Mmkay...that could have been done with a little more grace.
Quote:
I don't think that anyone is claiming that $999 isn't affordable, although it's certainly not low-end anymore. However, let's look at a few things.
It is no more low end today than $1300 was in 1998.
Quote:
You've been claiming that PCs could be had for under $500 in mid-1998 when the iMac debuted. However, all the articles I found mentioned "sub-$1000 PCs", not "sub-$500 PCs". You can actually see this in the last article I quoted in my previous post. However, here are a few more articles on the subject:
Then perhaps you simply need to look for the two vendors I posted earlier:
eMachines challenged Packard Bell in the last quarter of 1998 with rock bottom pricing. That's $399 NOT including discounts. Packard Bell had already been feeling the heat and had started dropping pricing before then.
I was a bit vague on when in 1998 sub-$500 computers appeared as the original quoted source wasn't specific but we're talking fall of 1998 for the iMac so the time differential couldn't have been very large...and it wasn't. And frankly I hadn't expected $399 but there it is.
Quote:
Now, you'll notice this article is from December 1998, quite a while after the iMac was announced. At the time this article was written, $700 PCs were just starting to come out - before that, they cost more than that - and the article indicates that $500 PCs still didn't exist in Dec. 1998, which again was later than the iMac, and that this publication expected them to show up about a year later.
Your article is incorrect then eh? eMachines alone shipped 150K under $500 units in 1998.
Quote:
So anyway. At the time the iMac was introduced, there were no $500 PCs, and sub-$1000 was the norm for cheap PCs without monitors, making the iMac quite competitive with even the low end of the PC range.
The iMac release on 15 August until eMachines released their lineup is a matter of a 4 months. At the time there were $699 PCs and possibly $599 PCs (as that was PBs goal in early 1998 ). By the Xmas season there were $399 computers. The only thing you've shown is that magazines need a bit of lead time to print articles and they are sometimes out of date with respect to current market conditions.
Quote:
You cannot deny that the general prices in the PC industry have plummeted since then - nowadays, you can get a tower for $450 - and from Dell, not some eMachines crap that never works right.
They plummeted in Q4 of 1998. eMachines apparently had a low rate of return. From the article above:
Quote:
In Q1'99, eMachines continued to report a dramatically low return rate of under four percent, less than half the industry average.
That's not so shabby. Certainly not nearly "never works right".
Quote:
So while $999 would have been very cheap in 1998, it is not anymore, even when taking inflation into account, because computer prices have dropped much faster than inflation has raised them.
Except it wasn't $999 but $1299 for the iMac and $799 for the model you listed. HP was still a premium brand then...if you couldn't buy a PC for less than $799 in May of 1998 you simply weren't trying. Magazine comparisons rarely looked below that top tier of manufacturers but the machines existed. That your magazine article doesn't consider Packard Bell is an indicator.
Here's a May 1998 article from CNET that talks of the $599 price point:
They had introduced a $699 model in late May...the Packard Bell 550. AMD was starting to make its move on Intel. Apple introduced its model with full knowledge of where the bottom end of the PC market was heading and that the sub-$600 market.
Quote:
Packard Bell First To Crack Sub-$700 Barrier
[11:30AM] If the past eighteen months are any indication, the days of sub-$500 computers might be here sooner than you would have previously expected. After leading the wave of vendors who broke the sub-$1,000 price point in January 1997, Packard Bell today established a new low-cost category with the introduction of the first sub-$700 computer. The Packard Bell 500, housed in a mini-tower chassis, features a Cyrix 233-MHz MMX Enhanced MediaGX processor, 24MB RAM, 2.1GB hard drive, 24X CD-ROM drive, and 56-Kbps modem for $699. A $999 model, also announced today, ups the processor, RAM, and hard drive to 266-MHz, 48MB, and 4.3GB, respectively.
Somehow I don't think the guys at Apple were unable to read a trend quite as obvious as what the PC market was doing from 1997-1999. It should be obvious to anyone that $1299 would be significantly higher than the entry level PC market pricing even including a monitor.
Quote:
So let's look at the B&W G3, introduced somewhat later than the iMac in 1999. That machine was nicely expandable, and started at $1500. In 2005 dollars that would be about $1710, so due to the falling prices of the computer market, Apple should provide a tower in 2005 that is significantly cheaper than $1710 just to match what they had in 1998.
Perhaps they will if you consider $1499-$1699 significantly cheaper thant $1710. There's no reason that Apple should offer a cheap tower if the market values Macs higher.
Quote:
In fact, due to the fact that prices have dropped far enough that the dollar amounts have decreased despite inflation, the price should actually be significantly cheaper than the $1500 price of the B&W G3, because what was normal in 1998 and 1999 is expensive now.
Again no because Apple is branded as a higher end product that competes with other higher end brands like Sony, Toshiba, etc.
Sometimes a gracious acceptance of victory is better no?
One thing that is interesting is that I used to credit Dell with the explosion in PC ownership but in reality it was eMachines and Packard Bell. 51% of eMachines sales in Q1 1999 were to new PC owners. $399-$499 was evidently the magic price point for widespread adoption.
Quote:
About 51 percent of Q1'99 eTower sales through consumer electronics retailers were to first-time PC buyers, compared to industry figures that were slightly above 25 percent during 1997 and most of 1998. These new 'first-time' buyers reported annual household incomes at 69 percent between $20,000 and $34,000, and 31 percent between $35,000 and $49,000, substantially below the $50,000+ household income levels reported by PC owners in 1997 and 1998 surveys.
The basis of my argument has been that Apple is shooting for the $50K+ households and not the $20K-$49K households. They price accordingly and there is no great need for Apple to compete in the entry level market.
Soooo.....one of those $399 jobs from Dell is better than the entire Mac lineup except for the MacPro?
Doesn't have to be a 399 job, there are other price brackets in pcs too, just like macs
That's why its great to have a choice.
Ummmm...if you consider switching back to pc a choice, but if you want to use a mac, which I would assume everyone here wants to do, the choice is essentially non-existent.
Which computer did you buy? I'm always open to a better deal than these over priced under functional Mac's. Especially computers from companies that are barely profitable if profitable at all, whose stock is stagnant, and has break even margins. Makes me feel like they aren't getting over on me.
That may be true for THOSE companies but since apple ALREADY has a unique OS and a SMALL product line, why would that happen to them? These just sounds like ramblings now that's not logical, those companies have tons of other companies doing the same thing and offering the same OS, even if apple where to copy their strategies, which they can't without discontinuing everything they've already made, apple would STILL be different. You act like a single product line (mid range desktops) controls the entire company's fate and actions.
You want comparisions of decent computers? Fine (all prices in canadian dollars):
The only thing the second 17" imac has on above package 2.0ghz vs 1.83ghz and integrated graphics, we all know how easy and cheap that is to put in, 199.99 gets me a 7600GT, can probably be found cheaper.
Now if apple offered something like that, maybe with similar specs, having only 2 pre configured models at let's say somewhere in 999-1199 for one and 1699-1899 for the other and offered a range of expansion options between them a-la mac pro, how would that sink their business? I bet tons of people on this site would buy something like that, I know I would. They could even hire a team to write graphics drivers that would be downloadable off apple's site for the most popular third party gpu options and keep a list of compatible cards on the site, since gpu manufacturers dont' seem to care about writing apple drivers.
(remeber these are all canadian prices, I leave it up to whomever wants to do the conversions, but remember things are always cheaper than this in the USA)
I fail to see how and who that would hurt, most of the people that would buy that wouldn't buy an imac anyways, they probably own both a mac and pc like I'll probably end up doing if apple doesn't rectify this by the end of next summer. And even if imac sales slightly drop who cares, selling them something is better than selling them nothing at all and this could possibly sell them more products and grow their userbase.
This is where that 17" Cinema Display rumour(hopefully at 1400x900) could help selling people a pure apple solution and they should lower the 20" price as well, or replace both of them with ones that look metal but are plastic to get display prices down into a reasonable range (right now the 20" ACD is the worst deal apple offers imo).
If apple did that they wouldn't implode, and NO the cube and the mac mini are not the same thing and cannot be used as a sales judge.
They could even hire a team to write graphics drivers that would be downloadable off apple's site for the most popular third party gpu options and keep a list of compatible cards on the site
Apple is already heavily involved in the writing of GPU drivers for OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking
since gpu manufacturers dont' seem to care about writing apple drivers.
That's because the only GPU upgradeable mac is... the Mac Pro (yes, of course there's second-hand machines) which is bought more by professionals than gamers.
A decent range of well-selling lower-cost towers would surely help to boost the range of Mac-compatible graphics cards.
I gotta say, if I didn't know any better i'd think apple didn't really care about graphics. They don't have any real competitive solution to directx 10. They just finally got professional 3d cards in the last 2 years (quadro). They don't try and push ATI / Nvidia to produce 3rd party cards (mainly because they don't offer an option for upgrades in 80% of the machines). Also considering the recent move from real gpus to intel's gpus on lowend machines makes me raise an eye.
The only thing that keeps me thinking SJ may actually care about graphics is things like core animation (which is more aimed towards user feed back than real graphics), and..................... meh I can't think of anything else.
Apple really needs to address their graphics situation, before they get left in the dust because of directx 10. Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any plans to an update to OpenGL 2.1. True / Untrue? I really tried to dig to find out. I heard all the committees involved with OpenGL are arguing over the direction it should go.
I really hope apple has something in the fire to handle all these graphical concerns.
eMachines challenged Packard Bell in the last quarter of 1998 with rock bottom pricing. That's $399 NOT including discounts. Packard Bell had already been feeling the heat and had started dropping pricing before then.
Okay, I don't see any of that in the article - when talking about the $499 or whatever, it seems to be talking in the present tense, which at the time that article was written would be April 1999. But hey, I'll assume you're correct even though I don't see anything like this:
Quote:
Your article is incorrect then eh? eMachines alone shipped 150K under $500 units in 1998.
mentioned in the article (Your article says "eMachines shipped 300,000 eTower PCs in the first quarter of 1999, a huge increase from the over 150,000 units shipped in Q4'98." Doesn't mention the price of the 1998 machines - only the then-current machines of April 1999.), or this:
Quote:
The iMac release on 15 August until eMachines released their lineup is a matter of a 4 months. At the time there were $699 PCs and possibly $599 PCs (as that was PBs goal in early 1998 ). By the Xmas season there were $399 computers.
Don't see it. But I'll assume it's correct. Here's the thing:
Quote:
That's not so shabby. Certainly not nearly "never works right".
Believe me, those things had a horrible reputation. Not just from Mac guys - all the PC guys I knew talked of eMachines in the same tone of voice as Windows ME. And Packard Bell consistently bottomed out the list for DOA machines, lousy customer service, etc. in every ranking there was at the time. Of course, they ended up exiting the market a couple of years later. Apple never competed against eMachines and Packard Bell, because they'd have to make lousy products to do so. The iMac did compete with budget PC offerings from reputable brands such as HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., and it did so quite well.
Quote:
Except it wasn't $999 but $1299 for the iMac and $799 for the model you listed. HP was still a premium brand then...if you couldn't buy a PC for less than $799 in May of 1998 you simply weren't trying. Magazine comparisons rarely looked below that top tier of manufacturers but the machines existed. That your magazine article doesn't consider Packard Bell is an indicator.
Oh, the articles mentioned Packard Bell. Here's one from PC World's Top 10 PCs list from April 1998:
Quote:
Brand-new this month is Packard Bell's Multimedia S606, in the fifth spot. The $1398 S606 is a beginner's PC with clear-cut setup instructions and a friendly interface. It's a little slower than IBM's Aptiva E16, but it does come with a ton of family software titles. Packard Bell, however, has a long history of poor customer service. Judging by our recent calls to tech support, the service seems to have improved, but be prepared to do your own troubleshooting.
$1398... and a "budget" PC. They may have made cheaper machines, but they clearly weren't worthy of mention, considering how your article here:
Quote:
Here's a May 1998 article from CNET that talks of the $599 price point:
Somehow I don't think the guys at Apple were unable to read a trend quite as obvious as what the PC market was doing from 1997-1999. It should be obvious to anyone that $1299 would be significantly higher than the entry level PC market pricing even including a monitor.
The entry-level PC market was defined as "sub-$1000 PCs" and that was the norm, notwithstanding the bare-bones junk from eMachines and Packard Bell that wasn't taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Apple competed with those because it included a monitor, and adding a monitor to a sub-$1000 PC would get you a total that was not that much less than the iMac. Do a search for articles like I did - I'm sure you'll find a few here and there claiming the iMac was too expensive, and maybe you'll quote them, but you'll have to very selectively pick them out and ignore a bevy of articles citing the iMac as being a budget computer or being attractive because of its low price. Again I had to do no such selection, and found many, many more articles talking about the iMac's low price than whining about its price being high.
Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any plans to an update to OpenGL 2.1. True / Untrue? I really tried to dig to find out. I heard all the committees involved with OpenGL are arguing over the direction it should go.
Er...you mean like OpenGL 3.0 that ATI and nVidia are pushing? 2.1 is new so 3.0 is pretty far out but folks are talking about it.
Yes, but that's a good thing and neither are low end to begin with.
Quote:
Okay, I don't see any of that in the article - when talking about the $499 or whatever, it seems to be talking in the present tense, which at the time that article was written would be April 1999. But hey, I'll assume you're correct even though I don't see anything like this:
Then here:
Quote:
Now, just in time for the upcoming holiday season, another industry pipsqueak is making noise--this time with a sub-$500 PC. Emachines, a startup backed by Korean computer giant TriGem Computer and display maker Korean Data Systems, will unveil a $399 computer--sans monitor--later this month. Sub-$1,000 machines have pushed average retail prices across the PC industry from about $1,600 to $1,200, but prices are still too high to attract droves of new buyers. Emachines believes its E-Tower, which will sell for less than $500 with a monitor, will appeal to the 55% of computerless households with annual incomes of $25,000 to $30,000. ''This price point will open up another 20% of the market,'' promises Emachines CEO Stephen A. Dukker.
And it seemed like you could Google so well. Would it have been difficult to Google for eMachines and 1998 rather than insinuate that I might be mistaken by "assuming" I'm correct?
Quote:
Don't see it. But I'll assume it's correct. Here's the thing:
No need to assume. Just check.
Quote:
Believe me, those things had a horrible reputation. Not just from Mac guys - all the PC guys I knew talked of eMachines in the same tone of voice as Windows ME. And Packard Bell consistently bottomed out the list for DOA machines, lousy customer service, etc. in every ranking there was at the time.
So what? You're stating the bottom of the market was $699 when it was $399. You're saying that $1300 was affordable to the masses when the big uptake in computer ownership didn't occur until this pricepoint had been reached. $1300 is "entry level" for folks in the $50K+ income level. This isn't the same as the under $50K/yr income demographic that the sub-$500 entry level market addresses.
So are you going to accept that you were incorrect as I did about the Performa price or do we need to run this into the ground like I have to with someone else that never admits mistakes?
Quote:
Of course, they ended up exiting the market a couple of years later. Apple never competed against eMachines and Packard Bell, because they'd have to make lousy products to do so. The iMac did compete with budget PC offerings from reputable brands such as HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., and it did so quite well.
And these brands quickly introduced lower priced models in response. That Apple never competed with eMachines and Packard Bell is completely correct. Nor should it compete with Dell, HP and Gateway at these entry-level pricepoints today.
That's entirely my point when I say that there is no need for a $300-$400 Mac as some has suggested. AND that Apple hasn't competed in the entry level market which since 1998 has been defined as the sub-$500 market.
Quote:
The entry-level PC market was defined as "sub-$1000 PCs" and that was the norm, notwithstanding the bare-bones junk from eMachines and Packard Bell that wasn't taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing.
Riiight...they weren't taken seriously which is why the other vendors had a sub-$500 PC in short order. eMachines put themselves on the map and never went out of business (never made money either which is another reason for Apple to avoid this market) but was aquired by Gateway. Packard Bell Europe still holds 3rd place in terms of consumer sales even though they exited the US market in 2000 (according to wikipedia anyway).
At the start of 1998 pricing was still in the $700-$800 level. By May the indicators were (from the articles I found) that folks understood that the market was heading for sub $500 sooner rather than later. By the end of 1998 it was reality.
Apple must have known that sub-$500 pricing would happen no later than 1999 and with an August 1998 release if they wanted to compete in the "entry market" they would have known that $1299 wouldn't fly. It's not much of a stretch to assume they had no intention in competing in the entry level consumer market.
Quote:
Do a search for articles like I did - I'm sure you'll find a few here and there claiming the iMac was too expensive, and maybe you'll quote them, but you'll have to very selectively pick them out and ignore a bevy of articles citing the iMac as being a budget computer or being attractive because of its low price. Again I had to do no such selection, and found many, many more articles talking about the iMac's low price than whining about its price being high.
Low price for a Mac. Not low price for the market which has now been established at $399 by Q4 1998. You can say that Apple was a good value for what was provided (which is true today) but you certainly can't claim it was "cheap" in comparison to the PC market at over double the price of the least expensive models (with monitors).
You have subjective quotes on the meaning of "entry level" or "budget". I have objective prices.
Yes, but that's a good thing and neither are low end to begin with.
The iMac was low-end. It happened to occupy a higher portion of the low end than eMachines and Packard Bell, as would be expected. But it was not a prosumer machine by any stretch of the imagination.
Quote:
And it seemed like you could Google so well. Would it have been difficult to Google for eMachines and 1998 rather than insinuate that I might be mistaken by "assuming" I'm correct?
No need to assume. Just check.
Because it doesn't matter. For some reason, you seem to think my argument is that the iMac was cheaper than any PC of the time. I'm not sure why. Hell, I even said "eMachines didn't exist yet until Sept. 1998 according to Wikipedia, but Packard Bell was around, and might have had cheaper stuff." in the post you were replying to. I don't see the need to spend time searching for stuff that for all I know is correct anyway.
Quote:
So what? You're stating the bottom of the market was $699 when it was $399. You're saying that $1300 was affordable to the masses when the big uptake in computer ownership didn't occur until this pricepoint had been reached. $1300 is "entry level" for folks in the $50K+ income level. This isn't the same as the under $50K/yr income demographic that the sub-$500 entry level market addresses.
I'm stating that the original iMac, at $1300, was an entry-level computer and recognized as such. And frankly, I'm not sure how the discussion even got here, because I only re-entered this thread, something I had vowed to avoid doing, because of the egregious factual errors regarding the Performa 450 and the PowerMacs c. 1998 which I couldn't let slide.
Quote:
And these brands quickly introduced lower priced models in response. That Apple never competed with eMachines and Packard Bell is completely correct. Nor should it compete with Dell, HP and Gateway at these entry-level pricepoints today.
That's entirely my point when I say that there is no need for a $300-$400 Mac as some has suggested. AND that Apple hasn't competed in the entry level market which since 1998 has been defined as the sub-$500 market.
What the hell? When did I ever state that I think Apple should build a $300-$400 Mac?
And by this, are you saying that the Mac mini isn't an entry-level computer? Sheesh, that's irony for you, since I was planning to write in response to your iMac claims, "The Mac mini starts at $600, and you could probably find a cheapo PC for $300 (but not Dell, which seems to start at $450). Does that mean the Mac mini isn't entry-level? It's twice as much!"
But you probably do actually believe that. Is the Mac mini a prosumer machine, vinea? With its tiny case, tiny hard drive, tiny RAM limit, integrated graphics, bare-bones everything, non-upgradable anything?
Quote:
Riiight...they weren't taken seriously which is why the other vendors had a sub-$500 PC in short order. eMachines put themselves on the map and never went out of business (never made money either which is another reason for Apple to avoid this market) but was aquired by Gateway. Packard Bell Europe still holds 3rd place in terms of consumer sales even though they exited the US market in 2000 (according to wikipedia anyway).
Not taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Those who didn't know better predictably snapped them up. And then had problems. And then the companies disappeared, either from exiting the market or being bought by a competitor.
I don't care what their current status is in the European market, because 1. it's not relevant to what we're talking about, 2. they could be making a completely different type of machine than they made in the US in 1998, 3. the European market is a niche compared to the worldwide market, and 4. the source for the statement is PB's own website anyway.
Quote:
Apple must have known that sub-$500 pricing would happen no later than 1999 and with an August 1998 release if they wanted to compete in the "entry market" they would have known that $1299 wouldn't fly.
Yeah, it wouldn't fly. That's why it was the #1 top-selling desktop computer on the market until they started selling the five colors as different models (as opposed to counting them all the same and shipping the same number of each color to stores, who got irritated because they'd end up with excess inventory of the less popular colors).
(edit: you'll probably want some sources for that. Couldn't document it completely, but these cover 1998 and some of 1999: link 1link 2link 3)
Quote:
It's not much of a stretch to assume they had no intention in competing in the entry level consumer market.
That was exactly the intention of the machine.
Quote:
Low price for a Mac.
Wait, I thought saying that was tantamount to saying some ridiculous thing about Porsche and $45K?
Quote:
Not low price for the market which has now been established at $399 by Q4 1998. You can say that Apple was a good value for what was provided (which is true today) but you certainly can't claim it was "cheap" in comparison to the PC market at over double the price of the least expensive models (with monitors).
So do you think the Mac mini isn't a low-end machine? Oh, that's right, you don't.
Quote:
You have subjective quotes on the meaning of "entry level" or "budget". I have objective prices.
But subjective definitions of where the cut-off is where entry-level ends and prosumer begins. You think that although the iMac was designed, marketed, and referenced as an entry-level machine, it's prosumer since they didn't pay you to take it. And since I couldn't find too many articles that supported your position, it seems the lines are drawn as such:
iMac a prosumer machine: vinea
iMac an entry-level machine: pretty near the rest of the world
But in the end, we're just arguing about semantics, it seems.
The iMac was low-end. It happened to occupy a higher portion of the low end than eMachines and Packard Bell, as would be expected. But it was not a prosumer machine by any stretch of the imagination.
Since when do you need to be either entry level or prosumer? There is an upper end to the consumer market. Apple occupies that as well as the higher side of the middle of the consumer market.
Quote:
Because it doesn't matter. For some reason, you seem to think my argument is that the iMac was cheaper than any PC of the time. I'm not sure why. Hell, I even said "eMachines didn't exist yet until Sept. 1998 according to Wikipedia, but Packard Bell was around, and might have had cheaper stuff." in the post you were replying to. I don't see the need to spend time searching for stuff that for all I know is correct anyway.
Then what was with the "assume" stuff? And its not a matter of the iMac being cheaper than the PCs of the period but whether it lived in that "entry level" market of the period which it did not even IF you use the definition of "under $1000" which even your sources agree is closer to $700 than $999.
Quote:
I'm stating that the original iMac, at $1300, was an entry-level computer and recognized as such. And frankly, I'm not sure how the discussion even got here, because I only re-entered this thread, something I had vowed to avoid doing, because of the egregious factual errors regarding the Performa 450 and the PowerMacs c. 1998 which I couldn't let slide.
The discussion got here because you didn't simply accept that I agreed that Apple History got it wrong but decided to "correct" me further in an area in which you are incorrect. Given that you got snotty I'm not so inclined to let you slide here. Your assertions on the PC market is no less an "egregious factual error" and you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong.
Quote:
What the hell? When did I ever state that I think Apple should build a $300-$400 Mac?
You didn't, others have. Its called context within a thread you're in. If I thought you had said that I wouldn't have used the phrase "that some have suggested" but instead "that you have suggested".
Quote:
And by this, are you saying that the Mac mini isn't an entry-level computer? Sheesh, that's irony for you, since I was planning to write in response to your iMac claims, "The Mac mini starts at $600, and you could probably find a cheapo PC for $300 (but not Dell, which seems to start at $450). Does that mean the Mac mini isn't entry-level? It's twice as much!"
The Mac mini is a low cost machine for Apple but does not sit within the market segment that is referred to as the entry level market when analysts talk about the bottom end of the market...which is under $500 and typically closer to $300 than $499. The mini sits in the Small Form Factor market and doesn't compete against offerings by HP and Gateway in that $300 bracket.
Quote:
But you probably do actually believe that. Is the Mac mini a prosumer machine, vinea? With its tiny case, tiny hard drive, tiny RAM limit, integrated graphics, bare-bones everything, non-upgradable anything?
Strawman. First you advance the incorrect position that every machine not entry level is "prosumer" which is idiotic and second you are arguing against a position I've never advocated.
The mini is a small form factor computer that is also inexpensive (relative to the rest of the Mac lineup) but much more expensive than the entry level market as defined as "under $500".
Quote:
Not taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Those who didn't know better predictably snapped them up. And then had problems. And then the companies disappeared, either from exiting the market or being bought by a competitor.
They were snapped up by folks that couldn't afford $700 for a computer. Not that they were ignorant as you insinuate. There were no other options at the time. Or are you saying that folks with less money are automatically dumb? Or that owning no computer is better than owning a Packard Bell or eMachine?
And you claim that they had problems but I recall reading Consumer Reports in that time period that recommended Packard Bell. Which I was duly skeptical but they weren't recommending it to me (someone in the industry) but to the general consumer based on...well, consumer reports...so some consumers certainly liked them. Also the article stated a low return rate for eMachines at least for the first few quarters. You don't have anything more than ancedotal rememberances that they sucked. They did suck but they also provided usable low cost computing to a demographic that had been underserved prior to hitting that $399 price point.
What is optimal for a higher market segment is not optimal for a lower market segment with different needs. That the machines were barebones and used cheap parts is what got it into the affordable range. That they would have a higher DOA rate would be expected but as long as that market segment felt they were being adequately served then they would be "reliable enough".
If they got twitchy when you added after market parts...well that's kinda the PC world of 1998 in general isn't it?
Quote:
I don't care what their current status is in the European market, because 1. it's not relevant to what we're talking about, 2. they could be making a completely different type of machine than they made in the US in 1998, 3. the European market is a niche compared to the worldwide market, and 4. the source for the statement is PB's own website anyway.
That you don't care doesn't mean that they don't still exist and are selling computers in the European market. If you don't like those numbers then you can find a source that says they aren't #3.
Apple is niche compared to the worldwide market as it is predominantly US-centric. Notice that recent gains in the US market hasn't moved Apple's share a whole lot in the world wide share numbers?
Besides...so what if eMachines and Packard Bell were ultimately unsuccessful against Gateway, Dell and HP in the US market? What does that have to do with the contention that sub-$500 computers existed in 1998, that the 1997-1998 time period was when you saw the massive price drops until the bottom end was below $500 by Christmas of 1998? The same Christmas targetted by the $1300 iMac.
Quote:
Yeah, it wouldn't fly. That's why it was the #1 top selling desktop computer on the market until they started selling the five colors as different models (as opposed to counting them all the same and shipping the same number of each color to stores, who got irritated because they'd end up with excess inventory of the less popular colors).
Which is why eMachines outsold Apple in Q1 of 1999? Or eMachines in first full month of sales took the #4 slot behind the iMac who was #3 for the month of December? The iMacs position as #1 had slipped in December prior to the release of the multi-color iMacs and multiple SKUs.
Again, what does selling well in a higher market segment have anything to do with the contention that it wasn't designed to compete with machines in a lower market segment?
Quote:
That was exactly the intention of the machine.
So you're saying that a $1300 machine was intended to compete with a $399 one to gain share? As such, it seems a failure given that Apple lost market share position against makers of these cheap machines. Or perhaps you're saying that a $1300 machine was intended to compete with a $399 machine for the under $50K/year household income demographic? Which I would have to say it was likely a failure there as well.
On the other hand, if you contend as I do, that Apple tries to maximize margins over unit sales, the iMac was wonderful in achieving great margins with good volume. In which case it never competed against entry level machines but against other mid-level consumer level machines above both the sub-$1000 market (ie closer to $700 than $999) and the sub-$500 market. Where it was very successful as Apple's entry level machine.
That's the problem with the term "entry level". Again, Acura and Porsche have "entry level" cars. Neither occupy the same market segment as the Toyota Corrollas or even less expensive Scions and the like.
Quote:
So do you think the Mac mini isn't a low-end machine? Oh, that's right, you don't.
That's correct. I classify it as a SFF machine and as such, while relatively inexpensive for a Mac isn't a low-end machine. They use too many expensive parts to achieve a certain form factor rather than attempt to minimize price and therefore appeal to a different demographic and market segment. That it does double duty as a switcher machine is a nice benefit.
Including monitor it is double the price of a low-end computer with possibly less performance. Therefore you're paying for branding, form-factor or both.
Quote:
But subjective definitions of where the cut-off is where entry-level ends and prosumer begins. You think that although the iMac was designed, marketed, and referenced as an entry-level machine, it's prosumer since they didn't pay you to take it. And since I couldn't find too many articles that supported your position, it seems the lines are drawn as such:
This is clearly incorrect. There are market segments above entry level and below prosumer.
Quote:
iMac a prosumer machine: vinea
iMac an entry-level machine: pretty near the rest of the world
But in the end, we're just arguing about semantics, it seems.
We're arguing that you're incorrect in saying that Apple competed at the entry level (sub $500) market. There is and was a consumer segment above entry level. Arguing whether Apple is at the bottom end of the upper consumer segment or the top end of the middle consumer segment is semantics. Apple may have wanted the iMac to compete with the sub-$1000 market as some point as Jobs said something to that effect but that never panned out in terms of actual substantial price drops to actually compete in the under $1K market.
The sub-$500 entry level was never in the cards. If you can find a source that says that Apple was looking at that sub-$500 entry level market feel free to post it. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong.
So arguing that Apple occupied the bottom most (entry level) segment in 1998 is incorrect.
Arguing that not entry level = prosumer is just silly.
iMac is an upper middle to lower high end consumer PC targetted to the $50K+ household income demographic: Vinea
Wait, I thought saying that was tantamount to saying some ridiculous thing about Porsche and $45K?
No, saying that the Porsche Boxster is a low priced car for a Porsche is reasonably common. Saying that a Boxster is a low priced car in general is what is ridiculous.
Likewise you can find many articles that describe the Boxter as Porsche entry level car. Equating that with Porsche competes in the entry level market against brands like Scion is ridiculous.
Here you go. "...entry level dream...relatively affordable price..."
I got taken to task in another thread for equating Apple to Porsche as the analogy isn't 100% accurate (given that no analogy is 100% I dunno why that's all that important but whatever). Apple does enjoy some of the higher margins and high profit per unit like Porsche does but also competes in that middle consumer market that Porsche arguably does not. Apple is more like Acrua in that regard.
Not wanting to spend time looking it up. Especially since that would be researching your points. Why should I have to find your evidence for your side of the argument? You should have been doing that, since the article you posted didn't support the conclusions you were drawing from it. But I just said let's assume that's correct, so we could move on. Apparently it didn't work.
Quote:
And its not a matter of the iMac being cheaper than the PCs of the period but whether it lived in that "entry level" market of the period which it did not even IF you use the definition of "under $1000" which even your sources agree is closer to $700 than $999.
Under $1000 means just that. It includes machines at $700, ones at $999, ones in between, and anything else under $1000.
Quote:
The discussion got here because you didn't simply accept that I agreed that Apple History got it wrong
Well, not just Apple History, since they never claimed the Performa 450 was in 1998 (link).
Even if that site had been correct about the price, a machine from 1993 would have still been completely irrelevant to the discussion. Pointing out that the price was a typo was just a little "icing on the cake." So yeah, it's a little irritating when Mr. "admit when you're wrong" blames his own mistakes on a site that didn't make them.
Quote:
but decided to "correct" me further in an area in which you are incorrect. Given that you got snotty I'm not so inclined to let you slide here. Your assertions on the PC market is no less an "egregious factual error" and you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong.
Yeah, I won't deny that you've annoyed me quite a bit during this thread on previous pages, which caused me to bear somewhat of a grudge and subsequently lash out at you, especially since it was 1 AM and I was slightly drunk when I wrote that post. But really, the whole basis of your argument is that one of my articles was wrong. I didn't make that up - I had an article that said $500 computers were still a year off. Hell, I even prefaced the article with a disclaimer saying that Packard Bell could have had something cheaper than that. If the article was wrong, then so be it. I seriously don't care about this discussion.
Oh, and if you want to talk about "snotty", then what was "finally, someone can do some research for a change"? Especially right after 1. I'd already pointed out the thing was from 1993, 2. your own source even said 1993 and not 1998, and 3. you still made me writing a frigging research paper before you'd accept that the thing was from 1993! Some really great research on your part, buddy.
I'm not going to spend time replying to every point in your post. You'd like to argue that the Mac mini was a low-end computer when it was $499, but when they bumped the price to $599, it all of a sudden wasn't low-end anymore. I think that's silly (I will agree it was a rather stupid decision for Apple to have made, though). It's a low-end computer. A low-end computer with an Apple tax on it, if you will. But what it is is low-end. There's nothing middle or high-end about the Mac mini, just like there was nothing middle or high-end about the iMac.
The rest is semantics. Apparently enough people thought the iMac was inexpensive, low-end, and/or entry level to write to that effect in articles published at the time. I never heard any argument to the contrary until I read this thread, in fact. But whatever - it's not the argument I came here to get into.
This is wrong, though:
Quote:
Apple may have wanted the iMac to compete with the sub-$1000 market as some point as Jobs said something to that effect but that never panned out in terms of actual substantial price drops to actually compete in the under $1K market.
because if you look, the iMac did drop to $1200 fairly quickly in early 1999, and then to $999 later on in the year. And remember that's with a monitor. I'm not going to bother with a link, but you can look it up yourself, although I'd use everymac.com instead of apple-history.com as they're a lot more reliable.
Since when do you need to be either entry level or prosumer? There is an upper end to the consumer market. Apple occupies that as well as the higher side of the middle of the consumer market.
If you equate consumer to family, then yes. However, the high end consumer category, which is par of the prosumer ranks is filled with fast and expandable desktop (not workstation) towers. Apple has no answer for this market except to tell them to upgrade to a high end workstation or downgrade to an iMac.
Quote:
The Mac mini is a low cost machine for Apple but does not sit within the market segment that is referred to as the entry level market when analysts talk about the bottom end of the market...which is under $500 and typically closer to $300 than $499. The mini sits in the Small Form Factor market and doesn't compete against offerings by HP and Gateway in that $300 bracket.
It could be with a celeron-m 420 (see PC equivalent of G4). It should be noted that the Mac Mini is within about $30 of the cheapest dual core. It could be cheaper and better positioned if Apple had gone with a desktop hard drive. It'd still be way smaller than anything else. That Mini, as it sits now is cheaper than the Core Solo HP S7620N. I guess they must have moved up into the Porsche ranks too.
.
Quote:
That's correct. I classify it as a SFF machine and as such, while relatively inexpensive for a Mac isn't a low-end machine. They use too many expensive parts to achieve a certain form factor rather than attempt to minimize price and therefore appeal to a different demographic and market segment. That it does double duty as a switcher machine is a nice benefit.
Actually I remember Steve Jobs saying the exact opposite when he introduced the Mini.
Quote:
This is clearly incorrect. There are market segments above entry level and below prosumer.
So, you're starting to figure out the market isn't so black and white.
Quote:
The sub-$500 entry level was never in the cards. If you can find a source that says that Apple was looking at that sub-$500 entry level market feel free to post it. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong.
Which you are. Look up the 2005 MWSF keynote where Steve Jobs introduced the $499 Mac Mini.
Quote:
iMac is an upper middle to lower high end consumer PC targetted to the $50K+ household income demographic: Vinea
That's my position.
Vinea
So, in other words, Apple should cater to only you and people exactly like you?
You are citing HP as an example of how to do business. Their profit for last quarter was $1,697,000.
Yeah like I already said in my inital post, you using two machines and one product line to determine the fate of an entire company is your bullet proof defence.
I knew you'd make some ridiculous responce like this.
Because and apple and hp are exactly the same and an apple mid tower would magically turn their profits into hp's.
The cinema displays, mbps, mb, mac pros, mac minis, ipods, and imacs would case to exist.
Steve Jobs would get a sex change operation turning into a woman that just flushes apple down the toliet, replacing the entire product lines with generic computers they can call GAZEBO followed by numbers and letters giving the consumer a nice unified understanding of their products.
It's at this point in time osx will be drop in favour of vista.
My god you're right....
APPLE RUN! A MID TOWER MEANS DEATH! DEATH I TELLS YOU!
Not wanting to spend time looking it up. Especially since that would be researching your points. Why should I have to find your evidence for your side of the argument? You should have been doing that, since the article you posted didn't support the conclusions you were drawing from it. But I just said let's assume that's correct, so we could move on. Apparently it didn't work.
A simple "okay" would have been sufficient.
Quote:
Under $1000 means just that. It includes machines at $700, ones at $999, ones in between, and anything else under $1000.
There was a long drawn out argument about whether or not $999 really satisfied the under $1000 price tag. I don't care either way except to say that $1300 is clearly above $1000 and far above the $699 machine you listed.
Quote:
Well, not just Apple History, since they never claimed the Performa 450 was in 1998.
Even if that site had been correct about the price, a machine from 1993 would have still been completely irrelevant to the discussion. So yeah, it's a little irritating when Mr. "admit when you're wrong" blames his own mistakes on a site that didn't make them.
Fine I was wrong. I do seem to recall that the discussion was about the iMac being the cheapest ever but perhaps I recall incorrectly. In any case the $750 looks to be incorrect.
Quote:
Yeah, I won't deny that you've annoyed me quite a bit during this thread on previous pages, which caused me to bear somewhat of a grudge and subsequently lash out at you, especially since it was 1 AM and I was slightly drunk when I wrote that post. But really, the whole basis of your argument is that one of my articles was wrong.
No the basis of my argument is that your assertion that $500 computers did not exist in 1998 is wrong and the only evidence was that you presented were articles that were incorrect.
Quote:
I didn't make that up - I had an article that said $500 computers were still a year off. Hell, I even prefaced the article with a disclaimer saying that Packard Bell could have had something cheaper than that. If the article was wrong, then so be it. I seriously don't care about this discussion.
And I didn't make up the $750 number either. So what? Doesn't make either of us any less wrong about a point of fact.
Quote:
Oh, and if you want to talk about "snotty", then what was "finally, someone can do some research for a change"?
That was meant as a compliment. But whatever, retracted if it makes you feel better.
Quote:
I'm not going to spend time replying to every point in your post.
Probably because you'd rather deal with the personalities of this argument now that your factual position has been shown incorrect.
Quote:
You'd like to argue that the Mac mini was a low-end computer when it was $499, but when they bumped the price to $599, it all of a sudden wasn't low-end anymore.
Strawman. I've never claimed that the mini was low end even at $499. It does fit into that under $500 price category by a dollar but again, there was an argument about whether that counts. Again, I don't have an opinion either way but the lowest end is again $275-$300. Percentage wise the Mini is far above with less capability.
Quote:
I think that's silly (I will agree it was a rather stupid decision for Apple to have made, though). It's a low-end computer. A low-end computer with an Apple tax on it, if you will. But what it is is low-end. There's nothing middle or high-end about the Mac mini, just like there was nothing middle or high-end about the iMac.
Branding, form factors and the use of higher priced parts to achieve that form factor moves it above low end.
Quote:
The rest is semantics. Apparently enough people thought the iMac was inexpensive, low-end, and/or entry level to write to that effect in articles published at the time. I never heard any argument to the contrary until I read this thread, in fact. But whatever - it's not the argument I came here to get into.
You could have dropped this at any point. It takes two to argue.
Quote:
This is wrong, though:
because if you look, the iMac did drop to $1200 fairly quickly in early 1999, and then to $999 later on in the year. And remember that's with a monitor. I'm not going to bother with a link, but you can look it up yourself, although I'd use everymac.com instead of apple-history.com as they're a lot more reliable.
Doesn't matter. They wanted to drop it below $800 I believe but realized there was simply no competing in a sub-$500 entry market or even the sub-$1000 value market. Again $999 does not compete well with $699.
Again, your article didn't support the points you were making. If you don't like people pointing that out, then find the right articles that support your point the first time instead of getting offended.
Quote:
There was a long drawn out argument about whether or not $999 really satisfied the under $1000 price tag. I don't care either way except to say that $1300 is clearly above $1000 and far above the $699 machine you listed.
There was?! I never heard of that - "under $X" is pretty much standard parlance for describing just about any product that cost $X - $1 (or $X - $0.01). If a product is $19.99, then it's "under 20 dollars!" even though after sales tax, it'd be slightly over. It's maybe a bit silly, but that's the way it's always been.
And for the last time, the iMac competed with the under $1000 machines because it included a monitor, which some $999 machines didn't. One of the articles I quoted said so.
One thing I really hate is having to repeat the same thing over, and over, and over...
Quote:
Fine I was wrong. I do seem to recall that the discussion was about the iMac being the cheapest ever but perhaps I recall incorrectly.
Well, you never would have heard that argument from me, at least, because the Performa 410 back in 1993 was cheaper than the iMac, and so were certain members of the UMAX C500 series back in the clone era (I think I pointed the latter out a few times in this thread, in fact). It was the cheapest at the time it came out, though, by far, and it was also the cheapest machine from Apple in recent memory.
Quote:
No the basis of my argument is that your assertion that $500 computers did not exist in 1998 is wrong and the only evidence was that you presented were articles that were incorrect.
And I retracted that argument, which was based on only one of my articles. You do seem to like to keep dwelling on it, though.
Quote:
And I didn't make up the $750 number either. So what? Doesn't make either of us any less wrong about a point of fact.
You were the one trying to make some sort of distinction there. I was replying to "you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong." I had an article, rather than a web site, but you decided to accuse me of making it up and/or lying. I don't appreciate that.
Quote:
Probably because you'd rather deal with the personalities of this argument now that your factual position has been shown incorrect.
One part of the argument, which wasn't even a main point. You still haven't convinced me that the iMac was in the upper range of the consumer market (which is what the prosumer market is, fyi), or that the market hasn't changed a bit since 1998.
Quote:
Strawman. I've never claimed that the mini was low end even at $499.
You were claiming that $500 was the cut-off.
Quote:
It does fit into that under $500 price category by a dollar but again, there was an argument about whether that counts.
There was?
Quote:
Again, I don't have an opinion either way but the lowest end is again $275-$300. Percentage wise the Mini is far above with less capability.
Funny how "under-$500" was the low-end until I pointed out a Mac that was under $500, and now that's not enough anymore. So in order to qualify for the low-end segment of the market, the machine must be equal in price to the absolute lowest product in that segment of the market?
What about a $450 Dell? Is that not a low-end machine? After all, it's under $500, but only by $50! What would you call it?
What about a $400 Dell? It's well under $500, but still more than your $300 machines! Is it not low-end?
Taking the cheapest Dell, the $360 one, and adding the most basic service plan that they offer (which includes such luxuries as 30-day telephone support) brings the total to $587. Does that suddenly make it not a low-end machine?
What happens if you take one of your $300 machines and custom-configure it to add features like some more RAM, a bigger hard drive, XP Pro instead of XP Home, or whatever and bump the price to $501? Does that magically transform it into a different class of machine?
Do you understand that these classifications are subjective?
For the record, I agree that the mini is overpriced. Doesn't make it not a low-end machine, though. Look at the parts it's made of. Look at the audience it's targeted against. Look at what it's intended to be used for. It's a low-end machine, for people who'd like a low-end machine but are willing to pay a little extra for a better OS (after all, even Dell's cheapest machine, at $360, becomes $510 if you go with XP Pro).
Quote:
Doesn't matter. They wanted to drop it below $800 I believe but realized there was simply no competing in a sub-$500 entry market or even the sub-$1000 value market. Again $999 does not compete well with $699.
Apparently it did compete well - the original iMac was a huge seller for a really long time. Again, for quite a few months it was the highest selling desktop model on the entire market.
Comments
Wise decision.
Mmkay...that could have been done with a little more grace.
I don't think that anyone is claiming that $999 isn't affordable, although it's certainly not low-end anymore. However, let's look at a few things.
It is no more low end today than $1300 was in 1998.
You've been claiming that PCs could be had for under $500 in mid-1998 when the iMac debuted. However, all the articles I found mentioned "sub-$1000 PCs", not "sub-$500 PCs". You can actually see this in the last article I quoted in my previous post. However, here are a few more articles on the subject:
Then perhaps you simply need to look for the two vendors I posted earlier:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...40/ai_54285230
eMachines challenged Packard Bell in the last quarter of 1998 with rock bottom pricing. That's $399 NOT including discounts. Packard Bell had already been feeling the heat and had started dropping pricing before then.
I was a bit vague on when in 1998 sub-$500 computers appeared as the original quoted source wasn't specific but we're talking fall of 1998 for the iMac so the time differential couldn't have been very large...and it wasn't. And frankly I hadn't expected $399 but there it is.
Now, you'll notice this article is from December 1998, quite a while after the iMac was announced. At the time this article was written, $700 PCs were just starting to come out - before that, they cost more than that - and the article indicates that $500 PCs still didn't exist in Dec. 1998, which again was later than the iMac, and that this publication expected them to show up about a year later.
Your article is incorrect then eh? eMachines alone shipped 150K under $500 units in 1998.
So anyway. At the time the iMac was introduced, there were no $500 PCs, and sub-$1000 was the norm for cheap PCs without monitors, making the iMac quite competitive with even the low end of the PC range.
The iMac release on 15 August until eMachines released their lineup is a matter of a 4 months. At the time there were $699 PCs and possibly $599 PCs (as that was PBs goal in early 1998 ). By the Xmas season there were $399 computers. The only thing you've shown is that magazines need a bit of lead time to print articles and they are sometimes out of date with respect to current market conditions.
You cannot deny that the general prices in the PC industry have plummeted since then - nowadays, you can get a tower for $450 - and from Dell, not some eMachines crap that never works right.
They plummeted in Q4 of 1998. eMachines apparently had a low rate of return. From the article above:
In Q1'99, eMachines continued to report a dramatically low return rate of under four percent, less than half the industry average.
That's not so shabby. Certainly not nearly "never works right".
So while $999 would have been very cheap in 1998, it is not anymore, even when taking inflation into account, because computer prices have dropped much faster than inflation has raised them.
Except it wasn't $999 but $1299 for the iMac and $799 for the model you listed. HP was still a premium brand then...if you couldn't buy a PC for less than $799 in May of 1998 you simply weren't trying. Magazine comparisons rarely looked below that top tier of manufacturers but the machines existed. That your magazine article doesn't consider Packard Bell is an indicator.
Here's a May 1998 article from CNET that talks of the $599 price point:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-211426.html
They had introduced a $699 model in late May...the Packard Bell 550. AMD was starting to make its move on Intel. Apple introduced its model with full knowledge of where the bottom end of the PC market was heading and that the sub-$600 market.
Packard Bell First To Crack Sub-$700 Barrier
[11:30AM] If the past eighteen months are any indication, the days of sub-$500 computers might be here sooner than you would have previously expected. After leading the wave of vendors who broke the sub-$1,000 price point in January 1997, Packard Bell today established a new low-cost category with the introduction of the first sub-$700 computer. The Packard Bell 500, housed in a mini-tower chassis, features a Cyrix 233-MHz MMX Enhanced MediaGX processor, 24MB RAM, 2.1GB hard drive, 24X CD-ROM drive, and 56-Kbps modem for $699. A $999 model, also announced today, ups the processor, RAM, and hard drive to 266-MHz, 48MB, and 4.3GB, respectively.
http://www.macobserver.com/archive/1998/may.shtml
Somehow I don't think the guys at Apple were unable to read a trend quite as obvious as what the PC market was doing from 1997-1999. It should be obvious to anyone that $1299 would be significantly higher than the entry level PC market pricing even including a monitor.
So let's look at the B&W G3, introduced somewhat later than the iMac in 1999. That machine was nicely expandable, and started at $1500. In 2005 dollars that would be about $1710, so due to the falling prices of the computer market, Apple should provide a tower in 2005 that is significantly cheaper than $1710 just to match what they had in 1998.
Perhaps they will if you consider $1499-$1699 significantly cheaper thant $1710. There's no reason that Apple should offer a cheap tower if the market values Macs higher.
In fact, due to the fact that prices have dropped far enough that the dollar amounts have decreased despite inflation, the price should actually be significantly cheaper than the $1500 price of the B&W G3, because what was normal in 1998 and 1999 is expensive now.
Again no because Apple is branded as a higher end product that competes with other higher end brands like Sony, Toshiba, etc.
Sometimes a gracious acceptance of victory is better no?
Vinea
About 51 percent of Q1'99 eTower sales through consumer electronics retailers were to first-time PC buyers, compared to industry figures that were slightly above 25 percent during 1997 and most of 1998. These new 'first-time' buyers reported annual household incomes at 69 percent between $20,000 and $34,000, and 31 percent between $35,000 and $49,000, substantially below the $50,000+ household income levels reported by PC owners in 1997 and 1998 surveys.
The basis of my argument has been that Apple is shooting for the $50K+ households and not the $20K-$49K households. They price accordingly and there is no great need for Apple to compete in the entry level market.
Vinea
Soooo.....one of those $399 jobs from Dell is better than the entire Mac lineup except for the MacPro?
Doesn't have to be a 399 job, there are other price brackets in pcs too, just like macs
That's why its great to have a choice.
Ummmm...if you consider switching back to pc a choice, but if you want to use a mac, which I would assume everyone here wants to do, the choice is essentially non-existent.
Which computer did you buy? I'm always open to a better deal than these over priced under functional Mac's. Especially computers from companies that are barely profitable if profitable at all, whose stock is stagnant, and has break even margins. Makes me feel like they aren't getting over on me.
That may be true for THOSE companies but since apple ALREADY has a unique OS and a SMALL product line, why would that happen to them? These just sounds like ramblings now that's not logical, those companies have tons of other companies doing the same thing and offering the same OS, even if apple where to copy their strategies, which they can't without discontinuing everything they've already made, apple would STILL be different. You act like a single product line (mid range desktops) controls the entire company's fate and actions.
You want comparisions of decent computers? Fine (all prices in canadian dollars):
HP Pavilion A1640N - 959.99
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz
250GB SATA Hard Drive
2048MB DDR2 SDRAM (expandable up to 4GB)
Dual Layer 16X DVD+/-RW with Lightscribe
Integrated GMA 3000 256MB shared
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...73&catid=20217
Above computer in package with 22" widescreen lcd: 1399.99
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...52&catid=20215
The only thing the second 17" imac has on above package 2.0ghz vs 1.83ghz and integrated graphics, we all know how easy and cheap that is to put in, 199.99 gets me a 7600GT, can probably be found cheaper.
HP Pavilion M7690N - 1859.99
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6400 2.13GHz
500GB SATA Hard Drive
2048MB PC2-4200 DDR SDRAM
Dual Layer 16X DVD+/-RW with Lightscribe
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT Graphic with 256MB
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...13&catid=20217
Above configuration not offered in a package.
Now if apple offered something like that, maybe with similar specs, having only 2 pre configured models at let's say somewhere in 999-1199 for one and 1699-1899 for the other and offered a range of expansion options between them a-la mac pro, how would that sink their business? I bet tons of people on this site would buy something like that, I know I would. They could even hire a team to write graphics drivers that would be downloadable off apple's site for the most popular third party gpu options and keep a list of compatible cards on the site, since gpu manufacturers dont' seem to care about writing apple drivers.
(remeber these are all canadian prices, I leave it up to whomever wants to do the conversions, but remember things are always cheaper than this in the USA)
I fail to see how and who that would hurt, most of the people that would buy that wouldn't buy an imac anyways, they probably own both a mac and pc like I'll probably end up doing if apple doesn't rectify this by the end of next summer. And even if imac sales slightly drop who cares, selling them something is better than selling them nothing at all and this could possibly sell them more products and grow their userbase.
This is where that 17" Cinema Display rumour(hopefully at 1400x900) could help selling people a pure apple solution and they should lower the 20" price as well, or replace both of them with ones that look metal but are plastic to get display prices down into a reasonable range (right now the 20" ACD is the worst deal apple offers imo).
If apple did that they wouldn't implode, and NO the cube and the mac mini are not the same thing and cannot be used as a sales judge.
They could even hire a team to write graphics drivers that would be downloadable off apple's site for the most popular third party gpu options and keep a list of compatible cards on the site
Apple is already heavily involved in the writing of GPU drivers for OS X.
since gpu manufacturers dont' seem to care about writing apple drivers.
That's because the only GPU upgradeable mac is... the Mac Pro (yes, of course there's second-hand machines) which is bought more by professionals than gamers.
A decent range of well-selling lower-cost towers would surely help to boost the range of Mac-compatible graphics cards.
You are citing HP as an example of how to do business. Their profit for last quarter was $1,697,000.
Wow for the whole company?! I really would have expected it to be much more :-/
The only thing that keeps me thinking SJ may actually care about graphics is things like core animation (which is more aimed towards user feed back than real graphics), and..................... meh I can't think of anything else.
Apple really needs to address their graphics situation, before they get left in the dust because of directx 10. Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any plans to an update to OpenGL 2.1. True / Untrue? I really tried to dig to find out. I heard all the committees involved with OpenGL are arguing over the direction it should go.
I really hope apple has something in the fire to handle all these graphical concerns.
It is no more low end today than $1300 was in 1998.
True. But it is a lot less low-end.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...40/ai_54285230
eMachines challenged Packard Bell in the last quarter of 1998 with rock bottom pricing. That's $399 NOT including discounts. Packard Bell had already been feeling the heat and had started dropping pricing before then.
Okay, I don't see any of that in the article - when talking about the $499 or whatever, it seems to be talking in the present tense, which at the time that article was written would be April 1999. But hey, I'll assume you're correct even though I don't see anything like this:
Your article is incorrect then eh? eMachines alone shipped 150K under $500 units in 1998.
mentioned in the article (Your article says "eMachines shipped 300,000 eTower PCs in the first quarter of 1999, a huge increase from the over 150,000 units shipped in Q4'98." Doesn't mention the price of the 1998 machines - only the then-current machines of April 1999.), or this:
The iMac release on 15 August until eMachines released their lineup is a matter of a 4 months. At the time there were $699 PCs and possibly $599 PCs (as that was PBs goal in early 1998 ). By the Xmas season there were $399 computers.
Don't see it. But I'll assume it's correct. Here's the thing:
That's not so shabby. Certainly not nearly "never works right".
Believe me, those things had a horrible reputation. Not just from Mac guys - all the PC guys I knew talked of eMachines in the same tone of voice as Windows ME. And Packard Bell consistently bottomed out the list for DOA machines, lousy customer service, etc. in every ranking there was at the time. Of course, they ended up exiting the market a couple of years later. Apple never competed against eMachines and Packard Bell, because they'd have to make lousy products to do so. The iMac did compete with budget PC offerings from reputable brands such as HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., and it did so quite well.
Except it wasn't $999 but $1299 for the iMac and $799 for the model you listed. HP was still a premium brand then...if you couldn't buy a PC for less than $799 in May of 1998 you simply weren't trying. Magazine comparisons rarely looked below that top tier of manufacturers but the machines existed. That your magazine article doesn't consider Packard Bell is an indicator.
Oh, the articles mentioned Packard Bell. Here's one from PC World's Top 10 PCs list from April 1998:
Brand-new this month is Packard Bell's Multimedia S606, in the fifth spot. The $1398 S606 is a beginner's PC with clear-cut setup instructions and a friendly interface. It's a little slower than IBM's Aptiva E16, but it does come with a ton of family software titles. Packard Bell, however, has a long history of poor customer service. Judging by our recent calls to tech support, the service seems to have improved, but be prepared to do your own troubleshooting.
$1398... and a "budget" PC. They may have made cheaper machines, but they clearly weren't worthy of mention, considering how your article here:
Here's a May 1998 article from CNET that talks of the $599 price point:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-211426.html
talks about how they were going to achieve those low prices by using Cyrix's processors, not even real Intel or AMD chips.
http://www.macobserver.com/archive/1998/may.shtml
Somehow I don't think the guys at Apple were unable to read a trend quite as obvious as what the PC market was doing from 1997-1999. It should be obvious to anyone that $1299 would be significantly higher than the entry level PC market pricing even including a monitor.
The entry-level PC market was defined as "sub-$1000 PCs" and that was the norm, notwithstanding the bare-bones junk from eMachines and Packard Bell that wasn't taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Apple competed with those because it included a monitor, and adding a monitor to a sub-$1000 PC would get you a total that was not that much less than the iMac. Do a search for articles like I did - I'm sure you'll find a few here and there claiming the iMac was too expensive, and maybe you'll quote them, but you'll have to very selectively pick them out and ignore a bevy of articles citing the iMac as being a budget computer or being attractive because of its low price. Again I had to do no such selection, and found many, many more articles talking about the iMac's low price than whining about its price being high.
Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any plans to an update to OpenGL 2.1. True / Untrue? I really tried to dig to find out. I heard all the committees involved with OpenGL are arguing over the direction it should go.
Er...you mean like OpenGL 3.0 that ATI and nVidia are pushing? 2.1 is new so 3.0 is pretty far out but folks are talking about it.
http://www.gamedev.net/columns/event...cle.asp?id=233
True. But it is a lot less low-end.
Yes, but that's a good thing and neither are low end to begin with.
Okay, I don't see any of that in the article - when talking about the $499 or whatever, it seems to be talking in the present tense, which at the time that article was written would be April 1999. But hey, I'll assume you're correct even though I don't see anything like this:
Then here:
Now, just in time for the upcoming holiday season, another industry pipsqueak is making noise--this time with a sub-$500 PC. Emachines, a startup backed by Korean computer giant TriGem Computer and display maker Korean Data Systems, will unveil a $399 computer--sans monitor--later this month. Sub-$1,000 machines have pushed average retail prices across the PC industry from about $1,600 to $1,200, but prices are still too high to attract droves of new buyers. Emachines believes its E-Tower, which will sell for less than $500 with a monitor, will appeal to the 55% of computerless households with annual incomes of $25,000 to $30,000. ''This price point will open up another 20% of the market,'' promises Emachines CEO Stephen A. Dukker.
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/41/b3599087.htm
And it seemed like you could Google so well. Would it have been difficult to Google for eMachines and 1998 rather than insinuate that I might be mistaken by "assuming" I'm correct?
Don't see it. But I'll assume it's correct. Here's the thing:
No need to assume. Just check.
Believe me, those things had a horrible reputation. Not just from Mac guys - all the PC guys I knew talked of eMachines in the same tone of voice as Windows ME. And Packard Bell consistently bottomed out the list for DOA machines, lousy customer service, etc. in every ranking there was at the time.
So what? You're stating the bottom of the market was $699 when it was $399. You're saying that $1300 was affordable to the masses when the big uptake in computer ownership didn't occur until this pricepoint had been reached. $1300 is "entry level" for folks in the $50K+ income level. This isn't the same as the under $50K/yr income demographic that the sub-$500 entry level market addresses.
So are you going to accept that you were incorrect as I did about the Performa price or do we need to run this into the ground like I have to with someone else that never admits mistakes?
Of course, they ended up exiting the market a couple of years later. Apple never competed against eMachines and Packard Bell, because they'd have to make lousy products to do so. The iMac did compete with budget PC offerings from reputable brands such as HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., and it did so quite well.
And these brands quickly introduced lower priced models in response. That Apple never competed with eMachines and Packard Bell is completely correct. Nor should it compete with Dell, HP and Gateway at these entry-level pricepoints today.
That's entirely my point when I say that there is no need for a $300-$400 Mac as some has suggested. AND that Apple hasn't competed in the entry level market which since 1998 has been defined as the sub-$500 market.
The entry-level PC market was defined as "sub-$1000 PCs" and that was the norm, notwithstanding the bare-bones junk from eMachines and Packard Bell that wasn't taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing.
Riiight...they weren't taken seriously which is why the other vendors had a sub-$500 PC in short order. eMachines put themselves on the map and never went out of business (never made money either which is another reason for Apple to avoid this market) but was aquired by Gateway. Packard Bell Europe still holds 3rd place in terms of consumer sales even though they exited the US market in 2000 (according to wikipedia anyway).
At the start of 1998 pricing was still in the $700-$800 level. By May the indicators were (from the articles I found) that folks understood that the market was heading for sub $500 sooner rather than later. By the end of 1998 it was reality.
Apple must have known that sub-$500 pricing would happen no later than 1999 and with an August 1998 release if they wanted to compete in the "entry market" they would have known that $1299 wouldn't fly. It's not much of a stretch to assume they had no intention in competing in the entry level consumer market.
Do a search for articles like I did - I'm sure you'll find a few here and there claiming the iMac was too expensive, and maybe you'll quote them, but you'll have to very selectively pick them out and ignore a bevy of articles citing the iMac as being a budget computer or being attractive because of its low price. Again I had to do no such selection, and found many, many more articles talking about the iMac's low price than whining about its price being high.
Low price for a Mac. Not low price for the market which has now been established at $399 by Q4 1998. You can say that Apple was a good value for what was provided (which is true today) but you certainly can't claim it was "cheap" in comparison to the PC market at over double the price of the least expensive models (with monitors).
You have subjective quotes on the meaning of "entry level" or "budget". I have objective prices.
Vinea
Yes, but that's a good thing and neither are low end to begin with.
The iMac was low-end. It happened to occupy a higher portion of the low end than eMachines and Packard Bell, as would be expected. But it was not a prosumer machine by any stretch of the imagination.
And it seemed like you could Google so well. Would it have been difficult to Google for eMachines and 1998 rather than insinuate that I might be mistaken by "assuming" I'm correct?
No need to assume. Just check.
Because it doesn't matter. For some reason, you seem to think my argument is that the iMac was cheaper than any PC of the time. I'm not sure why. Hell, I even said "eMachines didn't exist yet until Sept. 1998 according to Wikipedia, but Packard Bell was around, and might have had cheaper stuff." in the post you were replying to. I don't see the need to spend time searching for stuff that for all I know is correct anyway.
So what? You're stating the bottom of the market was $699 when it was $399. You're saying that $1300 was affordable to the masses when the big uptake in computer ownership didn't occur until this pricepoint had been reached. $1300 is "entry level" for folks in the $50K+ income level. This isn't the same as the under $50K/yr income demographic that the sub-$500 entry level market addresses.
I'm stating that the original iMac, at $1300, was an entry-level computer and recognized as such. And frankly, I'm not sure how the discussion even got here, because I only re-entered this thread, something I had vowed to avoid doing, because of the egregious factual errors regarding the Performa 450 and the PowerMacs c. 1998 which I couldn't let slide.
And these brands quickly introduced lower priced models in response. That Apple never competed with eMachines and Packard Bell is completely correct. Nor should it compete with Dell, HP and Gateway at these entry-level pricepoints today.
That's entirely my point when I say that there is no need for a $300-$400 Mac as some has suggested. AND that Apple hasn't competed in the entry level market which since 1998 has been defined as the sub-$500 market.
What the hell? When did I ever state that I think Apple should build a $300-$400 Mac?
And by this, are you saying that the Mac mini isn't an entry-level computer? Sheesh, that's irony for you, since I was planning to write in response to your iMac claims, "The Mac mini starts at $600, and you could probably find a cheapo PC for $300 (but not Dell, which seems to start at $450). Does that mean the Mac mini isn't entry-level? It's twice as much!"
But you probably do actually believe that. Is the Mac mini a prosumer machine, vinea? With its tiny case, tiny hard drive, tiny RAM limit, integrated graphics, bare-bones everything, non-upgradable anything?
Riiight...they weren't taken seriously which is why the other vendors had a sub-$500 PC in short order. eMachines put themselves on the map and never went out of business (never made money either which is another reason for Apple to avoid this market) but was aquired by Gateway. Packard Bell Europe still holds 3rd place in terms of consumer sales even though they exited the US market in 2000 (according to wikipedia anyway).
Not taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Those who didn't know better predictably snapped them up. And then had problems. And then the companies disappeared, either from exiting the market or being bought by a competitor.
I don't care what their current status is in the European market, because 1. it's not relevant to what we're talking about, 2. they could be making a completely different type of machine than they made in the US in 1998, 3. the European market is a niche compared to the worldwide market, and 4. the source for the statement is PB's own website anyway.
Apple must have known that sub-$500 pricing would happen no later than 1999 and with an August 1998 release if they wanted to compete in the "entry market" they would have known that $1299 wouldn't fly.
Yeah, it wouldn't fly. That's why it was the #1 top-selling desktop computer on the market until they started selling the five colors as different models (as opposed to counting them all the same and shipping the same number of each color to stores, who got irritated because they'd end up with excess inventory of the less popular colors).
(edit: you'll probably want some sources for that. Couldn't document it completely, but these cover 1998 and some of 1999: link 1 link 2 link 3)
It's not much of a stretch to assume they had no intention in competing in the entry level consumer market.
That was exactly the intention of the machine.
Low price for a Mac.
Wait, I thought saying that was tantamount to saying some ridiculous thing about Porsche and $45K?
Not low price for the market which has now been established at $399 by Q4 1998. You can say that Apple was a good value for what was provided (which is true today) but you certainly can't claim it was "cheap" in comparison to the PC market at over double the price of the least expensive models (with monitors).
So do you think the Mac mini isn't a low-end machine? Oh, that's right, you don't.
You have subjective quotes on the meaning of "entry level" or "budget". I have objective prices.
But subjective definitions of where the cut-off is where entry-level ends and prosumer begins. You think that although the iMac was designed, marketed, and referenced as an entry-level machine, it's prosumer since they didn't pay you to take it. And since I couldn't find too many articles that supported your position, it seems the lines are drawn as such:
iMac a prosumer machine: vinea
iMac an entry-level machine: pretty near the rest of the world
But in the end, we're just arguing about semantics, it seems.
The iMac was low-end. It happened to occupy a higher portion of the low end than eMachines and Packard Bell, as would be expected. But it was not a prosumer machine by any stretch of the imagination.
Since when do you need to be either entry level or prosumer? There is an upper end to the consumer market. Apple occupies that as well as the higher side of the middle of the consumer market.
Because it doesn't matter. For some reason, you seem to think my argument is that the iMac was cheaper than any PC of the time. I'm not sure why. Hell, I even said "eMachines didn't exist yet until Sept. 1998 according to Wikipedia, but Packard Bell was around, and might have had cheaper stuff." in the post you were replying to. I don't see the need to spend time searching for stuff that for all I know is correct anyway.
Then what was with the "assume" stuff? And its not a matter of the iMac being cheaper than the PCs of the period but whether it lived in that "entry level" market of the period which it did not even IF you use the definition of "under $1000" which even your sources agree is closer to $700 than $999.
I'm stating that the original iMac, at $1300, was an entry-level computer and recognized as such. And frankly, I'm not sure how the discussion even got here, because I only re-entered this thread, something I had vowed to avoid doing, because of the egregious factual errors regarding the Performa 450 and the PowerMacs c. 1998 which I couldn't let slide.
The discussion got here because you didn't simply accept that I agreed that Apple History got it wrong but decided to "correct" me further in an area in which you are incorrect. Given that you got snotty I'm not so inclined to let you slide here. Your assertions on the PC market is no less an "egregious factual error" and you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong.
What the hell? When did I ever state that I think Apple should build a $300-$400 Mac?
You didn't, others have. Its called context within a thread you're in. If I thought you had said that I wouldn't have used the phrase "that some have suggested" but instead "that you have suggested".
And by this, are you saying that the Mac mini isn't an entry-level computer? Sheesh, that's irony for you, since I was planning to write in response to your iMac claims, "The Mac mini starts at $600, and you could probably find a cheapo PC for $300 (but not Dell, which seems to start at $450). Does that mean the Mac mini isn't entry-level? It's twice as much!"
The Mac mini is a low cost machine for Apple but does not sit within the market segment that is referred to as the entry level market when analysts talk about the bottom end of the market...which is under $500 and typically closer to $300 than $499. The mini sits in the Small Form Factor market and doesn't compete against offerings by HP and Gateway in that $300 bracket.
But you probably do actually believe that. Is the Mac mini a prosumer machine, vinea? With its tiny case, tiny hard drive, tiny RAM limit, integrated graphics, bare-bones everything, non-upgradable anything?
Strawman. First you advance the incorrect position that every machine not entry level is "prosumer" which is idiotic and second you are arguing against a position I've never advocated.
The mini is a small form factor computer that is also inexpensive (relative to the rest of the Mac lineup) but much more expensive than the entry level market as defined as "under $500".
Not taken seriously by anyone who knew what they were doing. Those who didn't know better predictably snapped them up. And then had problems. And then the companies disappeared, either from exiting the market or being bought by a competitor.
They were snapped up by folks that couldn't afford $700 for a computer. Not that they were ignorant as you insinuate. There were no other options at the time. Or are you saying that folks with less money are automatically dumb? Or that owning no computer is better than owning a Packard Bell or eMachine?
And you claim that they had problems but I recall reading Consumer Reports in that time period that recommended Packard Bell. Which I was duly skeptical but they weren't recommending it to me (someone in the industry) but to the general consumer based on...well, consumer reports...so some consumers certainly liked them. Also the article stated a low return rate for eMachines at least for the first few quarters. You don't have anything more than ancedotal rememberances that they sucked. They did suck but they also provided usable low cost computing to a demographic that had been underserved prior to hitting that $399 price point.
What is optimal for a higher market segment is not optimal for a lower market segment with different needs. That the machines were barebones and used cheap parts is what got it into the affordable range. That they would have a higher DOA rate would be expected but as long as that market segment felt they were being adequately served then they would be "reliable enough".
If they got twitchy when you added after market parts...well that's kinda the PC world of 1998 in general isn't it?
I don't care what their current status is in the European market, because 1. it's not relevant to what we're talking about, 2. they could be making a completely different type of machine than they made in the US in 1998, 3. the European market is a niche compared to the worldwide market, and 4. the source for the statement is PB's own website anyway.
That you don't care doesn't mean that they don't still exist and are selling computers in the European market. If you don't like those numbers then you can find a source that says they aren't #3.
Apple is niche compared to the worldwide market as it is predominantly US-centric. Notice that recent gains in the US market hasn't moved Apple's share a whole lot in the world wide share numbers?
Besides...so what if eMachines and Packard Bell were ultimately unsuccessful against Gateway, Dell and HP in the US market? What does that have to do with the contention that sub-$500 computers existed in 1998, that the 1997-1998 time period was when you saw the massive price drops until the bottom end was below $500 by Christmas of 1998? The same Christmas targetted by the $1300 iMac.
Yeah, it wouldn't fly. That's why it was the #1 top selling desktop computer on the market until they started selling the five colors as different models (as opposed to counting them all the same and shipping the same number of each color to stores, who got irritated because they'd end up with excess inventory of the less popular colors).
Which is why eMachines outsold Apple in Q1 of 1999? Or eMachines in first full month of sales took the #4 slot behind the iMac who was #3 for the month of December? The iMacs position as #1 had slipped in December prior to the release of the multi-color iMacs and multiple SKUs.
http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/j...21/imacq4.html
Again, what does selling well in a higher market segment have anything to do with the contention that it wasn't designed to compete with machines in a lower market segment?
That was exactly the intention of the machine.
So you're saying that a $1300 machine was intended to compete with a $399 one to gain share? As such, it seems a failure given that Apple lost market share position against makers of these cheap machines. Or perhaps you're saying that a $1300 machine was intended to compete with a $399 machine for the under $50K/year household income demographic? Which I would have to say it was likely a failure there as well.
On the other hand, if you contend as I do, that Apple tries to maximize margins over unit sales, the iMac was wonderful in achieving great margins with good volume. In which case it never competed against entry level machines but against other mid-level consumer level machines above both the sub-$1000 market (ie closer to $700 than $999) and the sub-$500 market. Where it was very successful as Apple's entry level machine.
That's the problem with the term "entry level". Again, Acura and Porsche have "entry level" cars. Neither occupy the same market segment as the Toyota Corrollas or even less expensive Scions and the like.
So do you think the Mac mini isn't a low-end machine? Oh, that's right, you don't.
That's correct. I classify it as a SFF machine and as such, while relatively inexpensive for a Mac isn't a low-end machine. They use too many expensive parts to achieve a certain form factor rather than attempt to minimize price and therefore appeal to a different demographic and market segment. That it does double duty as a switcher machine is a nice benefit.
Including monitor it is double the price of a low-end computer with possibly less performance. Therefore you're paying for branding, form-factor or both.
But subjective definitions of where the cut-off is where entry-level ends and prosumer begins. You think that although the iMac was designed, marketed, and referenced as an entry-level machine, it's prosumer since they didn't pay you to take it. And since I couldn't find too many articles that supported your position, it seems the lines are drawn as such:
This is clearly incorrect. There are market segments above entry level and below prosumer.
iMac a prosumer machine: vinea
iMac an entry-level machine: pretty near the rest of the world
But in the end, we're just arguing about semantics, it seems.
We're arguing that you're incorrect in saying that Apple competed at the entry level (sub $500) market. There is and was a consumer segment above entry level. Arguing whether Apple is at the bottom end of the upper consumer segment or the top end of the middle consumer segment is semantics. Apple may have wanted the iMac to compete with the sub-$1000 market as some point as Jobs said something to that effect but that never panned out in terms of actual substantial price drops to actually compete in the under $1K market.
The sub-$500 entry level was never in the cards. If you can find a source that says that Apple was looking at that sub-$500 entry level market feel free to post it. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong.
So arguing that Apple occupied the bottom most (entry level) segment in 1998 is incorrect.
Arguing that not entry level = prosumer is just silly.
iMac is an upper middle to lower high end consumer PC targetted to the $50K+ household income demographic: Vinea
That's my position.
Vinea
Wait, I thought saying that was tantamount to saying some ridiculous thing about Porsche and $45K?
No, saying that the Porsche Boxster is a low priced car for a Porsche is reasonably common. Saying that a Boxster is a low priced car in general is what is ridiculous.
Likewise you can find many articles that describe the Boxter as Porsche entry level car. Equating that with Porsche competes in the entry level market against brands like Scion is ridiculous.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate...025_619161.htm
Here you go. "...entry level dream...relatively affordable price..."
I got taken to task in another thread for equating Apple to Porsche as the analogy isn't 100% accurate (given that no analogy is 100% I dunno why that's all that important but whatever). Apple does enjoy some of the higher margins and high profit per unit like Porsche does but also competes in that middle consumer market that Porsche arguably does not. Apple is more like Acrua in that regard.
Vinea
Then what was with the "assume" stuff?
Not wanting to spend time looking it up. Especially since that would be researching your points. Why should I have to find your evidence for your side of the argument? You should have been doing that, since the article you posted didn't support the conclusions you were drawing from it. But I just said let's assume that's correct, so we could move on. Apparently it didn't work.
And its not a matter of the iMac being cheaper than the PCs of the period but whether it lived in that "entry level" market of the period which it did not even IF you use the definition of "under $1000" which even your sources agree is closer to $700 than $999.
Under $1000 means just that. It includes machines at $700, ones at $999, ones in between, and anything else under $1000.
The discussion got here because you didn't simply accept that I agreed that Apple History got it wrong
Well, not just Apple History, since they never claimed the Performa 450 was in 1998 (link).
Even if that site had been correct about the price, a machine from 1993 would have still been completely irrelevant to the discussion. Pointing out that the price was a typo was just a little "icing on the cake." So yeah, it's a little irritating when Mr. "admit when you're wrong" blames his own mistakes on a site that didn't make them.
but decided to "correct" me further in an area in which you are incorrect. Given that you got snotty I'm not so inclined to let you slide here. Your assertions on the PC market is no less an "egregious factual error" and you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong.
Yeah, I won't deny that you've annoyed me quite a bit during this thread on previous pages, which caused me to bear somewhat of a grudge and subsequently lash out at you, especially since it was 1 AM and I was slightly drunk when I wrote that post. But really, the whole basis of your argument is that one of my articles was wrong. I didn't make that up - I had an article that said $500 computers were still a year off. Hell, I even prefaced the article with a disclaimer saying that Packard Bell could have had something cheaper than that. If the article was wrong, then so be it. I seriously don't care about this discussion.
Oh, and if you want to talk about "snotty", then what was "finally, someone can do some research for a change"? Especially right after 1. I'd already pointed out the thing was from 1993, 2. your own source even said 1993 and not 1998, and 3. you still made me writing a frigging research paper before you'd accept that the thing was from 1993! Some really great research on your part, buddy.
I'm not going to spend time replying to every point in your post. You'd like to argue that the Mac mini was a low-end computer when it was $499, but when they bumped the price to $599, it all of a sudden wasn't low-end anymore. I think that's silly (I will agree it was a rather stupid decision for Apple to have made, though). It's a low-end computer. A low-end computer with an Apple tax on it, if you will. But what it is is low-end. There's nothing middle or high-end about the Mac mini, just like there was nothing middle or high-end about the iMac.
The rest is semantics. Apparently enough people thought the iMac was inexpensive, low-end, and/or entry level to write to that effect in articles published at the time. I never heard any argument to the contrary until I read this thread, in fact. But whatever - it's not the argument I came here to get into.
This is wrong, though:
Apple may have wanted the iMac to compete with the sub-$1000 market as some point as Jobs said something to that effect but that never panned out in terms of actual substantial price drops to actually compete in the under $1K market.
because if you look, the iMac did drop to $1200 fairly quickly in early 1999, and then to $999 later on in the year. And remember that's with a monitor. I'm not going to bother with a link, but you can look it up yourself, although I'd use everymac.com instead of apple-history.com as they're a lot more reliable.
Since when do you need to be either entry level or prosumer? There is an upper end to the consumer market. Apple occupies that as well as the higher side of the middle of the consumer market.
If you equate consumer to family, then yes. However, the high end consumer category, which is par of the prosumer ranks is filled with fast and expandable desktop (not workstation) towers. Apple has no answer for this market except to tell them to upgrade to a high end workstation or downgrade to an iMac.
The Mac mini is a low cost machine for Apple but does not sit within the market segment that is referred to as the entry level market when analysts talk about the bottom end of the market...which is under $500 and typically closer to $300 than $499. The mini sits in the Small Form Factor market and doesn't compete against offerings by HP and Gateway in that $300 bracket.
It could be with a celeron-m 420 (see PC equivalent of G4). It should be noted that the Mac Mini is within about $30 of the cheapest dual core. It could be cheaper and better positioned if Apple had gone with a desktop hard drive. It'd still be way smaller than anything else. That Mini, as it sits now is cheaper than the Core Solo HP S7620N. I guess they must have moved up into the Porsche ranks too.
.
That's correct. I classify it as a SFF machine and as such, while relatively inexpensive for a Mac isn't a low-end machine. They use too many expensive parts to achieve a certain form factor rather than attempt to minimize price and therefore appeal to a different demographic and market segment. That it does double duty as a switcher machine is a nice benefit.
Actually I remember Steve Jobs saying the exact opposite when he introduced the Mini.
This is clearly incorrect. There are market segments above entry level and below prosumer.
So, you're starting to figure out the market isn't so black and white.
The sub-$500 entry level was never in the cards. If you can find a source that says that Apple was looking at that sub-$500 entry level market feel free to post it. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong.
Which you are. Look up the 2005 MWSF keynote where Steve Jobs introduced the $499 Mac Mini.
iMac is an upper middle to lower high end consumer PC targetted to the $50K+ household income demographic: Vinea
That's my position.
Vinea
So, in other words, Apple should cater to only you and people exactly like you?
You are citing HP as an example of how to do business. Their profit for last quarter was $1,697,000.
I knew you'd make some ridiculous responce like this.
Because and apple and hp are exactly the same and an apple mid tower would magically turn their profits into hp's.
The cinema displays, mbps, mb, mac pros, mac minis, ipods, and imacs would case to exist.
Steve Jobs would get a sex change operation turning into a woman that just flushes apple down the toliet, replacing the entire product lines with generic computers they can call GAZEBO followed by numbers and letters giving the consumer a nice unified understanding of their products.
It's at this point in time osx will be drop in favour of vista.
My god you're right....
APPLE RUN! A MID TOWER MEANS DEATH! DEATH I TELLS YOU!
Easy.
We still arguing the toss on this one?
Lemon Bon Bon 8)
what could be surprise in MWSF?
iPhone, iPod Video, iTV all old stories ...
i am looking forward some new Mac what ever it is!
MWSF -> new Mac!
Not wanting to spend time looking it up. Especially since that would be researching your points. Why should I have to find your evidence for your side of the argument? You should have been doing that, since the article you posted didn't support the conclusions you were drawing from it. But I just said let's assume that's correct, so we could move on. Apparently it didn't work.
A simple "okay" would have been sufficient.
Under $1000 means just that. It includes machines at $700, ones at $999, ones in between, and anything else under $1000.
There was a long drawn out argument about whether or not $999 really satisfied the under $1000 price tag. I don't care either way except to say that $1300 is clearly above $1000 and far above the $699 machine you listed.
Well, not just Apple History, since they never claimed the Performa 450 was in 1998.
Even if that site had been correct about the price, a machine from 1993 would have still been completely irrelevant to the discussion. So yeah, it's a little irritating when Mr. "admit when you're wrong" blames his own mistakes on a site that didn't make them.
Fine I was wrong. I do seem to recall that the discussion was about the iMac being the cheapest ever but perhaps I recall incorrectly. In any case the $750 looks to be incorrect.
Yeah, I won't deny that you've annoyed me quite a bit during this thread on previous pages, which caused me to bear somewhat of a grudge and subsequently lash out at you, especially since it was 1 AM and I was slightly drunk when I wrote that post. But really, the whole basis of your argument is that one of my articles was wrong.
No the basis of my argument is that your assertion that $500 computers did not exist in 1998 is wrong and the only evidence was that you presented were articles that were incorrect.
I didn't make that up - I had an article that said $500 computers were still a year off. Hell, I even prefaced the article with a disclaimer saying that Packard Bell could have had something cheaper than that. If the article was wrong, then so be it. I seriously don't care about this discussion.
And I didn't make up the $750 number either. So what? Doesn't make either of us any less wrong about a point of fact.
Oh, and if you want to talk about "snotty", then what was "finally, someone can do some research for a change"?
That was meant as a compliment. But whatever, retracted if it makes you feel better.
I'm not going to spend time replying to every point in your post.
Probably because you'd rather deal with the personalities of this argument now that your factual position has been shown incorrect.
You'd like to argue that the Mac mini was a low-end computer when it was $499, but when they bumped the price to $599, it all of a sudden wasn't low-end anymore.
Strawman. I've never claimed that the mini was low end even at $499. It does fit into that under $500 price category by a dollar but again, there was an argument about whether that counts. Again, I don't have an opinion either way but the lowest end is again $275-$300. Percentage wise the Mini is far above with less capability.
I think that's silly (I will agree it was a rather stupid decision for Apple to have made, though). It's a low-end computer. A low-end computer with an Apple tax on it, if you will. But what it is is low-end. There's nothing middle or high-end about the Mac mini, just like there was nothing middle or high-end about the iMac.
Branding, form factors and the use of higher priced parts to achieve that form factor moves it above low end.
The rest is semantics. Apparently enough people thought the iMac was inexpensive, low-end, and/or entry level to write to that effect in articles published at the time. I never heard any argument to the contrary until I read this thread, in fact. But whatever - it's not the argument I came here to get into.
You could have dropped this at any point. It takes two to argue.
This is wrong, though:
because if you look, the iMac did drop to $1200 fairly quickly in early 1999, and then to $999 later on in the year. And remember that's with a monitor. I'm not going to bother with a link, but you can look it up yourself, although I'd use everymac.com instead of apple-history.com as they're a lot more reliable.
Doesn't matter. They wanted to drop it below $800 I believe but realized there was simply no competing in a sub-$500 entry market or even the sub-$1000 value market. Again $999 does not compete well with $699.
Vinea
A simple "okay" would have been sufficient.
Again, your article didn't support the points you were making. If you don't like people pointing that out, then find the right articles that support your point the first time instead of getting offended.
There was a long drawn out argument about whether or not $999 really satisfied the under $1000 price tag. I don't care either way except to say that $1300 is clearly above $1000 and far above the $699 machine you listed.
There was?! I never heard of that - "under $X" is pretty much standard parlance for describing just about any product that cost $X - $1 (or $X - $0.01). If a product is $19.99, then it's "under 20 dollars!" even though after sales tax, it'd be slightly over. It's maybe a bit silly, but that's the way it's always been.
And for the last time, the iMac competed with the under $1000 machines because it included a monitor, which some $999 machines didn't. One of the articles I quoted said so.
One thing I really hate is having to repeat the same thing over, and over, and over...
Fine I was wrong. I do seem to recall that the discussion was about the iMac being the cheapest ever but perhaps I recall incorrectly.
Well, you never would have heard that argument from me, at least, because the Performa 410 back in 1993 was cheaper than the iMac, and so were certain members of the UMAX C500 series back in the clone era (I think I pointed the latter out a few times in this thread, in fact). It was the cheapest at the time it came out, though, by far, and it was also the cheapest machine from Apple in recent memory.
No the basis of my argument is that your assertion that $500 computers did not exist in 1998 is wrong and the only evidence was that you presented were articles that were incorrect.
And I retracted that argument, which was based on only one of my articles. You do seem to like to keep dwelling on it, though.
And I didn't make up the $750 number either. So what? Doesn't make either of us any less wrong about a point of fact.
You were the one trying to make some sort of distinction there. I was replying to "you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong." I had an article, rather than a web site, but you decided to accuse me of making it up and/or lying. I don't appreciate that.
Probably because you'd rather deal with the personalities of this argument now that your factual position has been shown incorrect.
One part of the argument, which wasn't even a main point. You still haven't convinced me that the iMac was in the upper range of the consumer market (which is what the prosumer market is, fyi), or that the market hasn't changed a bit since 1998.
Strawman. I've never claimed that the mini was low end even at $499.
You were claiming that $500 was the cut-off.
It does fit into that under $500 price category by a dollar but again, there was an argument about whether that counts.
There was?
Again, I don't have an opinion either way but the lowest end is again $275-$300. Percentage wise the Mini is far above with less capability.
Funny how "under-$500" was the low-end until I pointed out a Mac that was under $500, and now that's not enough anymore. So in order to qualify for the low-end segment of the market, the machine must be equal in price to the absolute lowest product in that segment of the market?
What about a $450 Dell? Is that not a low-end machine? After all, it's under $500, but only by $50! What would you call it?
What about a $400 Dell? It's well under $500, but still more than your $300 machines! Is it not low-end?
Taking the cheapest Dell, the $360 one, and adding the most basic service plan that they offer (which includes such luxuries as 30-day telephone support) brings the total to $587. Does that suddenly make it not a low-end machine?
What happens if you take one of your $300 machines and custom-configure it to add features like some more RAM, a bigger hard drive, XP Pro instead of XP Home, or whatever and bump the price to $501? Does that magically transform it into a different class of machine?
Do you understand that these classifications are subjective?
For the record, I agree that the mini is overpriced. Doesn't make it not a low-end machine, though. Look at the parts it's made of. Look at the audience it's targeted against. Look at what it's intended to be used for. It's a low-end machine, for people who'd like a low-end machine but are willing to pay a little extra for a better OS (after all, even Dell's cheapest machine, at $360, becomes $510 if you go with XP Pro).
Doesn't matter. They wanted to drop it below $800 I believe but realized there was simply no competing in a sub-$500 entry market or even the sub-$1000 value market. Again $999 does not compete well with $699.
Apparently it did compete well - the original iMac was a huge seller for a really long time. Again, for quite a few months it was the highest selling desktop model on the entire market.