stupid people will have bad things happen to them regardless of what platform they use.
that's really ugly. people don't have to be stupid to get a virus. the entire industry has done a horrible job at education. The typical user doesn't know how to manipulate files or windows. just because someone doesn't have stellar computer aptitude doesn't mean they are stupid, or that they should be precluded from using a computer. They've been marketed to the masses as user friendly when they are anything but. it's sold as an appliance. but it's far more complicated.
Most users that I see play a guessing game every time they try anything outside their normal use regimen, they don't have an understanding. They don't know My Computer is Explorer, etc. They don't realize an Explorer window has different views. They don't know anything, because the industry doesn't educate.
That does not make the users stupid. Nor does a lack of interest in computers. If you're not willing to make your computer a hobby you'll have a difficult time getting much out of it in many cases.
1/ Innovate by using integrated graphics again..is that progress? The only truly innovative I can think of is the iphone touchscreen and that was by implementation not invention. Even iPod concept was bought in and well marketed (as is every product they make) Real world innovation is thin on the ground.
Intel GMA is by far the most used GPU in the industry. That's because integrated graphics are fine for most peoples needs.
Innovation does not mean you invented the original idea, it can mean you improved on and figured out a better way to use the idea.
Quote:
2/ Not only will it reverse but it in some places it has! Netbooks are the growth area and Apple has nothing there. You have to remember aswell that they have much greater catchment potential for switchers as their sales are so meagre compared to the overall market.
160 million smartphones sold in 2008.
146 million notebooks sold in 2008.
11.4 million netbooks sold in 2008.
Smartphones and notebooks are already large well established markets with healthy revenues. Netbooks are a burgeoning market with low revenues. Why would Apple want to rush into that situation?
Quote:
3/ They do sell cheap crap...just in a fancy Ive's box. The foxconn components in a Mac aren't unique or any better. How do you think they achieve 30% margin wholesale?
You really think Foxconn does not make a variety of parts, some expensive - some cheaper.
Apple achieves its margins by not selling low margin products.
Quote:
4/ The primary purpose of the Apple store near me is to deal with all the complaints and returns...seriously they queue for hours!
There isn't much purpose for seeing an Apple genius if your computer is working fine.
Quote:
5/ Your right I don't understand Apple. I just see them pushing their whole digital lifestyle connected vision to people, some of whom accept it. The more savvy people know that you can do it all a different way and save loads of money. Bit like life in general!
Apple doesn't force anyone to buy and use its products. People are free to choose. You don't like that a great many people choose Apple.
If HP quality is so great, why the heck are they ranked so low for consumer satisfaction?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Apple leads in consumer satisfaction because:
1- There are so few choices, so few models, that you can't go wrong, assuming that you want to buy a Mac, an iPhone or an iPod;
2- If you agree to pay almost twice as much for an Apple product, chances are that no other product will do, no matter what.
HP's problems arise from in-house software which isn't so great. For instance, their HP System Restoration software doesn't quite work as well as it should. I, for one, would much prefer a Windows DVD instead of HP System Restore.
that is very bias, every time the apple has a lead they put the green highlight. but when anything else has a lead it ignores it, unless its too obvious.
thats retarded. which means this is worthless to read, because its too obviously biased.
it was a shitty update, we need something more revolutionary than this.
You can get the 15" laptop under $2000 and the 17" laptop under $2800 if you're willing to buy clearance (new but last generation) Macs. I got my early 2008 2.5GHz 15" MacBook Pro for $1350 when Amazon was clearing them out right after the unibodies were introduced.
I assume you mean with display. Otherwise the low-end Mac Pro is $2499, and clearance ones will also get under $2500, though not with display included.
Yep, 'cept many people think that the price of clearance hardware is about what the current hardware should run for. And the clearance hardware should go for even less. Also, I was specifically referring to the Mac Pro when I said no real desktop for under $2500. I was simply rounding up a dollar.
Quote:
Apple's higher margins largely come from Apple not playing in the low cost low margin market.
Obviously.
Quote:
I think most everyone will agree a laptop body machined from one solid block of aluminum is a better part than a laptop body made from molded plastic snapped together.
Hence I said it's "often fluff". Contrary points can be made but it doesn't dismiss the point.
Quote:
People want to simplify the debate around specs. Specs are not the only consideration and alone don't make a good computer. Every computer has to make some compromise one way or another, what makes for the best compromise is subjective.
Yup, and there are people that, as I said, just want to believe that what Apple offers is enough, despite it being a step or two behind other available options. That too is their subjective compromise.
Quote:
Profitability is the reason why Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft and everyone else are doing any of what they do. Profitability is the whole point.
Profitability is not the point to potential customers. Consumers don't care about Apple's coffers. That's not part of their decision making unless they're stock holders or something. To which I can only repeat my point, "as if their profitability ... is some sort of relevant, automagical selling point that makes those people happy to either settle for less than what they wanted, or pay more than what they wanted..."
Hence I said it's "often fluff". Contrary points can be made but it doesn't dismiss the point.
Your opinion without corresponding evidence makes it easy to dismiss.
Quote:
Yup, and there are people that, as I said, just want to believe that what Apple offers is enough, despite it being a step or two behind other available options. That too is their subjective compromise.
Can you show benchmarks that prove Apple is so far behind?
Quote:
Profitability is not the point to potential customers. Consumers don't care about Apple's coffers. That's not part of their decision making unless they're stock holders or something. To which I can only repeat my point, "as if their profitability ... is some sort of relevant, automagical selling point that makes those people happy to either settle for less than what they wanted, or pay more than what they wanted..."
Profit is what keeps these companies in business. No profit, no business.
Your point on the value of the machine is simply your opinion. At the end of the day sales are what determines if people feel the are getting a good value.
Your opinion without corresponding evidence makes it easy to dismiss.
Yet, somehow, doesn't make it untrue. Actually, I'd say there's years of evidence of many people suggesting there are differences between the quality of components even where none exist. If you suggest I dig through inane discussions where this is brought up but doesn't apply, I'm not going to waste time doing so, no.
The example of the unibody, too, was controversial for its own reasons. So "better" truly is subjective, isn't it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Can you show benchmarks that prove Apple is so far behind?
The value benchmark, the intangible debate, being the most vocal one of this particular thread. If you happen to disagree with it, that doesn't make it untrue to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Profit is what keeps these companies in business. No profit, no business.
Your point on the value of the machine is simply your opinion. At the end of the day sales are what determines if people feel the are getting a good value.
Customers (still) don't care about the company's profits when they're deciding which computer they want to buy.
And I mentioned where Apple makes the case for their value proposition. If people buy into the Apple narrative, great for them. If not, they don't. I don't know what "point" you're referring to exactly (the gaping lineup holes?) but all that anybody has posted here are opinions, and they're all allowed. And indeed, sales do tell the tale.
The novelty value is in the form factor. I don't really see people requesting that Apple make small or thin machines, just well built ones.
By choosing to go thin and small, Apple make compromises and the biggest is to make all the consumer desktop options use mobile components, which makes them much more expensive than they need to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I for one am quite happy that Apple ignores your rants. They would be in the same hole as the other PC makers if they listened to you.
It's not much to ask that they stick to the same price points they had on the last generation. The problem is that they have put prices up across the board and the machines that are close to the same, have hardware that runs around the same speed when other manufacturers are doubling their performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwicthyMcSwitcher
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it now costs a minimum of $1,799 to buy a new Apple computer with a dedicated video card?
I don't think that's such a big problem. Given that the 9400M performs better than the X1600 dedicated and all the machines use DDR3 RAM, it would be more accurate to say that every machine in the lineup now has dedicated graphics-level performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenobell
It looks as though Apple were more concerned with lowering the price than a major component update. Quad core will be coming to the iMac.
They increased the price or left it the same though. I didn't see much of a price drop.
Quad cores will be coming but not until the end of the year - maybe not even until next year. Some Westmere chips aren't coming until 2010 as Intel have scrapped the plans for 45nm and pushed to doing a 32nm version:
This means a whole 8 months more stuck on dual core on everything except the £1800 Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenobell
Part of the value of the iMac is in having a the entire machine in one package. Their is no clearly defined way to equate that value to a general desktop.
I think you can put it in broad terms. It's certainly not worth paying double for half the speed i.e 4x worse value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinney
Compare the amount of time spent on the care and feeding of
Mac OS X versus the amount of time for any variety of Windows, and then ask yourself
how much your time is worth.
This is side-stepping the point. No one is asking Apple to make a Windows PC, just that they build machines with proper desktop components so that consumers get good value for money.
Nope! just an everyday worker bee....but my time is worth $150 an hour and I don't want to be mucking about with a windows machine.... been up till 2am trying to "fix" windows machines too many times!
In fairness, things do go wrong with OS X from time to time. I recently lost a lot of work time troubleshooting a bonjour problem that stopped certain items from appearing unless I reinstalled a certain combo update almost daily.
But the Windows tax is far greater. Windows Update is a hassle - especially if you prefer manual mode so you see what the updates are. Terrible interface. And I get so many family calls about AV stuff on their PCs and peripherals that stop working.
Windows people will say it's just ignorant users who can't get Windows to work. I'm a former MCSE with years and years of MS experience. I made a lot of money off MS products. And still - things would have to change DRASTICALLY for me to go back.
But I'm going to start using Walter's Windows Tax phrase from now on. Maybe Walt and Pogue will pick it up!
Apple's higher margins largely come from Apple not playing in the low cost low margin market.
And apple's low market share largely comes from not playing in markets like that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I think most everyone will agree a laptop body machined from one solid block of aluminum is a better part than a laptop body made from molded plastic snapped together.
We're talking about the iMac here. In this case "better parts" is nothing more than fluff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Apple has offered a wider computer line in the past and it proved less profitable than Apple's currently limited line.
Apple also offered a line that was far less competitive with PCs in the past. It's silly to blame their past problems on "wider line" when there have been many many improvements in the mac hardware and software situation since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj
Is it really necessary to keep calling people at an Apple site fanboy? Wouldn't your points be better-made without stooping down to that level?
While I see your point, unfortunately there seem to be some people who are blindly loyal and will defend any decision Apple makes regardless of its merits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
you seem to have conveniently forgotten the profits derived from the other devices...you might have heard of them....you know ipods and the like?
Although the computer segment of Apple makes them about as much money as the ipod/iphone segment. Even without the ipods, selling computers alone they would still be profitable now, one of the few computer companies in that situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei
He means Apple's comptuers don't have the highest gigaherz, gigabytes, the rest of the crap. Funny thing is most people don't really buy their computers based on that and Apple knows that.
I assume he meant that apple doesn't just sell a "normal" computer, they insist on only offering an all in one or a mini model when there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe that people really are demanding that over a decent headless box. Those are both machines where the form factor adds significantly to the price, I'd consider both "novelty" machines.
And you really don't think people care how fast their machine is or how much memory or drive space it has?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
with a bit of knowledge the difference in time spent is non existent.
And where does that "bit of knowledge" come from? Spending time learning how to make windows work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei
If you are on a budget you shouldn't be looking at any of Apple's products seriously.
In this economy, if Apple is telling everyone on a budget to go screw themself, they are going to have a tough time staying profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
The switching trend will not reverse. Mac users are unlikely to go back to Windows, but Windows XP/Vista users might be willing to "switch" to 7.
While that may be true, the switching trend may slow down in a big way. Apple can't take switchers for granted, they need to actively court them.
I dont get all the hate for the Geforce 9400M.... sure its integrated intot he chipset.. but why is everyone stuck with the thinking that integrated means bad? the 9400M is almost as fast as the older 2600 ATI, and readily beats the old 2400 ATI they used... this isnt intel integrated junk, nvidia makes some good integrated graphics.
AMEN i was just going to say the same thing. Somebody said this type of article is "exactly what they expect to see anymore on this site" (paraphrased). What else would you expect? I'm sure there are sites out there with Dell "fanboys" talking up how they're better than Apple. Go there and enjoy company amongst like-minded apple-haters. That's fine, but it always amazes me that people who dislike Apple always manage to find their way onto APPLE FAN SITES and feel the need to bash people.
What amazes me, and what I find very strange is that so many Apple apologists have an almost blind allegiance to a company. They cheer and defend everything Apple as if it's the beloved sports team of their college almi mater and decry anything but, "gee, aint Apple grand" posts as bashing. That's just plain wierd. I greatly prefer the Apple OS. I'd rather eat broken glass than work with windows everyday. I have a ton of money invested in Apple versions of software over the years. I have owned Macs exclusively and depend on them to earn a living. The iMac fits a very niche market. The concept of linking the monitor with the CPU is really not the best design for everyone who wants a desktop. It limits your choice of monitor and ties the longevity and usefulness of the CPU to the monitor. Most monitors will far outlast the CPU as far as their useful life-span and relevance compared to advances in technology. Mac Pros are a workstation class machine with a price befitting one. Not every professional needs that much machine in every circumstance. Many of us need to purchase a computer at home to do our job even though we have a computer at work paid for by our employer. Apple IS negelecting to produce the machine many if not most professionals have been asking them to produce for quite sometime. Calling Apple out on that is not "bashing" them. It's letting them know that they have a vast number of OS X fans and professionals who are not seeing the product they need most being delivered to them. That is doing Apple a favor. For the sake of their customers and their share holders, I hope Apple has an open ear for criticism as well as praise. Addressing the former is how companies better serve their customers and investors and drives them to produce better, more relevant products.
I doubt there are many non-Apple users frequenting this site. There are those of us who have been using Macs professionally since the first Mac came out. Mac users who have supported Apple for years and would like to continue using their products but are less than impressed with the path they've been following for the last several years in their product lineup are not here to "bash" people or because they dislike Apple. In fact, it's the opposite.
Many of us are attempting to bring balance and perspective to the discussion.
Much of the complaints are over the fact that Apple did not radically change their machines. People refuse to take into account current events and what strategy Apple may be using to survive this economic crisis.
Many people don't seem to realize Apple is a business, the people running Apple are not a bunch of computer geeks looking at spec sheets. They need to do what they feel is best for the health of their business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
What amazes me, and what I find very strange is that so many Apple apologists have an almost blind allegiance to a company. They cheer and defend everything Apple as if it's the beloved sports team of their college almi mater and decry anything but, "gee, aint Apple grand" posts as bashing.
If Apple only sold hardware that ran Windows, they would very likely be out of business or a much smaller business. This is why they get so annoyed at people like Psystar and the people posting guides on how to hack netbooks to run OS X. They are taking Apple's best selling point and giving it to people who don't care for their hardware options.
The short of it is that Apple are using their software to sell overpriced, novelty hardware. This is because of design and nothing else. They want people to use (what they think are) aesthetically pleasing machines. People who want value for money over aesthetics don't come into the picture.
This is because they know that a mid-range machine will sell more than any other model and they probably don't think they can make it unique enough so that it becomes a good identity - the majority sales of it will make it identify the company but in a less unique way.
If that's the case, I'd disagree because a Core 2 Quad cube could easily differentiate itself from the mass of huge plastic quad-core PCs.
1. I agree with you. If they sold Windows instead of 'X'? Good example. They'd be out of business. They couldn't be this indulgent. (I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be rooting for Psystar. I finally turned after this price hike. Apple need a bloody nose...and an ego check.)
2. Design cul-de-sac. I competely agree with your points here.
3. I agree. Sheer bloody mindedness I'd say.
4. Seconded. Why are our quad core options starting at £1850 plus? And then there's the gpu...problem.
Comments
...you do realise that its because of the profit margin they can mantain and still grow sales.?
profit at your expense....besides that article isn't computer specific. The margins on phones and ipods is much greater....
Oh my God ! I didn't realize it was a profit deal ! I never buy stuff from companies trying to make a profit !
http://www.gotwavs.com/php/sounds/?i...ile=profit.wav
neither do 'we'
stupid people will have bad things happen to them regardless of what platform they use.
that's really ugly. people don't have to be stupid to get a virus. the entire industry has done a horrible job at education. The typical user doesn't know how to manipulate files or windows. just because someone doesn't have stellar computer aptitude doesn't mean they are stupid, or that they should be precluded from using a computer. They've been marketed to the masses as user friendly when they are anything but. it's sold as an appliance. but it's far more complicated.
Most users that I see play a guessing game every time they try anything outside their normal use regimen, they don't have an understanding. They don't know My Computer is Explorer, etc. They don't realize an Explorer window has different views. They don't know anything, because the industry doesn't educate.
That does not make the users stupid. Nor does a lack of interest in computers. If you're not willing to make your computer a hobby you'll have a difficult time getting much out of it in many cases.
good AV is free on Windows, I don't get your point..?
maybe 'cos you don't have one..??
ah....got it.
I don't have one? Dude I'm typing this on a slowass Vista machine.
no point writing viruses for such a tiny install base.
Yes I'm glad the virus writers continue targeting your windows computers while macs remain virus free.
1/ Innovate by using integrated graphics again..is that progress? The only truly innovative I can think of is the iphone touchscreen and that was by implementation not invention. Even iPod concept was bought in and well marketed (as is every product they make) Real world innovation is thin on the ground.
Intel GMA is by far the most used GPU in the industry. That's because integrated graphics are fine for most peoples needs.
Innovation does not mean you invented the original idea, it can mean you improved on and figured out a better way to use the idea.
2/ Not only will it reverse but it in some places it has! Netbooks are the growth area and Apple has nothing there. You have to remember aswell that they have much greater catchment potential for switchers as their sales are so meagre compared to the overall market.
160 million smartphones sold in 2008.
146 million notebooks sold in 2008.
11.4 million netbooks sold in 2008.
Smartphones and notebooks are already large well established markets with healthy revenues. Netbooks are a burgeoning market with low revenues. Why would Apple want to rush into that situation?
3/ They do sell cheap crap...just in a fancy Ive's box. The foxconn components in a Mac aren't unique or any better. How do you think they achieve 30% margin wholesale?
You really think Foxconn does not make a variety of parts, some expensive - some cheaper.
Apple achieves its margins by not selling low margin products.
4/ The primary purpose of the Apple store near me is to deal with all the complaints and returns...seriously they queue for hours!
There isn't much purpose for seeing an Apple genius if your computer is working fine.
5/ Your right I don't understand Apple. I just see them pushing their whole digital lifestyle connected vision to people, some of whom accept it. The more savvy people know that you can do it all a different way and save loads of money. Bit like life in general!
Apple doesn't force anyone to buy and use its products. People are free to choose. You don't like that a great many people choose Apple.
If HP quality is so great, why the heck are they ranked so low for consumer satisfaction?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Apple leads in consumer satisfaction because:
1- There are so few choices, so few models, that you can't go wrong, assuming that you want to buy a Mac, an iPhone or an iPod;
2- If you agree to pay almost twice as much for an Apple product, chances are that no other product will do, no matter what.
HP's problems arise from in-house software which isn't so great. For instance, their HP System Restoration software doesn't quite work as well as it should. I, for one, would much prefer a Windows DVD instead of HP System Restore.
thats retarded. which means this is worthless to read, because its too obviously biased.
it was a shitty update, we need something more revolutionary than this.
good AV is free on Windows, I don't get your point..?
maybe 'cos you don't have one..??
ah....got it.
The annoying NAV membership is not free...
Anyways Apple is losing it too so... goodbye to the crazy ones.
You can get the 15" laptop under $2000 and the 17" laptop under $2800 if you're willing to buy clearance (new but last generation) Macs. I got my early 2008 2.5GHz 15" MacBook Pro for $1350 when Amazon was clearing them out right after the unibodies were introduced.
I assume you mean with display. Otherwise the low-end Mac Pro is $2499, and clearance ones will also get under $2500, though not with display included.
Yep, 'cept many people think that the price of clearance hardware is about what the current hardware should run for. And the clearance hardware should go for even less. Also, I was specifically referring to the Mac Pro when I said no real desktop for under $2500. I was simply rounding up a dollar.
Apple's higher margins largely come from Apple not playing in the low cost low margin market.
Obviously.
I think most everyone will agree a laptop body machined from one solid block of aluminum is a better part than a laptop body made from molded plastic snapped together.
Hence I said it's "often fluff". Contrary points can be made but it doesn't dismiss the point.
People want to simplify the debate around specs. Specs are not the only consideration and alone don't make a good computer. Every computer has to make some compromise one way or another, what makes for the best compromise is subjective.
Yup, and there are people that, as I said, just want to believe that what Apple offers is enough, despite it being a step or two behind other available options. That too is their subjective compromise.
Profitability is the reason why Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft and everyone else are doing any of what they do. Profitability is the whole point.
Profitability is not the point to potential customers. Consumers don't care about Apple's coffers. That's not part of their decision making unless they're stock holders or something. To which I can only repeat my point, "as if their profitability ... is some sort of relevant, automagical selling point that makes those people happy to either settle for less than what they wanted, or pay more than what they wanted..."
Hence I said it's "often fluff". Contrary points can be made but it doesn't dismiss the point.
Your opinion without corresponding evidence makes it easy to dismiss.
Yup, and there are people that, as I said, just want to believe that what Apple offers is enough, despite it being a step or two behind other available options. That too is their subjective compromise.
Can you show benchmarks that prove Apple is so far behind?
Profitability is not the point to potential customers. Consumers don't care about Apple's coffers. That's not part of their decision making unless they're stock holders or something. To which I can only repeat my point, "as if their profitability ... is some sort of relevant, automagical selling point that makes those people happy to either settle for less than what they wanted, or pay more than what they wanted..."
Profit is what keeps these companies in business. No profit, no business.
Your point on the value of the machine is simply your opinion. At the end of the day sales are what determines if people feel the are getting a good value.
Your opinion without corresponding evidence makes it easy to dismiss.
Yet, somehow, doesn't make it untrue.
The example of the unibody, too, was controversial for its own reasons. So "better" truly is subjective, isn't it.
Can you show benchmarks that prove Apple is so far behind?
The value benchmark, the intangible debate, being the most vocal one of this particular thread. If you happen to disagree with it, that doesn't make it untrue to them.
Profit is what keeps these companies in business. No profit, no business.
Your point on the value of the machine is simply your opinion. At the end of the day sales are what determines if people feel the are getting a good value.
Customers (still) don't care about the company's profits when they're deciding which computer they want to buy.
And I mentioned where Apple makes the case for their value proposition. If people buy into the Apple narrative, great for them. If not, they don't. I don't know what "point" you're referring to exactly (the gaping lineup holes?) but all that anybody has posted here are opinions, and they're all allowed. And indeed, sales do tell the tale.
novely hardware? what do you mean by that?
please elaborate...
The novelty value is in the form factor. I don't really see people requesting that Apple make small or thin machines, just well built ones.
By choosing to go thin and small, Apple make compromises and the biggest is to make all the consumer desktop options use mobile components, which makes them much more expensive than they need to be.
I for one am quite happy that Apple ignores your rants. They would be in the same hole as the other PC makers if they listened to you.
It's not much to ask that they stick to the same price points they had on the last generation. The problem is that they have put prices up across the board and the machines that are close to the same, have hardware that runs around the same speed when other manufacturers are doubling their performance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it now costs a minimum of $1,799 to buy a new Apple computer with a dedicated video card?
I don't think that's such a big problem. Given that the 9400M performs better than the X1600 dedicated and all the machines use DDR3 RAM, it would be more accurate to say that every machine in the lineup now has dedicated graphics-level performance.
It looks as though Apple were more concerned with lowering the price than a major component update. Quad core will be coming to the iMac.
They increased the price or left it the same though. I didn't see much of a price drop.
Quad cores will be coming but not until the end of the year - maybe not even until next year. Some Westmere chips aren't coming until 2010 as Intel have scrapped the plans for 45nm and pushed to doing a 32nm version:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/02/in...in_2010-2.html
This means a whole 8 months more stuck on dual core on everything except the £1800 Mac Pro.
Part of the value of the iMac is in having a the entire machine in one package. Their is no clearly defined way to equate that value to a general desktop.
I think you can put it in broad terms. It's certainly not worth paying double for half the speed i.e 4x worse value.
Compare the amount of time spent on the care and feeding of
Mac OS X versus the amount of time for any variety of Windows, and then ask yourself
how much your time is worth.
This is side-stepping the point. No one is asking Apple to make a Windows PC, just that they build machines with proper desktop components so that consumers get good value for money.
Nope! just an everyday worker bee....but my time is worth $150 an hour and I don't want to be mucking about with a windows machine.... been up till 2am trying to "fix" windows machines too many times!
mmm... the windows tax!
mmm... the windows tax!
In fairness, things do go wrong with OS X from time to time. I recently lost a lot of work time troubleshooting a bonjour problem that stopped certain items from appearing unless I reinstalled a certain combo update almost daily.
But the Windows tax is far greater. Windows Update is a hassle - especially if you prefer manual mode so you see what the updates are. Terrible interface. And I get so many family calls about AV stuff on their PCs and peripherals that stop working.
Windows people will say it's just ignorant users who can't get Windows to work. I'm a former MCSE with years and years of MS experience. I made a lot of money off MS products. And still - things would have to change DRASTICALLY for me to go back.
But I'm going to start using Walter's Windows Tax phrase from now on. Maybe Walt and Pogue will pick it up!
Apple's higher margins largely come from Apple not playing in the low cost low margin market.
And apple's low market share largely comes from not playing in markets like that as well.
I think most everyone will agree a laptop body machined from one solid block of aluminum is a better part than a laptop body made from molded plastic snapped together.
We're talking about the iMac here. In this case "better parts" is nothing more than fluff.
Apple has offered a wider computer line in the past and it proved less profitable than Apple's currently limited line.
Apple also offered a line that was far less competitive with PCs in the past. It's silly to blame their past problems on "wider line" when there have been many many improvements in the mac hardware and software situation since then.
Is it really necessary to keep calling people at an Apple site fanboy? Wouldn't your points be better-made without stooping down to that level?
While I see your point, unfortunately there seem to be some people who are blindly loyal and will defend any decision Apple makes regardless of its merits.
you seem to have conveniently forgotten the profits derived from the other devices...you might have heard of them....you know ipods and the like?
Although the computer segment of Apple makes them about as much money as the ipod/iphone segment. Even without the ipods, selling computers alone they would still be profitable now, one of the few computer companies in that situation.
He means Apple's comptuers don't have the highest gigaherz, gigabytes, the rest of the crap. Funny thing is most people don't really buy their computers based on that and Apple knows that.
I assume he meant that apple doesn't just sell a "normal" computer, they insist on only offering an all in one or a mini model when there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe that people really are demanding that over a decent headless box. Those are both machines where the form factor adds significantly to the price, I'd consider both "novelty" machines.
And you really don't think people care how fast their machine is or how much memory or drive space it has?
with a bit of knowledge the difference in time spent is non existent.
And where does that "bit of knowledge" come from? Spending time learning how to make windows work.
If you are on a budget you shouldn't be looking at any of Apple's products seriously.
In this economy, if Apple is telling everyone on a budget to go screw themself, they are going to have a tough time staying profitable.
The switching trend will not reverse. Mac users are unlikely to go back to Windows, but Windows XP/Vista users might be willing to "switch" to 7.
While that may be true, the switching trend may slow down in a big way. Apple can't take switchers for granted, they need to actively court them.
AMEN i was just going to say the same thing. Somebody said this type of article is "exactly what they expect to see anymore on this site" (paraphrased). What else would you expect? I'm sure there are sites out there with Dell "fanboys" talking up how they're better than Apple. Go there and enjoy company amongst like-minded apple-haters. That's fine, but it always amazes me that people who dislike Apple always manage to find their way onto APPLE FAN SITES and feel the need to bash people.
What amazes me, and what I find very strange is that so many Apple apologists have an almost blind allegiance to a company. They cheer and defend everything Apple as if it's the beloved sports team of their college almi mater and decry anything but, "gee, aint Apple grand" posts as bashing. That's just plain wierd. I greatly prefer the Apple OS. I'd rather eat broken glass than work with windows everyday. I have a ton of money invested in Apple versions of software over the years. I have owned Macs exclusively and depend on them to earn a living. The iMac fits a very niche market. The concept of linking the monitor with the CPU is really not the best design for everyone who wants a desktop. It limits your choice of monitor and ties the longevity and usefulness of the CPU to the monitor. Most monitors will far outlast the CPU as far as their useful life-span and relevance compared to advances in technology. Mac Pros are a workstation class machine with a price befitting one. Not every professional needs that much machine in every circumstance. Many of us need to purchase a computer at home to do our job even though we have a computer at work paid for by our employer. Apple IS negelecting to produce the machine many if not most professionals have been asking them to produce for quite sometime. Calling Apple out on that is not "bashing" them. It's letting them know that they have a vast number of OS X fans and professionals who are not seeing the product they need most being delivered to them. That is doing Apple a favor. For the sake of their customers and their share holders, I hope Apple has an open ear for criticism as well as praise. Addressing the former is how companies better serve their customers and investors and drives them to produce better, more relevant products.
I doubt there are many non-Apple users frequenting this site. There are those of us who have been using Macs professionally since the first Mac came out. Mac users who have supported Apple for years and would like to continue using their products but are less than impressed with the path they've been following for the last several years in their product lineup are not here to "bash" people or because they dislike Apple. In fact, it's the opposite.
Much of the complaints are over the fact that Apple did not radically change their machines. People refuse to take into account current events and what strategy Apple may be using to survive this economic crisis.
Many people don't seem to realize Apple is a business, the people running Apple are not a bunch of computer geeks looking at spec sheets. They need to do what they feel is best for the health of their business.
What amazes me, and what I find very strange is that so many Apple apologists have an almost blind allegiance to a company. They cheer and defend everything Apple as if it's the beloved sports team of their college almi mater and decry anything but, "gee, aint Apple grand" posts as bashing.
If Apple only sold hardware that ran Windows, they would very likely be out of business or a much smaller business. This is why they get so annoyed at people like Psystar and the people posting guides on how to hack netbooks to run OS X. They are taking Apple's best selling point and giving it to people who don't care for their hardware options.
The short of it is that Apple are using their software to sell overpriced, novelty hardware. This is because of design and nothing else. They want people to use (what they think are) aesthetically pleasing machines. People who want value for money over aesthetics don't come into the picture.
This is because they know that a mid-range machine will sell more than any other model and they probably don't think they can make it unique enough so that it becomes a good identity - the majority sales of it will make it identify the company but in a less unique way.
If that's the case, I'd disagree because a Core 2 Quad cube could easily differentiate itself from the mass of huge plastic quad-core PCs.
1. I agree with you. If they sold Windows instead of 'X'? Good example. They'd be out of business. They couldn't be this indulgent. (I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be rooting for Psystar. I finally turned after this price hike. Apple need a bloody nose...and an ego check.)
2. Design cul-de-sac. I competely agree with your points here.
3. I agree. Sheer bloody mindedness I'd say.
4. Seconded. Why are our quad core options starting at £1850 plus? And then there's the gpu...problem.
Marv' nailed it again.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Many people don't seem to realize Apple is a business
Yes. I agree. Before we lived in the fluffy land of the we love kind Apple fan club.
Now we REALISE they are a mean business like M$. BOY do we realise now. You can't call the price jacks a hike.
I call them a Prostate Check.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. It's official. We're being ripped off by Apple. No we're not. I've just closed my wallet.