Here is one such test for a new Android phone running 2.3. As you can see there are some in the 2.x hour range and half the list less than 4, or well below a full days use.
Here's the full article where Solipcism's battery chart was pulled. As you'll find, other battery test categories have much different results.
That is why these companies are a big threat to Apple. If Apple had to cut the price of the iPhone it would literally take over 10% of Apples total revenue and an even bigger percentage of profit.
Like in MP3 player market, I foresee iPhone Mini/Nano in Apple's pipeline. It's just a matter of time...
Hmm. Two over a year old and one made for the Chinese market by a Chinese company. There might be a current one around somewhere, but as you found in your research trying to discover some, they're pretty rare.
I suppose you did read it didn't you? Your article from 2008 says nothing about overall ASUS quality. Looks like a more a disagreement over power management claims 3 years ago.
One link goes to the Nexus S with capacitive screen. another goes to the white iPhone. The current LG Optimus models are also capacitive. You're grasping for straws now.
My original post that you seem to be convinced is wrong was that resistive screens are rare, and I can't think of any recent ones, and that I did not know of any phones with 1-2 hour battery life. Which part of that is wrong?
The iPhone has a halo effect on the iPad and the iPad has a halo effect on the iPhone. Both have a halo effect on iMacs, MB's, MBA's and MBP's. All the above have a halo effect on ATV's. Oh, and there is the original Apple halo product, the iPod that basically got the ball rolling!
Best
sounds like a great plan 10 yrs ago
and today ..... well beyond our wildest dreams in product and sales .....
I suppose you did read it didn't you? Your article from 2008 says nothing about overall ASUS quality. Looks like a more a disagreement over power management claims 3 years ago.
It helps make my point that Asus cuts costs by using cheaper components although the laptops they paint red with a Ferrari badge or yellow with Lambhorgini aren't cheap.
One link goes to the Nexus S with capacitive screen. another goes to the white iPhone. The current LG Optimus models are also capacitive. You're grasping for straws now.
My original post that you seem to be convinced is wrong was that resistive screens are rare, and I can't think of any recent ones, and that I did not know of any phones with 1-2 hour battery life. Which part of that is wrong?
The Optimus in the link is a currently available Android phone. with a resistive screen which runs Froyo and is an example of cost cutting which helps explain LG's selling more phones but making less money.
The Nexus S and iPhone 4 in white are selling along side it, again showing that it is a currently available phone selling outside China.
If correct then it's gotta be old tho since every newer Optimus model is capacitive. Good to see you taking the time to see just what is available out there rather than just going by "he said".
Other categories are different, especially when you compare UMTS talk time which uses ?3G? to CDMA2000 talk time which uses ?2G?, even thought ?3G? is considered on for both.
The point you?re failing to get isn?t that some device can beat the iPhone in some test (which I clearly stated) but that they aren?t consistent and even among their tests because Google and the vendors have chosen to cut corners at every path to make the experience inconsistent between devices.
Looking at one of these charts shows that. It?s not about The Atrix besting the iPhone in talk time. it?s not your defense of a 3 month old Android phone having an older version of Android so it shouldn?t be counted. It?s not about your ability to root your device and reinstall with the default UI and open source drivers that are better than the vendor supplied drivers. It?s about the Android landscape being an erratic nightmare for regular users.
Maybe on paper but wait until the screen starts failing, the keys fall off the keyboard and a litany of failures that come from cutting costs by using cheaper components.
Case in point, in 2009 when I bought my MacBook 13" (last of the aluminum), my son bought a "you beaut" Asus 17" laptop with all the bells and whistles including Vista, apart from a $10 upgrade to Snow Leopard my MacBook hasn't missed a beat (although the battery doesn't last as long anymore), the Asus has basically fallen apart, my son has to use a USB keyboard and mouse as half the keys have fallen off, the trackpad is shite which hardly works, the battery life has been atrocious right from the start and it has had to be reformatted several times and updated to Windows 7 for $130.
You can disagree but your experience is anecdotal and only addresses only aspect of quality. Plus you?re comparing it to a MBP whose case is made out of a milled block of aluminium. When I compare two products I expect a more expensive model to be better quality.
As for quality, Asus has done wonders with power efficient on their netbooks and have used great LCDs and backlights compared to the other machines in their price category. Note that Asus makes a lot than a few notebooks. They used to (and maybe still do) make Apple?s motherboards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
Those that wan't an iPhone but only have £100-200 will have to go for these rather than a £600 iPhone.
And as these drag down the other Android/WP7 phones, those that wan't a smartphone and can't understand why the iPhone costs twice as much as all the other phones that look similar, feel similar and have an OS that's just as good if not better, may end up buying another phone.
That is why these companies are a big threat to Apple. If Apple had to cut the price of the iPhone it would literally take over 10% of Apples total revenue and an even bigger percentage of profit.
Apple take ⅓ of the world?s ?PC? profits without even making the top 5 list. They don?t this by making a $400 PC because they?d rather make a unit sale and kill their brand over making a profit.
As you can see from hill60?s anecdote, above, making a cheap product can easily give the impression that all your products are cheaply made. Brand is important. Do you recall the issue the big 3 japanese car makers had trying to sell higher end automobiles tied to their economy brand names? The result was to make a subsidiary with a different brand association. But that?s going the other way. Apple and others simply have no need until their current market is saturated.
Other categories are different, especially when you compare UMTS talk time which uses ‘3G” to CDMA2000 talk time which uses ‘2G’, even thought ‘3G’ is considered on for both.
The point you’re failing to get isn’t that some device can beat the iPhone in some test (which I clearly stated) but that they aren’t consistent and even among their tests because Google and the vendors have chosen to cut corners at every path to make the experience inconsistent between devices.
Looking at one of these charts shows that. It’s not about The Atrix besting the iPhone in talk time. it’s not your defense of a 3 month old Android phone having an older version of Android so it shouldn’t be counted. It’s not about your ability to root your device and reinstall with the default UI and open source drivers that are better than the vendor supplied drivers. It’s about the Android landscape being an erratic nightmare for regular users.
I don't believe I was defending any particular phone. I was simply offering support for my initial claim regarding battery and screen, and even overall hardware, that you and others had issue with.
The forum membership does itself no favors by ignoring or making light of competing platforms and devices. Apple's strength is not from hardware alone. You and others (well, maybe not so much you. I think you do get it) would be fooling themselves if you didn't acknowledge that there are smartphones and tablets with faster processors, as good or better displays, longer battery life, more features and ways of interfacing with them than Apple currently offers.
Continued insistence that iPad pricing can't be matched or beaten with devices that have equally good hardware pedigrees is already being proven wrong. And there are worthy and useful features that buyers find valuable in the Android OS that Apple cannot or hasn't yet been able to offer. So when Apple fans argue those points they get legitimate disagreements. In come the trolls.
Apple's superiority does not come from it's hardware or pricing or OS alone. All of those, by themselves, can and have been beaten in at least some areas. Apple's strength comes from the entire package: A solid, stable and easy to navigate user experience with less to worry about for the end user. A well-tested OS. Apps for every purpose. Legendary customer service. Technology that just works.
If you or others insist on arguing that the combination of quality hardware at an unbeatable price makes Apple the obvious choice, you risk losing nearly every challenge. Instead proclaim that the entire experience is unmatched for a great number of users. That's an argument you just may win.
Apple take ⅓ of the world’s ‘PC’ profits without even making the top 5 list. They don’t this by making a $400 PC because they’d rather make a unit sale and kill their brand over making a profit.
As a platform that is a long term disastrous position - Apple has been saved by the Halo effect of going mass with the iPad, and iPod and iPhone. Thats also pushed up it's sales of Macs.
Were is not for that the mac market would be < 5% worldwide. It would have survived, but there would be little buzz and no software.
Quote:
As you can see from hill60’s anecdote, above, making a cheap product can easily give the impression that all your products are cheaply made. Brand is important. Do you recall the issue the big 3 japanese car makers had trying to sell higher end automobiles tied to their economy brand names? The result was to make a subsidiary with a different brand association. But that’s going the other way. Apple and others simply have no need until their current market is saturated.
Apple makes cheap products, like the cheapest iPod and the cheapest iPad, and yet maintains it's brand.
As for when it's market is saturated in iPhones - pretty soon now would be my guess. The market for expensive smart phones is saturated in Europe, as we can see from the statistics - where Apple went from 40% to 20% of the Market in France. The way forward is now PAYG - similarly in China, the prices have to drop.
Comparing with cars is a bit of a cop out as Apple is competing as both a manufacturer and a platform. The platform has to be healthy to guarantee long term profits.
As for revenue, if the market for $600 iPhones is X the market for $200 iPhones trends towards 4X. Apple get's the same profits from its $600 phones, and sells more of the $200 phones ( or intermediate phones). This lowers margins but increases the platform reach and profits. There will be little or no cannibalisation, as there isn't cannibalisation between the mac book and the mac book pro. The people who want the expensive one, will get it.
PAYG is huge outside the US - even in Europe. Being able to buy an cheap unlocked iPhone in the same retail channels as the iPod - which is pretty much everywhere - and then getting a sim where you want will revolutionise the industry. I think that Apple want to bypass the carriers.
Now, I have no idea why solipsism wants to stay in his ghetto, he is clearly more obsessed with profits rather than platform reach; for most consumers it is, however, better that the platform stays large. As it is for developers.
Also, Tim cook has made noises about cheaper iPhones. His will be done.
Also they have tried $400 PCs - the mini. The problem is not cheapness for Macs, but the fact that there is a huge software lockin for Windows. Apple can only change that market in a generation. People who bought ten years ago have too much software locked in - its not as if you can take your windows games and applications with you.
Also they have tried $400 PCs - the mini. The problem is not cheapness for Macs, but the fact that there is a huge software lockin for Windows. Apple can only change that market in a generation. People who bought ten years ago have too much software locked in - its not as if you can take your windows games and applications with you.
Actually, of course, you can bring your Win treasures and trash with you via Bootcamp, Parallels and/or VM Ware.
(Which also, of course, may bring an added cost for the privilege depending, but just a "lest we forget" note.)
True, that helps with some switching. But the cost is parallels( etc.) and the Windows OS. Probably cheaper than buying all your software again for sure. But not cheap.
As a platform that is a long term disastrous position - Apple has been saved by the Halo effect of going mass with the iPad, and iPod and iPhone. Thats also pushed up it's sales of Macs.
Were is not for that the mac market would be < 5% worldwide. It would have survived, but there would be little buzz and no software.
I agree it would have been less, but that doesn?t mean they wouldn?t have made the majority of the profits or merely been surviving. There is a reason Apple never licensed their OS to HP, Dell et al. during their darkest hours when these huge companies were wanting to break free of Window?s hold and Apple needed a winning product.
Their platform is what binds their products, not their downfall. It?s not part of the Mac, AppleTV, iPhone and IPod line to some extent. That isn?t a disastrous position by any measure.
I agree it would have been less, but that doesn?t mean they wouldn?t have made the majority of the profits or merely been surviving. There is a reason Apple never licensed their OS to HP, Dell et al. during their darkest hours when these huge companies were wanting to break free of Window?s hold and Apple needed a winning product.
I agree, licensing OS X would be a disaster for Apple. They make huge profits on their hardware which they can get away with because of the lock in with their customers. If they were to license the OS to others, then most of the enterprise market would probably buy a machine with OS X from someone else for less, but the number of extra OS X installations wouldn't offset the loss of hardware sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Also they have tried $400 PCs - the mini. The problem is not cheapness for Macs, but the fact that there is a huge software lockin for Windows. Apple can only change that market in a generation. People who bought ten years ago have too much software locked in - its not as if you can take your windows games and applications with you.
People who bought 10 years ago will probably find their software isn't going to work in Windows 7 either. People who bought software for their Mac 6 years ago also find it won't work on a new Mac as well.
The mini is a $400 PC, but the problem with it is it's not as good as other $400 PCs. Compared to the rest it looks amazing which usually is enough in my opinion to justify the price, but it doesn't have a screen or keyboard. You could keep your existing screen and keyboard, or buy new cheap ones but then what was the point in paying extra for the machine to look nice? You really need to buy an Apple screen and keyboard to get the whole design factor, but Apple screens are expensive and now your approaching the price of an iMac but with a machine with the same spec as a $300 PC. So what's the point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj.yuan
Like in MP3 player market, I foresee iPhone Mini/Nano in Apple's pipeline. It's just a matter of time...
People keep saying this but I still don't get what they can do. iPod's had massive hard drives and it was their main feature, so a cheaper one could be differentiated by having a small hard drive and being small in size. What can you actually do with an iPhone? Have an artificial limit on the number of apps that can be installed?
The problem as I see it, is it still needs to be an iPhone, but it can't be as good as the current version otherwise it will kill the current version. It also can't be any worse otherwise it will be an inferior product to all the others at the same price. At the same time it also can't be as cheap as an iPod Nano otherwise it may also hurt iPod Nano sales.
Comments
Here is one such test for a new Android phone running 2.3. As you can see there are some in the 2.x hour range and half the list less than 4, or well below a full days use.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4240/h...e-smartphone/5
According to this article at TUAW. . . Yup.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/11/29/apple...action-survey/
According to this article, nope.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asu...oard,5348.html
That is why these companies are a big threat to Apple. If Apple had to cut the price of the iPhone it would literally take over 10% of Apples total revenue and an even bigger percentage of profit.
Like in MP3 player market, I foresee iPhone Mini/Nano in Apple's pipeline. It's just a matter of time...
Hmm. Two over a year old and one made for the Chinese market by a Chinese company. There might be a current one around somewhere, but as you found in your research trying to discover some, they're pretty rare.
You want to buy one right now?
Freshly updated to Froyo?
http://shop.vodafone.com.au/mobile-d...-optimus-black
Oh, and if in case you want to say we are behind, with old phones:-
http://shop.vodafone.com.au/mobile-details/Nexus-S
or one of these:-
http://www.vodafone.com.au/personal/...hite/index.htm
Network locked.
According to this article, nope.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asu...oard,5348.html
I suppose you did read it didn't you? Your article from 2008 says nothing about overall ASUS quality. Looks like a more a disagreement over power management claims 3 years ago.
You want to buy one right now?
Freshly updated to Froyo?
http://shop.vodafone.com.au/mobile-d...-optimus-black
Oh, and if in case you want to say we are behind, with old phones:-
http://shop.vodafone.com.au/mobile-details/Nexus-S
or one of these:-
http://www.vodafone.com.au/personal/...hite/index.htm
Network locked.
One link goes to the Nexus S with capacitive screen. another goes to the white iPhone. The current LG Optimus models are also capacitive. You're grasping for straws now.
My original post that you seem to be convinced is wrong was that resistive screens are rare, and I can't think of any recent ones, and that I did not know of any phones with 1-2 hour battery life. Which part of that is wrong?
The iPhone has a halo effect on the iPad and the iPad has a halo effect on the iPhone. Both have a halo effect on iMacs, MB's, MBA's and MBP's. All the above have a halo effect on ATV's. Oh, and there is the original Apple halo product, the iPod that basically got the ball rolling!
Best
sounds like a great plan 10 yrs ago
and today ..... well beyond our wildest dreams in product and sales .....
nothing left to say .
9
I suppose you did read it didn't you? Your article from 2008 says nothing about overall ASUS quality. Looks like a more a disagreement over power management claims 3 years ago.
It helps make my point that Asus cuts costs by using cheaper components although the laptops they paint red with a Ferrari badge or yellow with Lambhorgini aren't cheap.
One link goes to the Nexus S with capacitive screen. another goes to the white iPhone. The current LG Optimus models are also capacitive. You're grasping for straws now.
My original post that you seem to be convinced is wrong was that resistive screens are rare, and I can't think of any recent ones, and that I did not know of any phones with 1-2 hour battery life. Which part of that is wrong?
The Optimus in the link is a currently available Android phone. with a resistive screen which runs Froyo and is an example of cost cutting which helps explain LG's selling more phones but making less money.
The Nexus S and iPhone 4 in white are selling along side it, again showing that it is a currently available phone selling outside China.
If correct then it's gotta be old tho since every newer Optimus model is capacitive. Good to see you taking the time to see just what is available out there rather than just going by "he said".
Here's the full article where Solipcism's battery chart was pulled. As you'll find, other battery test categories have much different results.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4240/h...e-smartphone/5
Other categories are different, especially when you compare UMTS talk time which uses ?3G? to CDMA2000 talk time which uses ?2G?, even thought ?3G? is considered on for both.
The point you?re failing to get isn?t that some device can beat the iPhone in some test (which I clearly stated) but that they aren?t consistent and even among their tests because Google and the vendors have chosen to cut corners at every path to make the experience inconsistent between devices.
Looking at one of these charts shows that. It?s not about The Atrix besting the iPhone in talk time. it?s not your defense of a 3 month old Android phone having an older version of Android so it shouldn?t be counted. It?s not about your ability to root your device and reinstall with the default UI and open source drivers that are better than the vendor supplied drivers. It?s about the Android landscape being an erratic nightmare for regular users.
Bwahaahhaahhaaa!
Sorry but you must have forgotten the /s tag.
Asus, quality???
Maybe on paper but wait until the screen starts failing, the keys fall off the keyboard and a litany of failures that come from cutting costs by using cheaper components.
Case in point, in 2009 when I bought my MacBook 13" (last of the aluminum), my son bought a "you beaut" Asus 17" laptop with all the bells and whistles including Vista, apart from a $10 upgrade to Snow Leopard my MacBook hasn't missed a beat (although the battery doesn't last as long anymore), the Asus has basically fallen apart, my son has to use a USB keyboard and mouse as half the keys have fallen off, the trackpad is shite which hardly works, the battery life has been atrocious right from the start and it has had to be reformatted several times and updated to Windows 7 for $130.
You can disagree but your experience is anecdotal and only addresses only aspect of quality. Plus you?re comparing it to a MBP whose case is made out of a milled block of aluminium. When I compare two products I expect a more expensive model to be better quality.
As for quality, Asus has done wonders with power efficient on their netbooks and have used great LCDs and backlights compared to the other machines in their price category. Note that Asus makes a lot than a few notebooks. They used to (and maybe still do) make Apple?s motherboards.
Those that wan't an iPhone but only have £100-200 will have to go for these rather than a £600 iPhone.
And as these drag down the other Android/WP7 phones, those that wan't a smartphone and can't understand why the iPhone costs twice as much as all the other phones that look similar, feel similar and have an OS that's just as good if not better, may end up buying another phone.
That is why these companies are a big threat to Apple. If Apple had to cut the price of the iPhone it would literally take over 10% of Apples total revenue and an even bigger percentage of profit.
Apple take ⅓ of the world?s ?PC? profits without even making the top 5 list. They don?t this by making a $400 PC because they?d rather make a unit sale and kill their brand over making a profit.
As you can see from hill60?s anecdote, above, making a cheap product can easily give the impression that all your products are cheaply made. Brand is important. Do you recall the issue the big 3 japanese car makers had trying to sell higher end automobiles tied to their economy brand names? The result was to make a subsidiary with a different brand association. But that?s going the other way. Apple and others simply have no need until their current market is saturated.
Other categories are different, especially when you compare UMTS talk time which uses ‘3G” to CDMA2000 talk time which uses ‘2G’, even thought ‘3G’ is considered on for both.
The point you’re failing to get isn’t that some device can beat the iPhone in some test (which I clearly stated) but that they aren’t consistent and even among their tests because Google and the vendors have chosen to cut corners at every path to make the experience inconsistent between devices.
Looking at one of these charts shows that. It’s not about The Atrix besting the iPhone in talk time. it’s not your defense of a 3 month old Android phone having an older version of Android so it shouldn’t be counted. It’s not about your ability to root your device and reinstall with the default UI and open source drivers that are better than the vendor supplied drivers. It’s about the Android landscape being an erratic nightmare for regular users.
I don't believe I was defending any particular phone. I was simply offering support for my initial claim regarding battery and screen, and even overall hardware, that you and others had issue with.
The forum membership does itself no favors by ignoring or making light of competing platforms and devices. Apple's strength is not from hardware alone. You and others (well, maybe not so much you. I think you do get it) would be fooling themselves if you didn't acknowledge that there are smartphones and tablets with faster processors, as good or better displays, longer battery life, more features and ways of interfacing with them than Apple currently offers.
Continued insistence that iPad pricing can't be matched or beaten with devices that have equally good hardware pedigrees is already being proven wrong. And there are worthy and useful features that buyers find valuable in the Android OS that Apple cannot or hasn't yet been able to offer. So when Apple fans argue those points they get legitimate disagreements. In come the trolls.
Apple's superiority does not come from it's hardware or pricing or OS alone. All of those, by themselves, can and have been beaten in at least some areas. Apple's strength comes from the entire package: A solid, stable and easy to navigate user experience with less to worry about for the end user. A well-tested OS. Apps for every purpose. Legendary customer service. Technology that just works.
If you or others insist on arguing that the combination of quality hardware at an unbeatable price makes Apple the obvious choice, you risk losing nearly every challenge. Instead proclaim that the entire experience is unmatched for a great number of users. That's an argument you just may win.
At least that's the way I see it.
Apple take ⅓ of the world’s ‘PC’ profits without even making the top 5 list. They don’t this by making a $400 PC because they’d rather make a unit sale and kill their brand over making a profit.
As a platform that is a long term disastrous position - Apple has been saved by the Halo effect of going mass with the iPad, and iPod and iPhone. Thats also pushed up it's sales of Macs.
Were is not for that the mac market would be < 5% worldwide. It would have survived, but there would be little buzz and no software.
As you can see from hill60’s anecdote, above, making a cheap product can easily give the impression that all your products are cheaply made. Brand is important. Do you recall the issue the big 3 japanese car makers had trying to sell higher end automobiles tied to their economy brand names? The result was to make a subsidiary with a different brand association. But that’s going the other way. Apple and others simply have no need until their current market is saturated.
Apple makes cheap products, like the cheapest iPod and the cheapest iPad, and yet maintains it's brand.
As for when it's market is saturated in iPhones - pretty soon now would be my guess. The market for expensive smart phones is saturated in Europe, as we can see from the statistics - where Apple went from 40% to 20% of the Market in France. The way forward is now PAYG - similarly in China, the prices have to drop.
Comparing with cars is a bit of a cop out as Apple is competing as both a manufacturer and a platform. The platform has to be healthy to guarantee long term profits.
As for revenue, if the market for $600 iPhones is X the market for $200 iPhones trends towards 4X. Apple get's the same profits from its $600 phones, and sells more of the $200 phones ( or intermediate phones). This lowers margins but increases the platform reach and profits. There will be little or no cannibalisation, as there isn't cannibalisation between the mac book and the mac book pro. The people who want the expensive one, will get it.
PAYG is huge outside the US - even in Europe. Being able to buy an cheap unlocked iPhone in the same retail channels as the iPod - which is pretty much everywhere - and then getting a sim where you want will revolutionise the industry. I think that Apple want to bypass the carriers.
Now, I have no idea why solipsism wants to stay in his ghetto, he is clearly more obsessed with profits rather than platform reach; for most consumers it is, however, better that the platform stays large. As it is for developers.
Also, Tim cook has made noises about cheaper iPhones. His will be done.
Also they have tried $400 PCs - the mini. The problem is not cheapness for Macs, but the fact that there is a huge software lockin for Windows. Apple can only change that market in a generation. People who bought ten years ago have too much software locked in - its not as if you can take your windows games and applications with you.
Actually, of course, you can bring your Win treasures and trash with you via Bootcamp, Parallels and/or VM Ware.
(Which also, of course, may bring an added cost for the privilege depending, but just a "lest we forget" note.)
As a platform that is a long term disastrous position - Apple has been saved by the Halo effect of going mass with the iPad, and iPod and iPhone. Thats also pushed up it's sales of Macs.
Were is not for that the mac market would be < 5% worldwide. It would have survived, but there would be little buzz and no software.
I agree it would have been less, but that doesn?t mean they wouldn?t have made the majority of the profits or merely been surviving. There is a reason Apple never licensed their OS to HP, Dell et al. during their darkest hours when these huge companies were wanting to break free of Window?s hold and Apple needed a winning product.
Their platform is what binds their products, not their downfall. It?s not part of the Mac, AppleTV, iPhone and IPod line to some extent. That isn?t a disastrous position by any measure.
I agree it would have been less, but that doesn?t mean they wouldn?t have made the majority of the profits or merely been surviving. There is a reason Apple never licensed their OS to HP, Dell et al. during their darkest hours when these huge companies were wanting to break free of Window?s hold and Apple needed a winning product.
I agree, licensing OS X would be a disaster for Apple. They make huge profits on their hardware which they can get away with because of the lock in with their customers. If they were to license the OS to others, then most of the enterprise market would probably buy a machine with OS X from someone else for less, but the number of extra OS X installations wouldn't offset the loss of hardware sales.
Also they have tried $400 PCs - the mini. The problem is not cheapness for Macs, but the fact that there is a huge software lockin for Windows. Apple can only change that market in a generation. People who bought ten years ago have too much software locked in - its not as if you can take your windows games and applications with you.
People who bought 10 years ago will probably find their software isn't going to work in Windows 7 either. People who bought software for their Mac 6 years ago also find it won't work on a new Mac as well.
The mini is a $400 PC, but the problem with it is it's not as good as other $400 PCs. Compared to the rest it looks amazing which usually is enough in my opinion to justify the price, but it doesn't have a screen or keyboard. You could keep your existing screen and keyboard, or buy new cheap ones but then what was the point in paying extra for the machine to look nice? You really need to buy an Apple screen and keyboard to get the whole design factor, but Apple screens are expensive and now your approaching the price of an iMac but with a machine with the same spec as a $300 PC. So what's the point?
Like in MP3 player market, I foresee iPhone Mini/Nano in Apple's pipeline. It's just a matter of time...
People keep saying this but I still don't get what they can do. iPod's had massive hard drives and it was their main feature, so a cheaper one could be differentiated by having a small hard drive and being small in size. What can you actually do with an iPhone? Have an artificial limit on the number of apps that can be installed?
The problem as I see it, is it still needs to be an iPhone, but it can't be as good as the current version otherwise it will kill the current version. It also can't be any worse otherwise it will be an inferior product to all the others at the same price. At the same time it also can't be as cheap as an iPod Nano otherwise it may also hurt iPod Nano sales.