When are we going to see similar prices for a Mac?
Apple doesn't make the same kind of desktop that you speced out so until Apple decides to compete directly with these consumer towers it is not going to happen... but you know that.
Here's a reality check from Staples' weekly flyer, valid until May 12, 2009:
For $999.95 Canadian dollars, you get:
One HP Pavilion Elite computer with:
+ Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 quad-core desktop CPU;
+ 4 GB RAM;
+ 500 GB Hard drive;
+ 802.11n wireless network;
+ Blu-Ray drive for High definition;
+ TV tuner;
+ keyboard and mouse;
One HP 21.5 inch liquid crystal monitor; and
One all in one HP printer-scanner-copier.
When are we going to see similar prices for a Mac?
Staples is an office supply store with branches in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. Check their web site if you didn't get their flyer.
P.S.: I'm pretty sure that HP didn't pay $2 billions in stock option bonuses to its senior management.
Those are last year's HP desktop, that's why they are cheap... the processor is an old intel architecture with that plastic monitor and a tower instead of an all-in-one compact design like the aluminum Penryn iMac with 24" display.
This price issue comes up every week because it's a big issue for Apple. They are overpriced. OS X helps them boost it a bit, but they're going overboard, plus you can't even get a blu ray drive on one if you wanted it.
Apple got a big boost because Vista was such a colossal F up. Sure, they got to make a lot of money for a while, but now it's a different world and they have to compete. People have less money, they're not on PPC anymore so the tech nerds who can afford overpriced macs can build their own macs cheaper and custom, and Windows 7 is about to change perceptions. Obviously they've done a good job of making money lately, but when Windows 7 hits they can talk about their margins all they want, they just blew an opportunity to grow market share and forever win repeat buyers with this Vista debacle.
If they'd just built a $1000 headless xmac that people have been asking for for years, they could just make one or two models and sell millions.
Are you the thought police coming to arrest me for speaking my mind? Well fuck you too, buddy.
If I hurt your feelings telling Apple off then, you should be absolutely devastated now. I took that time to bone your mom.
I think someone needs a time out and some duct tape!! BTW, speaking one's mind is not the problem. However, when someone spouts off non-sense like you do, then one must expect a reaction from the general populace. Hell, Charles Manson spoke his mind, but he is also freakin' lunatic with no grip on reality!! Just take it with a grain of salt my "friend" (I use that term very loosely).
I wouldn't mind Apple knocking 10% off their prices, and also including:
1) Free upgrade to Snow Leopard (for all new computers sold) for peace of mind
2) Free iWork (if you can't compete on hardware price, then throw in what you can afford to give away)
and on the Mac Mini, please can we have a bundle that also includes an Apple Keyboard and Mouse?
If Apple wants to drop prices further, then they might have to use cheaper hardware - slower CPUs maybe, but it would be a shame to drop to Pentiums because they don't do virtualisation.
Personally, I cannot see Apple reducing the prices of their current Mac lineup. Although, I could see a few more affordable and lower entry macs entering the market. Even though this is, again, unlikely, what I would like to see...
20" imac
$899
2.26ghz c2d
1gb ddr3 1066
250gb 7200rpm sata hdd
nvidia 9400m
24" imac
$1199
2.26ghz c2d
2gb ddr3
320gb 7200rpm sata hdd
nvidia 9400m
macbook pro 15"
$1399
2.26ghz
2gb ddr3 1066
160gb 5400rpm sata hdd
nvidia 9400m
macbook pro 17"
$1899
2.26ghz
2gb ddr3 1066
250gb 5400rpm sata hdd
nvidia 9400m
1680x1050 vs. 1920x1200
Although these might seem unrealistic, my point is... there are customers out there who do not need the performance and reliability of a 2.66ghz imac or the raw power of the 9600m in the macbook pro. For me, I would love the convenience of a 17" macbook without the 9600m gt, without 4gb ddr3 and without the 2.66ghz c2d.
A setup with only 2gb ddr3 a 9400m alone, a lightly slower cpu and hdd would easily fit in. For example, someone would require an imac 24" that can run leopard, but only need it for photos, video editing and internet with the convenience of a 24" screen. But, they are forced into spending that additional $400 odd on the hardware which, the majority of the time, they will never be able to take full advantage of. People could save so much money and time by simply choosing not to purchase a product with hardware they are never going to use, but instead, one with the specifications that not only meets their needs, but also comes at a more comfortable price for them.
I could truly never see apple offering these more affordable hardware options anytime soon.
Apple probably wouldn't knock their prices down either, but I truly think we will see a refresh in terms of "more affordable macs", maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but we will definitely see something of it.
Not only is the "time" right given the economy, but this is a good response to the direct advertising blitz.
AAPL may be wise to adopt an approach where they sell the machines much cheaper and then make money on the software and let uses stock the machine how they want.....Vs the bundle approach. If you really want to play in the big hardware game, then you must target the "average" customer. The average customer, unfortunately, has no idea the "value" of the Mac bundle. And, I'm afraid no amt of advertising will educate them either. Therefore, break your products out and make your money back via line item pricing.
Will be interesting to see their approach....Probably will be just less specs for less money, is my guess.
Nobody outside Steve Jobs' brain knows what his personal goals are. But I'd imagine that when you have more money than you could possibly spend, you're getting old and have major health issues, then maybe you want to do "one more thing", like, say, one last shot at world domination, rather than die as the guy who failed to make a major dent in Microsoft's marketshare. He doesn't want Star Wars to end with Luke failing to blow up the Death Star and the evil Empire running the galaxy for another thosand years.
You have to remember that he was kind of a loser who had to come crawling back to Apple through an acquisition. His company was bought by a company on the ropes, kind of like Chrysler merging with Fiat. But after that, he has fulfilled his goal of creating his dream products AND enjoying massive commercial success. So where can he go from there? Keep making more well-designed products and sell them to the same 3% of the world population as always? Nah, time for the next step.
I'm always surprised when I hear a Mac owner insist that Macs are "overpriced." Anything you decide to buy at any given price is, by definition, priced right. It could not be overpriced, or you would not have purchased it.
I'm always surprised when I hear a Mac owner insist that Macs are "overpriced." Anything you decide to buy at any given price is, by definition, priced right. It could not be overpriced, or you would not have purchased it.
They are damned expensive. But you get what you pay for: a well-built, solid machine that is fun to use and is very productive. You don't have the infinite range of options like a PC, so you can't do/have everything, but what the Mac does do, it does very, very well.
I'm always surprised when I hear a Mac owner insist that Macs are "overpriced." Anything you decide to buy at any given price is, by definition, priced right. It could not be overpriced, or you would not have purchased it.
Yes it's pretty illogical. But then again many Americans have been educated to make poor fiscal choices and be wreckless with their money. There are so many ways to save/make money in America but the saying goes
?Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.? Thomas Alva Edison.
That Is not the word I would use. Macs are not "overpriced". They are, however, damned expensive, but you get what you pay for.
"Overpriced" is not my word either, but it's the word we hear all the time in these discussions, including many times in this thread. It comes into use when technical specs are laid side-by-side, and the claim made that the more expensive product with the same technical specs must be "overpriced" -- even when the person making the claim voluntarily bought the more expensive product. I never understood how anyone could make that argument, when it's obvious that hardly anybody, themselves included, buys anything on the basis of technical specifications alone.
the crucial price factor that nearly everyone ignores in debating Mac pricing is the basic economic consideration of the full "life cycle" costs for durable goods like PC's. no one (except the uber rich) replaces their computer every year with a new one. generally computers have a 4-5 year lifespan. and even when a principal computer is replaced with a new one during that period, it usually continues in use as a second or third computer for someone else in that home or office.
for people with tight budgets or who are just plain hard-core cheap, yes, the initial price is most often the deciding factor. but for everyone else, it is about getting what they really want (like Tim Cook said). because a $200 purchase price differential spread over 5 years is just $40 per year - too little to really matter to most. the other costs of ownership, like monthly ISP service fees, are much more significant. and at the office, ongoing IT costs are much more significant than the up front hardware expense.
then the other standard economic consideration these debates omit is the value of your time. you tell me how much per hour your time doing computer maintenance and service yourself is worth. (if you hire someone else, that's at least $50 per hour, but they are supposed to be "skilled").
so what are the total hours of maintenance/service per year for Windows PC ownership compared to Mac ownership? i don't mean playing with it like geeks and hobbyists do, i mean just necessary set up, upkeep, troubleshooting, and updating. i've never seen any figures about this, but i have the distinct impression my PC using friends spend quite a bit of time fussing with Windows to keep it working right. more than i do on Mac. and i think my time is worth a lot. then add to that the cash cost of tech support - free at the Apple Store, but definitely not free from PC OEM's and retailers - and you get another significant annual cost of ownership for life cycle analysis.
bottom line is, smart shopping is not just about the sticker price. just looking at that is bad economics.
MacMini back to 499. That would be a nice thing to happen. It used to be that price, and could probably easily go back!
Maybe Apple can listen and make the xMac? Out of DESKTOP parts (instead of using the more expensive and less durable laptop parts in their iMacs). Using desktop parts you could reduce the cost, and come out with a cheaper Mac all the while keeping those premiums, er, margins.
But no, expect nothing at all. They are doing good business, why change it?
(And to those poo-pooing the netbooks... they really are decent machines! Margins aren't great, that is true, but I am always asked about mine and have sold over ten so far. I haven't sold a Mac in a few years, even in the instances where a Mac was needed. Reason, people feel they can't plunk down that kind of cash for what the machine really is, a PC. But Apple won't listen to this. Ah well, their loss.)
Agreed, sell a desktop with desktop parts. I also agree Apple won't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
It does seem a little strange that Apple refuses to sell lower performing hardware at lower prices. It forces people who can get by with less than a premium machine to buy either a used Mac or a PC, neither of which puts a penny into Apple's pocket. On the other hand, the difference between a machine built around a 2.0GHz processor and DDR2 isn't really all that much lower than one built around a 2.8GHz processor and DDR3. Having lower performing Macs in the lineup might convince a large number of people that they could live with less and that would really hurt Apple's bottom line.
Agreed, I've never understood this. One side benefit though, it props up the resale value of used Apple computers for consumers, doesn't help Apple's bottom line one whit though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
On the topic of Apple pushing the latest technology...
Latest architecture: yes
Latest RAM: yes
Latest CPU: yes
Latest graphics: you're kidding right?
Apple consistently sells premium priced computers with entry level graphics. The GT120 is really just a rebranded 9500GT, which is nothing more than an 8600GS made on a smaller process. Thus it's a crippled version of a two year old chip that was widely regarded as the weakest performing (relative to the high end) mid-range entry in nVidia history.
Today that chip, paired with 512MB of RAM is worth no more than $50 yet Apple put that POS into their $3,299 Mac Pro. They should be embarrassed to be shipping such junk in a workstation whose owners are the most likely of all to need the power of Cuda and OpenCL, but they're obviously too busy counting their profits to care. Forcing any Mac Pro buyer with a brain to spend another $200 to get a real video card must seem like a good strategy. Just like the $100 adapter to use a dual link DVI display on mini DisplayPort, it's a blatant cash grab. That's one of the things I truly hate about Apple.
All this talk about graphics processors is the fundamental point in the current war between Intel and nVidia. In the near future your graphics chip will be able to handle many of the tasks currently managed by the main CPU. In a growing number of fields the power of your GPU will become more important than your CPU. This scares Intel to death because they know nVidia and AMD (thanks to their purchase of ATI) are years ahead of them in stream processing.
By refusing to let anyone else build chipsets for Intel Nehalem processors, Intel is trying to hold back their competitors long enough to get graphics embedded into all their processors. If they succeed with that strategy Intel will own both the chipset and entry level graphics market. nVidia and ATI will be left with only the mid-high end graphics market that they already own.
---
Overall I like hearing that Apple may be getting more aggressive on pricing. It's time for them to make a big push to move as many people as possible to a single hardware platform and single version of the OS. That would allow both Apple and 3rd party developers to move ahead more quickly and with lower risk of incompatibilities.
Give me Snow Leopard on an iMac with serious OpenCL graphics and a case I can open up to change the hard drive and I'll stop complaining that there's no consumer tower.
Part of th graphics issue is that only one model can use them and I don't see this changing in my life time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar
i can haz xMac? -headless iMac? -plz?
I would pay iMac prices for something that's 1/2 a base-level Mac Pro.
-Just don't need to buy/get rid of a perfectly good monitor every 3 years.
You and me both, to bad Apple doesn't care and unfortunately for both you and me, they are selling more and more computers(re: mostly laptops) and making a ton of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac
As everyone who knows me knows, I think Apple is overpriced, that said I get most of my Macs from Apple friends and get around 25=35% off, depending on unit, refresh or end of life (normally the best deal, EOL (end of life)), however, I have done enough research to show that a PC built close to a MAC PRO comes out to the same if not more. This doesn't mean it's NOT overpriced as the PC manufacture and Apple have decent margins on them.
My point was Apple could have easily built a 4 and 8 core i7 system with great DDR (non ECC) and you would have a machine that if you built retail would cost $800 (i7 Machine), so actual manufacturing cost would be about $450, instead, Apple chooses higher end so they can have a higher profit margin. In other words, they could have built an i7 machine at $450 (our cost would be $800 to build, retail), and sell it for $1200.
With the Macbook (about $250 to make) and AIR (I can't and won't go there), these machines are somewhat overpriced, thing is, I don't know how they will release something cheaper (which on paper is very easy to do and still be of good quality, remember, Macbook not that expensive to make, especially with Unibody), but because of these two items, I don't know how they come out with a cheaper machine unless they add newer 4 core CPU's to the MACBOOK and MACBOOK pro and start pricing laptops based on cores.
In the end, the consumer wins and Apple has not paid attention to the PC user for a long time, it's all been iPhone, iPhone, iPhone.
To bad Apple doesn't care, it's either Apple's way or not at all. I have an iSight iMac and a Powerbook that need to be replaced with Snow Leapord on the horizon and I'm not smart enough to go the hackintosh way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elliots11
This price issue comes up every week because it's a big issue for Apple. They are overpriced. OS X helps them boost it a bit, but they're going overboard, plus you can't even get a blu ray drive on one if you wanted it.
Apple got a big boost because Vista was such a colossal F up. Sure, they got to make a lot of money for a while, but now it's a different world and they have to compete. People have less money, they're not on PPC anymore so the tech nerds who can afford overpriced macs can build their own macs cheaper and custom, and Windows 7 is about to change perceptions. Obviously they've done a good job of making money lately, but when Windows 7 hits they can talk about their margins all they want, they just blew an opportunity to grow market share and forever win repeat buyers with this Vista debacle.
If they'd just built a $1000 headless xmac that people have been asking for for years, they could just make one or two models and sell millions.
I agree about the xMac and blown opportunities with Window's XP(re: shades of SP 1 and SP2) and Vista's tribulations, but don't know squat about Windows 7. Could Microsoft make similar mistakes again?
I don't have access to all the market research data, but it seems fairly obvious to me that they could probably increase earnings by lowering their prices and driving up sales volume considering they only have 7-8% of the USA market --- clearly there are tens of millions of novice/average computer users who have not experienced and/or owned a Mac. Other than the group of users who are either high-end gamers, enthusiasts who like to build their own PCs, ultra-budget customers, die-hard PC/Windows fans, or those stubborn to change --- I'd bet a large percentage of that 93% of PC users would love to switch to a Mac (and OSX) if the prices were more competitive with what they see from PC manufacturers (whether that perception of "overpriced" is justified or not).
You know who does have access to all of the market research data? Apple. I think we can safely assume that Apple takes what it believes is the most profitable approach to marketing their products. I don't understand why anyone would think that Apple would do otherwise. But a lot of people do, even when they admit that they don't know what Apple knows. That's one consistent theme in these discussions which has always puzzled me.
I thought this guy was banned not too long ago for seriously shooting his mouth off? Guess he didn't use that time wisely to think things through has he?
Kasper.... are you catching wind of this?
Way to allow dissenting opinions choirboy. Did you type that while waiting for those bloodstains to soak out of your Nazi brownshirt? Did you get the creases out of the armband? Can't have a wrinkly swastika.
The MacJihad would be amusingly cute if they weren't tiresome and making life difficult for people who use Macs professionally and don't want to be associated with fanboi assholes who need to contract swine flu.
In this case, I'd have to side with the original poster. F U.
this is not good. I repeat, not good. Thus begins the slow, downward spiral to mediocrity. Do the previous posters really think apple can produce cheap pcs like dell without sacrificing quality, customer service, and margins? If so then you live in a fantasy world. Just imagine what a $500 macbook would look like. It would look like an acer of course. I'm sorry but even jon ive can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The drive for market share also drives down margins as michael dell has found out the hard way. You have to keep selling more and more just to break even.
I hope the "we want cheap macs" crowd doesn't get their wish any time soon. I would rather see apple stop making macs altogether before producing drab, black plastic abominations. Leave the trailer park market segment to dell and the design-impaired nerd crowd.
You know who does have access to all of the market research data? Apple. I think we can safely assume that Apple takes what it believes is the most profitable approach to marketing their products. I don't understand why anyone would think that Apple would do otherwise. But a lot of people do, even when they admit that they don't know what Apple knows. That's one consistent theme in these discussions which has always puzzled me.
Except that repeatedly Steve Jobs and Apple have specifically stated that they don't do market research, particularly focus groups. Otherwise, Pippen, Newton, Cube, etc. would never have seen the light of day.
Comments
For $999.95 Canadian dollars, you get:
One HP Pavilion Elite computer with:
+ Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 quad-core desktop CPU;
+ 4 GB RAM;
+ 500 GB Hard drive;
+ 802.11n wireless network;
+ Blu-Ray drive for High definition;
+ TV tuner;
+ keyboard and mouse;
One HP 21.5 inch liquid crystal monitor; and
One all in one HP printer-scanner-copier.
When are we going to see similar prices for a Mac?
Staples is an office supply store with branches in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. Check their web site if you didn't get their flyer.
P.S.: I'm pretty sure that HP didn't pay $2 billions in stock option bonuses to its senior management.
When are we going to see similar prices for a Mac?
Apple doesn't make the same kind of desktop that you speced out so until Apple decides to compete directly with these consumer towers it is not going to happen... but you know that.
Here's a reality check from Staples' weekly flyer, valid until May 12, 2009:
For $999.95 Canadian dollars, you get:
One HP Pavilion Elite computer with:
+ Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 quad-core desktop CPU;
+ 4 GB RAM;
+ 500 GB Hard drive;
+ 802.11n wireless network;
+ Blu-Ray drive for High definition;
+ TV tuner;
+ keyboard and mouse;
One HP 21.5 inch liquid crystal monitor; and
One all in one HP printer-scanner-copier.
When are we going to see similar prices for a Mac?
Staples is an office supply store with branches in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. Check their web site if you didn't get their flyer.
P.S.: I'm pretty sure that HP didn't pay $2 billions in stock option bonuses to its senior management.
Those are last year's HP desktop, that's why they are cheap... the processor is an old intel architecture with that plastic monitor and a tower instead of an all-in-one compact design like the aluminum Penryn iMac with 24" display.
Apple got a big boost because Vista was such a colossal F up. Sure, they got to make a lot of money for a while, but now it's a different world and they have to compete. People have less money, they're not on PPC anymore so the tech nerds who can afford overpriced macs can build their own macs cheaper and custom, and Windows 7 is about to change perceptions. Obviously they've done a good job of making money lately, but when Windows 7 hits they can talk about their margins all they want, they just blew an opportunity to grow market share and forever win repeat buyers with this Vista debacle.
If they'd just built a $1000 headless xmac that people have been asking for for years, they could just make one or two models and sell millions.
Are you the thought police coming to arrest me for speaking my mind? Well fuck you too, buddy.
If I hurt your feelings telling Apple off then, you should be absolutely devastated now. I took that time to bone your mom.
I think someone needs a time out and some duct tape!! BTW, speaking one's mind is not the problem. However, when someone spouts off non-sense like you do, then one must expect a reaction from the general populace. Hell, Charles Manson spoke his mind, but he is also freakin' lunatic with no grip on reality!! Just take it with a grain of salt my "friend" (I use that term very loosely).
1) Free upgrade to Snow Leopard (for all new computers sold) for peace of mind
2) Free iWork (if you can't compete on hardware price, then throw in what you can afford to give away)
and on the Mac Mini, please can we have a bundle that also includes an Apple Keyboard and Mouse?
If Apple wants to drop prices further, then they might have to use cheaper hardware - slower CPUs maybe, but it would be a shame to drop to Pentiums because they don't do virtualisation.
Anyway, my dentist has absolutely gorgeous nurse; I haven't seen anything like that in Apple Store (or any other computer store)
Well, there isn't much use for nurses in computer stores.
20" imac
$899
2.26ghz c2d
1gb ddr3 1066
250gb 7200rpm sata hdd
nvidia 9400m
24" imac
$1199
2.26ghz c2d
2gb ddr3
320gb 7200rpm sata hdd
nvidia 9400m
macbook pro 15"
$1399
2.26ghz
2gb ddr3 1066
160gb 5400rpm sata hdd
nvidia 9400m
macbook pro 17"
$1899
2.26ghz
2gb ddr3 1066
250gb 5400rpm sata hdd
nvidia 9400m
1680x1050 vs. 1920x1200
Although these might seem unrealistic, my point is... there are customers out there who do not need the performance and reliability of a 2.66ghz imac or the raw power of the 9600m in the macbook pro. For me, I would love the convenience of a 17" macbook without the 9600m gt, without 4gb ddr3 and without the 2.66ghz c2d.
A setup with only 2gb ddr3 a 9400m alone, a lightly slower cpu and hdd would easily fit in. For example, someone would require an imac 24" that can run leopard, but only need it for photos, video editing and internet with the convenience of a 24" screen. But, they are forced into spending that additional $400 odd on the hardware which, the majority of the time, they will never be able to take full advantage of. People could save so much money and time by simply choosing not to purchase a product with hardware they are never going to use, but instead, one with the specifications that not only meets their needs, but also comes at a more comfortable price for them.
I could truly never see apple offering these more affordable hardware options anytime soon.
Apple probably wouldn't knock their prices down either, but I truly think we will see a refresh in terms of "more affordable macs", maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but we will definitely see something of it.
AAPL may be wise to adopt an approach where they sell the machines much cheaper and then make money on the software and let uses stock the machine how they want.....Vs the bundle approach. If you really want to play in the big hardware game, then you must target the "average" customer. The average customer, unfortunately, has no idea the "value" of the Mac bundle. And, I'm afraid no amt of advertising will educate them either. Therefore, break your products out and make your money back via line item pricing.
Will be interesting to see their approach....Probably will be just less specs for less money, is my guess.
You have to remember that he was kind of a loser who had to come crawling back to Apple through an acquisition. His company was bought by a company on the ropes, kind of like Chrysler merging with Fiat. But after that, he has fulfilled his goal of creating his dream products AND enjoying massive commercial success. So where can he go from there? Keep making more well-designed products and sell them to the same 3% of the world population as always? Nah, time for the next step.
I'm always surprised when I hear a Mac owner insist that Macs are "overpriced." Anything you decide to buy at any given price is, by definition, priced right. It could not be overpriced, or you would not have purchased it.
They are damned expensive. But you get what you pay for: a well-built, solid machine that is fun to use and is very productive. You don't have the infinite range of options like a PC, so you can't do/have everything, but what the Mac does do, it does very, very well.
I'm always surprised when I hear a Mac owner insist that Macs are "overpriced." Anything you decide to buy at any given price is, by definition, priced right. It could not be overpriced, or you would not have purchased it.
Yes it's pretty illogical. But then again many Americans have been educated to make poor fiscal choices and be wreckless with their money. There are so many ways to save/make money in America but the saying goes
?Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.? Thomas Alva Edison.
That Is not the word I would use. Macs are not "overpriced". They are, however, damned expensive, but you get what you pay for.
"Overpriced" is not my word either, but it's the word we hear all the time in these discussions, including many times in this thread. It comes into use when technical specs are laid side-by-side, and the claim made that the more expensive product with the same technical specs must be "overpriced" -- even when the person making the claim voluntarily bought the more expensive product. I never understood how anyone could make that argument, when it's obvious that hardly anybody, themselves included, buys anything on the basis of technical specifications alone.
for people with tight budgets or who are just plain hard-core cheap, yes, the initial price is most often the deciding factor. but for everyone else, it is about getting what they really want (like Tim Cook said). because a $200 purchase price differential spread over 5 years is just $40 per year - too little to really matter to most. the other costs of ownership, like monthly ISP service fees, are much more significant. and at the office, ongoing IT costs are much more significant than the up front hardware expense.
then the other standard economic consideration these debates omit is the value of your time. you tell me how much per hour your time doing computer maintenance and service yourself is worth. (if you hire someone else, that's at least $50 per hour, but they are supposed to be "skilled").
so what are the total hours of maintenance/service per year for Windows PC ownership compared to Mac ownership? i don't mean playing with it like geeks and hobbyists do, i mean just necessary set up, upkeep, troubleshooting, and updating. i've never seen any figures about this, but i have the distinct impression my PC using friends spend quite a bit of time fussing with Windows to keep it working right. more than i do on Mac. and i think my time is worth a lot. then add to that the cash cost of tech support - free at the Apple Store, but definitely not free from PC OEM's and retailers - and you get another significant annual cost of ownership for life cycle analysis.
bottom line is, smart shopping is not just about the sticker price. just looking at that is bad economics.
MacMini back to 499. That would be a nice thing to happen. It used to be that price, and could probably easily go back!
Maybe Apple can listen and make the xMac? Out of DESKTOP parts (instead of using the more expensive and less durable laptop parts in their iMacs). Using desktop parts you could reduce the cost, and come out with a cheaper Mac all the while keeping those premiums, er, margins.
But no, expect nothing at all. They are doing good business, why change it?
(And to those poo-pooing the netbooks... they really are decent machines! Margins aren't great, that is true, but I am always asked about mine and have sold over ten so far. I haven't sold a Mac in a few years, even in the instances where a Mac was needed. Reason, people feel they can't plunk down that kind of cash for what the machine really is, a PC. But Apple won't listen to this. Ah well, their loss.)
Agreed, sell a desktop with desktop parts. I also agree Apple won't do it.
It does seem a little strange that Apple refuses to sell lower performing hardware at lower prices. It forces people who can get by with less than a premium machine to buy either a used Mac or a PC, neither of which puts a penny into Apple's pocket. On the other hand, the difference between a machine built around a 2.0GHz processor and DDR2 isn't really all that much lower than one built around a 2.8GHz processor and DDR3. Having lower performing Macs in the lineup might convince a large number of people that they could live with less and that would really hurt Apple's bottom line.
Agreed, I've never understood this. One side benefit though, it props up the resale value of used Apple computers for consumers, doesn't help Apple's bottom line one whit though.
On the topic of Apple pushing the latest technology...
Latest architecture: yes
Latest RAM: yes
Latest CPU: yes
Latest graphics: you're kidding right?
Apple consistently sells premium priced computers with entry level graphics. The GT120 is really just a rebranded 9500GT, which is nothing more than an 8600GS made on a smaller process. Thus it's a crippled version of a two year old chip that was widely regarded as the weakest performing (relative to the high end) mid-range entry in nVidia history.
Today that chip, paired with 512MB of RAM is worth no more than $50 yet Apple put that POS into their $3,299 Mac Pro. They should be embarrassed to be shipping such junk in a workstation whose owners are the most likely of all to need the power of Cuda and OpenCL, but they're obviously too busy counting their profits to care. Forcing any Mac Pro buyer with a brain to spend another $200 to get a real video card must seem like a good strategy. Just like the $100 adapter to use a dual link DVI display on mini DisplayPort, it's a blatant cash grab. That's one of the things I truly hate about Apple.
All this talk about graphics processors is the fundamental point in the current war between Intel and nVidia. In the near future your graphics chip will be able to handle many of the tasks currently managed by the main CPU. In a growing number of fields the power of your GPU will become more important than your CPU. This scares Intel to death because they know nVidia and AMD (thanks to their purchase of ATI) are years ahead of them in stream processing.
By refusing to let anyone else build chipsets for Intel Nehalem processors, Intel is trying to hold back their competitors long enough to get graphics embedded into all their processors. If they succeed with that strategy Intel will own both the chipset and entry level graphics market. nVidia and ATI will be left with only the mid-high end graphics market that they already own.
---
Overall I like hearing that Apple may be getting more aggressive on pricing. It's time for them to make a big push to move as many people as possible to a single hardware platform and single version of the OS. That would allow both Apple and 3rd party developers to move ahead more quickly and with lower risk of incompatibilities.
Give me Snow Leopard on an iMac with serious OpenCL graphics and a case I can open up to change the hard drive and I'll stop complaining that there's no consumer tower.
Part of th graphics issue is that only one model can use them and I don't see this changing in my life time.
i can haz xMac? -headless iMac? -plz?
I would pay iMac prices for something that's 1/2 a base-level Mac Pro.
-Just don't need to buy/get rid of a perfectly good monitor every 3 years.
1 optical, 2 hd bays, 1 double-wide graphics, 3 pciE, coupla ports
You and me both, to bad Apple doesn't care and unfortunately for both you and me, they are selling more and more computers(re: mostly laptops) and making a ton of money.
As everyone who knows me knows, I think Apple is overpriced, that said I get most of my Macs from Apple friends and get around 25=35% off, depending on unit, refresh or end of life (normally the best deal, EOL (end of life)), however, I have done enough research to show that a PC built close to a MAC PRO comes out to the same if not more. This doesn't mean it's NOT overpriced as the PC manufacture and Apple have decent margins on them.
My point was Apple could have easily built a 4 and 8 core i7 system with great DDR (non ECC) and you would have a machine that if you built retail would cost $800 (i7 Machine), so actual manufacturing cost would be about $450, instead, Apple chooses higher end so they can have a higher profit margin. In other words, they could have built an i7 machine at $450 (our cost would be $800 to build, retail), and sell it for $1200.
With the Macbook (about $250 to make) and AIR (I can't and won't go there), these machines are somewhat overpriced, thing is, I don't know how they will release something cheaper (which on paper is very easy to do and still be of good quality, remember, Macbook not that expensive to make, especially with Unibody), but because of these two items, I don't know how they come out with a cheaper machine unless they add newer 4 core CPU's to the MACBOOK and MACBOOK pro and start pricing laptops based on cores.
In the end, the consumer wins and Apple has not paid attention to the PC user for a long time, it's all been iPhone, iPhone, iPhone.
To bad Apple doesn't care, it's either Apple's way or not at all. I have an iSight iMac and a Powerbook that need to be replaced with Snow Leapord on the horizon and I'm not smart enough to go the hackintosh way.
This price issue comes up every week because it's a big issue for Apple. They are overpriced. OS X helps them boost it a bit, but they're going overboard, plus you can't even get a blu ray drive on one if you wanted it.
Apple got a big boost because Vista was such a colossal F up. Sure, they got to make a lot of money for a while, but now it's a different world and they have to compete. People have less money, they're not on PPC anymore so the tech nerds who can afford overpriced macs can build their own macs cheaper and custom, and Windows 7 is about to change perceptions. Obviously they've done a good job of making money lately, but when Windows 7 hits they can talk about their margins all they want, they just blew an opportunity to grow market share and forever win repeat buyers with this Vista debacle.
If they'd just built a $1000 headless xmac that people have been asking for for years, they could just make one or two models and sell millions.
I agree about the xMac and blown opportunities with Window's XP(re: shades of SP 1 and SP2) and Vista's tribulations, but don't know squat about Windows 7. Could Microsoft make similar mistakes again?
I don't have access to all the market research data, but it seems fairly obvious to me that they could probably increase earnings by lowering their prices and driving up sales volume considering they only have 7-8% of the USA market --- clearly there are tens of millions of novice/average computer users who have not experienced and/or owned a Mac. Other than the group of users who are either high-end gamers, enthusiasts who like to build their own PCs, ultra-budget customers, die-hard PC/Windows fans, or those stubborn to change --- I'd bet a large percentage of that 93% of PC users would love to switch to a Mac (and OSX) if the prices were more competitive with what they see from PC manufacturers (whether that perception of "overpriced" is justified or not).
You know who does have access to all of the market research data? Apple. I think we can safely assume that Apple takes what it believes is the most profitable approach to marketing their products. I don't understand why anyone would think that Apple would do otherwise. But a lot of people do, even when they admit that they don't know what Apple knows. That's one consistent theme in these discussions which has always puzzled me.
I thought this guy was banned not too long ago for seriously shooting his mouth off? Guess he didn't use that time wisely to think things through has he?
Kasper.... are you catching wind of this?
Way to allow dissenting opinions choirboy. Did you type that while waiting for those bloodstains to soak out of your Nazi brownshirt? Did you get the creases out of the armband? Can't have a wrinkly swastika.
The MacJihad would be amusingly cute if they weren't tiresome and making life difficult for people who use Macs professionally and don't want to be associated with fanboi assholes who need to contract swine flu.
In this case, I'd have to side with the original poster. F U.
this is not good. I repeat, not good. Thus begins the slow, downward spiral to mediocrity. Do the previous posters really think apple can produce cheap pcs like dell without sacrificing quality, customer service, and margins? If so then you live in a fantasy world. Just imagine what a $500 macbook would look like. It would look like an acer of course. I'm sorry but even jon ive can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The drive for market share also drives down margins as michael dell has found out the hard way. You have to keep selling more and more just to break even.
I hope the "we want cheap macs" crowd doesn't get their wish any time soon. I would rather see apple stop making macs altogether before producing drab, black plastic abominations. Leave the trailer park market segment to dell and the design-impaired nerd crowd.
agree
You know who does have access to all of the market research data? Apple. I think we can safely assume that Apple takes what it believes is the most profitable approach to marketing their products. I don't understand why anyone would think that Apple would do otherwise. But a lot of people do, even when they admit that they don't know what Apple knows. That's one consistent theme in these discussions which has always puzzled me.
Except that repeatedly Steve Jobs and Apple have specifically stated that they don't do market research, particularly focus groups. Otherwise, Pippen, Newton, Cube, etc. would never have seen the light of day.