The whole competition thing doesn't really work with Apple on the computer side. With phones it currently does because you can switch from one to another in a single day very easily.
If this was iPhone OS v1.x I'd agree with you, but with the App Store I don't think it's that easy anymore and for the same reasons you have for it being harder for customers to switch PC OSes. I have spent more money on iPhone OS apps than I have on Mac OS apps. I install and use very few paid apps for Mac OS X, which include iStat Menus and 1Password. Perhaps I'm unusual in this case, but I don't play computer games and don't often need Office or iWork, so the trial works for me or those few and far between uses.
That's a quite funny comparision, since the Zino's top processor doesn't even brek the 2GHz barrier
For $630 you get
A 1.8GHz Athlon with 800MHz and 1Mb cache (33% lower clock, 20% lower FSB, only a third of the cache)
2Gb of 800MHz DDR2 RAM (Older AND slower RAM)
The same 320Gb HD
And Old ATI Radeon HD 4330 (it may be "discrete", but it is still worse than the 320M)
A fugly plastic case
Windows 7 Ultimate
Notice I always put up Windows 7 Ultimate when I do such comparisons. Mac OS X has ONE version with all features, so it should be compared to the one Windows version that also has every feature.
dell: base studio XPS 7100- 500$: Athlon2 x4 proccessor (2.8 ghz 2mb), ATI 4200 intigrated (128mb) 3GB DDR3 1333 ram, 500GB 7200 rpm HDD.
dell inspiron 15 (laptop): $978 (would be less, but u can't custimize i3 laptops)- 2.53 ghz C2D 3mb cache, 4GB ram (DDR2, can't custimize i3 laptops >.<) 256mb graphics (dedicated) this is a LAPTOP and a worse version (startd at celron, probably coulda saved a bit)
dell studio 15: (laptop): $894- i3 laptops (basic 2.13 ghz, better then C2D at high clock due to L3 and 32nm) 1GB ATI 5470, 4GB DRR3 1066
HP: Dv6z: 829 (may change HP is always between 100-300 off on most notebooks): AMD Phenom 2 x2 2.8GHz (2mb) 512 ATI 5470 (switchable) 320Gb 7200 rpm, 4GB DDR3
HPDv5t: 879 (see last pharagraph for info): 4GB DDR3, 2.26GHZ i3 3mb L3, 320GB 7200 HDD, 512 ATI 5470 (switchable)
i did not add in win7 ult as some1 else did, but its laptops beating a desktop (with laptop parts) however laptops have screens!!! mine all had 15.4 or 15.6 i believe, and then the desktop- (oh shit its huge, world is ending!) is $500 and beats mini in everything but GPU (could be upgraded to an ATI 5450 for $50, and a superior phenom + the 5770 for $220 (same clock, 512kb L2 and 4mb L3 + better architecture)
and as for using ult edition- hp and dells prices are different... just checked MS and win7 ult is $100 more then win7 home premium (added $100 to all prices)
this also makes your zino cost 593.99. also every mb of cache increases performance like 3-8%... a show of what affects % performance is: cores> clock > cache (you should have 2+ m fo cache for games and 1+ for everyday multitasking (word/ie/ppt) and 512 is fine for a task, maybe two.
also article talked about using i7's... its pointless... xeon better performance at same clock than i7's
Almost none of those things should add to the cost though. The hardware is old, Core 2 Duo is the last generation and the Macbook got the same spec upgrade at the same price. It didn't need a 320GB drive if they had made it easy to access. The current price point is what the second Mini was, except it was 2.53GHz with 4GB RAM. Apple pretty much cut out the low end model.
Well said.
To Ohka, our family shares the connection, so it's not like I pay the $100 bill by myself. I am not in the market for a Mac Mini, but I can spot a rip off when I see it. Apple is charging $100 more just for the unibody case. Everything else should be expected as a regular refresh/update WITHOUT a price increase. Almost every Mac DROPS in price from time to time.
As for the $35 comment, good luck trying to sell a used 320Gb drive for much more than that. You might find a buyer at $45 if you hold out long enough.
Secondly, your cost of goods do not include cost/resources for R&D, Manufacturing Organization, Customer Support, Shipping, Freight Forwarding, Customs Applications, Packaging, Patent/Government Agency/Legal/Translation/Accounting fees, Marketing/Sales print/electronic/internet materials/service, etc., etc. And note that each of the above activities have to address individual country government/business regulations.
And where did you ever hear that, "Apple is aiming for [a] 150-200% profit margin on the iPhone?"
Of course BoM doesn't include anything outside of the materials, but if the Foxonn situation has proven anything, it's that these GNCs pay virtually nothing for each electronic device manufactured. R&D and marketing are the biggest expenses aside from the materials, but Apple made far more than $400 per iPhone 3G and 3GS when you consider how much AT&T charges for termination fees, plans, etc..
150% is a reasonable baseline target for profit margins. I never said that Apple publicly announced that number, did I?
Getting back on topic, how much money has Apple had to spend on R&D and marketing for the Mac Mini in the past few years? I sincerely doubt very much at all.
Getting back on topic, how much money has Apple had to spend on R&D and marketing for the Mac Mini in the past few years? I sincerely doubt very much at all.
they probably realized that they need ed to update it like a month ago and rushed to make it smaller and shinier
What Apple have done year after year is move the models down, this year the lowest end handset is £70 higher than last year. It would be more accurate to say that the price hasn't dropped this year. This year's 3GS costs the same as last year's, although it might be slightly more since they cut the storage in half this time from 16GB to 8GB.
Call me crazy, but when APple releases a new iPhone, I compare the price for the new model with the launch price of the model before it. 16GB 3GS was 200, 32GB was 300. No price difference here in the US. If you are saying that the 3GS costs more to buy after the iPhone 4 is out than a 3G costs to buy after the 3GS was released...who gives a shit about last generation? Seriously if that is the reason you are using to not buy a Mini, that makes no sense.
I don't know what launch prices were in the UK, so maybe the 3GS 16GB launch price was 70 pounds cheaper than the iPhone 4 16GB, but here in the US it's 0 difference.
Call me crazy, but when Apple releases a new iPhone, I compare the price for the new model with the launch price of the model before it. 16GB 3GS was 200, 32GB was 300. No price difference here in the US.
In the UK, the 3GS was £449 but the iPhone 4 equivalent is £499 so an increase of £50 ($75). Contract pricing has varied between carriers so it's hard to tell but typical upgrade costs are looking to be around the £200-300 mark, which is way higher than last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
If you are saying that the 3GS costs more to buy after the iPhone 4 is out than a 3G costs to buy after the 3GS was released...who gives a shit about last generation?
Well me because I have a 2 generation old iPhone and I would like multitasking, which isn't supported on the 3G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Seriously if that is the reason you are using to not buy a Mini, that makes no sense.
As I said earlier, the reason not to buy a Mini was due to the Mini price increase (subject of the thread). My reason for not upgrading to the next iPhone is due to the iPhone price hike too.
If the 8GB 3GS had come in at £350 not £419 and the Mac Mini was £599 with 4GB RAM, I'd possibly buy both - at least one of them anyway. If they dropped the Mini to £549 (what it used to be) and had a 160GB drive, it would be fine.
Without those things, the extra cost for me would be:
Mini (£650) + 4GB RAM (£75) + iPhone 3GS 8GB (£419) - old Mini (£450) - old iPhone (£200) = £494
With those changes, the upgrade cost becomes:
Mini with 4GB RAM and smaller 160GB drive (£549) + iPhone 3GS 8GB (£349) - old stuff = £248
The latter I can stretch to, the former not so much. I could obviously pay it up over time like anything but I don't feel like it's worth investing that much in an upgrade after pretty much just one year.
I like the new designs and new features of both the Mini and iPhone as much as anyone but when the price goes up that much, it's disappointing because it's very difficult to justify buying them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
I don't know what launch prices were in the UK, so maybe the 3GS 16GB launch price was 70 pounds cheaper than the iPhone 4 16GB, but here in the US it's 0 difference.
The entry price in the UK is higher too. The entry 3G currently is £350, the new entry point for the 8GB 3GS will be £419. Contracts find ways to absorb the extra by moving the tariffs or requiring longer contracts but the handset prices are higher by £50-70 over last year's options.
New 2010 Mac mini has a SDXC Card Slot! It's a 2.4GHz Intel Core Duo 2 processor a HDMI output well as MiniDisplay Port. Who cares about Blu-Ray! Amazon right now has this Mac mini for $669.99! Amazon Prime has 2-Day Shipping Free or Next Day Delivery for $3.99! What more do you want?
New 2010 Mac mini has a SDXC Card Slot! It's a 2.4GHz Intel Core Duo 2 processor a HDMI output well as MiniDisplay Port. Who cares about Blu-Ray! Amazon right now has this Mac mini for $669.99! Amazon Prime has 2-Day Shipping Free or Next Day Delivery for $3.99! What more do you want?
Well, based on the response on this forum and other comments, what many consumers want is the same machine for $600, or the $699 model with 4Gb RAM and 500Gb disk.
Once you upgrade the Mini with more storage, RAM, and a keybord/mouse combo, with the Apple remote, you are looking at around $900 before taxes. That is nearing MacBook territory, folks!
Some of the problems with the Mini can be blamed on Intel because you know that Apple wanted to put an i3/i5 in there but couldn't unless the graphics got crippled in the process. A Mini with an i5 is EMOTIONALLY easier to justify than an old CPU.
Still, no one forced Apple to increase the base price.
Well, based on the response on this forum and other comments, what many consumers want is the same machine for $600, or the $699 model with 4Gb RAM and 500Gb disk.
Once you upgrade the Mini with more storage, RAM, and a keybord/mouse combo, with the Apple remote, you are looking at around $900 before taxes. That is nearing MacBook territory, folks!
Some of the problems with the Mini can be blamed on Intel because you know that Apple wanted to put an i3/i5 in there but couldn't unless the graphics got crippled in the process. A Mini with an i5 is EMOTIONALLY easier to justify than an old CPU.
Still, no one forced Apple to increase the base price.
I think you're right on all points.
Seems to me much of the mini's increased price/cost can be blamed on the cost of the enclosure; and also probably Apple's desire not to undercut the iMacs and MacBooks.
When the G4 iMac with its swing arm was discontinued years ago, lots of people said it was due to the the excessive cost of the stainless steel arm. You'd think Apple would take cost of parts into account on their lowest cost computer, but no, it's appearance over function as usual.
I think the new Mac mini looks great but its new appearance isn't worth an extra $100 to me.
And what's with Intel? If they can't keep up in the graphics department, they should let someone else help.
Seems to me much of the mini's increased price/cost can be blamed on the cost of the enclosure; and also probably Apple's desire not to undercut the iMacs and MacBooks.
They stuck with more storage too. Apple charge $50 to go from 250GB to 320GB in the Macbook. The previous Mini used to have 160GB. Small tweaks here and there would have saved the $100 and as I say, they could have reduced margins by a small amount to hit that point and increase volume. So 250GB drive to save $50 to begin, take a $25 hit in margins, make some other $25 savings somewhere and you get $599.
clearly, apple is a failure. They can't make ipads and iphones fast enough for demand. They can't please investors. I mean, just look at their stock price over the last 5 years. An abomination if ever i have seen one. They make the baby jesus cry.
The feds should investigate them and leave the good companies (bp, massey energy, etc alone). Those companies are doing such wonderful things. Also, i think the telecoms are doing a great job. I could not ask more of my cable or phone providers. The fact that i have one choice of semi-fast internet in my area and the price goes up for no reason every other month pleases me as a consumer and citizen. You're doing a heck of a job brownie! Meanwhile, apple puts out crap and more crap. I demand an investigation immediately.
Comments
The whole competition thing doesn't really work with Apple on the computer side. With phones it currently does because you can switch from one to another in a single day very easily.
If this was iPhone OS v1.x I'd agree with you, but with the App Store I don't think it's that easy anymore and for the same reasons you have for it being harder for customers to switch PC OSes. I have spent more money on iPhone OS apps than I have on Mac OS apps. I install and use very few paid apps for Mac OS X, which include iStat Menus and 1Password. Perhaps I'm unusual in this case, but I don't play computer games and don't often need Office or iWork, so the trial works for me or those few and far between uses.
That's a quite funny comparision, since the Zino's top processor doesn't even brek the 2GHz barrier
For $630 you get
A 1.8GHz Athlon with 800MHz and 1Mb cache (33% lower clock, 20% lower FSB, only a third of the cache)
2Gb of 800MHz DDR2 RAM (Older AND slower RAM)
The same 320Gb HD
And Old ATI Radeon HD 4330 (it may be "discrete", but it is still worse than the 320M)
A fugly plastic case
Windows 7 Ultimate
Notice I always put up Windows 7 Ultimate when I do such comparisons. Mac OS X has ONE version with all features, so it should be compared to the one Windows version that also has every feature.
dell: base studio XPS 7100- 500$: Athlon2 x4 proccessor (2.8 ghz 2mb), ATI 4200 intigrated (128mb) 3GB DDR3 1333 ram, 500GB 7200 rpm HDD.
dell inspiron 15 (laptop): $978 (would be less, but u can't custimize i3 laptops)- 2.53 ghz C2D 3mb cache, 4GB ram (DDR2, can't custimize i3 laptops >.<) 256mb graphics (dedicated) this is a LAPTOP and a worse version (startd at celron, probably coulda saved a bit)
dell studio 15: (laptop): $894- i3 laptops (basic 2.13 ghz, better then C2D at high clock due to L3 and 32nm) 1GB ATI 5470, 4GB DRR3 1066
HP: Dv6z: 829 (may change HP is always between 100-300 off on most notebooks): AMD Phenom 2 x2 2.8GHz (2mb) 512 ATI 5470 (switchable) 320Gb 7200 rpm, 4GB DDR3
HPDv5t: 879 (see last pharagraph for info): 4GB DDR3, 2.26GHZ i3 3mb L3, 320GB 7200 HDD, 512 ATI 5470 (switchable)
i did not add in win7 ult as some1 else did, but its laptops beating a desktop (with laptop parts) however laptops have screens!!! mine all had 15.4 or 15.6 i believe, and then the desktop- (oh shit its huge, world is ending!) is $500 and beats mini in everything but GPU (could be upgraded to an ATI 5450 for $50, and a superior phenom + the 5770 for $220 (same clock, 512kb L2 and 4mb L3 + better architecture)
and as for using ult edition- hp and dells prices are different... just checked MS and win7 ult is $100 more then win7 home premium (added $100 to all prices)
this also makes your zino cost 593.99. also every mb of cache increases performance like 3-8%... a show of what affects % performance is: cores> clock > cache (you should have 2+ m fo cache for games and 1+ for everyday multitasking (word/ie/ppt) and 512 is fine for a task, maybe two.
also article talked about using i7's... its pointless... xeon better performance at same clock than i7's
Almost none of those things should add to the cost though. The hardware is old, Core 2 Duo is the last generation and the Macbook got the same spec upgrade at the same price. It didn't need a 320GB drive if they had made it easy to access. The current price point is what the second Mini was, except it was 2.53GHz with 4GB RAM. Apple pretty much cut out the low end model.
Well said.
To Ohka, our family shares the connection, so it's not like I pay the $100 bill by myself. I am not in the market for a Mac Mini, but I can spot a rip off when I see it. Apple is charging $100 more just for the unibody case. Everything else should be expected as a regular refresh/update WITHOUT a price increase. Almost every Mac DROPS in price from time to time.
As for the $35 comment, good luck trying to sell a used 320Gb drive for much more than that. You might find a buyer at $45 if you hold out long enough.
First of all, the UK price includes VAT.
Secondly, your cost of goods do not include cost/resources for R&D, Manufacturing Organization, Customer Support, Shipping, Freight Forwarding, Customs Applications, Packaging, Patent/Government Agency/Legal/Translation/Accounting fees, Marketing/Sales print/electronic/internet materials/service, etc., etc. And note that each of the above activities have to address individual country government/business regulations.
And where did you ever hear that, "Apple is aiming for [a] 150-200% profit margin on the iPhone?"
Of course BoM doesn't include anything outside of the materials, but if the Foxonn situation has proven anything, it's that these GNCs pay virtually nothing for each electronic device manufactured. R&D and marketing are the biggest expenses aside from the materials, but Apple made far more than $400 per iPhone 3G and 3GS when you consider how much AT&T charges for termination fees, plans, etc..
150% is a reasonable baseline target for profit margins. I never said that Apple publicly announced that number, did I?
Getting back on topic, how much money has Apple had to spend on R&D and marketing for the Mac Mini in the past few years? I sincerely doubt very much at all.
Getting back on topic, how much money has Apple had to spend on R&D and marketing for the Mac Mini in the past few years? I sincerely doubt very much at all.
they probably realized that they need ed to update it like a month ago and rushed to make it smaller and shinier
What Apple have done year after year is move the models down, this year the lowest end handset is £70 higher than last year. It would be more accurate to say that the price hasn't dropped this year. This year's 3GS costs the same as last year's, although it might be slightly more since they cut the storage in half this time from 16GB to 8GB.
Call me crazy, but when APple releases a new iPhone, I compare the price for the new model with the launch price of the model before it. 16GB 3GS was 200, 32GB was 300. No price difference here in the US. If you are saying that the 3GS costs more to buy after the iPhone 4 is out than a 3G costs to buy after the 3GS was released...who gives a shit about last generation? Seriously if that is the reason you are using to not buy a Mini, that makes no sense.
I don't know what launch prices were in the UK, so maybe the 3GS 16GB launch price was 70 pounds cheaper than the iPhone 4 16GB, but here in the US it's 0 difference.
Call me crazy, but when Apple releases a new iPhone, I compare the price for the new model with the launch price of the model before it. 16GB 3GS was 200, 32GB was 300. No price difference here in the US.
In the UK, the 3GS was £449 but the iPhone 4 equivalent is £499 so an increase of £50 ($75). Contract pricing has varied between carriers so it's hard to tell but typical upgrade costs are looking to be around the £200-300 mark, which is way higher than last year.
If you are saying that the 3GS costs more to buy after the iPhone 4 is out than a 3G costs to buy after the 3GS was released...who gives a shit about last generation?
Well me because I have a 2 generation old iPhone and I would like multitasking, which isn't supported on the 3G.
Seriously if that is the reason you are using to not buy a Mini, that makes no sense.
As I said earlier, the reason not to buy a Mini was due to the Mini price increase (subject of the thread). My reason for not upgrading to the next iPhone is due to the iPhone price hike too.
If the 8GB 3GS had come in at £350 not £419 and the Mac Mini was £599 with 4GB RAM, I'd possibly buy both - at least one of them anyway. If they dropped the Mini to £549 (what it used to be) and had a 160GB drive, it would be fine.
Without those things, the extra cost for me would be:
Mini (£650) + 4GB RAM (£75) + iPhone 3GS 8GB (£419) - old Mini (£450) - old iPhone (£200) = £494
With those changes, the upgrade cost becomes:
Mini with 4GB RAM and smaller 160GB drive (£549) + iPhone 3GS 8GB (£349) - old stuff = £248
The latter I can stretch to, the former not so much. I could obviously pay it up over time like anything but I don't feel like it's worth investing that much in an upgrade after pretty much just one year.
I like the new designs and new features of both the Mini and iPhone as much as anyone but when the price goes up that much, it's disappointing because it's very difficult to justify buying them.
I don't know what launch prices were in the UK, so maybe the 3GS 16GB launch price was 70 pounds cheaper than the iPhone 4 16GB, but here in the US it's 0 difference.
The entry price in the UK is higher too. The entry 3G currently is £350, the new entry point for the 8GB 3GS will be £419. Contracts find ways to absorb the extra by moving the tariffs or requiring longer contracts but the handset prices are higher by £50-70 over last year's options.
New 2010 Mac mini has a SDXC Card Slot! It's a 2.4GHz Intel Core Duo 2 processor a HDMI output well as MiniDisplay Port. Who cares about Blu-Ray! Amazon right now has this Mac mini for $669.99! Amazon Prime has 2-Day Shipping Free or Next Day Delivery for $3.99! What more do you want?
Well, based on the response on this forum and other comments, what many consumers want is the same machine for $600, or the $699 model with 4Gb RAM and 500Gb disk.
Once you upgrade the Mini with more storage, RAM, and a keybord/mouse combo, with the Apple remote, you are looking at around $900 before taxes. That is nearing MacBook territory, folks!
Some of the problems with the Mini can be blamed on Intel because you know that Apple wanted to put an i3/i5 in there but couldn't unless the graphics got crippled in the process. A Mini with an i5 is EMOTIONALLY easier to justify than an old CPU.
Still, no one forced Apple to increase the base price.
Well, based on the response on this forum and other comments, what many consumers want is the same machine for $600, or the $699 model with 4Gb RAM and 500Gb disk.
Once you upgrade the Mini with more storage, RAM, and a keybord/mouse combo, with the Apple remote, you are looking at around $900 before taxes. That is nearing MacBook territory, folks!
Some of the problems with the Mini can be blamed on Intel because you know that Apple wanted to put an i3/i5 in there but couldn't unless the graphics got crippled in the process. A Mini with an i5 is EMOTIONALLY easier to justify than an old CPU.
Still, no one forced Apple to increase the base price.
I think you're right on all points.
Seems to me much of the mini's increased price/cost can be blamed on the cost of the enclosure; and also probably Apple's desire not to undercut the iMacs and MacBooks.
When the G4 iMac with its swing arm was discontinued years ago, lots of people said it was due to the the excessive cost of the stainless steel arm. You'd think Apple would take cost of parts into account on their lowest cost computer, but no, it's appearance over function as usual.
I think the new Mac mini looks great but its new appearance isn't worth an extra $100 to me.
And what's with Intel? If they can't keep up in the graphics department, they should let someone else help.
Seems to me much of the mini's increased price/cost can be blamed on the cost of the enclosure; and also probably Apple's desire not to undercut the iMacs and MacBooks.
They stuck with more storage too. Apple charge $50 to go from 250GB to 320GB in the Macbook. The previous Mini used to have 160GB. Small tweaks here and there would have saved the $100 and as I say, they could have reduced margins by a small amount to hit that point and increase volume. So 250GB drive to save $50 to begin, take a $25 hit in margins, make some other $25 savings somewhere and you get $599.
clearly, apple is a failure. They can't make ipads and iphones fast enough for demand. They can't please investors. I mean, just look at their stock price over the last 5 years. An abomination if ever i have seen one. They make the baby jesus cry.
The feds should investigate them and leave the good companies (bp, massey energy, etc alone). Those companies are doing such wonderful things. Also, i think the telecoms are doing a great job. I could not ask more of my cable or phone providers. The fact that i have one choice of semi-fast internet in my area and the price goes up for no reason every other month pleases me as a consumer and citizen. You're doing a heck of a job brownie! Meanwhile, apple puts out crap and more crap. I demand an investigation immediately.
apple is doomed
for700 or so bucks i can turn my 42+plasma into a super res screen mac ?????
i am so stupid