I don't have any personal experience with sales or marketing really. But as far as I am, I know I usually get excited most about things I can actually afford. If something high end comes out that I can't afford I might take a look at it and say "dang that looks nice" but that's about the most I give it. Unless I know it can trickle down to me eventually.
And Snoopy that new civic is the bomb man. I can't afford to buy a new car but that one has me almost looking for options.
We usually settle for something less expensive but often more expensive than we can afford.
This is what the world of Advertising counts on; for CompUSA and Computerland it is all they know, since, except for the lone Apple guy at the Columbus Circle CompUSA store swimming among the ignorant, their knowledge of Macs is < 0. (i.e., what they "know" is wrong), resulting in some very confused and later disappointed customers.
And they have. Which is why despite a vastly superior operating system, 95% choose to go elsewhere.
Its not "vastly superior". It's nicely superior and that doesn't show up that well in sales brochures. Most folks couldn't tell superior OS if it walked up and bit them on their bit bucket anyway.
Catering to the masses that don't care about that kind of thing is pointless. They want $499 computers and so do you. Go buy one. The best you'll likely get from Apple is a better mini (with no slots), an overpriced cube (with 2 slots at best) and a full blown desktop above your desired price range.
They want $499 computers and so do you. Go buy one.
What is your obsession with adding troll-like elements to your posts? Ben does not want a $499 computer and has stated over and over and over that he's after a $1499 desktop from Apple. What's your problem?
What is your obsession with adding troll-like elements to your posts? Ben does not want a $499 computer and has stated over and over and over that he's after a $1499 desktop from Apple. What's your problem?
Yes, I'd like the following things:
1.86-2.4ghz conroe
1 gb DDR2 SDRAM with 4 slots
16x FULL SIZE super drive with an emtpy bay for a DVD-ROM.
At least two hard drive bays.
Desktop, non-underclocked GeForce 7600 or Radeon x1600 with 265mb of memory on PCI Express x16 card
At least three usable PCI-Express slots.
If I wanted a $500 computer the Mini would be adequate. The above specs I can get from basically any other computer maker. In fact I'm trying to choose between a Velocity Micro Vector GX and the Mini as a throw away interim machine. Not Dell, but a high end, high quality boutique maker. If it wasn't for the OS, It'd be an easy choice.
Its not "vastly superior". It's nicely superior and that doesn't show up that well in sales brochures. Most folks couldn't tell superior OS if it walked up and bit them on their bit bucket anyway.
Catering to the masses that don't care about that kind of thing is pointless. They want $499 computers and so do you. Go buy one. The best you'll likely get from Apple is a better mini (with no slots), an overpriced cube (with 2 slots at best) and a full blown desktop above your desired price range.
Vinea
I think that what most people that want a "headless" Mac for less than $2000 want is not a cheap computer, but something in the $1200-1700 range. Call it a "Cross-Over" computer, or a Pro-'Sumer" computer or whatever. There are things about the iMac that do not fit their needs, like a lack of expandability or locked in display size/quality. At the same time their needs and expense account do not warrant the price of a quad core Mac Pro, and a single, dual core 2-2.4 Ghz computer would work fine for them. This is a system that most of the PC industry has, and until the G5 PowerMac was represented in the Mac Market place with a price tag ranging from $1299 to $1699 throughout the life of the G3 and G4 PowerMacs. This is really not a New market for Apple, but rather the traditional "low-end" range of the PowerMac line.
Exactly. Apple has been moving the PowerMac (and now Mac Pro) further upscale to a point where they no longer have desktops, only workstations. While that works for the really high end pros, us old school PowerMac guys have been left out in the cold. All I'm looking for is a modern equivilent of my old Blue and White G3.
How can you guys not get bored writing and reading the same things over and over for 18 freakin' pages???
I don't know about the rest of them, but I'm hoping that if we make this thread long enough, Apple might get a clue that there is something between family computers and ultra high end workstations.
Why on earth do people keep saying the iMac is "based on laptop parts"? Any idiot who was following this stuff before January 2006 knows the current iMac was originally designed for, and had, a G5 processor, with all that entails, and that the only reason it currently uses Yonah is that that was the only "Core" chip available before this summer. It's called a STOPGAP. iMac will get Conroe just as surely as it got the G5. You people. Seriously.
Comments
I have worked in sales and I disagree.
The consumer typically does not buy what they want. They buy what they can afford.
I have worked in marketing and we sort of disagree.
Consumer typically DO BUY what they want, AND can afford. There is a selection of products they can afford, but the one they choose is the one they WANT. A minor difference.
Otherwise I agree with you pretty much.
Most consumer buyers don't expand their computer. Likely TRUE.
iMac is perfect for that segment. TRUE.
Therefore these consumers want and buy iMacs. FALSE!
This is your conclusion this isn't what I was saying at all. You took a whole conversation and condensed it into this simple conclusion.
There are many choices that have to be made for a consumer to narrow their decision down to the iMac. You have to want a Mac to begin with, be in the market for a $1200 computer, feel comfortable to not use Windows.
Consumer typically DO BUY what they want, AND can afford.
There is a selection of products they can afford, but the one they choose is the one they WANT.
The most consumer "wants" what he/she can't afford.
The most consumer settles for what he/she can afford.
However, many consumers "buy" what they can't afford.
semantics
We all want the best/most expensive.
We usually settle for something less expensive but often more expensive than we can afford.
The most consumer "wants" what he/she can't afford.
The most consumer settles for what he/she can afford.
However, many consumers "buy" what they can't afford.
semantics
We all want the best/most expensive.
We usually settle for something less expensive but often more expensive than we can afford.
I might say, "I've looked at all the cars in my price range, and I WANT a Honda Civic. That does not mean I don't like a Lexus more. Let's not make it complicated.
This is your conclusion this isn't what I was saying at all. You took a whole conversation and condensed it into this simple conclusion. . .
I took YOUR concluding remarks, which are:
"But you have to recognize a sizable portion (I believe the majority) of the consumer market does not really bother with expanding their computers."
"The iMac is perfect for that segment of the market."
I basically agreed with your remarks, and indicate so. I then pointed out that these concluding remarks do not mean that the consumer will then WANT and BUY an iMac. That's all there is to it.
You are correct in that the first remarks are yours, but the final observation is mine. I thought that would be obvious to readers, so I kept it simple. I really wasn't trying to put words in you mouth.
And Snoopy that new civic is the bomb man. I can't afford to buy a new car but that one has me almost looking for options.
Ultimately the market decides if its over kill.
If consumers cannot even use all of the features standard on the iMac why would they need expandability?
And they have. Which is why despite a vastly superior operating system, 95% choose to go elsewhere.
semantics
We all want the best/most expensive.
We usually settle for something less expensive but often more expensive than we can afford.
This is what the world of Advertising counts on; for CompUSA and Computerland it is all they know, since, except for the lone Apple guy at the Columbus Circle CompUSA store swimming among the ignorant, their knowledge of Macs is < 0. (i.e., what they "know" is wrong), resulting in some very confused and later disappointed customers.
And they have. Which is why despite a vastly superior operating system, 95% choose to go elsewhere.
Its not "vastly superior". It's nicely superior and that doesn't show up that well in sales brochures. Most folks couldn't tell superior OS if it walked up and bit them on their bit bucket anyway.
Catering to the masses that don't care about that kind of thing is pointless. They want $499 computers and so do you. Go buy one. The best you'll likely get from Apple is a better mini (with no slots), an overpriced cube (with 2 slots at best) and a full blown desktop above your desired price range.
Vinea
They want $499 computers and so do you. Go buy one.
What is your obsession with adding troll-like elements to your posts? Ben does not want a $499 computer and has stated over and over and over that he's after a $1499 desktop from Apple. What's your problem?
What is your obsession with adding troll-like elements to your posts? Ben does not want a $499 computer and has stated over and over and over that he's after a $1499 desktop from Apple. What's your problem?
Yes, I'd like the following things:
1.86-2.4ghz conroe
1 gb DDR2 SDRAM with 4 slots
16x FULL SIZE super drive with an emtpy bay for a DVD-ROM.
At least two hard drive bays.
Desktop, non-underclocked GeForce 7600 or Radeon x1600 with 265mb of memory on PCI Express x16 card
At least three usable PCI-Express slots.
If I wanted a $500 computer the Mini would be adequate. The above specs I can get from basically any other computer maker. In fact I'm trying to choose between a Velocity Micro Vector GX and the Mini as a throw away interim machine. Not Dell, but a high end, high quality boutique maker. If it wasn't for the OS, It'd be an easy choice.
Its not "vastly superior". It's nicely superior and that doesn't show up that well in sales brochures. Most folks couldn't tell superior OS if it walked up and bit them on their bit bucket anyway.
Catering to the masses that don't care about that kind of thing is pointless. They want $499 computers and so do you. Go buy one. The best you'll likely get from Apple is a better mini (with no slots), an overpriced cube (with 2 slots at best) and a full blown desktop above your desired price range.
Vinea
I think that what most people that want a "headless" Mac for less than $2000 want is not a cheap computer, but something in the $1200-1700 range. Call it a "Cross-Over" computer, or a Pro-'Sumer" computer or whatever. There are things about the iMac that do not fit their needs, like a lack of expandability or locked in display size/quality. At the same time their needs and expense account do not warrant the price of a quad core Mac Pro, and a single, dual core 2-2.4 Ghz computer would work fine for them. This is a system that most of the PC industry has, and until the G5 PowerMac was represented in the Mac Market place with a price tag ranging from $1299 to $1699 throughout the life of the G3 and G4 PowerMacs. This is really not a New market for Apple, but rather the traditional "low-end" range of the PowerMac line.
How can you guys not get bored writing and reading the same things over and over for 18 freakin' pages???
I don't know about the rest of them, but I'm hoping that if we make this thread long enough, Apple might get a clue that there is something between family computers and ultra high end workstations.
...Pro-'Sumer"...
Based on history its highly likely Apple will eventually offer the edu iMac to general consumers. It would probably be the $999 AIO desktop.
a $1000 desk top with gma 950 is not going to cut it.