Apple's profit margin on Mac minis slimmer than usual

15791011

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 202
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,709member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Good try. No -I'm not - I don't have time to directly look for all these quotes just to appease your denial. You know they exist- yet want to conitinually play this game of tit for tat. I have a life. Other's have agreed with me - it is a totally recognizable trait.

    Enough said.



    That is very funny Tit for tat? Have a life? You are the master of tit for tat. Endless threads where every other comment is yours. You so often come across as a person without a life. Or certainly without a job as you must spend and awful lot of time tit for tatting.
  • Reply 122 of 202
    mrochestermrochester Posts: 700member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


    You have utterly no idea why Apple chose not to use a higher resolution camera earlier on, so why go on about it like you do? Have you ever actually designed a product? Been involved on the manufacture of one? There are all sorts of variables that go into decisions like this. "Can we get the part cheap enough to reach our price point?" "Can we get it small enough to fit into our form factor?" "Can we get it to draw power within our acceptable range?" "Can we get it to pass FCC?" "Does the market demand justify costs, etc." It is all a dance and building this kind of stuff is a heck of a lot more complicated, and involves many more compromises and difficult choices, than anyone who has never done it could possibly know. It bothers me when I see this kind of negative bias however, because it almost always implies an intention: "Apple didn't user a better camera because they intended to introduce the feature later" etc. It may be fair to say that later on Apple engineers intended to up the camera specifications, I do not know. But it is not fair to insinuate that the choice to use something lesser was done purely to disenfranchise the consumer. There are hundreds of factors that inform choices like this.



    Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.



    So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.
  • Reply 123 of 202
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.



    So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.



    Show us any evidence that the 2mpx camera components found in the iPhone is the same size and volume as the 5px camera components found in the N95 in 2007. That is the rub; you can’t just compare a phone to a phone, you have to compare equivalent sized components to each other. Even the 3G iPhone offers less volume than the original and tapered more at the edges so the use of a 2mpx camera the 2nd time around may have been all they could squeeze in. We really don’t know.



    PS: I don’t you think you would but others may reply with the argument that Apple simply make a larger phones, but that goes against their DNA as a company. I can’t see Apple creating an extra bulky device or having an extended lens simply to add the camera components.





    edit:



    Nokia N95:

    99 mm (h)

    53 mm (w)

    21 mm (d)

    = 110187 mm^3



    Original iPhone:

    115 mm (h)

    61 mm (w)

    11.6 mm (d)

    = 81374 mm^3



    Overall this proves nothing as the Nokia has HW that the iPhone doesn’t and the iPhone has larger components, like display, battery than the N95, but it does show that you simply make your point based on what another device had at the time. Plus, those are cubed so they take in the actual volume for each device which favours the iPhone in this case, nor does it take into consideration the internal volume for components which would favour the N95.
  • Reply 124 of 202
    tt92618tt92618 Posts: 444member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.



    So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.



    No, 'we' didn't 'knock them out'. Rather, you dismissed them. The fact that you don't think they were concerns doesn't mean they were not. Neither you nor I were part of those decisions. What I take you to task over is your assumption that these sorts of factors did not come to bear when you cannot possibly know that. You would rather assume that it was done out of some crass effort to gouge the consumer, which puts you into the same camp as Teckstud in my oppinion: just a person who has a negative bias when it comes to assessing other people's motives.



    By the way, your statement that "all other manufacturers had found ways to do it" is not only incredibly general, it is also not supportable by facts. Are you seriously insisting that all other cell phone makers had stopped using a 2mp camera at the time? That range is still the most common for cell phones, even today!



    As I said, you are ignorant of the reasons the choice was made, as am I. And as a matter of fact, even if the choice was "there is not enough market demand to justify our additional cost for this part", that is a perfectly valid choice. Both you and teckstud need to get it through your heads that Steve Jobs did not get a team of engineers together and tell them "you have got to design this thing so that teckstud and mrochester love it. That is your number one priority! Forget everything else!" There was no board meeting, no secret 1 AM email flurry, no special study group. Just get over it: your own personal desires did not and should not drive Apple's product design process, nor should mine. Factors like market demand should. So, if Apple concluded there wasn't enough market demand for it, bravo. That's how you design products; it's a mix of 'what does the market want' and 'lets build something new and exciting'. Innovative is good, but being too far ahead of the game can kill you.



    I understand being disappointed that a given product did not have some feature you wanted, but the way you guys both carry on about it makes it seem like SJ drove past your house and crapped on your lawn. Is it really that bad?
  • Reply 125 of 202
    camroidv27camroidv27 Posts: 523member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    I still want to see a $499 Mac mini.



    Yeah, I want to see that too. Judging by the BOM, its do-able. If Apple decided to make a larger Mac Mini (thinking the size of an aTV only a little taller) we could have desktop parts inside (3.5 in drives, desktop proc?) and make it even cheaper. Then at 499 they would still have their comfy margins.



    But I don't see that happening anytime soon... they like their laptop parts too much.



    But really the MacMini is the current xMac we all wish for that we'll never get. I just wish Apple (and heck, the rest of the Western Societies) would get off the whole "Skinnier/Smaller is Better" mentality. It really isn't, and Apple could still make some amazing looking machines with desktop parts! I urge their designers to strike up that challenge! Heck, keep prices (minus the MacMini) where they are and your price margins get bigger... sweet for them! (But I'd take it as a kindness if they lowered prices to be a little more competitive)
  • Reply 126 of 202
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    VAT ≠ Apple Tax

    Import Tax ≠ Apple Tax

    Exchange Rate ≠ Apple Tax



    I think you will find that "Exchange Rate is an Apple Tax" when you use it to your advantage like Apple does. Apple was very slow to move prices when the Euro and Pound gained dramitically to the US$, but the second it dropped a little, Apple instantly raised their prices.



    Most companies that trade products in US$ will try and do the same thing. But Apple also did the same thing with products in the UK, versus the rest of Europe. While people in the UK were complaining that their iTunes purchases were so more expensive than Europe, every other Apple product their was cheaper in the UK
  • Reply 127 of 202
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    I agree. I use "fanboy" very sparingly and less frequently and it is usually preceeded by being called a troll (now that's a real silly term unless we were in Middle Earth). I really now prefer the term Applebot- he/she can really no longer think for themselves- it's all Apple doctrine or nothing.



    I miss merry and pippin.
  • Reply 128 of 202
    zandroszandros Posts: 537member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post


    It's an upgrade option.....



    That is true, but it is an upgrade option for both the $599 Mini and the $799 mini, neither of which costs $799 with the 2.26GHz processor - thus completely invalidating the sentence.
  • Reply 129 of 202
    johnqhjohnqh Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.



    So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.



    You have no idea how to get a "decent" camera.



    1. A camera with fixed focus lens won't benefit from more pixels. iPhone 2G/3G had crappy lens and fixed focus. To get better photos, it is not just about adding more pixels. They have to get auto-focus, which has a lot of other issues (size, battery etc).

    2. Limited RAM. A 2MP camera uses 8MB for each photo. A 3.2MP camera uses 13MB. This has HUGE impact on third party developers (which I am one) with we have only about 24MB free RAM to work with. So, to get 3MP, while still give third party developers enough RAM to make interesting photo apps, Apple would have to double the RAM from 128 to 256 (which they did with 3GS).

    3. Processor speed. It takes time for the CPU to encode and decoder JPG. Apple is rigid about the responsiveness of the device. They will not simply add more MP and double the loading or saving time.



    What you like to see as a customer is completely different from what engineers can deliver at reasonable cost.



    Feel free to say that you would like XXXX, but don't pretend that you know how to make a product, because you don't.



    I would like 8MP camera with zoom focus, adjustable aperture from f2.8, with built-in filters for different modes. I can dream, but I will never pretend that I could do better than Apple.



    And seriously, if you think you can do better than Apple, go ahead and do it. You will be worth billions.
  • Reply 130 of 202
    Quote:

    The high-end $799 Mac Mini features a 2.26GHz version of the microprocessor.



    Interesting and useful article (esp. for those of us interested in possible mini purchase... )



    The original article data is not accurate re CPU though. (the iSuppli author has missed a non-trivial CPU specification mix-up).



    If you visit the Apple Store, the CPU for the base Mac mini ($599 USD) and the high-end Mac mini ($799 USD) is the identical 2.00 GHz C2D.



    The only thing that the extra $200 gets you in the high-end mini is an extra 1 GB RAM, and a larger (320 GB) HD.

    (yes, their own comparison table shows more shared ram available to the GPU, but that is just because the machine RAM went from 1 GB to 2 GB - and it is shared/stolen from main RAM, not dedicated.)



    You have to Build-to-Order and add $150 to either model in order to get the 2.26 GHz CPU upgrade.

    (I wish it were true that the high end gave you the upgraded 2.26 GHz CPU -- then it might be worth the extra $200 (a 33% premium) -- but alas, it is not so. )



    refs:

    http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...mco=NDE4Mzg4Mw

    http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...mco=NDE4Mzg5OA



    just sayin'

    (and just trying to return this lengthy discussion back to a point in the original article... )
  • Reply 131 of 202
    winterspanwinterspan Posts: 605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    There are some on both sides that are mostly all or nothing in their comments, usually pushing comments that are worded as absolutes, but I think most people here are more rational about their expectations even though they get pushed into the opposing category by those at the extreme ends who can?t see the middle ground.



    I think the problem is that many of the moderate, rational forum viewers don't comment, leaving much of the actual conversation to the idiotic fan-boys who the OP is referring to.. He is right in so far as there exist an extremely annoying subset of forum users who have the sheep behavior he describes..



    This was demonstrated most recently by the SATA issue on the MB Pros. I saw more than a few forum members making endless excuses and chastising anyone who thought that having your SSD performance cut in half on a new machine that is supposed to be "pro" level is completely acceptable.



    Similarly, there were no shortage of people lined up to fight my assertion that removing firewire from the unibody Macbook was a terribly short-sighted move.



    And as soon as Apple changes direction, they follow in lock-step like they had never though otherwise. It's not only frustrating to deal with, but almost creepy.
  • Reply 132 of 202
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winterspan View Post


    I think the problem is that many of the moderate, rational forum viewers don't comment, leaving much of the actual conversation to the idiotic fan-boys who the OP is referring to.. He is right in so far as there exist an extremely annoying subset of forum users who have the sheep behavior he describes..



    This was demonstrated most recently by the SATA issue on the MB Pros. I saw more than a few forum members making endless excuses and chastising anyone who thought that having your SSD performance cut in half on a new machine that is supposed to be "pro" level is completely acceptable.



    Similarly, there were no shortage of people lined up to fight my assertion that removing firewire from the unibody Macbook was a terribly short-sighted move.



    And as soon as Apple changes direction, they follow in lock-step like they had never though otherwise. It's not only frustrating to deal with, but almost creepy.





    You're also doing the "they" thing, for instance implying that the very same people who weren't troubled by the loss of firewire on MacBooks then immediately applauded the return of firewire as (presumably) indispensable. But is that in fact the case?



    It seems equally likely to me that there were a lot of people who simply didn't give a shit about firewire because they didn't have firewire peripherals and were for whatever reasons unmoved by arguments involving technological superiority or legacy peripherals or pro-user edge cases-- indeed, found such arguments foolish and wrong because they weren't willing to think much past their own circumstance.



    And that when Apple put firewire back such people were perfectly fine with that, and possibly glad that there was one less thing for people to bitch about.



    But none of that requires any "creepy" levels of mindless fealty to Apple, just a simple self-interested evaluation of what is valuable to oneself, as opposed to someone else.



    And so isn't entirely possible that the people who were unfazed by the SATA thing were people who for whom the issue was unimportant? And that those same people might be quick to complain if Apple did something that directly affected what they wanted to do with their computers? And that that also does not require assuming that such people are sheep?



    That's why I object to the causal use of "people" without examples, because its easy to vaguely allude to these malleable sorts that stridently defend Apple's omissions and then immediately switch gears to applaud corrections of those very omissions. Are they really the same people? And even if they occasionally are, are they really that numerous?



    What I see are a lot of posters that scream like stuck pigs if Apple does something that they feel hurts them, while of course berating or remaining indifferent to others who are equally horrified by a different issue which only affects that other person. So that if a person doesn't share your particular beef, it must be because they're a fanboy, whereas if someone else has a problem which you don't share it must be because they're an over-excitable idiot.



    Which of course has nothing to do with being a fanboy, it's fairly average example of self interested people who perhaps are failing a bit at empathy and imagination and strategic thinking.



    Sure, some people are more attuned to the big picture, and are bothered by things Apple does that strike them as sort of generally bad or short sighted or even malicious, even if such things don't impact them directly. But such folk are always going to be in the minority of most internet discussion forums, because most people on the planet don't think much past their personal likes and dislikes and their particular needs and wants.



    And that's true of cars and sports franchises and ideologies and music styles, as well as computers, so I don't think it's at all necessary to get hung up on some idea of Apple cultists defending their religion against all comers.
  • Reply 133 of 202
    mrochestermrochester Posts: 700member
    Quote:

    No, 'we' didn't 'knock them out'. Rather, you dismissed them.



    I knocked them out because they sounded like the most likely scenarios. Arguments that the technology wasn't there, the demand wasn't there, or the cost was too high, don't sound very convincing to me in 2007. I am making a judement based on what sounds like the most plausible reason.



    Quote:

    Both you and teckstud need to get it through your heads that Steve Jobs did not get a team of engineers together and tell them "you have got to design this thing so that teckstud and mrochester love it.



    Yes he did, because I love my iPhone 3G. That doesn't mean I can't point out exactly where I think Apple are deliberately playing tricks to sell more devices at a later date.



    Quote:

    Are you seriously insisting that all other cell phone makers had stopped using a 2mp camera at the time?



    No but but what high end smartphone of the time had a 2mp fixed-focus camera?



    Quote:

    Feel free to say that you would like XXXX, but don't pretend that you know how to make a product, because you don't.



    I'm not saying I know how to make a product. But I'm using the EVIDENCE to produce an ARGUMENT as to why Apple had a crappy 2mp camera in the original iPhone. Sony Ericsson had done a 2mp auto-focus snapper in a small device 2 years before the iPhone. I think that's more evidence to support the arguement that the technology was definitely already there, and Apple just chose to ignore it. I think Apple were accutely aware that making a device that was too well rounded would mean it would be difficult to get customers to buy another new iPhone later on, so they deliberately held back certain features so as to trickle them into the device at a later date.
  • Reply 134 of 202
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    The reason I see bias is because there is bias.



    Of course there is bias. This is an apple site. If you don't like any bias leave the internet because every site has bias.



    By your definition everyone here is a "fanboy" because they don't think Apple sucks.



    Quote:

    When someone says for 2 years that the iPhone doesn't need or want MMS, video, or cut and paste and then champions it only because Apple then provides it, how else do you make a deduction and what do you call it?



    Except that few or no one has done that. Those are all nice to haves and everyone pretty much agree they are nice to haves. What folks have said is that the iPhone is GREAT despite not having those particular "nice to haves".



    If a product is great without feature X then feature X wasn't absolutely required. Certainly the iPhone is better for having those features than without but also done as well as Apple has implemented 3.0.



    Quote:

    When posters defend Apple's ommission of firewire on a MAcBook and it gets added back on and won't admit Apple made a mistake- what do you call that? The same thing for matte screens. Remember - they were supposed to be nevermore according to the fanboys because Apple wasn't giving them. The comes the 17"- and it gets matte.



    Again, no one has said that about matte. Folks have only said that glossy is selling so Apple makes glossy screens. I had the matte vs glossy option on the 1st G MBP 17" and as far as I know you've always had that option. It's only on the consumer MB that you never had the option and they just chopped the 15" MBP down a peg (no express card is annoying too).



    As for FW, the comment was it wasn't needed for consumers given that the consumer market has moved away from FW to USB2. It has except for tape based camcorders which are less and less popular every year.



    Note that the 13" is now a MBP, not a MB and no more separate battery for more space.



    Quote:

    And watch the others will also get matte(I'd bet) because it is far superior (glare does suck) regardless of fanboys assertion that noobody wants matte. They only say what Apple currently provides is what you need.



    Given that 15" MBP lost matte I'd say that Apple is continuing to reduce the availability of matte even for pro users.



    Quote:

    Meanwhile netbooks sales are through the roof yet fanboys were saying, whenever I mentioned it, that a small formed device between 7-11" was no good - the MBA was all we needed. Then the rumours leaked and they all embrace it. It is a very sad train of thought actually.



    7" netbooks suck. Which is why all the new ones are 10" and moving toward 12".



    At 12" they're just compact notebooks. Which is what the MBA is. Gee, amazing.



    Why do netbooks sell in large number? Because they are cheap and small. Apple doesn't mind small...but cheap not so much. The MBA is a more typical Apple product than the MB and MBPs have been: a niche product designed for the smallest, most elegant footprint at a premium price. Like the iMac.



    Apple currently fills the netbook segment with the iPhone/iPod touch and later with a mid-sized tablet. I WISH they would make a tablet netbook but it's really not likely.



    As the notebook market becomes more and more commoditized expect Apple to make their notebooks more and more niche to maintain the premium.



    Quote:

    The term is real and alive.



    So is the term "asshat".
  • Reply 135 of 202
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by imGayForSteveJobs View Post


    Here comes the "But I don't want cheap hardware" argument. Apple PC's use the same hardware, intel processors, nvidia graphics.. Now if they could only fix those display problems...



    That is nonsense. First, many of the components in Macs are proprietary - the power supply, motherboard, case, for example, as well as (of course) the OS. Second, many of the components are NOT the same ones that cheap PC vendors use. Both may use a 100 mfd capacitor, but the specs and quality on one could be far different.



    The proof is in the pudding. EVERY survey I've ever seen done by PC magazines, Mac magazines, general business magazines, and consumer magazines shows the Mac to have lower DOA rates, higher customer satisfaction rates, and lower problem rates than ANY PC brand. That pretty effectively disproves your argument.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eVolut View Post


    Me too, I don't believe the iSuppli cost estimates are correct.



    A few checks:

    - $46 for a 120Gb drive??? Even I, buying only one, would think this is a bad deal. I can buy an external 2.5" 320Gb WD drive for $65! That includes the enclosure and this is a retail price! So, come on, if Apple had to pay $46 for a bare 120Gb drive, while buying 100,000+ units, they would have fired their procurement negotiator a long time ago! I would think Apple pays no more than 1/2 that price.



    While you are generally correct (I can buy a Seagate 120 GB drive for $37.50 including shipping (pricewatch.com), I don't think there's any way the figure is 1/2. Consumer prices from discount places aren't that far from high volume prices. In fact, when things are in oversupply, the contract prices are sometimes even higher than the consumer prices (since the consumer is buying overstocks while the OEM has to commit to a certain volume to ensure a supply). This happened with RAM a few years back.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by filburt View Post


    I wonder why Apple chose to use notebook components, especially the hard disk. It's not like Mac mini needs to be that small. Make it a bit larger, like Time Capsule and AEBS are and use cheaper desktop components to bring the price down and/or increase margin.



    Because Apple chose to make size a feature. Go start your own computer company and do it your way.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post


    You imply that since Apple uses the same hardware parts in their computers, that some how it should make them equal, in price and performance, to generic PCs. That's pure hogwash. If this was remotely true, there wouldn't be the famous brand loyalty for you trolls to enjoy. Apple makes better computers using generic parts, yes, but with quality in software and hardware design. Apple computers are the envy of the computer market, even if the MS trolls are in denial.



    I'm not a fanboy to Apple Inc. I AM a fanboy to their computers. Plain & Simple. They can charge what the market will bear. I'll be buying, still.



    Exactly. The entire exercise is irrelevant. As a user, I look at a computer and decide if I want to pay the listed price. If the price is too high, I don't buy it. I don't really care what it costs the vendor to make it. If Apple can figure out a way to grow an orchard of trees and pick their computers off the tree when they're ripe with zero manufacturing cost but the price doesn't change, it's meaningless. Either the price they're asking is OK or it isn't.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    Yeah this really bugs me too. It's funny the number of people who said that auto-focus cameras and video were so not needed on the iPhone, yet they were all falling over themselves to buy the 3GS when it came out to have an auto-focus camera and video. It cracks me up that whatever product Apple currently sells is the absolute pinnacle of excellence, with all the features that anyone would ever need, at a price that's perfectly justifiable. This view then conveniently changes as soon as Apple announces their next product. I've posted in and observed the AppleInsider forum for a long while now, and it's truely like watching a herd of sheep following each other around. It's sad really, as it's like these people simply don't have a mind of their own.



    You're making things up. No one said that video wouldn't be useful or that an autofocus camera wouldn't be useful. Just that it wasn't the end of the world that they weren't included in earlier versions. iPhone sales proved that to be the case.



    You are obviously clueless about the design of a product. There are tradeoffs. Apple decided that they were going to make the iPhone 12 mm thick and sell at a certain price. That limits their options. At the time, there were no >2 MP autofocus cameras capable of doing video which fit into that form factor. (feel free to name one. Sure, those features were available in some fat phones, but they wouldn't work with Apple's design because of the thickness). As time goes on, technology improves and Apple is able to add more features within the scope of the compromises they have to make. That doesn't mean a 10 MP autofocus HD camera wouldn't have been nice in the original iPhone - it just wasn't possible.



    That's not fanboyism, it's reality. The people you are labeling 'fanboys' are simply those who understand the reality of how design compromises work. You, OTOH, seem to think that "I want it and it's not available from Apple" means that Apple is intentionally crippling something.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    Those are direct costs. There are indirect costs, too. Equipment and plant amortizement, overhead, staff salaries, advertising, etc.



    What I don't like, and I've bellyached about in other threads is the high cost of memory. Apple pays $10 for a GB, but if you opt for 4 GB's, the charge is $150 (plus that original $10 for the first GB)). That's actually $160. If Apple pays $40 (which I doubt), that's 300% profit.



    That's misleading - VERY misleading. For example, people have been complaining about Apple's price for the 8 GB upgrades on MacBook Pros ($1000). Those are very expensive DIMMs. Arguing that RAM should cost $10 per GB is obviously wrong in that case. Similarly, 2 GB DIMMs are more expensive per GB than 1 GB DIMMS (usually).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fmaxwell View Post


    You're mistaking the markings on a few of the major VLSI chips as somehow conveying all that makes up a computer. And you are very wrong.



    Computer manufacturers can cut corners by using fewer, and lower quality, bypass and filter capacitors. They can use lower-quality analog parts (opamps, power amps, etc.) on their sound systems. They can use low-cost, and less reliable, cheap connectors for everything from the expansion slots to the headphone output jacks.



    They can elect to use low-end, poor quality fans or even fans with bushings rather than high-quality bearings. They can use two or three temperature sensors rather than the couple of dozen found in a Mac Pro. They can save money by not having thermal engineers involved, and, instead, by blasting fans at full speed. They can use undersized heatsinks and high-speed fans rather than taking the more expensive route of using large, high-end heatsinks and large, low-RPM, quiet fans. Ever wonder why Apple Mac Pros, Minis, and iMacs are so much quieter than other brands of desktop computers?



    They can use a cheap plastic case with poor shielding and limited resistance to flex. They can make motherboards with fewer layers that radiate more EMI and/or are more susceptible to instability from external EMI. They can use non-ECC RAM in their tower systems. They can choose not to have riser boards for RAM, making upgrades harder and cooling less effective.



    See, I'm an engineer. I know that Sun, Apple, Acer, and MSI all buy CPUs from Intel. That doesn't mean that all of the systems are of equal quality.



    Which is exactly why Apple wins every comparison on DOA rates, computer quality, need for repair, customer satisfaction, and so on. While they might use the same CPU as others (or, maybe they don't - we don't know what their internal specs are for reject rates, for example), they are clearly offering a superior product. The proof is in the pudding.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    That's fine, but the technology WAS there 2 years ago, Apple just deliberately missed it out to gauge money later on when it introduced an amazing 3.2mp auto-focus camera. There's a difference between not selling technology because it's not available, and not selling it simply because you want to introduce it as an 'amazing' new feature later on. Apple is supposed to be about making revolutionary products (which the 2G iPhone was, and OS 2.0 was) but Apple have since just tacked on some minor hardware and software changes. It certainly seems as if Apple didn't put much effort into the 3GS, and some of the parts they tossed into it have been available for years anyway.



    Fine. Show me a 3.2 mp autofocus camera available 2 years ago which would have fit into the iPhone's format. IT DIDN'T EXIST.
  • Reply 136 of 202
    eye forgeteye forget Posts: 154member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Fanboys can defend all they want but the reality is Apple is overpriced for what is inside the devices.



    I don't buy "what is inside the device". I buy a product that meets my needs, is durable, has superb customer support, looks nice and has a killer os. I didn't bat an eye when I was spending >$2k for a laptop or >$7k for a tower and monitor. At today's price/performance ratio, its a steal.
  • Reply 137 of 202
    mrochestermrochester Posts: 700member
    Quote:

    Fine. Show me a 3.2 mp autofocus camera available 2 years ago which would have fit into the iPhone's format. IT DIDN'T EXIST.



    I suggest you check your facts before you post.



    LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007

    Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*

    Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*



    Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.



    I think you might want to retract your statement now.
  • Reply 138 of 202
    Quote:

    They would be able to make more profit if they used cheaper parts like these guys do:



    http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/24/g...rm-factor-pcs/



    Then we'd get:



    Intel® Core(TM) 2 Quad Q8400 (2.66GHz, 4MB L2 cache)

    NVIDIA® GeForce® G210 graphics card (512MB video memory)

    Intel G43 Express chipset

    8GB DDR3 SDRAM

    750GB SATA hard drive (1)

    18x DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti Drive featuring Labelflash(TM) Technology (2)

    Multi-in-one digital media card reader

    Windows® Vista Home Premium 64 bit

    10/100/1000 (Gigabit) LAN

    8 USB 2.0 ports (4 front / 4 rear)

    1 1394 (rear / miniport)

    1 HDMI port (rear)

    1 VGA port (rear)

    High-definition audio with 8-channel (7.1) audio support

    Gateway FHX2300 bmid 23² HD Widescreen LCD



    for $899



    They wouldn't sacrifice on footprint as it's just taller, we'd all get a decent speed machine at a reasonable price with great graphics and it comes with a free screen.



    If Apple sold that without a screen, I'd buy that spec at that price.



    The fact that the Mini seems overpriced and Apple still don't make that much profit means they are building it wrong. No one is telling them to use mobile parts.



    'Game. Set. Match.'



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 139 of 202
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    Intel's Larabee chips will ship next year. CPU, graphics and chipset all integrated in one CPU. instead of making multi-cores, they are going to make each core do it's own thing instead of making specialized chips for CPU and chipsets.



    but going from geforce video to shit intel will make stuff slower and apple needs to have better video cards in there systems with there own ram.



    ATI has on board video with it's own ram.
  • Reply 140 of 202
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post


    Y



    B



    But really the MacMini is the current xMac



    the mini is the old cube
Sign In or Register to comment.