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.
By your logic you must conclude, on its face, that the Dell and Lenovo whose systems are equivalent to a Mac Pro must be overpriced as well. To not include them as being overpriced is to ignore facts.
If netbooks are so crappy, then they will only serve to lower people's opinion of windows, and make it more likely that they get a Mac when the netbook finally karks it.
I love that word "kark" - did you make it up, or do people actually use it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrandersoniii
iLife alone is worth nearly a $100 in the Mac world... and would probably take $200 - $300 in the Windoze world to (poorly) replicate.
I agree it's worth $100 IF you USE it. I never use a bit of it anymore (I'm a Photoshop user, don't make movies or edit sound, e.g.,), nor do most of my Mac owning friends, and nobody's gonna give me $100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil Maneker
My estimation is that Apple will provide a lower entry point for the consumer products and have all component upgrades trickle down through the highest entry point for the Macbook and iMac. Margins will be nearly-sustained by delivering a product containing lowest-tiered components.
Seems pretty simple to me. Use parts that were cutting edge Mac quality when released, but which have gone down in price near the end of their life cycles - a slightly slower processor, e.g., and have this model as entry level. No extra engineering. Margins preserved. A Mac that's as fast as they could have gotten the year before and been thrilled with. Just one more SKU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxy
Apple's consumer-level hardware (i.e., excluding the Mac Pro) compares unfavorably to that of other manufacturers, especially when price is considered. The only justification for calling a Mac a "premium" product is OS X, and despite that it is getting harder to make a case for the whole package. When Windows 7 comes out, Apple will find much stiffer competition from the Windows world.
Bah-loney. For one thing, the total design of hardware and software adds value and ergonomic benefits. I go nuts when I'm using a Win trackpad, e.g..
And the machine at some point is only as fast or reliable or durable or enjoyable to use as its weakest link. Whenever you begin to do price comparisons in this way, you find the "Apple tax" to be much lower than assumed, even out of the gate, and even moreso over the longer useful lifetimes of the average Macs which many studies have shown to have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership, including price, support, warranty, repairs, up time - and for we individual owners - resale value.
I'm skeptical because they already said this the last time round. Apple specifically said they were cutting margins. It may have been due to the recession that they changed their minds but I'd say right now that their prices are way too high. A move to cut prices will only bring them into normal pricing range, which is still high in these times when products should be priced below normal.
Instead of £949 for a dual core with a 20" screen and integrated graphics, it should be £799.
Instead of £929 for the aluminum Macbook, it should be £799. and the white one at £599.
The Macbook Air should be £999 instead of £1271.
The MBP should be £1299 instead of £1369.
The Mini should be £399 but could be £449 instead of £499.
The Mac Pro entry level should be £1499 not £1899 but I doubt that will change.
Price drops are always good but inflating your prices first and then dropping them doesn't really change much. Even with these changes, they are still a target of Microsoft's advertising.
Apple currently don't have a quad core processor under £1900 whereas you can buy a PC quad for £500 - that's bordering on 1/4 the price. I don't think cutting prices on the current model spec by a small amount will do much to change their reputation of having few options and high prices for those options unless they address both those points.
For example, not always using the highest spec parts in their machines for that target market. Some people might not need an iMac with 2.66GHz processors so drop $110 off the price and sell one with 2.26GHz and aim to push the entry point below $1000.
The PC industry understands that people who pay for cheap machines can generally get by with lower performance. At every update, Apple pushes the latest hardware at the same or higher pricing and seems to ignore people's needs.
I'm personally against Celeron processors a lot but they are still $70-80 instead of $250-300. People who do the basic laptop stuff like browsing, email, word processing etc will get by with a 1.7GHz Celeron if they managed with 1.5GHz and less powerbooks coupled with 9400M graphics. Shaving $200 off the bottom end for people who want a well-built computer and don't care about the highest performance would be a good move.
\\
This guy gets it.
Apple doesn't offer enough choice for people with different budgets.
iMac? Use an expensive laptop chip.
Mac Pro? Put a workstation chip in it.
Options? Desktop that uses reasonable priced chips ie in the gaping hole in their line up. Nicely designed consumer tower box cube thing.
iMac. As above. Slower clocks. Squeeze margins a little. Not a loss leader...but a 'not a greedy bastard' leader (see UK pricing which is out of whack and out of touch with their competition, sane people...the credit crunch and yeah. Netbooks.
Throw in a fekkin' a keyboad and a mouse with the mini. Do a bundle deal on a monitor.
They've got $30 billion in the bank...and Apple are still in crisis mode.
We're tightening our belts...and taking the 'pain'. Not Apple, they jack prices up £400 in a recession because they want to make even MORE money as a business.
Save to say. Best Appleinsider article in a while.
After 23 months of consistent growth, it's a bit ingenuine of Apple to say they don't care about marketshare. Smacktalk. They frequently boast about that in the 'Keynotes' boasting about amount of stores, iPod and iPhone marketshare etc. Yeah right.
Are saying they want to go back to the dark days of 1% or less and a precarious market share position of sheer irrelevance? Selling less than a million Macs? Do they want to really throw away all the good work they've done? On so many fronts? By being the traditional margin huggers?
It's not like they weren't already posting hundreds of millions in record profits per quarter. The UK jack was unnecessary when they were perceived as expensive before the jack. They actually priced me out of a new Mac for the first time ever. Not a nice feeling.
They could squeeze the hell out of HP, Dell and others. THey don't have to be 2 pence each...but they could make life uncomfortable for the opposition by taking the margin hit while we're in recession, cut prices and take the fight into double figures marketshare.
How much? Well. The entry price Macbook is ridiculous. In the US? Don't know. Don't care. But in the UK, I do. £799 wasn't cheap. Now? It's laughable. Should be £599 for the entry. No buts. No maybes. And top out at £999. Less profit on the entry for upsell.
Same with iMac. Ridiculous starting price. Should be around £595 also. Then? It's a steal.
Mac Pro? Stick a Desktop Nehalem in it. Slash the price by a third for the entry model.
Make the Leopard of Snow a free upgrade to the community that have suffered many changes over the years.
We're feeling our pain. But are Apple?
Can people who earn billions understand why people who are taxed to bail out rich guys who made our lives poorer are so p*ssed off?
Price drops are always good but inflating your prices first and then dropping them doesn't really change much. Even with these changes, they are still a target of Microsoft's advertising.
It's also ingenuine to raise and lower them. It's transparent. It's obvious. It's worthy of M$ themselves.
Apple currently don't have a quad core processor under £1900 whereas you can buy a PC quad for £500 - that's bordering on 1/4 the price
They're giving M$ the fuel for those adverts. It used to be 100% more to get a Mac. But 400% more to get...a quad core?
Puh-lease. And that's the way it will be perceived by many. That sums up their problem. They're so up themselves...they've lost touch. And they did it at the worst time. Sheer arrogance.
This recession...is the chance to stand up and be counted by Apple. Instead they've acted cheaply, penny pinchingly...and greedily.
Seems pretty simple to me. Use parts that were cutting edge Mac quality when released, but which have gone down in price near the end of their life cycles - a slightly slower processor, e.g., and have this model as entry level. No extra engineering. Margins preserved. A Mac that's as fast as they could have gotten the year before and been thrilled with. Just one more SKU
There are plenty of fast (and out of date and therefore cheaper components...just ask Apple...with their pregnant cow product cycles...) components out there.
Apple wants to maintain an image of superiority to protect margins. When much of the same stuff can be had much cheaper. Alot of it is branding.
'X'. It's all about the 'X'. Really. If it was windows? Would you buy Mac hardware? No way. Would you buy a junk PC? Maybe not.
But you might? Buy something reasonable in design, price and spec?
It doesn't have to be junk. Does it have to be price jack rip-off Britain?
I'd define 'reasonable' as somewhere in the middle. Where Apple could be.
But now... they're going to find out the hard way...that money is tight...and if they're not careful...and pull their head out of their arrogant place where the sun don't shine that people may shop elsewhere and Apple may lose the brilliant position they worked hard to get to.
I've been with Apple every intriguing step (almost) since 1997 when they were out on their knees. With the recent UK price obscenes...? They almost lost me for good.
Maybe we'll see a Mac...and the entry MacPro can go away.
The entry MacPro is overpriced by about $1000. Don't beleive me? Build one on NewEgg...I did (with a Core i7 920 instead of Xeon W3520...it doesn't matter they're the same cost/1000).
The old MacPro was expensive and the dual socket MacPro is still going to be expensive. The entry model is a bad joke. Four memory slots? Hello triple channel, please to have 3 or 6 slots. The machine I built for ~$1200 has 6 memory slots, double the memory installed and a Radeon 4870. It's not as though I was reaching for bottom shelf components either.
Determined to grow its share of the personal computer market during the worst economic climate in its corporate history, Apple is tailoring changes to a pair of its offerings that will help drive down prices of some of the most popular Macs, AppleInsider has learned.
Word of the changes comes just weeks after Cupertino-based company became the target of a renewed advertising blitz from rival Microsoft Corp., which is using a new series of controversial television spots to cast Macs as overpriced novelty PCs that command a premium purely for their distinctive aesthetic.
Still, people familiar with the matter say Apple's move towards more affordable Macs isn't so much a response to Redmond's marketing antics as it is an interim solution to combat the proliferation of budget notebooks -- often called netbooks -- until the company is ready to introduce its own take on the market in the much rumored Newton-like web tablet, a project which is taking considerably longer to complete than once anticipated.
You can bet Apple will say the following:
1- It's not about the money;
2- It's not about Microsoft ads which highlight the $500 premium on Macs ($800 premium in Canada);
3- It's not about the $2 billion stock option bonuses paid to Apple's senior management.
Apple's business model of overpriced Macs and iPhones is a failure which led to a 4% Mac world market share. It could succeed only in a monopoly market where buyers are brain dead. Maybe, just maybe, with declining sales, someone at Apple, anyone, noticed.
Because Apple repeated the mistakes of the Mac (overpriced and refusal to license the operating system) for the iPhone, the same end failure should await the iPhone.
Even stockholders revolted and pension funds gained a say on senior management's compensation.
Remember how Steve Jobs, the high school graduate, felt unappreciated by the Apple board of directors with the gift of a corporate jet and a $15 million per year base salary with full health coverage for himself and his family?
It's not about the money, the price of Macs and iPhones, or the compensation paid to Apple's senior management. No, it's not. Believe that and you're brain dead.
Oh this is rich, I just ordered a new Mac yesterday! should I cancel my order and wait and see what happens? Oh, this is so Apple, but hey, the Mini I ordered cost less than the first Mac I bought 17 years ago. Of course that was the last new one I bought...
Apple's business model of overpriced Macs and iPhones is a failure which led to a 4% Mac world market share.
The marketshare argument is not only old, it's also quite ridiculous. If Apple had 25% marketshare of their OS they not only would have 25% marketshare of PC sales that would also have about 90% of all consumer PC revenue. How many ways must it be said that Apple isn't competing to best MS in OS unit sales? Apple already has more than 66% of the consumer PC sales in the US for sales over $1k. You know, the PC market segment that actually makes money.
Quote:
Maybe, just maybe, with declining sales, someone at Apple, anyone, noticed.
Yet Apple's profits are up year-over-year for the first calendar quarter while MS' were down 32%.
The day after Apple concedes and cuts pricing, analysts will be howling about the margins and would scream bloody murder if the price point went back up. lkrupp puts it a bit strongly, but fundamentally he's right. Price cuts are not the way to go.
As we have seen with the "netbooks", computing is being redefined as time progresses. Whether it is the MacBook Mini or the MediaPad that Apple ends up releasing, in the end, it is just another computing device that could fill the gap between the iPhone and the MacBooks, which would explain the more "affordable" prices while keeping up the quality.
Gotta tell ya', whenever it comes out, I'm buyin' it .
Those same people maintain that the Mac maker has absolutely no interest in catering to the netbook market as it exists today, which -- as interim chief Tim Cook repeatedly points out -- is comprised of systems with "cramped keyboards, terrible software, junky hardware, very small screens, and [a poor] consumer experience."
Sooo... instead of cramped keyboards, Apple will give... err... no keyboard at all
I mean... yeah, all netbook keyboards are smaller than full size ones, but many of them are perfectly decent. Can touch-screen keyboard really - really - be better?!?!? I don't think so.
Junky hardware. (moan). Intel Atom's performance is limited, but manufacturing process is same as Core 2 Duo. Chipsets as well... has anyone heard of netbooks dying often? I haven't. Matter of fact, Apple had their fair share of (graphics) related problems recently. Check on, say, latest Asus 1000HE EEE netbook. Up to 9.5 hours of battery life. LED display. Chiclet keyboard. Multi-touch gesture touchpad. Yes it is plastic, but it doesn't look any worst than previous generation Macbook white. And I'm sure it will not crack that easy.
Small screens. So... what is Apple tablet going to have for screen? Bigger than 10"..? I don't think Apple will make keyboardless Mac Air. I'd expect tablet will size anywhere between iPod Touch screen and 10" netbook screens. Likely smaller than 10".
Poor consumer experience? I've heard loads of people being perfectly happy with their netbooks. Heck, I've heard Mac owners here in AI forums being happy with XP/Linux based netbooks. Of course it is not replacement for full featured Macbook or iMac, but for what netbooks are designed... I think experience is more than satisfying.
I think that Tim Cook's statement is just damage control attempt. And poorly executed one.
Nahh, I'm not going to cancel, I've waited 17 years to buy a brand new Mac - I'm tired of waiting.
As for those you say you can build a "cheaper mac" elswhere, the intrinsic value of the Mac is not just in the hardware, never has been. It has never been just one banana - it's the WHOLE fruit basket that is the key here. Apple will never be a Dell or HP or any other Winbox maker, they have had the individualist streak from the beginning.
It's about the whole Apple world and how you interact with it, when I get around a bunch of Winboxes, feel like I'm like going to the dentist. In an Apple Store, well, it's more like going Fantasy Island...
As a consumer I'll take whatever I can get that gives me more bang for my buck. If I can get a MacBook Pro for $500- I'll buy it. The seller wins and I win.
These whiny stockholders should just sell their stock and buy something else that does what they want rather than bitchily complaining around here all day long.
Seems to me there is a large area between say, $700 - $1000 that Apple could play in with a low cost portable, and not cheapen the Mac brand. Say they release a MacBook Mini that is a counterpart to the Mac Mini. And as far as netbooks go, that would be expensive, but I think many people would buy a $700 MacBook portable tomorrow, immediately, no questions asked - I know I would.
Another thought is they add on a cellphone plan for Internet access and have the carrier subsidize it. That would bring the initial cost down significantly without affecting the overall price - Apple would still get paid.
The marketshare argument is not only old, it's also quite ridiculous. If Apple had 25% marketshare of their OS they not only would have 25% marketshare of PC sales that would also have about 90% of all consumer PC revenue. How many ways must it be said that Apple isn't competing to best MS in OS unit sales? Apple already has more than 66% of the consumer PC sales in the US for sales over $1k. You know, the PC market segment that actually makes money.
Yet Apple's profits are up year-over-year for the first calendar quarter while MS' were down 32%.
Apple does HW, MS does SW - people can easily put off upgrading most SW, but if the prices of HW components drop (which they have), but the overall unit cost doesn't, well that can very easily explain Apple's higher profits.
Just look at how Apple setup their model lines - other companies will sell a computer at a particular price point, but as the year goes along, you get more incremental upgrades in a computer in December, then you would've the previous January. With Apple, you get the same price, and same internals, until they do a product refresh. At best, Apple will do a speed bump, and up the HD by a couple gigs in the interim.
It not just the recession. Electronics pricing has dropped dramatically right across the board. This is how it works, every year things get better AND cheaper.
The pricing gap between Macs and PCs has usually been justifiable at least to some degree, but now it is far too wide. A couple hundred dollars premium is more than reasonable, but in most cases you can get essentially the same parts in a different box for less than half the cost. That is not something that the company will be able to maintain long term. If they do not adjust their pricing downward, they hold on to their principles at their own peril.
Apple's vitriol against netbooks is completely unfounded. On one hand they call them underpowered and cramped, then turn around and say that the iPhone is their netbook. Hardware-wise, most netbooks are very capable computers, totally suitable for most people's computer usage. The only thing that's bad about them really, is that they only come with Windows or Linux operating systems. As a short tern stop gap, until they decide what their netbook killer would be, Apple should probably look into just getting their own OEM version of the MSI wind.
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).
Nahh, I'm not going to cancel, I've waited 17 years to buy a brand new Mac - I'm tired of waiting.
As for those you say you can build a "cheaper mac" elswhere, the intrinsic value of the Mac is not just in the hardware, never has been. It has never been just one banana - it's the WHOLE fruit basket that is the key here. Apple will never be a Dell or HP or any other Winbox maker, they have had the individualist streak from the beginning.
It's about the whole Apple world and how you interact with it, when I get around a bunch of Winboxes, feel like I'm like going to the dentist. In an Apple Store, well, it's more like going Fantasy Island...
... populated with dentists?
Anyway, my dentist has absolutely gorgeous nurse; I haven't seen anything like that in Apple Store (or any other computer store)
Comments
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.
By your logic you must conclude, on its face, that the Dell and Lenovo whose systems are equivalent to a Mac Pro must be overpriced as well. To not include them as being overpriced is to ignore facts.
If netbooks are so crappy, then they will only serve to lower people's opinion of windows, and make it more likely that they get a Mac when the netbook finally karks it.
I love that word "kark" - did you make it up, or do people actually use it?
iLife alone is worth nearly a $100 in the Mac world... and would probably take $200 - $300 in the Windoze world to (poorly) replicate.
I agree it's worth $100 IF you USE it. I never use a bit of it anymore (I'm a Photoshop user, don't make movies or edit sound, e.g.,), nor do most of my Mac owning friends, and nobody's gonna give me $100.
My estimation is that Apple will provide a lower entry point for the consumer products and have all component upgrades trickle down through the highest entry point for the Macbook and iMac. Margins will be nearly-sustained by delivering a product containing lowest-tiered components.
Seems pretty simple to me. Use parts that were cutting edge Mac quality when released, but which have gone down in price near the end of their life cycles - a slightly slower processor, e.g., and have this model as entry level. No extra engineering. Margins preserved. A Mac that's as fast as they could have gotten the year before and been thrilled with. Just one more SKU
Apple's consumer-level hardware (i.e., excluding the Mac Pro) compares unfavorably to that of other manufacturers, especially when price is considered. The only justification for calling a Mac a "premium" product is OS X, and despite that it is getting harder to make a case for the whole package. When Windows 7 comes out, Apple will find much stiffer competition from the Windows world.
Bah-loney. For one thing, the total design of hardware and software adds value and ergonomic benefits. I go nuts when I'm using a Win trackpad, e.g..
And the machine at some point is only as fast or reliable or durable or enjoyable to use as its weakest link. Whenever you begin to do price comparisons in this way, you find the "Apple tax" to be much lower than assumed, even out of the gate, and even moreso over the longer useful lifetimes of the average Macs which many studies have shown to have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership, including price, support, warranty, repairs, up time - and for we individual owners - resale value.
I'm skeptical because they already said this the last time round. Apple specifically said they were cutting margins. It may have been due to the recession that they changed their minds but I'd say right now that their prices are way too high. A move to cut prices will only bring them into normal pricing range, which is still high in these times when products should be priced below normal.
Instead of £949 for a dual core with a 20" screen and integrated graphics, it should be £799.
Instead of £929 for the aluminum Macbook, it should be £799. and the white one at £599.
The Macbook Air should be £999 instead of £1271.
The MBP should be £1299 instead of £1369.
The Mini should be £399 but could be £449 instead of £499.
The Mac Pro entry level should be £1499 not £1899 but I doubt that will change.
Price drops are always good but inflating your prices first and then dropping them doesn't really change much. Even with these changes, they are still a target of Microsoft's advertising.
Apple currently don't have a quad core processor under £1900 whereas you can buy a PC quad for £500 - that's bordering on 1/4 the price. I don't think cutting prices on the current model spec by a small amount will do much to change their reputation of having few options and high prices for those options unless they address both those points.
For example, not always using the highest spec parts in their machines for that target market. Some people might not need an iMac with 2.66GHz processors so drop $110 off the price and sell one with 2.26GHz and aim to push the entry point below $1000.
The PC industry understands that people who pay for cheap machines can generally get by with lower performance. At every update, Apple pushes the latest hardware at the same or higher pricing and seems to ignore people's needs.
I'm personally against Celeron processors a lot but they are still $70-80 instead of $250-300. People who do the basic laptop stuff like browsing, email, word processing etc will get by with a 1.7GHz Celeron if they managed with 1.5GHz and less powerbooks coupled with 9400M graphics. Shaving $200 off the bottom end for people who want a well-built computer and don't care about the highest performance would be a good move.
\\
This guy gets it.
Apple doesn't offer enough choice for people with different budgets.
iMac? Use an expensive laptop chip.
Mac Pro? Put a workstation chip in it.
Options? Desktop that uses reasonable priced chips ie in the gaping hole in their line up. Nicely designed consumer tower box cube thing.
iMac. As above. Slower clocks. Squeeze margins a little. Not a loss leader...but a 'not a greedy bastard' leader (see UK pricing which is out of whack and out of touch with their competition, sane people...the credit crunch and yeah. Netbooks.
Throw in a fekkin' a keyboad and a mouse with the mini. Do a bundle deal on a monitor.
They've got $30 billion in the bank...and Apple are still in crisis mode.
We're tightening our belts...and taking the 'pain'. Not Apple, they jack prices up £400 in a recession because they want to make even MORE money as a business.
Save to say. Best Appleinsider article in a while.
After 23 months of consistent growth, it's a bit ingenuine of Apple to say they don't care about marketshare. Smacktalk. They frequently boast about that in the 'Keynotes' boasting about amount of stores, iPod and iPhone marketshare etc. Yeah right.
Are saying they want to go back to the dark days of 1% or less and a precarious market share position of sheer irrelevance? Selling less than a million Macs? Do they want to really throw away all the good work they've done? On so many fronts? By being the traditional margin huggers?
It's not like they weren't already posting hundreds of millions in record profits per quarter. The UK jack was unnecessary when they were perceived as expensive before the jack. They actually priced me out of a new Mac for the first time ever. Not a nice feeling.
They could squeeze the hell out of HP, Dell and others. THey don't have to be 2 pence each...but they could make life uncomfortable for the opposition by taking the margin hit while we're in recession, cut prices and take the fight into double figures marketshare.
How much? Well. The entry price Macbook is ridiculous. In the US? Don't know. Don't care. But in the UK, I do. £799 wasn't cheap. Now? It's laughable. Should be £599 for the entry. No buts. No maybes. And top out at £999. Less profit on the entry for upsell.
Same with iMac. Ridiculous starting price. Should be around £595 also. Then? It's a steal.
Mac Pro? Stick a Desktop Nehalem in it. Slash the price by a third for the entry model.
Make the Leopard of Snow a free upgrade to the community that have suffered many changes over the years.
We're feeling our pain. But are Apple?
Can people who earn billions understand why people who are taxed to bail out rich guys who made our lives poorer are so p*ssed off?
Who knows.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Price drops are always good but inflating your prices first and then dropping them doesn't really change much. Even with these changes, they are still a target of Microsoft's advertising.
It's also ingenuine to raise and lower them. It's transparent. It's obvious. It's worthy of M$ themselves.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple currently don't have a quad core processor under £1900 whereas you can buy a PC quad for £500 - that's bordering on 1/4 the price
They're giving M$ the fuel for those adverts. It used to be 100% more to get a Mac. But 400% more to get...a quad core?
Puh-lease. And that's the way it will be perceived by many. That sums up their problem. They're so up themselves...they've lost touch. And they did it at the worst time. Sheer arrogance.
This recession...is the chance to stand up and be counted by Apple. Instead they've acted cheaply, penny pinchingly...and greedily.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Seems pretty simple to me. Use parts that were cutting edge Mac quality when released, but which have gone down in price near the end of their life cycles - a slightly slower processor, e.g., and have this model as entry level. No extra engineering. Margins preserved. A Mac that's as fast as they could have gotten the year before and been thrilled with. Just one more SKU
There are plenty of fast (and out of date and therefore cheaper components...just ask Apple...with their pregnant cow product cycles...) components out there.
Apple wants to maintain an image of superiority to protect margins. When much of the same stuff can be had much cheaper. Alot of it is branding.
'X'. It's all about the 'X'. Really. If it was windows? Would you buy Mac hardware? No way. Would you buy a junk PC? Maybe not.
But you might? Buy something reasonable in design, price and spec?
It doesn't have to be junk. Does it have to be price jack rip-off Britain?
I'd define 'reasonable' as somewhere in the middle. Where Apple could be.
But now... they're going to find out the hard way...that money is tight...and if they're not careful...and pull their head out of their arrogant place where the sun don't shine that people may shop elsewhere and Apple may lose the brilliant position they worked hard to get to.
I've been with Apple every intriguing step (almost) since 1997 when they were out on their knees. With the recent UK price obscenes...? They almost lost me for good.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The entry MacPro is overpriced by about $1000. Don't beleive me? Build one on NewEgg...I did (with a Core i7 920 instead of Xeon W3520...it doesn't matter they're the same cost/1000).
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Pu...umber=10623612
The old MacPro was expensive and the dual socket MacPro is still going to be expensive. The entry model is a bad joke. Four memory slots? Hello triple channel, please to have 3 or 6 slots. The machine I built for ~$1200 has 6 memory slots, double the memory installed and a Radeon 4870. It's not as though I was reaching for bottom shelf components either.
Determined to grow its share of the personal computer market during the worst economic climate in its corporate history, Apple is tailoring changes to a pair of its offerings that will help drive down prices of some of the most popular Macs, AppleInsider has learned.
Word of the changes comes just weeks after Cupertino-based company became the target of a renewed advertising blitz from rival Microsoft Corp., which is using a new series of controversial television spots to cast Macs as overpriced novelty PCs that command a premium purely for their distinctive aesthetic.
Still, people familiar with the matter say Apple's move towards more affordable Macs isn't so much a response to Redmond's marketing antics as it is an interim solution to combat the proliferation of budget notebooks -- often called netbooks -- until the company is ready to introduce its own take on the market in the much rumored Newton-like web tablet, a project which is taking considerably longer to complete than once anticipated.
You can bet Apple will say the following:
1- It's not about the money;
2- It's not about Microsoft ads which highlight the $500 premium on Macs ($800 premium in Canada);
3- It's not about the $2 billion stock option bonuses paid to Apple's senior management.
Apple's business model of overpriced Macs and iPhones is a failure which led to a 4% Mac world market share. It could succeed only in a monopoly market where buyers are brain dead. Maybe, just maybe, with declining sales, someone at Apple, anyone, noticed.
Because Apple repeated the mistakes of the Mac (overpriced and refusal to license the operating system) for the iPhone, the same end failure should await the iPhone.
Even stockholders revolted and pension funds gained a say on senior management's compensation.
Remember how Steve Jobs, the high school graduate, felt unappreciated by the Apple board of directors with the gift of a corporate jet and a $15 million per year base salary with full health coverage for himself and his family?
It's not about the money, the price of Macs and iPhones, or the compensation paid to Apple's senior management. No, it's not. Believe that and you're brain dead.
Apple's business model of overpriced Macs and iPhones is a failure which led to a 4% Mac world market share.
The marketshare argument is not only old, it's also quite ridiculous. If Apple had 25% marketshare of their OS they not only would have 25% marketshare of PC sales that would also have about 90% of all consumer PC revenue. How many ways must it be said that Apple isn't competing to best MS in OS unit sales? Apple already has more than 66% of the consumer PC sales in the US for sales over $1k. You know, the PC market segment that actually makes money.
Maybe, just maybe, with declining sales, someone at Apple, anyone, noticed.
Yet Apple's profits are up year-over-year for the first calendar quarter while MS' were down 32%.
The day after Apple concedes and cuts pricing, analysts will be howling about the margins and would scream bloody murder if the price point went back up. lkrupp puts it a bit strongly, but fundamentally he's right. Price cuts are not the way to go.
As we have seen with the "netbooks", computing is being redefined as time progresses. Whether it is the MacBook Mini or the MediaPad that Apple ends up releasing, in the end, it is just another computing device that could fill the gap between the iPhone and the MacBooks, which would explain the more "affordable" prices while keeping up the quality.
Gotta tell ya', whenever it comes out, I'm buyin' it
Those same people maintain that the Mac maker has absolutely no interest in catering to the netbook market as it exists today, which -- as interim chief Tim Cook repeatedly points out -- is comprised of systems with "cramped keyboards, terrible software, junky hardware, very small screens, and [a poor] consumer experience."
Sooo... instead of cramped keyboards, Apple will give... err... no keyboard at all
I mean... yeah, all netbook keyboards are smaller than full size ones, but many of them are perfectly decent. Can touch-screen keyboard really - really - be better?!?!? I don't think so.
Junky hardware. (moan). Intel Atom's performance is limited, but manufacturing process is same as Core 2 Duo. Chipsets as well... has anyone heard of netbooks dying often? I haven't. Matter of fact, Apple had their fair share of (graphics) related problems recently. Check on, say, latest Asus 1000HE EEE netbook. Up to 9.5 hours of battery life. LED display. Chiclet keyboard. Multi-touch gesture touchpad. Yes it is plastic, but it doesn't look any worst than previous generation Macbook white. And I'm sure it will not crack that easy.
Small screens. So... what is Apple tablet going to have for screen? Bigger than 10"..? I don't think Apple will make keyboardless Mac Air. I'd expect tablet will size anywhere between iPod Touch screen and 10" netbook screens. Likely smaller than 10".
Poor consumer experience? I've heard loads of people being perfectly happy with their netbooks. Heck, I've heard Mac owners here in AI forums being happy with XP/Linux based netbooks. Of course it is not replacement for full featured Macbook or iMac, but for what netbooks are designed... I think experience is more than satisfying.
I think that Tim Cook's statement is just damage control attempt. And poorly executed one.
As for those you say you can build a "cheaper mac" elswhere, the intrinsic value of the Mac is not just in the hardware, never has been. It has never been just one banana - it's the WHOLE fruit basket that is the key here. Apple will never be a Dell or HP or any other Winbox maker, they have had the individualist streak from the beginning.
It's about the whole Apple world and how you interact with it, when I get around a bunch of Winboxes, feel like I'm like going to the dentist. In an Apple Store, well, it's more like going Fantasy Island...
Not unless the company sells more units.
50% marketshare, no less.
As a consumer I'll take whatever I can get that gives me more bang for my buck. If I can get a MacBook Pro for $500- I'll buy it. The seller wins and I win.
These whiny stockholders should just sell their stock and buy something else that does what they want rather than bitchily complaining around here all day long.
Sounds like the perfect recipe for a Mac netbook.
Another thought is they add on a cellphone plan for Internet access and have the carrier subsidize it. That would bring the initial cost down significantly without affecting the overall price - Apple would still get paid.
The marketshare argument is not only old, it's also quite ridiculous. If Apple had 25% marketshare of their OS they not only would have 25% marketshare of PC sales that would also have about 90% of all consumer PC revenue. How many ways must it be said that Apple isn't competing to best MS in OS unit sales? Apple already has more than 66% of the consumer PC sales in the US for sales over $1k. You know, the PC market segment that actually makes money.
Yet Apple's profits are up year-over-year for the first calendar quarter while MS' were down 32%.
Apple does HW, MS does SW - people can easily put off upgrading most SW, but if the prices of HW components drop (which they have), but the overall unit cost doesn't, well that can very easily explain Apple's higher profits.
Just look at how Apple setup their model lines - other companies will sell a computer at a particular price point, but as the year goes along, you get more incremental upgrades in a computer in December, then you would've the previous January. With Apple, you get the same price, and same internals, until they do a product refresh. At best, Apple will do a speed bump, and up the HD by a couple gigs in the interim.
The pricing gap between Macs and PCs has usually been justifiable at least to some degree, but now it is far too wide. A couple hundred dollars premium is more than reasonable, but in most cases you can get essentially the same parts in a different box for less than half the cost. That is not something that the company will be able to maintain long term. If they do not adjust their pricing downward, they hold on to their principles at their own peril.
Apple's vitriol against netbooks is completely unfounded. On one hand they call them underpowered and cramped, then turn around and say that the iPhone is their netbook. Hardware-wise, most netbooks are very capable computers, totally suitable for most people's computer usage. The only thing that's bad about them really, is that they only come with Windows or Linux operating systems. As a short tern stop gap, until they decide what their netbook killer would be, Apple should probably look into just getting their own OEM version of the MSI wind.
Nahh, I'm not going to cancel, I've waited 17 years to buy a brand new Mac - I'm tired of waiting.
As for those you say you can build a "cheaper mac" elswhere, the intrinsic value of the Mac is not just in the hardware, never has been. It has never been just one banana - it's the WHOLE fruit basket that is the key here. Apple will never be a Dell or HP or any other Winbox maker, they have had the individualist streak from the beginning.
It's about the whole Apple world and how you interact with it, when I get around a bunch of Winboxes, feel like I'm like going to the dentist. In an Apple Store, well, it's more like going Fantasy Island...
... populated with dentists?
Anyway, my dentist has absolutely gorgeous nurse; I haven't seen anything like that in Apple Store (or any other computer store)