Who priced these things???? Shocking value for money

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I love, Apple, buy Apple and live Apple.



However the new mini and imac seem like they're very poor value for money, epsecially here in the UK.



Rather than moan about it mind, i made the decision to stick with my 1st gen alu imac 24inch machine and Ill upgrade the HD myself next week. However out of interest I decided to look at general value for money. My friend has been holding off, on my advice, a Mac Mini purchase. He had saved £450.00. I'd convinced him there was no longer an Apple tax and suggested that the move to Intel made prices far more comparable. This is now not the case so I thought i'd find out how much more expensive buying Apple really is.



So i took the DELL studio hybrid and compared the spec with the new mini.

Overall they're pretty comparable, 2.0 core 2 duo, the DELL has HDMI out but lacks the faster FW800, having just a mini firewire port. It also doesn't have Bluetooth but does include a mouse and keyboard. It has 1Gb more ram and a 130Gb bigger drive. As for the graphical performance it's impossible to say but i think they're in a similar ball park being integrated.



But here's where things get interesting.



To spec the mini with 2GB ram and the same size 250GB HD and add the mouse and keyboard as included in the DELL were up to....



Get ready for this..£681.01 or in dollars $959.74- The DELL in comparison costs £449 or again in dollars $633.67.



That means the Mini is £232.01 or in dollars $326.07 more expensive. This is a massive amount of cash, in fact it's the cost of decent LCD monitor.



I'm concerned because the Mini is a great bit of kit but now it seems massively overpriced. I personally don't buy the whole exchange rate costs because in the competitive landscape no other manufacturers are passing on these charges. I know people will say that this is Apple, but it seems a real shame not to have the right price points to tempt perspective new customers.



As for the DELL it's now my friends only option because of funds.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,720member
    The Mini is apparently expensive in the UK. However it is the only Mac that got a decent upgrade. The specs are now fairly robust given the box size and the 9400m is pretty impressive. Here in the US I'm only slightly disappointed with the top end Mini and thought it should deliver a bit more in the way of processor performance. What you get in the Mini is state of the art for a box that size.



    As for your friend, has he looked at an iMac? The low end model is in the same ball park performance wise, has a screen and ditches the laptop drive. As to money just have him pick up some part time work. It shouldn't take long to zero out the price difference. We both know he will be better off with a Mac.





    Dave
  • Reply 2 of 42
    irelandireland Posts: 17,549member
    Yeah, I think they are pricing them so people will feel the need to get a better Mac.
  • Reply 3 of 42
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,227member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by smartz View Post




    So i took the DELL studio hybrid and compared the spec with the new mini.

    Overall they're pretty comparable, 2.0 core 2 duo, the DELL has HDMI out but lacks the faster FW800, having just a mini firewire port. It also doesn't have Bluetooth but does include a mouse and keyboard. It has 1Gb more ram and a 130Gb bigger drive. As for the graphical performance it's impossible to say but i think they're in a similar ball park being integrated.



    To spec the mini with 2GB ram and the same size 250GB HD and add the mouse and keyboard as included in the DELL were up to....



    Get ready for this..£681.01 or in dollars $959.74- The DELL in comparison costs £449 or again in dollars $633.67.



    That means the Mini is £232.01 or in dollars $326.07 more expensive. This is a massive amount of cash, in fact it's the cost of decent LCD monitor.



    I'm concerned because the Mini is a great bit of kit but now it seems massively overpriced. I personally don't buy the whole exchange rate costs because in the competitive landscape no other manufacturers are passing on these charges. I know people will say that this is Apple, but it seems a real shame not to have the right price points to tempt perspective new customers.



    As for the DELL it's now my friends only option because of funds.



    The comparison is poor IMO. I'm not being an apologist here either but the fact is this isn't an Apple to Apples (excuse pun) comparison.



    With Macs you have to sell the OS first. Everything comes down to the OS because that's where Apple's advantage is. If your friend loves the Mac OS then the whole value equation changes.



    Plus this is technology you cannot gloss over specs.



    1. Both computers use a Core2 Duo but the mini uses a 1066Ghz bus vs 800 for the Dell, we have DDR-3 memory in the mini vs DDR-2 in the Dell.



    2. The IGP are not equal. The Intel X3100 graphics are old (Intel now has x4500) and can be considered two generations behind the Nvidia graphics in the mini.



    3. FW800 is both faster than the Dell FW and is powered. Your friend may act like it's a non factor but if he runs into problems and someone with a mac resurrects his computer with target disk mode or he needs to transfer his files using the migration feature in OS X he'll be thankful that FW is there even if he only uses it sparingly.



    4. You gotta have Bluetooth. Linking to your cell phone or for input peripherals.



    5. Dual Monitor support. Apple let's you run dual monitors and I'm not sure if you can use the HDMI and DVI simultaneously on the Dell. The Dell does not support 30" but the mini does via the Mini DisplayPort connector.



    6. RAM and HDD can be upgrade at will. I've upgraded my mini's RAM easily. I went with a 500GB FW drive for external.



    7. Dell offers nothing like iLife (yes I know it's Microsoft's fault). iLife seems like a gimmick to outsiders until they sit down and find that all their pictures in iPhoto, movies in iMovie, podcasts soundfiles in Garageband are available to any 3rd party software app that supports the media browser.



    It all comes down to how he's going to use the computer. If he's just typing up documents and surfing the web then the benefits of Apple will not be omnipresent but if

    he's interested in a thriving platform with fantastic apps
  • Reply 4 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The Mini is apparently expensive in the UK. However it is the only Mac that got a decent upgrade. The specs are now fairly robust given the box size and the 9400m is pretty impressive. Here in the US I'm only slightly disappointed with the top end Mini and thought it should deliver a bit more in the way of processor performance. What you get in the Mini is state of the art for a box that size.



    As for your friend, has he looked at an iMac? The low end model is in the same ball park performance wise, has a screen and ditches the laptop drive. As to money just have him pick up some part time work. It shouldn't take long to zero out the price difference. We both know he will be better off with a Mac.





    Dave



    REALLY?



    apart from the "still integrated" graphics how is the 2Ghz processor in the new mini any different from the one in the "old" mini (2Ghz) that I'm typing this on?



    it still comes with the same 1Gb Ram



    --



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Yeah, I think they are pricing them so people will feel the need to get a better Mac.



    AGREED! but is the iMac really all that much of an improvement over the previous one? I seem to remember a time when Apple touted "twice the speed, twice the power" now its just "meh"



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    The comparison is poor IMO. I'm not being an apologist here either but the fact is this isn't an Apple to Apples (excuse pun) comparison.



    yes you are! :P and while it may not be an Apples to Apples comparison, if you do it Apple to Apple, the "old" mini Vs the "new" mini the new low end mini is £100 MORE,.



    are YOU getting one?



    I ain't.



    and because of the iMac price hike BUT NO QUADS I can't justify one of those either. seriously, this is about the first time I can remember thinking WTF are they thinking at Apple HQ?



    to go back to Irelands point, I honestly believe that they pushed the price up NOW so as to look like you get a great deal "price stays the same" when the intro the QUADS all round, some time in the next 6 months. I was ready to by, but shit, I'll have to hold off AGAIN.
  • Reply 5 of 42
    Quote:

    Mel Gross

    eric, I understand the performance issues very well. I just ordered a dual 2.66 Ghz model.



    But pricing issues are another thing. When prices have gone up, insanely, as they have, one can't say that they've gone down, insanely.



    The model I bought cost over $5,000, with the 4870 board, and the WiFi.



    he top mdel now costs, with the other "standard" parts, $5,900.



    That's by no means a price drop.



    To say that because something performs better, even though the price is substantially higher, it is a price drop.



    It isn't.



    I'm not blaming Apple, as the parts cost more. The new chips are simply much more expensive.



    The problem is with the writer on this site.



    He, or they, are fanboys, pure and simple. They distort whatever happens to make it seem favorable to Apple. They live in their world of the distortion field.



    I've been buying Macs for many years now, both for my family, and for my business, a commercial film lab, where we had many Macs (we since sold it).



    I also do consulting work (for free) for the NYC school system on technical affairs where I recommend Macs.



    So I'm a major Mac user.



    But reality exists, and in that reality, the Mac Pros are much more expensive.



    Well, if that's our Melgross, I concur.



    And a point from another thread, if the 'retired' and 'successful' Melgross can't afford the top of the line Mac Pro...we really must be in a credit crunch and Apple must really be ripping us off.



    They have much in common with the Banks right now.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 6 of 42
    UK prices are obscene...you're paying way more for less across the board. Or your paying waaaaaaaaaaay more to get 'more' ergo you're getting less for your money.



    The whole update was a disgrace. I question Apple's integrity.



    Starting price of a Mac Pro is £1900 basically. With a crap GPU as standard. And whoop. Pay extra for a mid-range card with a measly 512megs of Vram. (When PC rigs for half that have GPUs with 2 gigs of Vram.) £1900 for a quad cpu when the whole PC industry has i7 quads or Core Quads running at 3 gig or 2.66 for about a £1000 less. With more ram and GPUs that blow Apple's out the water. Apple is completely out of touch the standard tower market. And the iMac in no way competes with any PC tower in its price range. Penny pinching and out of touch with reality.



    The iMac has is now out of touch with its market. It's reach exceeds its grasp.



    The Mac Mini doesn't even come with a k/b, mouse or monitor.



    This is the year Apple completely lost it. And consumers can do the following: vote with their wallets.



    It's a credit crunch and Apple jerked their prices up internationally by some way. And PC sellers are more competitive than ever.



    I'm disgusted, outraged and incensed by this 'modest' update to the consumer line and the price hike on the Pro makes the 'Pro' update it no update at all.



    Apple, the only company that can offer no cpu speed increase in their consumer line. Pathetic.



    Only the release of SL shines in the dark.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    It took them a year or more to release these 'updates?'



    Where they sitting on their thumbs?



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 8 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    The whole update was a disgrace. I question Apple's integrity.



    Good lord, sir! You are questioning the integrity of an enormous corporation that sells consumer computer and entertainment products in order to make its board and shareholders as much money as possible?



    You will hear from my seconds! A duel!
  • Reply 9 of 42
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    i'm in germany and planned to buy an iMac. but i'd rather need cpu/harddisk performance than graphics power. i bought a macbook (the white 2.4GHz macbook when the new ones came out in the fall) as an interim replacement for my PowerMac Quad G5. two reasons: Java development and iPhone development.

    now - the old iMac was the same price and spec for a year - i wanted to wait to get a better model and had 1,400 Euros, around $1764 to spend for a new mac.



    now -the updates are here. i'd get a 2.66GHz model in germany for my money (i spent 1,000 Euros on the macbook 2.4GHz).



    i thought about the mac pro but recognized that the entry model is not available for under 2,176 Euros!!! and that it is upgradable to just 8GB of memory!? the old Mac Pro entry level was able to have 32GB, right? but even this is above 2,000 Euros now.



    so - WHAT model is there for my $1764 ? none.



    i will just buy a 24" screen from LG or something and put it on my macbook...



    i'm buying macs since 1994 and never owned a windows pc (and never will). but these are just interim models (i hope)... i'm waiting until christmas.
  • Reply 10 of 42
    Quote:

    i'm buying macs since 1994 and never owned a windows pc (and never will). but these are just interim models (i hope)... i'm waiting until christmas.



    Good advice.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 11 of 42
    hobbithobbit Posts: 532member
    I've been following Apple products since the late 80ies and I've seen them release some pretty dumb configurations. But this Mac Pro release...

    I don't get it. It makes no sense.



    I accept that Nehalem CPUs are more expensive and Apple will have to hike prices.

    But the extent is totally out of proportion.

    The price difference of $2,400 for the 2.26GHz to 2.93GHz 'upgrade' is plain insulting, especially during tough economic times.



    Add to that just a single, and rather measly, nVidia GPU offering, and no Quadro 'pro' option.



    A meager 32GB max for a 16 thread machine. 3D renderings like to have at least 4GB per thread! 2GB is a joke and barely useful.



    A totally unacceptable 8GB max for a $2,500 'entry' level machine!

    This means 1GB per thread! How can this be of any use to anyone? What is Apple thinking? The freakin' Mac mini has a better GB per thread ratio!



    I just don't understand this Apple anymore.

    Who authorized the release of these products? It's not April 1st, is it?



    If anyone has an explanation, please let me know!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Krassy View Post


    i'm waiting until christmas.



    Although Apple coming to their senses is probably as likely as Santa Claus coming down the chimney...





    The Sad Truth



    There is only one explanation I can offer in which this Mac Pro release makes any sense at all:



    The writing's been on the wall for some time and recent MacBook/MacBook Pro releases confirm this:

    Apple decided to exit the Pro market. They just conveniently failed to mention this publicly.



    In the mean time they milk that market for all its worth.

    They expect dwindling Mac Pro sales, but for these they want all the money they can get.
  • Reply 12 of 42
    freakboyfreakboy Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post


    I've been following Apple products since the late 80ies and I've seen them release some pretty dumb configurations. But this Mac Pro release...

    I don't get it. It makes no sense.



    I accept that Nehalem CPUs are more expensive and Apple will have to hike prices.

    But the extent is totally out of proportion.

    The price difference of $2,400 for the 2.26GHz to 2.93GHz 'upgrade' is plain insulting, especially during tough economic times.



    Add to that just a single, and rather measly, nVidia GPU offering, and no Quadro 'pro' option.



    A meager 32GB max for a 16 thread machine. 3D renderings like to have at least 4GB per thread! 2GB is a joke and barely useful.



    A totally unacceptable 8GB max for a $2,500 'entry' level machine!

    This means 1GB per thread! How can this be of any use to anyone? What is Apple thinking? The freakin' Mac mini has a better GB per thread ratio!



    I just don't understand this Apple anymore.

    Who authorized the release of these products? It's not April 1st, is it?



    If anyone has an explanation, please let me know!







    Although Apple coming to their senses is probably as likely as Santa Claus coming down the chimney...





    The Sad Truth



    There is only one explanation I can offer in which this Mac Pro release makes any sense at all:



    The writing's been on the wall for some time and recent MacBook/MacBook Pro releases confirm this:

    Apple decided to exit the Pro market. They just conveniently failed to mention this publicly.



    In the mean time they milk that market for all its worth.

    They expect dwindling Mac Pro sales, but for these they want all the money they can get.



    I don't think they're going to exit it, but they have certainly given up on selling desktop box-like machines to consumers. These new machines really aren't designed for home use either in price or in performance. They're for people who need > 8 gigs of RAM and the latest hardware.



    I think apple will always sell the mac pro however, simply because there's no reason for them not to. What they won't do is drop the price to 1500$ and try to sell a lot of them to college kids.
  • Reply 13 of 42
    hobbithobbit Posts: 532member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freakboy View Post


    They're for people who need > 8 gigs of RAM



    If only.



    The single CPU config with its 8GB max limit just doesn't fit that description.

    I'm pretty sure its sole purpose of existence is for Apple to be able to claim they have a desktop starting at $2,500 (which is quite ridiculous in itself if you think about it) and to push an upsale to the even more expensive configurations.



    Since it is rather crippled with RAM limits and no second CPU socket it is obvious that most Pro consumers would then have to go up a notch to the dual CPU config on which Apple makes even more money!



    It's a very clever strategy for milking customers!



    And that is the only way I can make sense of these new Mac Pro models.
  • Reply 14 of 42
    Quote:

    Just bizarre...



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    I've been following Apple products since the late 80ies and I've seen them release some pretty dumb configurations. But this Mac Pro release...

    I don't get it. It makes no sense.



    I accept that Nehalem CPUs are more expensive and Apple will have to hike prices.

    But the extent is totally out of proportion.

    The price difference of $2,400 for the 2.26GHz to 2.93GHz 'upgrade' is plain insulting, especially during tough economic times.



    Add to that just a single, and rather measly, nVidia GPU offering, and no Quadro 'pro' option.



    A meager 32GB max for a 16 thread machine. 3D renderings like to have at least 4GB per thread! 2GB is a joke and barely useful.



    A totally unacceptable 8GB max for a $2,500 'entry' level machine!

    This means 1GB per thread! How can this be of any use to anyone? What is Apple thinking? The freakin' Mac mini has a better GB per thread ratio!



    I just don't understand this Apple anymore.

    Who authorized the release of these products? It's not April 1st, is it?



    If anyone has an explanation, please let me know!







    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Krassy

    i'm waiting until christmas.



    Although Apple coming to their senses is probably as likely as Santa Claus coming down the chimney...





    The Sad Truth



    There is only one explanation I can offer in which this Mac Pro release makes any sense at all:



    The writing's been on the wall for some time and recent MacBook/MacBook Pro releases confirm this:

    Apple decided to exit the Pro market. They just conveniently failed to mention this publicly.



    In the mean time they milk that market for all its worth.

    They expect dwindling Mac Pro sales, but for these they want all the money they can get.



    Well. They may be forced too with prices like that. It will get to the point where it won't be worth updating the thing unless they charge their 5 customers 10million each?



    The i7 Nehalems 'consumer'/enthuisiast chips aren't expensive though. There is no need for this madness. Bring back the consumer tower we HAD years ago. They could give us the cheap 2.66 i7 for a much fairer price.



    No. I don't understand 'this' Apple either.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 15 of 42
    Pathetic update of the iMac, I had money in hand to purchase but will not with the current "update" Apple are offering (last Years Technology at a premium price). If the next update of the iMac range is not more inspiring - such as Core i7 chips and LED display I have to say they may lose me as a previously loyal customer.
  • Reply 16 of 42
    hobbithobbit Posts: 532member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spcdust View Post


    Pathetic update of the iMac.



    <sarcasm ON>



    What are you complaining about?

    If you want an nVidia GPU at least the top level iMac has a better GPU option than a fully speced $14,000 (!!) Mac Pro!



    <sarcasm OFF>





    My last hope is that this is a stop-gap release until Snow Leopard.

    With its many technical advances it could come hand-in-hand with new hardware. Blu-Ray option could be one of these (as SL is widely expected to support it), better GPU options (drivers only available for SL due to OpenCL), more RAM slots (since SL is more thread friendly), etc.



    But from past experience I wouldn't be surprised if this 'upgrade' will be it until Q1 2010...

    I for one am not holding my breath.





    Long live Hackintosh!

    This market will be huge!



    Thanks to Apple itself.
  • Reply 17 of 42
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    Well. They may be forced too with prices like that. It will get to the point where it won't be worth updating the thing unless they charge their 5 customers 10million each?



    The i7 Nehalems 'consumer'/enthuisiast chips aren't expensive though. There is no need for this madness. Bring back the consumer tower we HAD years ago. They could give us the cheap 2.66 i7 for a much fairer price.



    No. I don't understand 'this' Apple either.



    Lemon Bon Bon.



    'This' Apple seems oblivious to the fact that the world is in a deep recession (depression even). But I guess Apple will learn the hard way that the prices they're asking for the Mac Pro isn't going to fly.
  • Reply 18 of 42
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post


    <sarcasm ON>



    What are you complaining about?

    If you want an nVidia GPU at least the top level iMac has a better GPU option than a fully speced $14,000 (!!) Mac Pro!



    <sarcasm OFF>





    My last hope is that this is a stop-gap release until Snow Leopard.

    With its many technical advances it could come hand-in-hand with new hardware. Blu-Ray option could be one of these (as SL is widely expected to support it), better GPU options (drivers only available for SL due to OpenCL), more RAM slots (since SL is more thread friendly), etc.



    But from past experience I wouldn't be surprised if this 'upgrade' will be it until Q1 2010...

    I for one am not holding my breath.





    Long live Hackintosh!

    This market will be huge!



    Thanks to Apple itself.



    I'm not holding my breath.



    In the fall we MAY get an update but lets be realistic, it'll be a dual core nehalem chip. It'll have hyperthreading enabled and Apple will claim they're *5* times faster than the models they replace? but they'll still look pretty slow compared to the 4 and 6 core nehalem pcs that'll be mainstream by that time.



    Apple aren't going to 'catch' up. They aren't even going to try.
  • Reply 19 of 42
    wplj42wplj42 Posts: 439member
    Mac OS X is better than Windows, but not so good that Apple owns any of us. I don't think Apple has any real desire to be a mainstream computer supplier. I find it frustrating to be able to count the entire Mac line-up and not run out of fingers. Mini, iMac, Pro ... 13, 15, 17. SIX! I don't care about configs, they don't count to me. The Pro and 17 cost so much. I'm sure Apple knows some will buy no matter what. Die hard Mac Heads. I have an iMac now, but that doesn't mean I'll be back next time. Apple should (at least) double their line-up. Would that be so hard!!! I spent $1250 on my iMac w/Bluetooth. I could buy soooooooo much more Dell. Windows 7 looks very do-able. I am more devoted to my $$$ than I am Apple.
  • Reply 20 of 42
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post


    Mac OS X is better than Windows, but not so good that Apple owns any of us. I don't think Apple has any real desire to be a mainstream computer supplier. I find it frustrating to be able to count the entire Mac line-up and not run out of fingers. Mini, iMac, Pro ... 13, 15, 17. SIX! I don't care about configs, they don't count to me. The Pro and 17 cost so much. I'm sure Apple knows some will buy no matter what. Die hard Mac Heads. I have an iMac now, but that doesn't mean I'll be back next time. Apple should (at least) double their line-up. Would that be so hard!!! I spent $1250 on my iMac w/Bluetooth. I could buy soooooooo much more Dell. Windows 7 looks very do-able. I am more devoted to my $$$ than I am Apple.



    You forgot Xserve and the Air. So 8. Almost running out of fingers!
Sign In or Register to comment.