Is there another company whose most devout followers enjoy getting financially shafted so much.???
Yeah, pretty much every market has a higher-end product or service that represent the pinnacle of excellence that all the others are measured against. But that does mean that the others are striving to copy their every move. These companies, while popular in their own right and profitable, almost never make up the majority of the units or profit made in that market.
Whether they have 10% or 5% or 2% of a market, they have that market and they have it with merchandise that make them money. Your assertion that Apple won't be a worthwhile company until it has corner the other 210M PCs to be sold this year is ludicrous.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black? Why does AppleInsider need to post an article everyday comparing Macs to PCs and saying how superior they are or how "PCs sales are down" or how "Apple machines offer better value than PCs" or "Netbooks are ravaging PC sales" etc.
If this is an "Apple" site, why do the editors feel that they have to talk so much about PCs all the time?
Does it have something to prove? AppleInsider takes every opportunity it can to push PCs into the mud; what's wrong with calling them out if they go over the line with their comparisons?
And I own Apple products which is why I visit this site. Is my opinion somehow not valid?
Appleinsider did not make the conclusions, if you don't like what's being said, don't bother reading this site.
Apple sold a little over 8 million machines in 2008. My point is in the end what is the advantage of selling more if you aren't making more (in some cases less)money.
If Apple weren't relevant why are so many people talking about it?
I'm not sure what's random about my conclusions they are in direct response to yours.
sell more machines, attract more devs who will make more software thus driving better sales. I take the point about why do more to make less but surely a better balance can be struck??
Apple aren't relevant, in the general real world no one is talking about them, unless its iphone or ipods...or their ridiculous prices of course.
I really don't understand why you care. If you are the enlightened one, why come here and complain about those of us who are not as visionary as yourself?
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!
This is an excellent point to consider for those who claim that Mac OS X is "worth" $200
or $169 or whatever. 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. The real or imagined savings on PC hardware is quickly
swamped by the losses incurred in user time wasted.
Thank you for just proving my point. That even will all the millions of PC's sold compared to Apple, the PC makers can't seem to make enough revenue to support their model yet Apple is in great financial health given the current market conditions.
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?
If the main competitor in the market royally screws up then you would expect the competition to do well. You could argue that Apple could have done better.
Frankly I'm willing to pay whatever Apple charges as long as I don't have to use Windows. We are tired of fighting our machines because of viruses, we want to use our computers, not fight it. I was in a computer shop a couple of days ago and the amount of Dell machines in the shop there, the owners were just frustrated with having to fight the machines, they were infected with viruses and they couldn't get anything done. One guy was finding to do his course because his computer was always in the shop because of viruses. Good thing Mac users don't have to do deal with this crap. No wonder Apple has the highest satisfcation rates in the industry, while the likes of Dell and HP are near the bottom. These days nobody gives a crap about how much ghz, gigabytes their computer has, they just want a computer that does what they need to do with the right software and something they don't have to have fight Apple is providing this choice for a lot of people. Dell can keep their 300 dollar virus ridden computers.
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.
Really these guys can't even read Apple online documentation. No where in the iMac documentation do the mention the use of LED backlights. Believe me I looked as is should be expected in this price range. We could hope that Apple forgot this important detail but the iMac upgrade is such a screwing that no reasonable person would allow themselves to think that.
The number one problem with the so called iMac upgrades is that they cost Apple NOTHING and really just reflect drops in prices on the various components upgraded. It is like they want to milk every dollar they can out of the platform and offer nothing real in the way of performance increases. At least at the low end they did lower the units price a bit to reflect the substantial drop in prices, but that is hardly bringing new hardware to the market.
In a nut shell I think that is what will drive many people away from the iMac. Apple here had a chance to offer up reasonably competitive machines based on a number of possible processor architectures. They could have gone Penryn, or the new small form factor chip, or even i7. Instead they delivered a ""NEW"" platform that barely offers anything in the way of a performance increase. Rather sad and exploitive if you ask me.
In effect if you buy a new iMac today you are getting performance that is comparable to last years machines and really is much different than buying a used machine that has had a memory upgrade. The iMac upgrades are pretty much an example of Apple at its worst, at least in the days of the G4 they had an excuse, the only reason I can see now is greed.
In any event I don't see what the Analyst here is saying as anymore than advertising. In this case they serve the same basic function as the "models" at the car show. In the case of Detroit any ways they are there to distract you from the fact that the product is shit.
You?re wasting your time trying to explain the value of a mac to some of these people. I?ve tried many times. All they see is sticker price, the Dell or HP is cheaper...it?s better. They can?t understand that the value is more than the sticker price. Personally a free PC computer is worthless to me, I could use it for a door stop, but other than that I don?t even want it. If a computer doesn?t come with all the benefits of Apple design, OSX, iLife and iWork it?s useless, it has no value at all.
Couldn't have put it better, I would rather save up for a mac rather than go buy one of the cheap windows boxes. No wonder Apple has the industry's highest satisfaction ratings and to top it off, I have 4 Apple store I can visit, one I can even walk it off to, if I have any questions or any problems with any of my Apple products.
Yeah, pretty much every market has a higher-end product or service that represent the pinnacle of excellence that all the others are measured against. But that does mean that the others are striving to copy their every move. These companies, while popular in their own right and profitable, almost never make up the majority of the units or profit made in that market.
Whether they have 10% or 5% or 2% of a market, they have that market and they have it with merchandise that make them money. Your assertion that Apple won't be a worthwhile company until it has corner the other 210M PCs to be sold this year is ludicrous.
read much....??
I didn't assert anything, merely stated that for a company that sells (relatively) few computers they get a lot of accolades that they maybe don't deserve. The perception (which is a big part of what Apple is) is that they are a big player..when in reality they are niche....at best.
If Windows 7 comes out and is what Vista should have been then with current prices and hardware the switching trend will slow and probably reverse.
I think you are right about Apple though. They don't really want a bigger marketshare for loads of reasons, not least of which is the 'cool,hip' factor of being 'small'. I suspect they are trying to get a bigger wallet share of their existing base rather than making the base larger and obtaining less per user.
Just if I was a major investor I'd want them to be doing something with that cash warchest to generate more income or give it back to me. The markets will always want growth after all.
Is there another company whose most devout followers enjoy getting financially shafted so much.???
The ridiculous profit margin is worn like a badge of honour by the mac heads. Do they not realise it is them fuelling it??
..speechless.
Apple can only charge what people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay because they are brainwashed, or they gain enough value to offset the extra up-front cost.
I use XP on a ThinkPad (required work machine), Leopard on a MacBook Pro, Tiger on a G4, and Vista on an eMachines laptop. (The eMachines was $299 - primarily for my kids so I wouldn't care if they broke it. They also use the Macs but don't move them around.)
For me, using iLife and other apps on Mac OS X have clearly been worth the extra cost. The amount of time wasted on XP is embarrassing. [By the way, I was writing this earlier, but XP (running Firefox, Outlook, and Excel only) crashed, and I had to pull the battery out. I'm using the ThinkPad because my kids are camped out on the Macs.]
No doubt there are many who bought Macs as fashion, or due to hype. But they are by no means the majority.
so you think (as a consumer I guess) that its good that Apple can be applauded by business leaders.??
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.
What if Apple licensed OS X to 3rd partys on generic hardware. They could quadruple profits overnight andf really shake up the industry. The business leaders would love them more but I'm guessing you and other APple loyalists wouldn't be happy.
once again...
12m out of 260m.....
if you are happy being fleeced then fair play and good luck to you, I'll just stay happily in the 248m camp.
Still, iLife doesn't justify the cost of the Mac over a PC though. For anyone on a budget or doesnt want to break the bank, PC's are still the better value for it does practically everything a Mac does. This doesn't mean Mac's suck though. It just means its geared towards a different market segment.
If you are on a budget you shouldn't be looking at any of Apple's products seriously.
Frankly I'm willing to pay whatever Apple charges as long as I don't have to use Windows. We are tired of fighting our machines because of viruses, we want to use our computers, not fight it. I was in a computer shop a couple of days ago and the amount of Dell machines in the shop there, the owners were just frustrated with having to fight the machines, they were infected with viruses and they couldn't get anything done. One guy was finding to do his course because his computer was always in the shop because of viruses. Good thing Mac users don't have to do deal with this crap. No wonder Apple has the highest satisfcation rates in the industry, while the likes of Dell and HP are near the bottom. These days nobody gives a crap about how much ghz, gigabytes their computer has, they just want a computer that does what they need to do with the right software and something they don't have to have fight Apple is providing this choice for a lot of people. Dell can keep their 300 dollar virus ridden computers.
Comments
Is there another company whose most devout followers enjoy getting financially shafted so much.???
Yeah, pretty much every market has a higher-end product or service that represent the pinnacle of excellence that all the others are measured against. But that does mean that the others are striving to copy their every move. These companies, while popular in their own right and profitable, almost never make up the majority of the units or profit made in that market.
Whether they have 10% or 5% or 2% of a market, they have that market and they have it with merchandise that make them money. Your assertion that Apple won't be a worthwhile company until it has corner the other 210M PCs to be sold this year is ludicrous.
Be careful with the word "Techies" they will call you childish.
Thanks!
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black? Why does AppleInsider need to post an article everyday comparing Macs to PCs and saying how superior they are or how "PCs sales are down" or how "Apple machines offer better value than PCs" or "Netbooks are ravaging PC sales" etc.
If this is an "Apple" site, why do the editors feel that they have to talk so much about PCs all the time?
Does it have something to prove? AppleInsider takes every opportunity it can to push PCs into the mud; what's wrong with calling them out if they go over the line with their comparisons?
And I own Apple products which is why I visit this site. Is my opinion somehow not valid?
Appleinsider did not make the conclusions, if you don't like what's being said, don't bother reading this site.
Apple sold a little over 8 million machines in 2008. My point is in the end what is the advantage of selling more if you aren't making more (in some cases less)money.
If Apple weren't relevant why are so many people talking about it?
I'm not sure what's random about my conclusions they are in direct response to yours.
sell more machines, attract more devs who will make more software thus driving better sales. I take the point about why do more to make less but surely a better balance can be struck??
Apple aren't relevant, in the general real world no one is talking about them, unless its iphone or ipods...or their ridiculous prices of course.
I really don't understand why you care. If you are the enlightened one, why come here and complain about those of us who are not as visionary as yourself?
I agree...
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!
This is an excellent point to consider for those who claim that Mac OS X is "worth" $200
or $169 or whatever. 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. The real or imagined savings on PC hardware is quickly
swamped by the losses incurred in user time wasted.
Thank you for just proving my point. That even will all the millions of PC's sold compared to Apple, the PC makers can't seem to make enough revenue to support their model yet Apple is in great financial health given the current market conditions.
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?
If the main competitor in the market royally screws up then you would expect the competition to do well. You could argue that Apple could have done better.
Apple aren't relevant, in the general real world no one is talking about them, unless its iphone or ipods...or their ridiculous prices of course.
That will come as a surprise to Fortune magazine:http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...une/index.html
That will come as a surprise to Fortune magazine:http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...une/index.html
What a smackdown.
novely hardware? what do you mean by that?
please elaborate...
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.
The number one problem with the so called iMac upgrades is that they cost Apple NOTHING and really just reflect drops in prices on the various components upgraded. It is like they want to milk every dollar they can out of the platform and offer nothing real in the way of performance increases. At least at the low end they did lower the units price a bit to reflect the substantial drop in prices, but that is hardly bringing new hardware to the market.
In a nut shell I think that is what will drive many people away from the iMac. Apple here had a chance to offer up reasonably competitive machines based on a number of possible processor architectures. They could have gone Penryn, or the new small form factor chip, or even i7. Instead they delivered a ""NEW"" platform that barely offers anything in the way of a performance increase. Rather sad and exploitive if you ask me.
In effect if you buy a new iMac today you are getting performance that is comparable to last years machines and really is much different than buying a used machine that has had a memory upgrade. The iMac upgrades are pretty much an example of Apple at its worst, at least in the days of the G4 they had an excuse, the only reason I can see now is greed.
In any event I don't see what the Analyst here is saying as anymore than advertising. In this case they serve the same basic function as the "models" at the car show. In the case of Detroit any ways they are there to distract you from the fact that the product is shit.
Dave
You?re wasting your time trying to explain the value of a mac to some of these people. I?ve tried many times. All they see is sticker price, the Dell or HP is cheaper...it?s better. They can?t understand that the value is more than the sticker price. Personally a free PC computer is worthless to me, I could use it for a door stop, but other than that I don?t even want it. If a computer doesn?t come with all the benefits of Apple design, OSX, iLife and iWork it?s useless, it has no value at all.
Couldn't have put it better, I would rather save up for a mac rather than go buy one of the cheap windows boxes. No wonder Apple has the industry's highest satisfaction ratings and to top it off, I have 4 Apple store I can visit, one I can even walk it off to, if I have any questions or any problems with any of my Apple products.
Yeah, pretty much every market has a higher-end product or service that represent the pinnacle of excellence that all the others are measured against. But that does mean that the others are striving to copy their every move. These companies, while popular in their own right and profitable, almost never make up the majority of the units or profit made in that market.
Whether they have 10% or 5% or 2% of a market, they have that market and they have it with merchandise that make them money. Your assertion that Apple won't be a worthwhile company until it has corner the other 210M PCs to be sold this year is ludicrous.
read much....??
I didn't assert anything, merely stated that for a company that sells (relatively) few computers they get a lot of accolades that they maybe don't deserve. The perception (which is a big part of what Apple is) is that they are a big player..when in reality they are niche....at best.
If Windows 7 comes out and is what Vista should have been then with current prices and hardware the switching trend will slow and probably reverse.
I think you are right about Apple though. They don't really want a bigger marketshare for loads of reasons, not least of which is the 'cool,hip' factor of being 'small'. I suspect they are trying to get a bigger wallet share of their existing base rather than making the base larger and obtaining less per user.
Just if I was a major investor I'd want them to be doing something with that cash warchest to generate more income or give it back to me. The markets will always want growth after all.
This is an excellent point to consider for those who claim that Mac OS X is "worth" $200
or $169 or whatever. 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. The real or imagined savings on PC hardware is quickly
swamped by the losses incurred in user time wasted.
really...??
with a bit of knowledge the difference in time spent is non existent.
osx isn't worth the hardware price premium or the limiting choices (IMO)
Is there another company whose most devout followers enjoy getting financially shafted so much.???
The ridiculous profit margin is worn like a badge of honour by the mac heads. Do they not realise it is them fuelling it??
..speechless.
Apple can only charge what people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay because they are brainwashed, or they gain enough value to offset the extra up-front cost.
I use XP on a ThinkPad (required work machine), Leopard on a MacBook Pro, Tiger on a G4, and Vista on an eMachines laptop. (The eMachines was $299 - primarily for my kids so I wouldn't care if they broke it. They also use the Macs but don't move them around.)
For me, using iLife and other apps on Mac OS X have clearly been worth the extra cost. The amount of time wasted on XP is embarrassing. [By the way, I was writing this earlier, but XP (running Firefox, Outlook, and Excel only) crashed, and I had to pull the battery out. I'm using the ThinkPad because my kids are camped out on the Macs.]
No doubt there are many who bought Macs as fashion, or due to hype. But they are by no means the majority.
That will come as a surprise to Fortune magazine:http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...une/index.html
so you think (as a consumer I guess) that its good that Apple can be applauded by business leaders.??
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.
What if Apple licensed OS X to 3rd partys on generic hardware. They could quadruple profits overnight andf really shake up the industry. The business leaders would love them more but I'm guessing you and other APple loyalists wouldn't be happy.
once again...
12m out of 260m.....
if you are happy being fleeced then fair play and good luck to you, I'll just stay happily in the 248m camp.
Still, iLife doesn't justify the cost of the Mac over a PC though. For anyone on a budget or doesnt want to break the bank, PC's are still the better value for it does practically everything a Mac does. This doesn't mean Mac's suck though. It just means its geared towards a different market segment.
If you are on a budget you shouldn't be looking at any of Apple's products seriously.
Frankly I'm willing to pay whatever Apple charges as long as I don't have to use Windows. We are tired of fighting our machines because of viruses, we want to use our computers, not fight it. I was in a computer shop a couple of days ago and the amount of Dell machines in the shop there, the owners were just frustrated with having to fight the machines, they were infected with viruses and they couldn't get anything done. One guy was finding to do his course because his computer was always in the shop because of viruses. Good thing Mac users don't have to do deal with this crap. No wonder Apple has the highest satisfcation rates in the industry, while the likes of Dell and HP are near the bottom. These days nobody gives a crap about how much ghz, gigabytes their computer has, they just want a computer that does what they need to do with the right software and something they don't have to have fight Apple is providing this choice for a lot of people. Dell can keep their 300 dollar virus ridden computers.
ignorance affects all, not just windows users.