You hit it perzactly! I don't want a POS cheap Apple product. I can get that with countless PCs.
You seem to forget how I priced out a system (post 21) using component prices of the MacMini... it would cost roughly the same for Apple to assemble and the stats were amazing.
But, if you think a Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz Kentsfield-powered, 1066MHz FSB, 802.11g-equipped, Bluetooth-equipped PC w/dual-channel SDRAM, a 320GB 3.5" HDD, a Dual-Layer DVD-Burner is "dreck," I'm sorry, but you know nothing about computers. Apple could be assembling these computers instead of crippled MacMinis. Many of you seem to forget that inexpensive does not always mean cheap, contrary to what Apple wants you to think. Apple chooses pricier components NOT FOR YOUR BENEFIT as a user, but because it will FATTEN their pockets! Shouldn't Apple be keeping the best interest of the user in mind? After all, their well-being as a company depends on our satisfaction.
You seem to forget how I priced out a system (post 21) using component prices of the MacMini... it would cost roughly the same for Apple to assemble and the stats were amazing.
Adding up the component pieces for a desktop and trying to compare it to a Mac Mini is a very good comparison. I skipped over post 21 because I didn't understand what the price points. It all seemed to be jumbled up and the savings didn't make sense to me either.
The Mac Mini, or a comparably priced machine, is not the more commonly sold PC pricepoint. You'd have to go half that price. What you can you build for under $400?
But that doesn't really matter. Should Apple build a cheap machine just because someone wants it even if they don't have a worthwhile profit margin to warranty the expense and if it destroys the brand they've spent 30 years building?
You seem to forget how I priced out a system (post 21) using component prices of the MacMini... it would cost roughly the same for Apple to assemble and the stats were amazing.
You neglected many things in that price comparison. Including the differences in form factor, power supply, etc. Note that neither Dell nor HP offers that machine for $600 but $700.
The stats were okay for a mid grade tower costing around...$700.
Quote:
Apple could be assembling these computers instead of crippled MacMinis.
The mini's aren't crippled. They are SFF computers. Evidently you know nothing about computers as well.
Quote:
Many of you seem to forget that inexpensive does not always mean cheap, contrary to what Apple wants you to think. Apple chooses pricier components NOT FOR YOUR BENEFIT as a user, but because it will FATTEN their pockets! Shouldn't Apple be keeping the best interest of the user in mind? After all, their well-being as a company depends on our satisfaction.
Apple's strategy provides for investment in OSX, important applications and innovative products. None of which Dell has to pay for or has done. There are many Dell's in the computer world and damn few Apples. One at the moment among computer manufactuers.
"Fattening" their pockets IS in our interests as Apple consumers unless you prefer a "crippled" Apple unable to make investments into new products like the iPhone (successful) and the aTV (not so successful). Or invest in developing best of breed software like iLife, iChat, etc that they give away full version and not "trial" copies with each new machine.
If this bothers you...well there are, as I said, many Dells in the world willing to sell you Yet Another Tower on which you can put Ubuntu and some OSX look-alike theme. Of course, you get what you pay for but looking at your posts you seem unwilling to pay for a company that makes innovative products.
Given Apple's current success it has no problems keeping their customers well satisfied.
You neglected many things in that price comparison. Including the differences in form factor, power supply, etc. Note that neither Dell nor HP offers that machine for $600 but $700.
The stats were okay for a mid grade tower costing around...$700.
Okay, hair-splitter. You're ignoring that the point of the exercise was to compare component costs. Of course there are other aspects that may change by a few dollars... a little heftier PSU, bigger case, whatever. That's not the point. Stop letting your vendetta against me blind you from the point of my arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The mini's aren't crippled. They are SFF computers. Evidently you know nothing about computers as well.
Oh please. Again with the hair-splitting and word-wrangling. That's all you ever do.
Once again I will fruitlessly attempt to open your eyes to what I am actually saying. Will it function as a self-sufficient PC? Yes. Will it outperform most bargain-basement PCs? Yes. Is it a SFF and therefore require some performance concessions need to be made? Yes. I'm not denying any of those things. But EVEN FOR WHAT IT IS, look at the stats of the MacMini. Sub-2.0GHz Merom CPU. 1GB RAM. GMA 950. COMBO DRIVE! Apple used to shove a G4 and dedicated GPU inside... SIMULTANEOUSLY! And let's not forget that it was $499 instead of $599. The Mobile C2D runs considerably cooler, is cheaper, and there are some really great, efficient moblie-class GPUs out there that Apple could stuff inside the Mini. And don't even get me started on the Combo drive. You can find slim combo drives on NewEgg for the exact same price as DVD-RWs (look it up yourself if you don't believe me).
So what's the incentive for Apple to offer the Combo Drive on the base model? To upsell the "high-end" model, of course. In my book, that's called crippling, ESPECIALLY since there is no price advantage with the Combo Drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple's strategy provides for investment in OSX, important applications and innovative products. None of which Dell has to pay for or has done. There are many Dell's in the computer world and damn few Apples. One at the moment among computer manufactuers.
I never said it didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
"Fattening" their pockets IS in our interests as Apple consumers unless you prefer a "crippled" Apple unable to make investments into new products like the iPhone (successful) and the aTV (not so successful). Or invest in developing best of breed software like iLife, iChat, etc that they give away full version and not "trial" copies with each new machine.
But as a consumer shopping for a computer, what's your primary concern? Buying a quality computer or paying for a company to develop a new product line? There's no doubt that OS X and other bundled software are quality pieces of work and I'm willing to pay for that. I'm not willing to throw cash aimlessly into Apple's rampantly growing stockpile of unused cash. 16 billion is enough to launch several well-R&D'd product lines, yet there it sits... just growing.
Besides, you're forgetting that the point of building the system I did was to show that Apple could offer a much better computer at the same approximate production cost as the Mini with the same (if nor higher) margins as the Mini. I'm all for supporting Apple as I have been for many, many years - they build solid products - but today's offerings are an abandonment of their previous model. Apple used to be able to actually deliver a product worth of their premium price. Now they're using their popularity to eke by, technologically, while charging the same high-as-hell prices.
As I've said several times in this thread: Even bargain-hunters will pay a premium if it's justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
If this bothers you...well there are, as I said, many Dells in the world willing to sell you Yet Another Tower on which you can put Ubuntu and some OSX look-alike theme. Of course, you get what you pay for but looking at your posts you seem unwilling to pay for a company that makes innovative products.
Once again, instead of acknowledging that Apple doesn't offer what I really need (a DESKTOP-CLASS computer... not moble-grade, not server-grade) pundits and fanboys always resort to the "then go buy a Dell" argument. Sorry, that one doesn't fly with me. I know Apple is capable of developing a unit that has desktop-class power at a reasonable price... and still rake in the margins they "need." So many mac-users are starved for a setup like this that they'd probably be dillusional enough to pay whatever unreasonable price tag Apple puts on it. Personally, I want the $1499 G3/G4/G5 tower back. I don't want a super-charged iMac, and I don't want a crippled Mac Pro. I need a computer that's built to operate in the mid-range of the processing spectrum. Is that so difficult?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Given Apple's current success it has no problems keeping their customers well satisfied.
An incorrect assumption on your part. Apple's current success is a trend and does not imply satisfaction. Apple has become the newest Coach. Just because they're trendy, popular and charge a higher price doesn't mean they make a better purse. Any fashion whore will continue to wear a painful pair of shoes in order to be trendy. Likewise, 60% of college students will continue using under-powered, combo-drive ladden MacBooks to acheive the same status.
And as a final note, just because you hate me and strive to prove me wrong at every junction doesn't make everything I say invalid. Maybe you can hold off your tirade for just a moment to realize this and, perhaps, gain a new perspective from my post...
Clive, if you're so clever, why don't you start your own computer company and drive Apple out of business?
You remind me of the new guy in the Jack in the Box commercial, if you were at Apple, a severance package would be on it's way to you.
We don't have Jack-In-The-Box in the midwest so sorry, I can't laugh with you on this one.
As for your first pseudo-snooty comment, I actually have been trying to recruit friends to work on a Psystar-esque project. I have no chance of creating a software competitor to Apple - their software is by and far the best - but if I can implement a stable, upgradeable OS X on 3rd-party hardware, I bet I could give Apple a run for their money.
We don't have Jack-In-The-Box in the midwest so sorry, I can't laugh with you on this one.
As for your first pseudo-snooty comment, I actually have been trying to recruit friends to work on a Psystar-esque project. I have no chance of creating a software competitor to Apple - their software is by and far the best - but if I can implement a stable, upgradeable OS X on 3rd-party hardware, I bet I could give Apple a run for their money.
Pseudo-snotty eh? Did it ever occur to you that people might get tired of listening to you claiming to know more about what's good for Apple than Apple does? And your track record is?
Pseudo-snotty eh? Did it ever occur to you that people might get tired of listening to you claiming to know more about what's good for Apple than Apple does? And your track record is?
So, it's pseudo-snotty vs arrogance.
I'm not claiming to know what's better for Apple as a company, but as a Apple-user for many years, I feel as though I at least have a say in what's best for some Apple-users. To opine that Apple is no longer meeting my (and others') needs is completely justified, in my view. And as this is an Apple-related public forum, I feel this is an appropriate as any to voice that opinion.
If you're sick of hearing about it, ignore my posts.
Okay, hair-splitter. You're ignoring that the point of the exercise was to compare component costs. Of course there are other aspects that may change by a few dollars... a little heftier PSU, bigger case, whatever. That's not the point. Stop letting your vendetta against me blind you from the point of my arguments.
I have a vendetta against you? I should make a note to myself so I know.
The problem with your component costs thing is that
a) it's been done to death in the innumerable xMac threads
b) it's pretty obvious that any tower will be cheaper than any SFF computer
Quote:
Once again I will fruitlessly attempt to open your eyes to what I am actually saying. Will it function as a self-sufficient PC? Yes. Will it outperform most bargain-basement PCs? Yes. Is it a SFF and therefore require some performance concessions need to be made? Yes. I'm not denying any of those things. But EVEN FOR WHAT IT IS, look at the stats of the MacMini. Sub-2.0GHz Merom CPU. 1GB RAM. GMA 950. COMBO DRIVE! Apple used to shove a G4 and dedicated GPU inside... SIMULTANEOUSLY!
A 1.8Ghz C2D is not a wimp processor...even a mobile one.
GMA 950 is outdated and needs an update to the X4500. Had it been updated to the X3100 it would be decent enough.
Combo drive does suck. Of course, if the base Mini had a superdrive I suspect that sales of the $799 mini would go way down.
Quote:
And let's not forget that it was $499 instead of $599. The Mobile C2D runs considerably cooler, is cheaper, and there are some really great, efficient moblie-class GPUs out there that Apple could stuff inside the Mini.
Crappy ones in comparison to a C2D. The current bottom end mini can play 1080p HD H.264. Go much below and it can't.
The G4 Mini was somewhat marginal even with the dedicated graphics.
Quote:
So what's the incentive for Apple to offer the Combo Drive on the base model? To upsell the "high-end" model, of course. In my book, that's called crippling, ESPECIALLY since there is no price advantage with the Combo Drive.
Yes, it's meant to upsell. On the other hand not everyone needs a superdrive so the $200 savings is rather nice if you don't.
Quote:
I never said it didn't.
...
But as a consumer shopping for a computer, what's your primary concern? Buying a quality computer or paying for a company to develop a new product line? There's no doubt that OS X and other bundled software are quality pieces of work and I'm willing to pay for that. I'm not willing to throw cash aimlessly into Apple's rampantly growing stockpile of unused cash. 16 billion is enough to launch several well-R&D'd product lines, yet there it sits... just growing.
Good consumers understand that a healthy supplier (especially the sole supplier of a desired product) is a Good Thing if they want other quality things in the future.
No, the $18B isn't just "sitting there". It's a hedge against economic downturn (hey, look...we're in a recession!). Apple's strategy is to invest it's way through a downturn when other companies will be retrenching and unable to get financing to do new things.
They will be able to be nimble and introduce new cool things while other companies are stuck. It's called long term thinking and it's something many companies don't do.
Apple will be able to do continue to fund OSX, iLife, Final Cut, etc and new product development even if Mac, iPod and iPhone sales collapse due to a recession (or worse). That's a damn good thing for Apple customers that are depending on a healthy Mac ecosystem and regular OSX updates.
Quote:
Besides, you're forgetting that the point of building the system I did was to show that Apple could offer a much better computer at the same approximate production cost as the Mini with the same (if nor higher) margins as the Mini.
They DON'T WANT TO DO AN xMAC. It doesn't fit their vision and their vision has been working out great. They've introduced the iPhone, Macbook Air, Apple TV, iPod Touch...that's hardly a company sitting on it's laurels.
They could...every one agrees they COULD.
People disagree on the impact to their product lineup and whether it would be a profitable move on their part or how much impact to the mac brand there would be.
There certainly is a school of thought that the current line up is growing Apple share, has great ASPs and margins so don't mess with it beyond updating the Mini more often.
Quote:
I'm all for supporting Apple as I have been for many, many years - they build solid products - but today's offerings are an abandonment of their previous model. Apple used to be able to actually deliver a product worth of their premium price. Now they're using their popularity to eke by, technologically, while charging the same high-as-hell prices.
And they do. Their product line represents very good value and often are less expensive than their Dell or HP equivlaents (like the Mac Pro).
Even the mini is a very good value in comparison to equivalent SFF computers from Shuttle and others.
Same for the iMac in comparison to other AIOs.
Quote:
Once again, instead of acknowledging that Apple doesn't offer what I really need (a DESKTOP-CLASS computer... not moble-grade, not server-grade) pundits and fanboys always resort to the "then go buy a Dell" argument. Sorry, that one doesn't fly with me. I know Apple is capable of developing a unit that has desktop-class power at a reasonable price... and still rake in the margins they "need."
They don't want to. Deal. Or whine. Which is what you're doing. Either way, don't expect an xMac any time soon.
In any case, the iMac is a "desktop class" computer. Maybe not one you like, but many Apple customers are quite happy with it.
Quote:
So many mac-users are starved for a setup like this that they'd probably be dillusional enough to pay whatever unreasonable price tag Apple puts on it.
So buy a pystar and put your money where your mouth is. The best way is to show Apple that there's a true market for one by having Pystar sell a few hundred thousand units despite the drawbacks.
Quote:
Personally, I want the $1499 G3/G4/G5 tower back. I don't want a super-charged iMac, and I don't want a crippled Mac Pro. I need a computer that's built to operate in the mid-range of the processing spectrum. Is that so difficult?
Nope, not difficult. Go buy a pystar. Enjoy.
Quote:
An incorrect assumption on your part. Apple's current success is a trend and does not imply satisfaction.
Yes, Apple's market share is increasing because customer satisfaction with their line up is low.
Too bad it turns out that Apple leads the industry in customer satisfaction, huh?
Quote:
Apple has become the newest Coach. Just because they're trendy, popular and charge a higher price doesn't mean they make a better purse. Any fashion whore will continue to wear a painful pair of shoes in order to be trendy. Likewise, 60% of college students will continue using under-powered, combo-drive ladden MacBooks to acheive the same status.
MacBooks are underpowered? Since when is a C2D laptop underpowered? The XPS M1330 is $999 with a 1.83Ghz C2D and a GMA X3100. The MacBook is a $1099 for a 2.1Ghz C2D and a GMA X3100.
All because of a combo drive? Please.
Upgrade the M1330 to 2.4Ghz and 802.11N+Bluetooth and it's $1219 vs $1299 for the middle MacBook (with SuperDrive).
The combo drive is a little annoying but not a cripping defect.
But hey, if Apple isn't making a better purse and is just the newest fad then moving to Ubuntu on a tower PC is the smart thing to do right?
60% huh? Care to back that number up with a link?
Quote:
And as a final note, just because you hate me and strive to prove me wrong at every junction doesn't make everything I say invalid. Maybe you can hold off your tirade for just a moment to realize this and, perhaps, gain a new perspective from my post...
...but I'm not holding my breath.
Clive, I don't care enough about you to hate you. I respond to what you write, nothing more.
Trust me buddy, it's all in your head and your inability to deal with criticism. Yes, I ridiculed you for putting on airs and trying to trash talk someone with a PhD because it was in a soft science while you were a "physicist" (despite no degree or work in Physics). But only because you were annoying at the time.
But heck, I'd forgotten that was you. At least I think that was you.
In any case, if I think what you say is invalid I say so. I understand your perspective...and it's not all that unique or profound. I just disagree.
We don't have Jack-In-The-Box in the midwest so sorry, I can't laugh with you on this one.
As for your first pseudo-snooty comment, I actually have been trying to recruit friends to work on a Psystar-esque project. I have no chance of creating a software competitor to Apple - their software is by and far the best - but if I can implement a stable, upgradeable OS X on 3rd-party hardware, I bet I could give Apple a run for their money.
Jeez, at least READ the various hackintosh forums first.
1) you are no more able to sell the "hackintosh package" than Pystar given the license revisions to some of the projects post-Pystar.
2) pushing the "illegality" onto the purchaser vs the seller doesn't make it any more or less "legal". Helping someone break a contract still makes you liable and potentially the user is violating the DMCA if they are hacking OSX themselves.
The entire point of the hackintosh/osx86/insanely mac community is to do exactly as you describe. Provide OSX on generic machines with updates as painlessly as possible.
Jeez, at least READ the various hackintosh forums first.
1) you are no more able to sell the "hackintosh package" than Pystar given the license revisions to some of the projects post-Pystar.
2) pushing the "illegality" onto the purchaser vs the seller doesn't make it any more or less "legal". Helping someone break a contract still makes you liable and potentially the user is violating the DMCA if they are hacking OSX themselves.
The entire point of the hackintosh/osx86/insanely mac community is to do exactly as you describe. Provide OSX on generic machines with updates as painlessly as possible.
"Give Apple a run for their money". Yeah right.
Oh, you must not have read about his "plan", where he's seeking co-conspirators.
Or, they might also be called litigants once Apple takes notice of them.
Personally, I would not invest one red cent in one of his Frankentoshes. OTOH, I do think that he's capable of earning a Darwin award.
As far as pricing components go, it's a false quest.
The retail prices have little to do with what a manufacturer negotiates with a supplier. Sometime the OEM price is about what the retail price is (on a very few components), and at other times, the prices are wildly cheaper.
But no one just looking it up on the net knows what they are.
And pricing components also has little to do with the price of the product based on them. most often, the price of the components is a fraction of the price of the product itself.
1) you are no more able to sell the "hackintosh package" than Pystar given the license revisions to some of the projects post-Pystar.
That pertains to distributing the EFI emulator. I wouldn't be doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
2) pushing the "illegality" onto the purchaser vs the seller doesn't make it any more or less "legal". Helping someone break a contract still makes you liable and potentially the user is violating the DMCA if they are hacking OSX themselves.
The modifications, as far as I know (I haven't read the newest methods in a couple weeks) don't involve bypassing security mechanisms or altering code in any way. Pretty sure that would absolve me. I have a bit more research to do before anything materializes.
And not that it would absolve me, but Jailbreaking the iPhone is a violation of the DMCA and no one has batted an eye at the jailbreak scene...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The entire point of the hackintosh/osx86/insanely mac community is to do exactly as you describe. Provide OSX on generic machines with updates as painlessly as possible.
Yes, and perhaps I could bring the process one step closer to reaching that goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
"Give Apple a run for their money". Yeah right.
Yeah, that is pretty unrealistic, but an easily-updateable, expandable, OS X setup on 3rd-party hardware could be very attractive to a budget-conscious consumer (or one who's just plain disgruntled, like me).
Yeah, that is pretty unrealistic, but an easily-updateable, expandable, OS X setup on 3rd-party hardware could be very attractive to a budget-conscious consumer (or one who's just plain disgruntled, like me).
I think that is achilles heal with this idea. Hackintosh usrs tend to tech savvy enough to know where to get KEXTS and hacked updates. They are ones that spend the time experimenting with these systems. They are not tech-tarded people looking for a cheap solution.
Most Mac owners want something that "just works" and buying a Psystar system with off the shelf parts with no single consumer guarantee for HW or SW issues that may arise does not follow that expression. We've seen the prices from Psystar, you don't save enough money to justify the complete lack of a useable warranty and support.
Plus, like all other OEMs, as soon as you start going past the base model you start getting more expensive than a comparable Apple Mac. The user-base for the Psystar machine is very small.
(I'm not even going to get into the lack of optimized drivers, the apps that don't work properly)
They DON'T WANT TO DO AN xMAC. It doesn't fit their vision and their vision has been working out great. They've introduced the iPhone, Macbook Air, Apple TV, iPod Touch...that's hardly a company sitting on it's laurels.
They could...every one agrees they COULD.
People disagree on the impact to their product lineup and whether it would be a profitable move on their part or how much impact to the mac brand there would be.
Steve's vision is sometimes brilliant and sometimes backwards. Who wants a desktop computer that will fit in a shoebox? AIOs aside, so few people put their desktops on their desk that miniturization is a fruitless endeavor. It's more of a "look what I can do" task, serving no functional purpose at all.
So you're saying that 100% of that 40% is buying combo drive macbooks, and 100% of them are buying them just for fashion, and that it's not the right computer for 0% of them?
I think that is achilles heal with this idea. Hackintosh usrs tend to tech savvy enough to know where to get KEXTS and hacked updates. They are ones that spend the time experimenting with these systems. They are not tech-tarded people looking for a cheap solution.
Part of his vision is providing the service to provide those kexts and hacked updates. Presumably for a fee. Which isn't going to make that community very happy unless its a very small fee.
No, the only real way to do this is the same approach as the ModBook folks. I've looked into it for the mini to build a home server using a new case and 3.5" drives and I bet I could sell a few but not make enough money doing it to offset the huge time investment required.
Maybe if I were retired like Melgross I'd give it a whirl. Despite what he thinks I think of him, I'd actually invest in that kind of endeavor if he started it.
Part of his vision is providing the service to provide those kexts and hacked updates. Presumably for a fee. Which isn't going to make that community very happy unless its a very small fee.
No, the only real way to do this is the same approach as the ModBook folks. I've looked into it for the mini to build a home server using a new case and 3.5" drives and I bet I could sell a few but not make enough money doing it to offset the huge time investment required.
Maybe if I were retired like Melgross I'd give it a whirl. Despite what he thinks I think of him, I'd actually invest in that kind of endeavor if he started it.
I appreciate that, but I've been working very hard to prevent myself from working again.
Comments
"We can't sell dreck; it's not in our DNA"
DING DING DING! We have a winner!!!!
You hit it perzactly! I don't want a POS cheap Apple product. I can get that with countless PCs.
You seem to forget how I priced out a system (post 21) using component prices of the MacMini... it would cost roughly the same for Apple to assemble and the stats were amazing.
But, if you think a Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz Kentsfield-powered, 1066MHz FSB, 802.11g-equipped, Bluetooth-equipped PC w/dual-channel SDRAM, a 320GB 3.5" HDD, a Dual-Layer DVD-Burner is "dreck," I'm sorry, but you know nothing about computers. Apple could be assembling these computers instead of crippled MacMinis. Many of you seem to forget that inexpensive does not always mean cheap, contrary to what Apple wants you to think. Apple chooses pricier components NOT FOR YOUR BENEFIT as a user, but because it will FATTEN their pockets! Shouldn't Apple be keeping the best interest of the user in mind? After all, their well-being as a company depends on our satisfaction.
-Clive
You seem to forget how I priced out a system (post 21) using component prices of the MacMini... it would cost roughly the same for Apple to assemble and the stats were amazing.
Adding up the component pieces for a desktop and trying to compare it to a Mac Mini is a very good comparison. I skipped over post 21 because I didn't understand what the price points. It all seemed to be jumbled up and the savings didn't make sense to me either.
The Mac Mini, or a comparably priced machine, is not the more commonly sold PC pricepoint. You'd have to go half that price. What you can you build for under $400?
But that doesn't really matter. Should Apple build a cheap machine just because someone wants it even if they don't have a worthwhile profit margin to warranty the expense and if it destroys the brand they've spent 30 years building?
You seem to forget how I priced out a system (post 21) using component prices of the MacMini... it would cost roughly the same for Apple to assemble and the stats were amazing.
You neglected many things in that price comparison. Including the differences in form factor, power supply, etc. Note that neither Dell nor HP offers that machine for $600 but $700.
The stats were okay for a mid grade tower costing around...$700.
Apple could be assembling these computers instead of crippled MacMinis.
The mini's aren't crippled. They are SFF computers. Evidently you know nothing about computers as well.
Many of you seem to forget that inexpensive does not always mean cheap, contrary to what Apple wants you to think. Apple chooses pricier components NOT FOR YOUR BENEFIT as a user, but because it will FATTEN their pockets! Shouldn't Apple be keeping the best interest of the user in mind? After all, their well-being as a company depends on our satisfaction.
Apple's strategy provides for investment in OSX, important applications and innovative products. None of which Dell has to pay for or has done. There are many Dell's in the computer world and damn few Apples. One at the moment among computer manufactuers.
"Fattening" their pockets IS in our interests as Apple consumers unless you prefer a "crippled" Apple unable to make investments into new products like the iPhone (successful) and the aTV (not so successful). Or invest in developing best of breed software like iLife, iChat, etc that they give away full version and not "trial" copies with each new machine.
If this bothers you...well there are, as I said, many Dells in the world willing to sell you Yet Another Tower on which you can put Ubuntu and some OSX look-alike theme. Of course, you get what you pay for but looking at your posts you seem unwilling to pay for a company that makes innovative products.
Given Apple's current success it has no problems keeping their customers well satisfied.
You neglected many things in that price comparison. Including the differences in form factor, power supply, etc. Note that neither Dell nor HP offers that machine for $600 but $700.
The stats were okay for a mid grade tower costing around...$700.
Okay, hair-splitter. You're ignoring that the point of the exercise was to compare component costs. Of course there are other aspects that may change by a few dollars... a little heftier PSU, bigger case, whatever. That's not the point. Stop letting your vendetta against me blind you from the point of my arguments.
The mini's aren't crippled. They are SFF computers. Evidently you know nothing about computers as well.
Oh please. Again with the hair-splitting and word-wrangling. That's all you ever do.
Once again I will fruitlessly attempt to open your eyes to what I am actually saying. Will it function as a self-sufficient PC? Yes. Will it outperform most bargain-basement PCs? Yes. Is it a SFF and therefore require some performance concessions need to be made? Yes. I'm not denying any of those things. But EVEN FOR WHAT IT IS, look at the stats of the MacMini. Sub-2.0GHz Merom CPU. 1GB RAM. GMA 950. COMBO DRIVE! Apple used to shove a G4 and dedicated GPU inside... SIMULTANEOUSLY! And let's not forget that it was $499 instead of $599. The Mobile C2D runs considerably cooler, is cheaper, and there are some really great, efficient moblie-class GPUs out there that Apple could stuff inside the Mini. And don't even get me started on the Combo drive. You can find slim combo drives on NewEgg for the exact same price as DVD-RWs (look it up yourself if you don't believe me).
So what's the incentive for Apple to offer the Combo Drive on the base model? To upsell the "high-end" model, of course. In my book, that's called crippling, ESPECIALLY since there is no price advantage with the Combo Drive.
Apple's strategy provides for investment in OSX, important applications and innovative products. None of which Dell has to pay for or has done. There are many Dell's in the computer world and damn few Apples. One at the moment among computer manufactuers.
I never said it didn't.
"Fattening" their pockets IS in our interests as Apple consumers unless you prefer a "crippled" Apple unable to make investments into new products like the iPhone (successful) and the aTV (not so successful). Or invest in developing best of breed software like iLife, iChat, etc that they give away full version and not "trial" copies with each new machine.
But as a consumer shopping for a computer, what's your primary concern? Buying a quality computer or paying for a company to develop a new product line? There's no doubt that OS X and other bundled software are quality pieces of work and I'm willing to pay for that. I'm not willing to throw cash aimlessly into Apple's rampantly growing stockpile of unused cash. 16 billion is enough to launch several well-R&D'd product lines, yet there it sits... just growing.
Besides, you're forgetting that the point of building the system I did was to show that Apple could offer a much better computer at the same approximate production cost as the Mini with the same (if nor higher) margins as the Mini. I'm all for supporting Apple as I have been for many, many years - they build solid products - but today's offerings are an abandonment of their previous model. Apple used to be able to actually deliver a product worth of their premium price. Now they're using their popularity to eke by, technologically, while charging the same high-as-hell prices.
As I've said several times in this thread: Even bargain-hunters will pay a premium if it's justified.
If this bothers you...well there are, as I said, many Dells in the world willing to sell you Yet Another Tower on which you can put Ubuntu and some OSX look-alike theme. Of course, you get what you pay for but looking at your posts you seem unwilling to pay for a company that makes innovative products.
Once again, instead of acknowledging that Apple doesn't offer what I really need (a DESKTOP-CLASS computer... not moble-grade, not server-grade) pundits and fanboys always resort to the "then go buy a Dell" argument. Sorry, that one doesn't fly with me. I know Apple is capable of developing a unit that has desktop-class power at a reasonable price... and still rake in the margins they "need." So many mac-users are starved for a setup like this that they'd probably be dillusional enough to pay whatever unreasonable price tag Apple puts on it. Personally, I want the $1499 G3/G4/G5 tower back. I don't want a super-charged iMac, and I don't want a crippled Mac Pro. I need a computer that's built to operate in the mid-range of the processing spectrum. Is that so difficult?
Given Apple's current success it has no problems keeping their customers well satisfied.
An incorrect assumption on your part. Apple's current success is a trend and does not imply satisfaction. Apple has become the newest Coach. Just because they're trendy, popular and charge a higher price doesn't mean they make a better purse. Any fashion whore will continue to wear a painful pair of shoes in order to be trendy. Likewise, 60% of college students will continue using under-powered, combo-drive ladden MacBooks to acheive the same status.
And as a final note, just because you hate me and strive to prove me wrong at every junction doesn't make everything I say invalid. Maybe you can hold off your tirade for just a moment to realize this and, perhaps, gain a new perspective from my post...
...but I'm not holding my breath.
-Clive
You remind me of the new guy in the Jack in the Box commercial, if you were at Apple, a severance package would be on it's way to you.
Clive, if you're so clever, why don't you start your own computer company and drive Apple out of business?
You remind me of the new guy in the Jack in the Box commercial, if you were at Apple, a severance package would be on it's way to you.
We don't have Jack-In-The-Box in the midwest so sorry, I can't laugh with you on this one.
As for your first pseudo-snooty comment, I actually have been trying to recruit friends to work on a Psystar-esque project. I have no chance of creating a software competitor to Apple - their software is by and far the best - but if I can implement a stable, upgradeable OS X on 3rd-party hardware, I bet I could give Apple a run for their money.
You can read about my plan here.
-Clive
We don't have Jack-In-The-Box in the midwest so sorry, I can't laugh with you on this one.
As for your first pseudo-snooty comment, I actually have been trying to recruit friends to work on a Psystar-esque project. I have no chance of creating a software competitor to Apple - their software is by and far the best - but if I can implement a stable, upgradeable OS X on 3rd-party hardware, I bet I could give Apple a run for their money.
You can read about my plan here.
-Clive
Pseudo-snotty eh? Did it ever occur to you that people might get tired of listening to you claiming to know more about what's good for Apple than Apple does? And your track record is?
So, it's pseudo-snotty vs arrogance.
Pseudo-snotty eh? Did it ever occur to you that people might get tired of listening to you claiming to know more about what's good for Apple than Apple does? And your track record is?
So, it's pseudo-snotty vs arrogance.
I'm not claiming to know what's better for Apple as a company, but as a Apple-user for many years, I feel as though I at least have a say in what's best for some Apple-users. To opine that Apple is no longer meeting my (and others') needs is completely justified, in my view. And as this is an Apple-related public forum, I feel this is an appropriate as any to voice that opinion.
If you're sick of hearing about it, ignore my posts.
-Clive
Okay, hair-splitter. You're ignoring that the point of the exercise was to compare component costs. Of course there are other aspects that may change by a few dollars... a little heftier PSU, bigger case, whatever. That's not the point. Stop letting your vendetta against me blind you from the point of my arguments.
I have a vendetta against you? I should make a note to myself so I know.
The problem with your component costs thing is that
a) it's been done to death in the innumerable xMac threads
b) it's pretty obvious that any tower will be cheaper than any SFF computer
Once again I will fruitlessly attempt to open your eyes to what I am actually saying. Will it function as a self-sufficient PC? Yes. Will it outperform most bargain-basement PCs? Yes. Is it a SFF and therefore require some performance concessions need to be made? Yes. I'm not denying any of those things. But EVEN FOR WHAT IT IS, look at the stats of the MacMini. Sub-2.0GHz Merom CPU. 1GB RAM. GMA 950. COMBO DRIVE! Apple used to shove a G4 and dedicated GPU inside... SIMULTANEOUSLY!
A 1.8Ghz C2D is not a wimp processor...even a mobile one.
GMA 950 is outdated and needs an update to the X4500. Had it been updated to the X3100 it would be decent enough.
Combo drive does suck. Of course, if the base Mini had a superdrive I suspect that sales of the $799 mini would go way down.
And let's not forget that it was $499 instead of $599. The Mobile C2D runs considerably cooler, is cheaper, and there are some really great, efficient moblie-class GPUs out there that Apple could stuff inside the Mini.
Crappy ones in comparison to a C2D. The current bottom end mini can play 1080p HD H.264. Go much below and it can't.
The G4 Mini was somewhat marginal even with the dedicated graphics.
So what's the incentive for Apple to offer the Combo Drive on the base model? To upsell the "high-end" model, of course. In my book, that's called crippling, ESPECIALLY since there is no price advantage with the Combo Drive.
Yes, it's meant to upsell. On the other hand not everyone needs a superdrive so the $200 savings is rather nice if you don't.
I never said it didn't.
...
But as a consumer shopping for a computer, what's your primary concern? Buying a quality computer or paying for a company to develop a new product line? There's no doubt that OS X and other bundled software are quality pieces of work and I'm willing to pay for that. I'm not willing to throw cash aimlessly into Apple's rampantly growing stockpile of unused cash. 16 billion is enough to launch several well-R&D'd product lines, yet there it sits... just growing.
Good consumers understand that a healthy supplier (especially the sole supplier of a desired product) is a Good Thing if they want other quality things in the future.
No, the $18B isn't just "sitting there". It's a hedge against economic downturn (hey, look...we're in a recession!). Apple's strategy is to invest it's way through a downturn when other companies will be retrenching and unable to get financing to do new things.
They will be able to be nimble and introduce new cool things while other companies are stuck. It's called long term thinking and it's something many companies don't do.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/7052...ing-18-billion
Apple will be able to do continue to fund OSX, iLife, Final Cut, etc and new product development even if Mac, iPod and iPhone sales collapse due to a recession (or worse). That's a damn good thing for Apple customers that are depending on a healthy Mac ecosystem and regular OSX updates.
Besides, you're forgetting that the point of building the system I did was to show that Apple could offer a much better computer at the same approximate production cost as the Mini with the same (if nor higher) margins as the Mini.
They DON'T WANT TO DO AN xMAC. It doesn't fit their vision and their vision has been working out great. They've introduced the iPhone, Macbook Air, Apple TV, iPod Touch...that's hardly a company sitting on it's laurels.
They could...every one agrees they COULD.
People disagree on the impact to their product lineup and whether it would be a profitable move on their part or how much impact to the mac brand there would be.
There certainly is a school of thought that the current line up is growing Apple share, has great ASPs and margins so don't mess with it beyond updating the Mini more often.
I'm all for supporting Apple as I have been for many, many years - they build solid products - but today's offerings are an abandonment of their previous model. Apple used to be able to actually deliver a product worth of their premium price. Now they're using their popularity to eke by, technologically, while charging the same high-as-hell prices.
And they do. Their product line represents very good value and often are less expensive than their Dell or HP equivlaents (like the Mac Pro).
Even the mini is a very good value in comparison to equivalent SFF computers from Shuttle and others.
Same for the iMac in comparison to other AIOs.
Once again, instead of acknowledging that Apple doesn't offer what I really need (a DESKTOP-CLASS computer... not moble-grade, not server-grade) pundits and fanboys always resort to the "then go buy a Dell" argument. Sorry, that one doesn't fly with me. I know Apple is capable of developing a unit that has desktop-class power at a reasonable price... and still rake in the margins they "need."
They don't want to. Deal. Or whine. Which is what you're doing. Either way, don't expect an xMac any time soon.
In any case, the iMac is a "desktop class" computer. Maybe not one you like, but many Apple customers are quite happy with it.
So many mac-users are starved for a setup like this that they'd probably be dillusional enough to pay whatever unreasonable price tag Apple puts on it.
So buy a pystar and put your money where your mouth is. The best way is to show Apple that there's a true market for one by having Pystar sell a few hundred thousand units despite the drawbacks.
Personally, I want the $1499 G3/G4/G5 tower back. I don't want a super-charged iMac, and I don't want a crippled Mac Pro. I need a computer that's built to operate in the mid-range of the processing spectrum. Is that so difficult?
Nope, not difficult. Go buy a pystar. Enjoy.
An incorrect assumption on your part. Apple's current success is a trend and does not imply satisfaction.
Yes, Apple's market share is increasing because customer satisfaction with their line up is low.
Too bad it turns out that Apple leads the industry in customer satisfaction, huh?
Apple has become the newest Coach. Just because they're trendy, popular and charge a higher price doesn't mean they make a better purse. Any fashion whore will continue to wear a painful pair of shoes in order to be trendy. Likewise, 60% of college students will continue using under-powered, combo-drive ladden MacBooks to acheive the same status.
MacBooks are underpowered? Since when is a C2D laptop underpowered? The XPS M1330 is $999 with a 1.83Ghz C2D and a GMA X3100. The MacBook is a $1099 for a 2.1Ghz C2D and a GMA X3100.
All because of a combo drive? Please.
Upgrade the M1330 to 2.4Ghz and 802.11N+Bluetooth and it's $1219 vs $1299 for the middle MacBook (with SuperDrive).
The combo drive is a little annoying but not a cripping defect.
But hey, if Apple isn't making a better purse and is just the newest fad then moving to Ubuntu on a tower PC is the smart thing to do right?
60% huh? Care to back that number up with a link?
And as a final note, just because you hate me and strive to prove me wrong at every junction doesn't make everything I say invalid. Maybe you can hold off your tirade for just a moment to realize this and, perhaps, gain a new perspective from my post...
...but I'm not holding my breath.
Clive, I don't care enough about you to hate you. I respond to what you write, nothing more.
Trust me buddy, it's all in your head and your inability to deal with criticism. Yes, I ridiculed you for putting on airs and trying to trash talk someone with a PhD because it was in a soft science while you were a "physicist" (despite no degree or work in Physics). But only because you were annoying at the time.
But heck, I'd forgotten that was you. At least I think that was you.
In any case, if I think what you say is invalid I say so. I understand your perspective...and it's not all that unique or profound. I just disagree.
We don't have Jack-In-The-Box in the midwest so sorry, I can't laugh with you on this one.
As for your first pseudo-snooty comment, I actually have been trying to recruit friends to work on a Psystar-esque project. I have no chance of creating a software competitor to Apple - their software is by and far the best - but if I can implement a stable, upgradeable OS X on 3rd-party hardware, I bet I could give Apple a run for their money.
You can read about my plan here.
-Clive
Jeez, at least READ the various hackintosh forums first.
1) you are no more able to sell the "hackintosh package" than Pystar given the license revisions to some of the projects post-Pystar.
2) pushing the "illegality" onto the purchaser vs the seller doesn't make it any more or less "legal". Helping someone break a contract still makes you liable and potentially the user is violating the DMCA if they are hacking OSX themselves.
The entire point of the hackintosh/osx86/insanely mac community is to do exactly as you describe. Provide OSX on generic machines with updates as painlessly as possible.
"Give Apple a run for their money". Yeah right.
Jeez, at least READ the various hackintosh forums first.
1) you are no more able to sell the "hackintosh package" than Pystar given the license revisions to some of the projects post-Pystar.
2) pushing the "illegality" onto the purchaser vs the seller doesn't make it any more or less "legal". Helping someone break a contract still makes you liable and potentially the user is violating the DMCA if they are hacking OSX themselves.
The entire point of the hackintosh/osx86/insanely mac community is to do exactly as you describe. Provide OSX on generic machines with updates as painlessly as possible.
"Give Apple a run for their money". Yeah right.
Oh, you must not have read about his "plan", where he's seeking co-conspirators.
Or, they might also be called litigants once Apple takes notice of them.
Personally, I would not invest one red cent in one of his Frankentoshes. OTOH, I do think that he's capable of earning a Darwin award.
The retail prices have little to do with what a manufacturer negotiates with a supplier. Sometime the OEM price is about what the retail price is (on a very few components), and at other times, the prices are wildly cheaper.
But no one just looking it up on the net knows what they are.
And pricing components also has little to do with the price of the product based on them. most often, the price of the components is a fraction of the price of the product itself.
It's a waste of time.
OTOH, I do think that he's capable of earning a Darwin award.
1) you are no more able to sell the "hackintosh package" than Pystar given the license revisions to some of the projects post-Pystar.
That pertains to distributing the EFI emulator. I wouldn't be doing so.
2) pushing the "illegality" onto the purchaser vs the seller doesn't make it any more or less "legal". Helping someone break a contract still makes you liable and potentially the user is violating the DMCA if they are hacking OSX themselves.
The modifications, as far as I know (I haven't read the newest methods in a couple weeks) don't involve bypassing security mechanisms or altering code in any way. Pretty sure that would absolve me. I have a bit more research to do before anything materializes.
And not that it would absolve me, but Jailbreaking the iPhone is a violation of the DMCA and no one has batted an eye at the jailbreak scene...
The entire point of the hackintosh/osx86/insanely mac community is to do exactly as you describe. Provide OSX on generic machines with updates as painlessly as possible.
Yes, and perhaps I could bring the process one step closer to reaching that goal.
"Give Apple a run for their money". Yeah right.
Yeah, that is pretty unrealistic, but an easily-updateable, expandable, OS X setup on 3rd-party hardware could be very attractive to a budget-conscious consumer (or one who's just plain disgruntled, like me).
-Clive
Yeah, that is pretty unrealistic, but an easily-updateable, expandable, OS X setup on 3rd-party hardware could be very attractive to a budget-conscious consumer (or one who's just plain disgruntled, like me).
I think that is achilles heal with this idea. Hackintosh usrs tend to tech savvy enough to know where to get KEXTS and hacked updates. They are ones that spend the time experimenting with these systems. They are not tech-tarded people looking for a cheap solution.
Most Mac owners want something that "just works" and buying a Psystar system with off the shelf parts with no single consumer guarantee for HW or SW issues that may arise does not follow that expression. We've seen the prices from Psystar, you don't save enough money to justify the complete lack of a useable warranty and support.
Plus, like all other OEMs, as soon as you start going past the base model you start getting more expensive than a comparable Apple Mac. The user-base for the Psystar machine is very small.
(I'm not even going to get into the lack of optimized drivers, the apps that don't work properly)
They DON'T WANT TO DO AN xMAC. It doesn't fit their vision and their vision has been working out great. They've introduced the iPhone, Macbook Air, Apple TV, iPod Touch...that's hardly a company sitting on it's laurels.
They could...every one agrees they COULD.
People disagree on the impact to their product lineup and whether it would be a profitable move on their part or how much impact to the mac brand there would be.
Steve's vision is sometimes brilliant and sometimes backwards. Who wants a desktop computer that will fit in a shoebox? AIOs aside, so few people put their desktops on their desk that miniturization is a fruitless endeavor. It's more of a "look what I can do" task, serving no functional purpose at all.
60% huh? Care to back that number up with a link?
40% I guess. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._buy_macs.html
40% I guess. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._buy_macs.html
So you're saying that 100% of that 40% is buying combo drive macbooks, and 100% of them are buying them just for fashion, and that it's not the right computer for 0% of them?
Sure.........
I think that is achilles heal with this idea. Hackintosh usrs tend to tech savvy enough to know where to get KEXTS and hacked updates. They are ones that spend the time experimenting with these systems. They are not tech-tarded people looking for a cheap solution.
Part of his vision is providing the service to provide those kexts and hacked updates. Presumably for a fee. Which isn't going to make that community very happy unless its a very small fee.
No, the only real way to do this is the same approach as the ModBook folks. I've looked into it for the mini to build a home server using a new case and 3.5" drives and I bet I could sell a few but not make enough money doing it to offset the huge time investment required.
Maybe if I were retired like Melgross I'd give it a whirl. Despite what he thinks I think of him, I'd actually invest in that kind of endeavor if he started it.
Part of his vision is providing the service to provide those kexts and hacked updates. Presumably for a fee. Which isn't going to make that community very happy unless its a very small fee.
No, the only real way to do this is the same approach as the ModBook folks. I've looked into it for the mini to build a home server using a new case and 3.5" drives and I bet I could sell a few but not make enough money doing it to offset the huge time investment required.
Maybe if I were retired like Melgross I'd give it a whirl. Despite what he thinks I think of him, I'd actually invest in that kind of endeavor if he started it.
I appreciate that, but I've been working very hard to prevent myself from working again.
I appreciate that, but I've been working very hard to prevent myself from working again.
Ah, but this would be fun. Well sorta.