Form over function. Nothing new. The iMac "desktop" has been a laptop on a stick (or in an inverted bowl) for many years.
Apple's profit margins being twice the industry average (and sometimes more) is the direct indicator of the "Apple tax". The value of the Mac over a PC is a perceived one by many people. It's one of simple taste. The intangibles (thus the tax) are made possible by being different through both software and enclosures. Those that are sold by it will accept those perceptions that Apple sells (obviously) despite real-world costs. (i.e. iLife and OSX together are worth only $169 retail and are already figured into the price as Apple sees fit to price it, not the actual several hundred dollar difference between machines of comparable specs.)
The other arguments like "better parts", etc. are often fluff to convince themselves about the value of the purchase they bought. And everything else on the market is crap because they've accepted Apple as their lifestyle brand. Push Pepsi on any hardcore Coke drinker... same thing.
When the math doesn't add up and is dared to be brought up, the argument often gets redirected into what users "need". i.e. You only need the specs that conveniently match that of Apple products, being their bottom line of that circular debate.
My only particular beef with Apple are the huge, gaping holes in the lineup which are beyond excuse IMO... Except of course when Apple's profitability is the iron-clad defense rubbed into my face for wanting something not available in the gimped lineup. As if their profitability (thanks much to said tax and other non-computer products) 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, thanks to the warped value-add model.
In any event, the gaping holes being:
- No 15" laptop under $2000.
- No 17" laptop under $2800.
- No desktop with upgradable graphics (or any real desktop at all, period) under $2500.
- and others.
Form over function? You must be kidding.
I'd say that Macs provide both, Form AND function. The OS makes the difference and the hardware definitely compliments the usability and overall user experience.
Which in itself is worth the price of admission. I don't subscribe to the concept that cheaper is better; it leaves out the most expensive component: my time and productivity.
Having used all flavors of Macs and Windows and all major manufacturers hardware for many years, I can say that Apple computers/Mac OS has been the cheapest offering money can buy.
You don't think it a bit dramatic to say you are being ripped off for a product you haven't purchased and seem to have no desire to purchase?
If you don't feel its a good deal don't buy it. Its as simple as that. The reason Apple did not do a further upgrade is because they feel fewer people will buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Keep attempting. We're in a credit crunch and we're being ripped off.
The short of it is that Apple are using their software to sell overpriced, novelty hardware.
which the courts have stated they have a legal right to do.
so the answer is simple. if you don't like the hardware, don't buy Apple. if you choose to hack the software don't pretend that you are not violating several of Apple's legal rights, are entitled to do so because Apple won't give you what you want, etc.
but Apple is going to do what THEY feel is the best, which is also their right. And they do not see a market for headless machines as their lead machine. And given how long their imac line has last, they might just be onto something. heck I work in Final Cut Studio and when I replaced my PowerMac last year I got the 3.06 iMac with no issues. I"m about to buy another one -- thankful that this time I don't have to pay extra for the bumps to 4gb of ram and a full 1tb harddrive.
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.
Of course we realize that Apple is a business. Apple had better have their offices filled with computer geeks concerned with spec sheets considering the fact that their business is making computers. Apple, as a business, is counting in part on consumers making purchasing decisions based on emotion and perception. However, many consumers are also businesses or are capable of applying business-like rationale towards their decision on whether or not to buy Apple's "new" product, or wait. Those who need a computer immediately will generally purchase whatever the current model happens to be because that is what their need dictates?that's always the case. Those who can wait a while will weigh the opportunity cost of purchasing now vs. purchasing future equipment. I think the current lineup has only slightly improved in performance. IMO that means those who were willing to wait up until now will probably continue to wait especially given the current economy. In fact, the modest increase in performance coupled with price adjustments upwards will probably confirm for many that waiting to buy was the right choice and inspire some to wait even longer than if Apple had no new releases at all.
Apple's approach to this line of updates seems to mimic that of many pharmaceutical companies. Take an existing product, tweak it slightly with minimal additional R&D costs or change in manufacturing costs, call it "new" and bump the price up, and attempt to get more mileage from basically the same product they've been selling. This might be a smart business decision, but I can tell you this is one customer that will not be inspired to buy now, unless my current machine dies with no hope of resurrection. IMO, if Apple had no really substantial change in architecture to wow us with this go around of intel chips' performance, they would do better to increase sales in a slagging economy by offering something else to make up for it. More aggressive pricing would be the easiest considering their high profit margin. That is something they have room to play with and may do so later, but I doubt it. They could have changed the form factor or introduced a new product, like a headless mini-tower. A new product comes with some risky new manufacturing costs, but if the things sell, than it would be a worthwhile gamble and would open up a whole new market to Apple .
So Apple, in these hard economic times, has to decide which of the following is the better approach. Is it better to milk their current market and hope a performance bumps in virtually the same products will optimize their manufacturing costs combined with their high profit margin will hold out over slumping sales? Or, should they go after a new market by introducing a new product and go after a significant increase in sales volume. Given how long Apple has allowed the demand for a mini-tower to go unanswered, I think the latter decision would be the best. It would have offered a really new product, reinvigorated excitement about their product lineup in general, and increased the number of switchers and Mac veterans alike who would be willing to spend money in hard-times to get the machine they've been waiting for as long as they feel it represents a good value. That is what I happen to feel would be the better for Apple and the health of their business because, as a consumer, their current lineup is inspiring me to hold on to my cash until the next go-around for the sake of my own financial health.
Of course we realize that Apple is a business. Apple had better have their offices filled with computer geeks concerned with spec sheets considering the fact that their business is making computers.
I said Apple isn't run by a bunch of computer geeks only concerned with spec sheets.
Quote:
Apple, as a business, is counting in part on consumers making purchasing decisions based on emotion and perception. However, many consumers are also businesses or are capable of applying business-like rationale towards their decision on whether or not to buy Apple's "new" product, or wait.
Yes I know many people who use Macs for business. I rarely to never hear any of them talking about processor speeds, or motherboards, or any of that. They buy new computers when they feel they need a new one. They aren't looking at Apple's refresh roadmap.
Quote:
Apple's approach to this line of updates seems to mimic that of many pharmaceutical companies. Take an existing product, tweak it slightly with minimal additional R&D costs or change in manufacturing costs, call it "new" and bump the price up, and attempt to get more mileage from basically the same product they've been selling.
In the US the iMac is cheaper. International sales are determined more by the vagaries of currency rates and tariffs.
Quote:
So Apple, in these hard economic times, has to decide which of the following is the better approach. Is it better to milk their current market and hope a performance bumps in virtually the same products will optimize their manufacturing costs combined with their high profit margin will hold out over slumping sales? Or, should they go after a new market by introducing a new product and go after a significant increase in sales volume.
What new market are you talking about? Their is no new market, sales are down for everyone.
Quote:
Given how long Apple has allowed the demand for a mini-tower to go unanswered, I think the latter decision would be the best. It would have offered a really new product, reinvigorated excitement about their product lineup in general, and increased the number of switchers and Mac veterans alike who would be willing to spend money in hard-times to get the machine they've been waiting for as long as they feel it represents a good value. That is what I happen to feel would be the better for Apple and the health of their business because, as a consumer, their current lineup is inspiring me to hold on to my cash until the next go-around for the sake of my own financial health.
The projections don't support your story of events. The projections are that computer growth will be down 12% through 2009, desktop sales are expected to be down 31% through 2009. This is far worse than the last recession in 2001.
Its projected that 63% of computer sales will be notebooks, notebook sales are projected to grow 9% through 2009. The hottest selling computing device is the smartphone, they are projected to grow 11% over 2009.
With those projections what sense does it make to introduce a new desktop line when desktop sales are projected at historical lows.
Yes, the iMac is decent, nay good, against other all-in-ones.
Sadly that's not what many people care about, when they can get a standalone machine for a fraction of the price that outperforms it. They can choose the monitor they want. Everything they want.
If this was true then neither Dell nor HP nor Gateway nor Sony would have AIOs.
Sony dumped all towers for an AIO because there's no way to make good margins on low-mid range towers unless you're one of the bug guys (HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo). Even there Lenovo is not profitable at the moment.
Toshiba makes no desktops and still is #5 world wide.
The article is less conclusive than the title would lead you to believe. This passage reflects the conclusion of the author (on page 2):
Quote:
Taking all of this into consideration, the new Macs are indeed comparable with PCs in terms of hardware, but not yet on price. Of course, the fact that Apple hardware is overpriced is all but new news. In-Stat analyst Ian Lao calculated that for every dollar spent on a PC, users had to pay about $1.60 to get the similar Apple hardware -- a whopping 60 percent premium.
While Lao's estimate is now several years old and applied to Mac systems powered by PowerPC processors and Apple's proprietary hardware, both he and Shim warn today that Apple's latest Intel-based Macs still cost between 25% and 40% more than equally-spec'ed PC machines -- the estimate mostly echoed by other analysts across the board. With that in mind, you'd be forgiven for asking "So, why pay a premium for Apple?" in the first place.
The article is less conclusive than the title would lead you to believe. This passage reflects the conclusion of the author (on page 2):
That article is less than genuine. They mention a comparable machine being cheaper but seem to make no mention that the comparable machine would not one of the svelte designs from other vendors using notebook-grade parts, which obviously cost more to get the same price as using desktop-grade components. I have no problem with people not sharing the benefit of having a simple item to set up or wanting to build their own as the Mac offerings clearly aren't designed to fit everyone's needs, but TGDaily should have at least mentioned that they aren't comparing the same types of machines or the same components.
This article clearly states that they feel the Mac mini is too expensive, while they felt the iMac is appropriately priced.
The article compares the Mac mini to the ASUS Nova P22 Mini-PC. The Nova P22 uses Intel GMA X300 and 667MHz DDR2 RAM. But claims the Mac mini is too expensive in comparison.
This article clearly states that they feel the Mac mini is too expensive, while they felt the iMac is appropriately priced.
The article compares the Mac mini to the ASUS Nova P22 Mini-PC. The Nova P22 uses Intel GMA X300 and 667MHz DDR2 RAM. But claims the Mac mini is too expensive in comparison.
Anybody notice the number of 1st time crappers hitting the sites lately?
yes, and it's annoying as hell. A few years ago, I could read nearly any post and find something intelligent in it - even if it were just X arguing with Y over a point.
I'd say that Macs provide both, Form AND function. The OS makes the difference and the hardware definitely compliments the usability and overall user experience.
Which in itself is worth the price of admission. I don't subscribe to the concept that cheaper is better; it leaves out the most expensive component: my time and productivity.
Having used all flavors of Macs and Windows and all major manufacturers hardware for many years, I can say that Apple computers/Mac OS has been the cheapest offering money can buy.
"Macs" is a general term. Definitely, Macs have form and function, but certain Macs (in this thread's case, iMac) make compromises for the sake of the form factor. They were pushed thinner, forcing the use of lower-powered laptop parts, and standard quality desktop parts are difficult if not impossible to integrate. More expensive isn't always better either.
About the iMac this is true. A lot of compromises are made to fit its form factor. But their is a reason for this. The iMac is mostly targeted at consumers at best pro-sumers. Its not intended to be a professional machine. With a wide choice of USB peripherals and and high density storage, 8GB maximum memory, their is less need for expansion slots and multiple hard drive slots.
Consumers marvel at the slim AIO nature of the iMac. Apple's desktop sales rose 14% to 936,000 desktop sold. This was the most desktops Apple has ever sold in one quarter. It happened during the quarter of the initial launch of the current aluminum/glass iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowayout11
"Macs" is a general term. Definitely, Macs have form and function, but certain Macs (in this thread's case, iMac) make compromises for the sake of the form factor. They were pushed thinner, forcing the use of lower-powered laptop parts, and standard quality desktop parts are difficult if not impossible to integrate. More expensive isn't always better either.
I said Apple isn't run by a bunch of computer geeks only concerned with spec sheets.
Apple was started by, and still headed by computer geeks concerned with spec sheets. You do know who Steve Jobs is don't you? If that guy isn't a spec-sheet lovin' computer geek, than no one is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Yes I know many people who use Macs for business. I rarely to never hear any of them talking about processor speeds, or motherboards, or any of that. They buy new computers when they feel they need a new one. They aren't looking at Apple's refresh roadmap.
The entire creative field is a business. Animation and video editing in general plus 3D for everything from product illustration, architectural rending and animated walkthroughs and multimedia in general, not to mention live HD video feeds for large stage, large auditorium trade shows and conferencing depend on processor intense activities. You must have not included any of them in your conversations because their main objective in upgrading equipment has everything to do with processor speeds and mother boards. They time their purchasing accordingly and those that use Macs are well aware of Apple hardware roadmaps. Just because you have no personal involvement in, or aren't knowledgeable about the needs of an entire industry doesn't make them insignificant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
In the US the iMac is cheaper. International sales are determined more by the vagaries of currency rates and tariffs.
Who said anything about the vagaries of currency rates and what does that have to do with the US market?I'd say that particular market is of great significance to Apple. People in the US are just as concerned with dollar per performance as the rest of the world when they consider purchasing new equipment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
What new market are you talking about? Their is no new market, sales are down for everyone.
The market in which mid-range desktops is populated by Dells, HPs, Sonys, etc. The one in which Apple currently has no product to offer. A vertical laptop with the associated premium in parts costs and production but without the portability hardly counts. There may be a current downward trend in that particular market but it doesn't mean it is insignificant or on it's way to irrelevance?far from it. You won't see the above mentioned manufacturers pulling out of it anytime soon. The iMac is obviously very popular in the niche of all-in-ones. However, as a share of the computer market as a whole, all-in-ones are an even tinier market, yet Apple does very well for themselves by maintaining a presence there and has chosen to put practically most of it's computer eggs in that basket. Think of how many more sales they could slice away from their competition if they added the mid-range desktop as part of their lineup. For all intents and purposes, that would be a new market for Apple because they abandoned it some time ago. If you think there is no market for an Apple branded mid-ranged headless Mac I suggest you read more posts here, visit other sites, and read more articles from industry folks who suggest Apple address that void in their offerings. Google is your friend. Portable music players, smart phones, laptops, workstations?Apple enjoys success in the products they put forth so far. Again, their share of the entire market is low, but overall market share is obviously no deterrent to their profitability. Their success has more to do with maintaining "enough" market share plus marginal increase and being perceived as an innovator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The projections don't support your story of events. The projections are that computer growth will be down 12% through 2009, desktop sales are expected to be down 31% through 2009. This is far worse than the last recession in 2001.
Its projected that 63% of computer sales will be notebooks, notebook sales are projected to grow 9% through 2009. The hottest selling computing device is the smartphone, they are projected to grow 11% over 2009.
With those projections what sense does it make to introduce a new desktop line when desktop sales are projected at historical lows.
It makes sense to have presence in a market where you currently have no presence as long as you make the better product. I'm no expert by far, but I speculate that in times of a shrinking economy, a company that is innovative in finding ways to expand sales and remain nimble will do better than one that is too slow to react, contracts too much, or develops a strategy based on a fear of numbers. It doesn't matter if a market as a whole is shrinking as long as you are increasing your own sales with in it. A re-alinement of the percentage of desktops vs. the percentage of laptops in computer sales as a whole does not mean the desktop market is insignificant or becoming inherently unprofitable for every computer mfg. who gives it a go. The percentage of people relying on bicycles as their primary means of local transportation went down drastically with the advent of the automobile, yet people still purchase bicycles. If you enter that market with a better bicycle, you can still be a winner in that segment. Trek is probably doing better than GMC right about now?things change ;-).
The same goes for computers and widgets. Apple still exists today because it excels in carving out it's own niches. There is a saturation point for the niche marketer in any industry, so a company that excels in niche products needs to find new niches if it wants to protect it's profits. Netbook sales, although currently slow, are bound to increase with the current down turn, but Jobs has stated his express desire to give that market a pass. What area is left for Apple to quickly rise as an innovator during an economic crisis? Which is better, create an entirely new product that doesn't exist, or create a different version of something you already make aimed at a market you could excel in? Apple did it with MP3 players, phones, and all-in-ones. Why not do it again with desktops? One could easily argue that a shrinking desktop market is actually in Apple's favor because it means the their competitors are struggling, all Apple has to do is be better at selling Macs. The number of windows desktop computers is shrinking: the number of desktops running OS X has shrunken too much. Again, Apple only needs to have a profitable presence to increase it's own sales, not rescue an entire from factor for an entire industry.
I visit Mac forums and PC forums alike. Anecdotally, the thing I read most that keeps PC users who are interested in Macs but are on the fence about switching is they can't afford a workstation, the mini isn't powerful enough, and they don't want an iMac because it doesn't suit their needs. I've also read quite a few posts from life-long Mac users considering joining Darth Gates and going over to the dark-side for the same reason. An economic downturn and the choice between a workstation or a machine you don't really want will only increase that pull for those who won't ooh and ah over an iMac?and there are plenty of Mac users who don't like iMacs for a number of reasons, even though there are many who do.
The entire creative field is a business. Animation and video editing in general plus 3D for everything from product illustration, architectural rending and animated walkthroughs and multimedia in general, not to mention live HD video feeds for large stage, large auditorium trade shows and conferencing depend on processor intense activities. You must have not included any of them in your conversations because their main objective in upgrading equipment has everything to do with processor speeds and mother boards. They time their purchasing accordingly and those that use Macs are well aware of Apple hardware roadmaps. Just because you have no personal involvement in, or aren't knowledgeable about the needs of an entire industry doesn't make them insignificant.
I work with several high end post production facilities in New York. What you often find in places like that are a mix of machines used for differing purposes. They have some old and some new machines depending on the job that machine needs to accomplish.
I know of one commercial post house that refreshes its machines around every 18 to 24 months. The Mac Pro has gotten to the point where they can get a lot out of it before they feel they will need to get another.
Quote:
Who said anything about the vagaries of currency rates and what does that have to do with the US market—I'd say that particular market is of great significance to Apple. People in the US are just as concerned with dollar per performance as the rest of the world when they consider purchasing new equipment.
Apple lowered iMac prices in the US. The only area I've seen prices raised are internationally where price fluctuates more.
Quote:
The market in which mid-range desktops is populated by Dells, HPs, Sonys, etc. The one in which Apple currently has no product to offer. A vertical laptop with the associated premium in parts costs and production but without the portability hardly counts. There may be a current downward trend in that particular market but it doesn't mean it is insignificant or on it's way to irrelevance—far from it. You won't see the above mentioned manufacturers pulling out of it anytime soon.
Mid-range desktops are not a money making market. Dell and HP use midrange desktops to fight for marketshare and brand loyalty. Consumers desktop purchase is quickly declining, enterprise and business purchases are largely propping up desktop sales. Apple is more of a consumer company than enterprise and business company.
Quote:
It makes sense to have presence in a market where you currently have no presence as long as you make the better product. I'm no expert by far, but I speculate that in times of a shrinking economy, a company that is innovative in finding ways to expand sales and remain nimble will do better than one that is too slow to react, contracts too much, or develops a strategy based on a fear of numbers. It doesn't matter if a market as a whole is shrinking as long as you are increasing your own sales with in it. A re-alinement of the percentage of desktops vs. the percentage of laptops in computer sales as a whole does not mean the desktop market is insignificant or becoming inherently unprofitable for every computer mfg. who gives it a go. The percentage of people relying on bicycles as their primary means of local transportation went down drastically with the advent of the automobile, yet people still purchase bicycles. If you enter that market with a better bicycle, you can still be a winner in that segment. Trek is probably doing better than GMC right about now—things change ;-).
You are making a largely circular argument to avoid the simple truth. Desktops are not the profitable portion of the market. That is the simple truth. Notebooks and smartphones are the growing and most future profitable parts of the market.
Quote:
Why not do it again with desktops? One could easily argue that a shrinking desktop market is actually in Apple's favor because it means the number of their competitors there are shrinking as well. Again, Apple only needs to have a profitable presence to increase it's own sales, not rescue an entire from factor for an entire industry.
You miss the reason why desktop sales are declining. The future is about portability. Desktops are not portable. There is no way to innovate around that.
Smartphones are projected to sell 192.8 million units this year.
Notebooks are projected to sell 155.6 million units this year.
Desktops are projected to sell 81 million units this year.
Quote:
I visit Mac forums and PC forums alike. Anecdotally, the thing I read most that keeps PC users who are interested in Macs but are on the fence about switching is they can't afford a workstation, the mini isn't powerful enough, and they don't want an iMac because it doesn't suit their needs. I've also read quite a few posts from life-long Mac users considering joining Darth Gates and going over to the dark-side for the same reason. An economic downturn and the choice between a workstation or a machine you don't really want will only increase that pull for those who won't ooh and ah over an iMac—and there are plenty of Mac users who don't like iMacs for a number of reasons, even though there are many who do.
There are always people who complain, you cannot please everyone. These people you speak of are not representative of the market as a whole. The sales numbers are overwhelmingly against mid-range desktops.
which the courts have stated they have a legal right to do.
It's not about legality, there are limits of what consumers are willing to accept. If they sold the Mini for over £1,000 would you use the same argument? It's legal for them to do it but it's not very good for customer relations. it's not just about purchases but recommendations. I would probably still recommend their laptops to others but nothing else. A reasonable premium makes sense to me and I can justify it to people. When a PC user wants a high end rendering machine and they say they can get a PC to do this for £500 or so, what do I tell them? That they can get that experience if they pay just 360% more for Apple's cheapest quad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
And given how long their imac line has last, they might just be onto something.
What they are onto is a way of holding out the inevitable stopping point for the entire computer industry growth. They do this by using mobile components, which don't progress nearly as quickly as the desktop components. They divert the selling point from performance value to aesthetics.
The iMac only lasts because Apple have a loyal following and also target a small subset of users to whom simplicity trumps even the highest price tag. Look at how AIOs flop in sales on the PC side. The iMac would do the same if Apple had a good value desktop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenobell
The sales numbers are overwhelmingly against mid-range desktops.
If you mean number shipped, that's not true. Apple and AIO models sell a fraction of the number of mid-range towers. The definition of mid-range get a bit blurry though when you consider that Apple's high end iMac (£1800) is half the speed of a PC manufacturer's base-level quad core (£550).
It's not about legality, there are limits of what consumers are willing to accept. If they sold the Mini for over £1,000 would you use the same argument? It's legal for them to do it but it's not very good for customer relations.
That's the reason we exist in a free market, where consumers have the ability to choose.
Quote:
The iMac only lasts because Apple have a loyal following and also target a small subset of users to whom simplicity trumps even the highest price tag. Look at how AIOs flop in sales on the PC side. The iMac would do the same if Apple had a good value desktop.
Dell nor HP can compete with Apple on AIO design. Apple used to sell desktops that were not much more expensive than the iMac. Under these circumstances the iMac sold well.
Quote:
If you mean number shipped, that's not true. Apple and AIO models sell a fraction of the number of mid-range towers. The definition of mid-range get a bit blurry though when you consider that Apple's high end iMac (£1800) is half the speed of a PC manufacturer's base-level quad core (£550).
The context of my statement was about general desktop sales. Shipping numbers are going down year over year.
You keep mentioning the mythic quad core PC that is twice as fast and half as cheap as the iMac, but you never seem to present an actual machine or benchmarks that prove its performance.
Look at how AIOs flop in sales on the PC side. The iMac would do the same if Apple had a good value desktop.
I think your logic is flawed. I don't see desktops from any vendors (except maybe vendors that cater to gamers) thriving. Desktops keep losing marketshare each year and there is no reason to expect that their will be a mass exodus back to segmented desktop setups. People seem to prefer the compactness and potability of notebooks with the iMac at least giving the compactness aspect with ease of setup.
Your logic would dictate that if AIOs are so unattractive to the consumer then their sales percentages shouldn't be growing while other vendor desktop sales percentages are shrinking. Are you insinuating that the look of the machine is selling it, but it's not being used? Or that Mac OS X is selling it despite people not wanting them? How does your argument fall to notebooks which are, in themselves, true All-In-One machines.
Comments
Many of us are attempting to bring balance and perspective to the discussion.
Keep attempting. We're in a credit crunch and we're being ripped off.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Form over function. Nothing new. The iMac "desktop" has been a laptop on a stick (or in an inverted bowl) for many years.
Apple's profit margins being twice the industry average (and sometimes more) is the direct indicator of the "Apple tax". The value of the Mac over a PC is a perceived one by many people. It's one of simple taste. The intangibles (thus the tax) are made possible by being different through both software and enclosures. Those that are sold by it will accept those perceptions that Apple sells (obviously) despite real-world costs. (i.e. iLife and OSX together are worth only $169 retail and are already figured into the price as Apple sees fit to price it, not the actual several hundred dollar difference between machines of comparable specs.)
The other arguments like "better parts", etc. are often fluff to convince themselves about the value of the purchase they bought. And everything else on the market is crap because they've accepted Apple as their lifestyle brand. Push Pepsi on any hardcore Coke drinker... same thing.
When the math doesn't add up and is dared to be brought up, the argument often gets redirected into what users "need". i.e. You only need the specs that conveniently match that of Apple products, being their bottom line of that circular debate.
My only particular beef with Apple are the huge, gaping holes in the lineup which are beyond excuse IMO... Except of course when Apple's profitability is the iron-clad defense rubbed into my face for wanting something not available in the gimped lineup. As if their profitability (thanks much to said tax and other non-computer products) 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, thanks to the warped value-add model.
In any event, the gaping holes being:
- No 15" laptop under $2000.
- No 17" laptop under $2800.
- No desktop with upgradable graphics (or any real desktop at all, period) under $2500.
- and others.
Form over function? You must be kidding.
I'd say that Macs provide both, Form AND function. The OS makes the difference and the hardware definitely compliments the usability and overall user experience.
Which in itself is worth the price of admission. I don't subscribe to the concept that cheaper is better; it leaves out the most expensive component: my time and productivity.
Having used all flavors of Macs and Windows and all major manufacturers hardware for many years, I can say that Apple computers/Mac OS has been the cheapest offering money can buy.
If you don't feel its a good deal don't buy it. Its as simple as that. The reason Apple did not do a further upgrade is because they feel fewer people will buy it.
Keep attempting. We're in a credit crunch and we're being ripped off.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The short of it is that Apple are using their software to sell overpriced, novelty hardware.
which the courts have stated they have a legal right to do.
so the answer is simple. if you don't like the hardware, don't buy Apple. if you choose to hack the software don't pretend that you are not violating several of Apple's legal rights, are entitled to do so because Apple won't give you what you want, etc.
but Apple is going to do what THEY feel is the best, which is also their right. And they do not see a market for headless machines as their lead machine. And given how long their imac line has last, they might just be onto something. heck I work in Final Cut Studio and when I replaced my PowerMac last year I got the 3.06 iMac with no issues. I"m about to buy another one -- thankful that this time I don't have to pay extra for the bumps to 4gb of ram and a full 1tb harddrive.
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.
Of course we realize that Apple is a business. Apple had better have their offices filled with computer geeks concerned with spec sheets considering the fact that their business is making computers. Apple, as a business, is counting in part on consumers making purchasing decisions based on emotion and perception. However, many consumers are also businesses or are capable of applying business-like rationale towards their decision on whether or not to buy Apple's "new" product, or wait. Those who need a computer immediately will generally purchase whatever the current model happens to be because that is what their need dictates?that's always the case. Those who can wait a while will weigh the opportunity cost of purchasing now vs. purchasing future equipment. I think the current lineup has only slightly improved in performance. IMO that means those who were willing to wait up until now will probably continue to wait especially given the current economy. In fact, the modest increase in performance coupled with price adjustments upwards will probably confirm for many that waiting to buy was the right choice and inspire some to wait even longer than if Apple had no new releases at all.
Apple's approach to this line of updates seems to mimic that of many pharmaceutical companies. Take an existing product, tweak it slightly with minimal additional R&D costs or change in manufacturing costs, call it "new" and bump the price up, and attempt to get more mileage from basically the same product they've been selling. This might be a smart business decision, but I can tell you this is one customer that will not be inspired to buy now, unless my current machine dies with no hope of resurrection. IMO, if Apple had no really substantial change in architecture to wow us with this go around of intel chips' performance, they would do better to increase sales in a slagging economy by offering something else to make up for it. More aggressive pricing would be the easiest considering their high profit margin. That is something they have room to play with and may do so later, but I doubt it. They could have changed the form factor or introduced a new product, like a headless mini-tower. A new product comes with some risky new manufacturing costs, but if the things sell, than it would be a worthwhile gamble and would open up a whole new market to Apple .
So Apple, in these hard economic times, has to decide which of the following is the better approach. Is it better to milk their current market and hope a performance bumps in virtually the same products will optimize their manufacturing costs combined with their high profit margin will hold out over slumping sales? Or, should they go after a new market by introducing a new product and go after a significant increase in sales volume. Given how long Apple has allowed the demand for a mini-tower to go unanswered, I think the latter decision would be the best. It would have offered a really new product, reinvigorated excitement about their product lineup in general, and increased the number of switchers and Mac veterans alike who would be willing to spend money in hard-times to get the machine they've been waiting for as long as they feel it represents a good value. That is what I happen to feel would be the better for Apple and the health of their business because, as a consumer, their current lineup is inspiring me to hold on to my cash until the next go-around for the sake of my own financial health.
Of course we realize that Apple is a business. Apple had better have their offices filled with computer geeks concerned with spec sheets considering the fact that their business is making computers.
I said Apple isn't run by a bunch of computer geeks only concerned with spec sheets.
Apple, as a business, is counting in part on consumers making purchasing decisions based on emotion and perception. However, many consumers are also businesses or are capable of applying business-like rationale towards their decision on whether or not to buy Apple's "new" product, or wait.
Yes I know many people who use Macs for business. I rarely to never hear any of them talking about processor speeds, or motherboards, or any of that. They buy new computers when they feel they need a new one. They aren't looking at Apple's refresh roadmap.
Apple's approach to this line of updates seems to mimic that of many pharmaceutical companies. Take an existing product, tweak it slightly with minimal additional R&D costs or change in manufacturing costs, call it "new" and bump the price up, and attempt to get more mileage from basically the same product they've been selling.
In the US the iMac is cheaper. International sales are determined more by the vagaries of currency rates and tariffs.
So Apple, in these hard economic times, has to decide which of the following is the better approach. Is it better to milk their current market and hope a performance bumps in virtually the same products will optimize their manufacturing costs combined with their high profit margin will hold out over slumping sales? Or, should they go after a new market by introducing a new product and go after a significant increase in sales volume.
What new market are you talking about? Their is no new market, sales are down for everyone.
Given how long Apple has allowed the demand for a mini-tower to go unanswered, I think the latter decision would be the best. It would have offered a really new product, reinvigorated excitement about their product lineup in general, and increased the number of switchers and Mac veterans alike who would be willing to spend money in hard-times to get the machine they've been waiting for as long as they feel it represents a good value. That is what I happen to feel would be the better for Apple and the health of their business because, as a consumer, their current lineup is inspiring me to hold on to my cash until the next go-around for the sake of my own financial health.
The projections don't support your story of events. The projections are that computer growth will be down 12% through 2009, desktop sales are expected to be down 31% through 2009. This is far worse than the last recession in 2001.
Its projected that 63% of computer sales will be notebooks, notebook sales are projected to grow 9% through 2009. The hottest selling computing device is the smartphone, they are projected to grow 11% over 2009.
With those projections what sense does it make to introduce a new desktop line when desktop sales are projected at historical lows.
A flawed comparison.
Yes, the iMac is decent, nay good, against other all-in-ones.
Sadly that's not what many people care about, when they can get a standalone machine for a fraction of the price that outperforms it. They can choose the monitor they want. Everything they want.
If this was true then neither Dell nor HP nor Gateway nor Sony would have AIOs.
Sony dumped all towers for an AIO because there's no way to make good margins on low-mid range towers unless you're one of the bug guys (HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo). Even there Lenovo is not profitable at the moment.
Toshiba makes no desktops and still is #5 world wide.
Apple tax on the latest Mac gear: 40 percent @ http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...41629-135.html
The article is less conclusive than the title would lead you to believe. This passage reflects the conclusion of the author (on page 2):
Taking all of this into consideration, the new Macs are indeed comparable with PCs in terms of hardware, but not yet on price. Of course, the fact that Apple hardware is overpriced is all but new news. In-Stat analyst Ian Lao calculated that for every dollar spent on a PC, users had to pay about $1.60 to get the similar Apple hardware -- a whopping 60 percent premium.
While Lao's estimate is now several years old and applied to Mac systems powered by PowerPC processors and Apple's proprietary hardware, both he and Shim warn today that Apple's latest Intel-based Macs still cost between 25% and 40% more than equally-spec'ed PC machines -- the estimate mostly echoed by other analysts across the board. With that in mind, you'd be forgiven for asking "So, why pay a premium for Apple?" in the first place.
For a review of the debate on the Apple tax, see:
Apple tax on the latest Mac gear: 40 percent @ http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...41629-135.html
The article is less conclusive than the title would lead you to believe. This passage reflects the conclusion of the author (on page 2):
That article is less than genuine. They mention a comparable machine being cheaper but seem to make no mention that the comparable machine would not one of the svelte designs from other vendors using notebook-grade parts, which obviously cost more to get the same price as using desktop-grade components. I have no problem with people not sharing the benefit of having a simple item to set up or wanting to build their own as the Mac offerings clearly aren't designed to fit everyone's needs, but TGDaily should have at least mentioned that they aren't comparing the same types of machines or the same components.
The article compares the Mac mini to the ASUS Nova P22 Mini-PC. The Nova P22 uses Intel GMA X300 and 667MHz DDR2 RAM. But claims the Mac mini is too expensive in comparison.
For a review of the debate on the Apple tax, see:
Apple tax on the latest Mac gear: 40 percent @ http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...41629-135.html
The article is less conclusive than the title would lead you to believe. This passage reflects the conclusion of the author (on page 2):
This article clearly states that they feel the Mac mini is too expensive, while they felt the iMac is appropriately priced.
The article compares the Mac mini to the ASUS Nova P22 Mini-PC. The Nova P22 uses Intel GMA X300 and 667MHz DDR2 RAM. But claims the Mac mini is too expensive in comparison.
I clearly missed the Asus mention in my perusing.
Anybody notice the number of 1st time crappers hitting the sites lately?
yes, and it's annoying as hell. A few years ago, I could read nearly any post and find something intelligent in it - even if it were just X arguing with Y over a point.
Form over function? You must be kidding.
I'd say that Macs provide both, Form AND function. The OS makes the difference and the hardware definitely compliments the usability and overall user experience.
Which in itself is worth the price of admission. I don't subscribe to the concept that cheaper is better; it leaves out the most expensive component: my time and productivity.
Having used all flavors of Macs and Windows and all major manufacturers hardware for many years, I can say that Apple computers/Mac OS has been the cheapest offering money can buy.
"Macs" is a general term. Definitely, Macs have form and function, but certain Macs (in this thread's case, iMac) make compromises for the sake of the form factor. They were pushed thinner, forcing the use of lower-powered laptop parts, and standard quality desktop parts are difficult if not impossible to integrate. More expensive isn't always better either.
Consumers marvel at the slim AIO nature of the iMac. Apple's desktop sales rose 14% to 936,000 desktop sold. This was the most desktops Apple has ever sold in one quarter. It happened during the quarter of the initial launch of the current aluminum/glass iMac.
"Macs" is a general term. Definitely, Macs have form and function, but certain Macs (in this thread's case, iMac) make compromises for the sake of the form factor. They were pushed thinner, forcing the use of lower-powered laptop parts, and standard quality desktop parts are difficult if not impossible to integrate. More expensive isn't always better either.
I said Apple isn't run by a bunch of computer geeks only concerned with spec sheets.
Apple was started by, and still headed by computer geeks concerned with spec sheets. You do know who Steve Jobs is don't you? If that guy isn't a spec-sheet lovin' computer geek, than no one is.
Yes I know many people who use Macs for business. I rarely to never hear any of them talking about processor speeds, or motherboards, or any of that. They buy new computers when they feel they need a new one. They aren't looking at Apple's refresh roadmap.
The entire creative field is a business. Animation and video editing in general plus 3D for everything from product illustration, architectural rending and animated walkthroughs and multimedia in general, not to mention live HD video feeds for large stage, large auditorium trade shows and conferencing depend on processor intense activities. You must have not included any of them in your conversations because their main objective in upgrading equipment has everything to do with processor speeds and mother boards. They time their purchasing accordingly and those that use Macs are well aware of Apple hardware roadmaps. Just because you have no personal involvement in, or aren't knowledgeable about the needs of an entire industry doesn't make them insignificant.
In the US the iMac is cheaper. International sales are determined more by the vagaries of currency rates and tariffs.
Who said anything about the vagaries of currency rates and what does that have to do with the US market?I'd say that particular market is of great significance to Apple. People in the US are just as concerned with dollar per performance as the rest of the world when they consider purchasing new equipment.
What new market are you talking about? Their is no new market, sales are down for everyone.
The market in which mid-range desktops is populated by Dells, HPs, Sonys, etc. The one in which Apple currently has no product to offer. A vertical laptop with the associated premium in parts costs and production but without the portability hardly counts. There may be a current downward trend in that particular market but it doesn't mean it is insignificant or on it's way to irrelevance?far from it. You won't see the above mentioned manufacturers pulling out of it anytime soon. The iMac is obviously very popular in the niche of all-in-ones. However, as a share of the computer market as a whole, all-in-ones are an even tinier market, yet Apple does very well for themselves by maintaining a presence there and has chosen to put practically most of it's computer eggs in that basket. Think of how many more sales they could slice away from their competition if they added the mid-range desktop as part of their lineup. For all intents and purposes, that would be a new market for Apple because they abandoned it some time ago. If you think there is no market for an Apple branded mid-ranged headless Mac I suggest you read more posts here, visit other sites, and read more articles from industry folks who suggest Apple address that void in their offerings. Google is your friend. Portable music players, smart phones, laptops, workstations?Apple enjoys success in the products they put forth so far. Again, their share of the entire market is low, but overall market share is obviously no deterrent to their profitability. Their success has more to do with maintaining "enough" market share plus marginal increase and being perceived as an innovator.
The projections don't support your story of events. The projections are that computer growth will be down 12% through 2009, desktop sales are expected to be down 31% through 2009. This is far worse than the last recession in 2001.
Its projected that 63% of computer sales will be notebooks, notebook sales are projected to grow 9% through 2009. The hottest selling computing device is the smartphone, they are projected to grow 11% over 2009.
With those projections what sense does it make to introduce a new desktop line when desktop sales are projected at historical lows.
It makes sense to have presence in a market where you currently have no presence as long as you make the better product. I'm no expert by far, but I speculate that in times of a shrinking economy, a company that is innovative in finding ways to expand sales and remain nimble will do better than one that is too slow to react, contracts too much, or develops a strategy based on a fear of numbers. It doesn't matter if a market as a whole is shrinking as long as you are increasing your own sales with in it. A re-alinement of the percentage of desktops vs. the percentage of laptops in computer sales as a whole does not mean the desktop market is insignificant or becoming inherently unprofitable for every computer mfg. who gives it a go. The percentage of people relying on bicycles as their primary means of local transportation went down drastically with the advent of the automobile, yet people still purchase bicycles. If you enter that market with a better bicycle, you can still be a winner in that segment. Trek is probably doing better than GMC right about now?things change ;-).
The same goes for computers and widgets. Apple still exists today because it excels in carving out it's own niches. There is a saturation point for the niche marketer in any industry, so a company that excels in niche products needs to find new niches if it wants to protect it's profits. Netbook sales, although currently slow, are bound to increase with the current down turn, but Jobs has stated his express desire to give that market a pass. What area is left for Apple to quickly rise as an innovator during an economic crisis? Which is better, create an entirely new product that doesn't exist, or create a different version of something you already make aimed at a market you could excel in? Apple did it with MP3 players, phones, and all-in-ones. Why not do it again with desktops? One could easily argue that a shrinking desktop market is actually in Apple's favor because it means the their competitors are struggling, all Apple has to do is be better at selling Macs. The number of windows desktop computers is shrinking: the number of desktops running OS X has shrunken too much. Again, Apple only needs to have a profitable presence to increase it's own sales, not rescue an entire from factor for an entire industry.
I visit Mac forums and PC forums alike. Anecdotally, the thing I read most that keeps PC users who are interested in Macs but are on the fence about switching is they can't afford a workstation, the mini isn't powerful enough, and they don't want an iMac because it doesn't suit their needs. I've also read quite a few posts from life-long Mac users considering joining Darth Gates and going over to the dark-side for the same reason. An economic downturn and the choice between a workstation or a machine you don't really want will only increase that pull for those who won't ooh and ah over an iMac?and there are plenty of Mac users who don't like iMacs for a number of reasons, even though there are many who do.
The entire creative field is a business. Animation and video editing in general plus 3D for everything from product illustration, architectural rending and animated walkthroughs and multimedia in general, not to mention live HD video feeds for large stage, large auditorium trade shows and conferencing depend on processor intense activities. You must have not included any of them in your conversations because their main objective in upgrading equipment has everything to do with processor speeds and mother boards. They time their purchasing accordingly and those that use Macs are well aware of Apple hardware roadmaps. Just because you have no personal involvement in, or aren't knowledgeable about the needs of an entire industry doesn't make them insignificant.
I work with several high end post production facilities in New York. What you often find in places like that are a mix of machines used for differing purposes. They have some old and some new machines depending on the job that machine needs to accomplish.
I know of one commercial post house that refreshes its machines around every 18 to 24 months. The Mac Pro has gotten to the point where they can get a lot out of it before they feel they will need to get another.
Who said anything about the vagaries of currency rates and what does that have to do with the US market—I'd say that particular market is of great significance to Apple. People in the US are just as concerned with dollar per performance as the rest of the world when they consider purchasing new equipment.
Apple lowered iMac prices in the US. The only area I've seen prices raised are internationally where price fluctuates more.
The market in which mid-range desktops is populated by Dells, HPs, Sonys, etc. The one in which Apple currently has no product to offer. A vertical laptop with the associated premium in parts costs and production but without the portability hardly counts. There may be a current downward trend in that particular market but it doesn't mean it is insignificant or on it's way to irrelevance—far from it. You won't see the above mentioned manufacturers pulling out of it anytime soon.
Mid-range desktops are not a money making market. Dell and HP use midrange desktops to fight for marketshare and brand loyalty. Consumers desktop purchase is quickly declining, enterprise and business purchases are largely propping up desktop sales. Apple is more of a consumer company than enterprise and business company.
It makes sense to have presence in a market where you currently have no presence as long as you make the better product. I'm no expert by far, but I speculate that in times of a shrinking economy, a company that is innovative in finding ways to expand sales and remain nimble will do better than one that is too slow to react, contracts too much, or develops a strategy based on a fear of numbers. It doesn't matter if a market as a whole is shrinking as long as you are increasing your own sales with in it. A re-alinement of the percentage of desktops vs. the percentage of laptops in computer sales as a whole does not mean the desktop market is insignificant or becoming inherently unprofitable for every computer mfg. who gives it a go. The percentage of people relying on bicycles as their primary means of local transportation went down drastically with the advent of the automobile, yet people still purchase bicycles. If you enter that market with a better bicycle, you can still be a winner in that segment. Trek is probably doing better than GMC right about now—things change ;-).
You are making a largely circular argument to avoid the simple truth. Desktops are not the profitable portion of the market. That is the simple truth. Notebooks and smartphones are the growing and most future profitable parts of the market.
Why not do it again with desktops? One could easily argue that a shrinking desktop market is actually in Apple's favor because it means the number of their competitors there are shrinking as well. Again, Apple only needs to have a profitable presence to increase it's own sales, not rescue an entire from factor for an entire industry.
You miss the reason why desktop sales are declining. The future is about portability. Desktops are not portable. There is no way to innovate around that.
Smartphones are projected to sell 192.8 million units this year.
Notebooks are projected to sell 155.6 million units this year.
Desktops are projected to sell 81 million units this year.
I visit Mac forums and PC forums alike. Anecdotally, the thing I read most that keeps PC users who are interested in Macs but are on the fence about switching is they can't afford a workstation, the mini isn't powerful enough, and they don't want an iMac because it doesn't suit their needs. I've also read quite a few posts from life-long Mac users considering joining Darth Gates and going over to the dark-side for the same reason. An economic downturn and the choice between a workstation or a machine you don't really want will only increase that pull for those who won't ooh and ah over an iMac—and there are plenty of Mac users who don't like iMacs for a number of reasons, even though there are many who do.
There are always people who complain, you cannot please everyone. These people you speak of are not representative of the market as a whole. The sales numbers are overwhelmingly against mid-range desktops.
which the courts have stated they have a legal right to do.
It's not about legality, there are limits of what consumers are willing to accept. If they sold the Mini for over £1,000 would you use the same argument? It's legal for them to do it but it's not very good for customer relations. it's not just about purchases but recommendations. I would probably still recommend their laptops to others but nothing else. A reasonable premium makes sense to me and I can justify it to people. When a PC user wants a high end rendering machine and they say they can get a PC to do this for £500 or so, what do I tell them? That they can get that experience if they pay just 360% more for Apple's cheapest quad?
And given how long their imac line has last, they might just be onto something.
What they are onto is a way of holding out the inevitable stopping point for the entire computer industry growth. They do this by using mobile components, which don't progress nearly as quickly as the desktop components. They divert the selling point from performance value to aesthetics.
The iMac only lasts because Apple have a loyal following and also target a small subset of users to whom simplicity trumps even the highest price tag. Look at how AIOs flop in sales on the PC side. The iMac would do the same if Apple had a good value desktop.
The sales numbers are overwhelmingly against mid-range desktops.
If you mean number shipped, that's not true. Apple and AIO models sell a fraction of the number of mid-range towers. The definition of mid-range get a bit blurry though when you consider that Apple's high end iMac (£1800) is half the speed of a PC manufacturer's base-level quad core (£550).
It's not about legality, there are limits of what consumers are willing to accept. If they sold the Mini for over £1,000 would you use the same argument? It's legal for them to do it but it's not very good for customer relations.
That's the reason we exist in a free market, where consumers have the ability to choose.
The iMac only lasts because Apple have a loyal following and also target a small subset of users to whom simplicity trumps even the highest price tag. Look at how AIOs flop in sales on the PC side. The iMac would do the same if Apple had a good value desktop.
Dell nor HP can compete with Apple on AIO design. Apple used to sell desktops that were not much more expensive than the iMac. Under these circumstances the iMac sold well.
If you mean number shipped, that's not true. Apple and AIO models sell a fraction of the number of mid-range towers. The definition of mid-range get a bit blurry though when you consider that Apple's high end iMac (£1800) is half the speed of a PC manufacturer's base-level quad core (£550).
The context of my statement was about general desktop sales. Shipping numbers are going down year over year.
You keep mentioning the mythic quad core PC that is twice as fast and half as cheap as the iMac, but you never seem to present an actual machine or benchmarks that prove its performance.
Look at how AIOs flop in sales on the PC side. The iMac would do the same if Apple had a good value desktop.
I think your logic is flawed. I don't see desktops from any vendors (except maybe vendors that cater to gamers) thriving. Desktops keep losing marketshare each year and there is no reason to expect that their will be a mass exodus back to segmented desktop setups. People seem to prefer the compactness and potability of notebooks with the iMac at least giving the compactness aspect with ease of setup.
Your logic would dictate that if AIOs are so unattractive to the consumer then their sales percentages shouldn't be growing while other vendor desktop sales percentages are shrinking. Are you insinuating that the look of the machine is selling it, but it's not being used? Or that Mac OS X is selling it despite people not wanting them? How does your argument fall to notebooks which are, in themselves, true All-In-One machines.
Look at how AIOs flop in sales on the PC side. The iMac would do the same if Apple had a good value desktop.
If the AIOs are such a flop, why do Dell, Sony, HP and Gateway all offer them? Are they all idiots?