How would you define it then? I'm taking a "casual" user as someone who's going to compare specs and use it as their primary measuring stick for determining which machine to buy. Such a person is likely not going to buy a Mac, because they most likely won't come out ahead in terms of raw specs. The Mac's advantages are, and will likely remain, in areas that are less likey to be pinned down with statistics, like the appeal (or lack thereof in the competition) of the GUI.
How would you define it then? I'm taking a "casual" user as someone who's going to compare specs and use it as their primary measuring stick for determining which machine to buy. Such a person is likely not going to buy a Mac, because they most likely won't come out ahead in terms of raw specs. The Mac's advantages are, and will likely remain, in areas that are less likey to be pinned down with statistics, like the appeal (or lack thereof in the competition) of the GUI.
And I have to add the person who buys a mac will buy the right one for the job. If it's for home use just get an iMac, and if's for processing photoshop files, audio and video files then go with one of the towers.
If you are just going to play games get a PC, they are made for this.
First off, Photoguy, I agree with you (except for the implication that PCs are just for Gamers - as much as I much prefer Macs, there ARE good reasons for some people to use PCs besides games).
Gamblor - I guess I don't see the "casual user" vs "pro user" as the same as "average user" vs "non-avg user". First of all, because avg is a measur eof central tendency, so the "non-avg" user would include both the bottom and the top....so it then would have been worded as "Average user vs pro user and novice ( simple?) user". I guess I just don't think that is what fred was intimating (alhtough it would make more sense for Fred to say what he meant, I suppose, than for me to ramble on about this).
I suspect that what fred meant by "casual" was "consumer level" - people who just want email and web and word processing and some games, but are not counting on doing high-powered computing. I imagine lots of Apple's customers are "casual" users, if he DID mean "non-pro".
First off, Photoguy, I agree with you (except for the implication that PCs are just for Gamers - as much as I much prefer Macs, there ARE good reasons for some people to use PCs besides games).
Gamblor - I guess I don't see the "casual user" vs "pro user" as the same as "average user" vs "non-avg user". First of all, because avg is a measur eof central tendency, so the "non-avg" user would include both the bottom and the top....so it then would have been worded as "Average user vs pro user and novice ( simple?) user". I guess I just don't think that is what fred was intimating (alhtough it would make more sense for Fred to say what he meant, I suppose, than for me to ramble on about this).
I suspect that what fred meant by "casual" was "consumer level" - people who just want email and web and word processing and some games, but are not counting on doing high-powered computing. I imagine lots of Apple's customers are "casual" users, if he DID mean "non-pro".
Am I on the right track Fred?
I know that, I am just saying that's what I would get if I were going to be playing games. If he really was intrested in getting a low cost tower get a used one and play with it, if it's someting you like then invest in one of the towers. But wait untill they are going to announce a speed bump. You can get some really good prices that way. It's just a thought!
Sorry about this, but this type of discussion is so common on these threads.
Yes a striped down box full of doggy components would be cheep. See any crazy specials in the Saturday papers.
There is method in the Mac madness. The focused product matrix produces max no.s of each model, bringing down price of each standard model. as well as each having the same level of quality.
I think you've missed my point. Most people are going to buy a computer based on a list of hardware features like the Dell Fred posted, and price. For PCs that's fine, because there's really nothing else to differentiate them from one another. The Mac is a different story. If you're not willing to look beyond the spec sheet, then you'll never even consider a Mac.
I think you got bogged down in the semantics of my posts. The talk about consumer and pro users really misses the point. My use of the word "average" was simply in reference to people buy based on a hardware feature list and price, because I believe that that's how most people buy computers. Someone buying a Mac is going to be looking beyond that, to perhaps more esoteric features, like Applescript, the Unix underpinnings of the OS, believing the UI is superior to what's available on Windows or Linux, or even the fit and finish of the machines.
Gartner group did a large study of PCs in mid 2002 (that's just one year ago). This study found that the AVERAGE (not the low end, not the high end) the AVERAGE yearly cost of supporting a PC in a business was $511.
$511 per year.
For about a grand, you can have a look at those results.
IT was also found that Macs ON AVERAGE cost ONLY $167 per year.
That is $344 per year savings when using a Mac.
Why do PCs cost more? Virii, The Reinstall-every-90 days effect, the inability of the users to easily upgrade and repair their hardware and software, increased licensing fees (MS and others).
These figures were broken down by category and the Mac beat the PC on every mark, sometimes by a lot, sometimes by a little.
So, when you calculate the cost of a computer, you have to calculate the costs of using it over time.
If you maintain your own machine, it still costs you time to maintain it, and that cost has to be considered. Otherwise your time would be worthless. I know you don't think your time is worthless, just like I don't think mine is worthless.
So, let's figure this:
Say you buy a kick-butt Dell for $900. You're going to keep it for 3 years, let's say. For the sake of argument, I'm going to use the Gartner figures since they spent thousands of man-hours to discover them and document them.
So for the first year, your Dell will cost you $900 plus $511 or $1,411. Note that this does NOT include power, application software original purchases - the $511 is support cost.
The second year will cost you another $511, bringing your total investment to $1,922.
Year three adds another $511, for a total 3-year support and purchase cost of $2,433. You've still got to pay for things like blank CDs, power, ink, paper, etc.
So, now let's buy a G5 for $2,000, 1.6 G5, 800mhz bus, Radeon 9700, yadda yadda and let's assume that it is comparable to the Dell above. We don't know yet, but it's a starting point.
Year one will cost you $2,000 plus $167, total: $2,167 for year one.
Year two adds $167 and totals at $2,334.
Year three adds $167 and totals $2,501.
So, I paid more than twice as much for my Mac and my three-year cost exceeds yours by less than $100.
SO if my new Mac only costs $1,500, then I beat your PC by more than $400 in three years. IF the user keeps the computer longer, then the Macintosh advantage increases $344 every year.
Even if your Dell were FREE, the Mac would be a better deal if kept 5 years.
You make a very good point JCBin only problem this will not sway those around here who want Rolex watches and Timex prices.
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that the "mac experience" and its related best of breed software costs money to develop and this is something that dell and gateway don't have to pass onto their customers.
Do we all want cheaper macs?
Yep.
Will Macs ever be cheaper then $225 Lindows Boxen gobbled up by the Walmart crowd?
You make a very good point JCBin only problem this will not sway those around here who want Rolex watches and Timex prices.
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that the "mac experience" and its related best of breed software costs money to develop and this is something that dell and gateway don't have to pass onto their customers.
Do we all want cheaper macs?
Yep.
Will Macs ever be cheaper then $225 Lindows Boxen gobbled up by the Walmart crowd?
Nope.
Do the better things in life usually cost more?
Unfortunately, yes...
Oh boy someone who hit the nail right on the head!
Gartner group did a large study of PCs in mid 2002 (that's just one year ago). This study found that the AVERAGE (not the low end, not the high end) the AVERAGE yearly cost of supporting a PC in a business was $511.
This is intensely flawed methodology because a "business" mac invariable refers to a creative pro's station while a "business" PC refers to a whole gamut of machines, the majority being Office machines.
Creative pros tend to understand their HW/SF, and to think before they act, Office monkeys tend not to understand anything, and act before they think.
That's 90% of your support cost differences right there.
PS, has anyone in htis thread noticed that the 1299 I've suggested for a basic PM, is far far far from budget or 225 lindows crapola boxen? Geez, don't turn my argument into something it isn't, thanx. (not directed at you jccbin, just speaking generally.)
Just for the record: I'd LOVE to see the low end G5 PM at $1299. I just don't think Apple will price them that low.
I suspect that the PM's will never competitive on that level, but we may see the return of a small headless machine with limited upgradability (no PCI, one AGP) that is competitive.
that is all well and good, but if that is your argument, I suggest you don't frame it in the "casual user = average user" argument - just make your own argument about what you think people do.
To lead off with a false premise based on some throwaway line fred gave (which apparently does not really relate to what you are saying) only takes away from the point you are trying to make.
fishdoc, I already explained (since my second post here) what I meant by "average", and yet you've doggedly stuck to an interpretation which is much more strict than what I intended. Give it a rest.
No problem Gamblor - I see now that you did not mean what you said about the "average" user being the same as a casual user in your first post, but were merely using that as a jumping off point to talk about something else.
And frankly I agree with you on the rest of what you say -it just took me a bit to get up to speed with the change in terminology.
Mac Rumors says G5s only prototypes now, prices higher.
"Recent information suggests that the machines will not see full availability until at least August. In fact, machines are said to be in prototype form at this time. The new machines are also said to be at higher price points than the towers they are replacing."
I still think we'll be able to order them starting tomorrow as per the Apple Store leak. What's in the boxes then?
"It is entry level if you want any decent expansion options and a choice of display(s)."
Nice one, Applenut.
I think Apple would create more impact if the towers they unveil are cheaper than the current models. Or at least the same price. This is the opportunity to make marketshare gains. Many PC Tower users probably love 'X' and would love to give it a try ie a hot-rod Doom III machine. But Apple may price them out of reach. But I'm hoping the last round of Tower cuts is a indication of a more forward thinking Apple. In terms of of their stated 10% growth target.
I'm sure plenty of PC 'Switchers' out there want more than a limited eMac/iMac2 (boutique!) machine as their 'switch' option. Let's have that consumer tower. IF Apple are the best at making a-i-o machines...they don't sell too many. Most of the PC sales are still towers. They're in the shops everywhere. A nice stylish Ives consumer tower would go down very well. Well, that's MY opinion.
However, if they are using cutting edge mobo and cpu...you can argue that they have to charge more to get back that investment. I'd argue, instead, that they need to think long term. ie don't get greedy. This has been Apple's mistake in the past. They simply charge too much for things in the first instance. No use charging less after the initial hoopla is worn off and people begin to think you're too pricey. They can recoup that 970 investment across the whole range. They need to be more aggressive than in the past re: G3-G4 transition. No trickle effect...more blitzreig.
Supply and demand. It may be a sad fact, Leonis, that Apple put the prices up. They do this when the 'times are good'. But if they want growth they're going to have to rethink this. Their strategy on the iPod shows they not adverse to pushing the prices down.
I guess we'll see. It's all hot air until Steve does his thing. But past indications don't look good for (initially, as in the next half year...) cheaper POWERMacs.
Many will take the hit. Dual 2 gig revision A? Or Much cheaper Revision B at lower price. Dilemma time...
Comments
I don't think it is appropriate to equate "casual" with "average" - in fact, I don't even see a clear connection between the two terms.
Fish
Originally posted by Gamblor
How would you define it then? I'm taking a "casual" user as someone who's going to compare specs and use it as their primary measuring stick for determining which machine to buy. Such a person is likely not going to buy a Mac, because they most likely won't come out ahead in terms of raw specs. The Mac's advantages are, and will likely remain, in areas that are less likey to be pinned down with statistics, like the appeal (or lack thereof in the competition) of the GUI.
And I have to add the person who buys a mac will buy the right one for the job. If it's for home use just get an iMac, and if's for processing photoshop files, audio and video files then go with one of the towers.
If you are just going to play games get a PC, they are made for this.
Gamblor - I guess I don't see the "casual user" vs "pro user" as the same as "average user" vs "non-avg user". First of all, because avg is a measur eof central tendency, so the "non-avg" user would include both the bottom and the top....so it then would have been worded as "Average user vs pro user and novice ( simple?) user". I guess I just don't think that is what fred was intimating (alhtough it would make more sense for Fred to say what he meant, I suppose, than for me to ramble on about this).
I suspect that what fred meant by "casual" was "consumer level" - people who just want email and web and word processing and some games, but are not counting on doing high-powered computing. I imagine lots of Apple's customers are "casual" users, if he DID mean "non-pro".
Am I on the right track Fred?
Originally posted by fishdoc
First off, Photoguy, I agree with you (except for the implication that PCs are just for Gamers - as much as I much prefer Macs, there ARE good reasons for some people to use PCs besides games).
Gamblor - I guess I don't see the "casual user" vs "pro user" as the same as "average user" vs "non-avg user". First of all, because avg is a measur eof central tendency, so the "non-avg" user would include both the bottom and the top....so it then would have been worded as "Average user vs pro user and novice ( simple?) user". I guess I just don't think that is what fred was intimating (alhtough it would make more sense for Fred to say what he meant, I suppose, than for me to ramble on about this).
I suspect that what fred meant by "casual" was "consumer level" - people who just want email and web and word processing and some games, but are not counting on doing high-powered computing. I imagine lots of Apple's customers are "casual" users, if he DID mean "non-pro".
Am I on the right track Fred?
I know that, I am just saying that's what I would get if I were going to be playing games. If he really was intrested in getting a low cost tower get a used one and play with it, if it's someting you like then invest in one of the towers. But wait untill they are going to announce a speed bump. You can get some really good prices that way. It's just a thought!
Fish
Yes a striped down box full of doggy components would be cheep. See any crazy specials in the Saturday papers.
There is method in the Mac madness. The focused product matrix produces max no.s of each model, bringing down price of each standard model. as well as each having the same level of quality.
I think you got bogged down in the semantics of my posts. The talk about consumer and pro users really misses the point. My use of the word "average" was simply in reference to people buy based on a hardware feature list and price, because I believe that that's how most people buy computers. Someone buying a Mac is going to be looking beyond that, to perhaps more esoteric features, like Applescript, the Unix underpinnings of the OS, believing the UI is superior to what's available on Windows or Linux, or even the fit and finish of the machines.
My friend bought a dual 1.25 from them for about $1200, brand new. (he had to wait a month for it though)
I picked the right path and waited until the G5's.
Gartner group did a large study of PCs in mid 2002 (that's just one year ago). This study found that the AVERAGE (not the low end, not the high end) the AVERAGE yearly cost of supporting a PC in a business was $511.
$511 per year.
For about a grand, you can have a look at those results.
IT was also found that Macs ON AVERAGE cost ONLY $167 per year.
That is $344 per year savings when using a Mac.
Why do PCs cost more? Virii, The Reinstall-every-90 days effect, the inability of the users to easily upgrade and repair their hardware and software, increased licensing fees (MS and others).
These figures were broken down by category and the Mac beat the PC on every mark, sometimes by a lot, sometimes by a little.
So, when you calculate the cost of a computer, you have to calculate the costs of using it over time.
If you maintain your own machine, it still costs you time to maintain it, and that cost has to be considered. Otherwise your time would be worthless. I know you don't think your time is worthless, just like I don't think mine is worthless.
So, let's figure this:
Say you buy a kick-butt Dell for $900. You're going to keep it for 3 years, let's say. For the sake of argument, I'm going to use the Gartner figures since they spent thousands of man-hours to discover them and document them.
So for the first year, your Dell will cost you $900 plus $511 or $1,411. Note that this does NOT include power, application software original purchases - the $511 is support cost.
The second year will cost you another $511, bringing your total investment to $1,922.
Year three adds another $511, for a total 3-year support and purchase cost of $2,433. You've still got to pay for things like blank CDs, power, ink, paper, etc.
So, now let's buy a G5 for $2,000, 1.6 G5, 800mhz bus, Radeon 9700, yadda yadda and let's assume that it is comparable to the Dell above. We don't know yet, but it's a starting point.
Year one will cost you $2,000 plus $167, total: $2,167 for year one.
Year two adds $167 and totals at $2,334.
Year three adds $167 and totals $2,501.
So, I paid more than twice as much for my Mac and my three-year cost exceeds yours by less than $100.
SO if my new Mac only costs $1,500, then I beat your PC by more than $400 in three years. IF the user keeps the computer longer, then the Macintosh advantage increases $344 every year.
Even if your Dell were FREE, the Mac would be a better deal if kept 5 years.
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that the "mac experience" and its related best of breed software costs money to develop and this is something that dell and gateway don't have to pass onto their customers.
Do we all want cheaper macs?
Yep.
Will Macs ever be cheaper then $225 Lindows Boxen gobbled up by the Walmart crowd?
Nope.
Do the better things in life usually cost more?
Unfortunately, yes...
Originally posted by keyboardf12
You make a very good point JCBin only problem this will not sway those around here who want Rolex watches and Timex prices.
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that the "mac experience" and its related best of breed software costs money to develop and this is something that dell and gateway don't have to pass onto their customers.
Do we all want cheaper macs?
Yep.
Will Macs ever be cheaper then $225 Lindows Boxen gobbled up by the Walmart crowd?
Nope.
Do the better things in life usually cost more?
Unfortunately, yes...
Oh boy someone who hit the nail right on the head!
Kudos to you!
Originally posted by jccbin
Dear I,Fred, et al:
Gartner group did a large study of PCs in mid 2002 (that's just one year ago). This study found that the AVERAGE (not the low end, not the high end) the AVERAGE yearly cost of supporting a PC in a business was $511.
This is intensely flawed methodology because a "business" mac invariable refers to a creative pro's station while a "business" PC refers to a whole gamut of machines, the majority being Office machines.
Creative pros tend to understand their HW/SF, and to think before they act, Office monkeys tend not to understand anything, and act before they think.
That's 90% of your support cost differences right there.
PS, has anyone in htis thread noticed that the 1299 I've suggested for a basic PM, is far far far from budget or 225 lindows crapola boxen? Geez, don't turn my argument into something it isn't, thanx. (not directed at you jccbin, just speaking generally.)
I suspect that the PM's will never competitive on that level, but we may see the return of a small headless machine with limited upgradability (no PCI, one AGP) that is competitive.
Time will tell.
that is all well and good, but if that is your argument, I suggest you don't frame it in the "casual user = average user" argument - just make your own argument about what you think people do.
To lead off with a false premise based on some throwaway line fred gave (which apparently does not really relate to what you are saying) only takes away from the point you are trying to make.
Fish
And frankly I agree with you on the rest of what you say -it just took me a bit to get up to speed with the change in terminology.
Fish
That maybe a bit exaggerated....but in reality I think the price will be from 1700 - 3400.......not very good either
"Recent information suggests that the machines will not see full availability until at least August. In fact, machines are said to be in prototype form at this time. The new machines are also said to be at higher price points than the towers they are replacing."
I still think we'll be able to order them starting tomorrow as per the Apple Store leak. What's in the boxes then?
Nice one, Applenut.
I think Apple would create more impact if the towers they unveil are cheaper than the current models. Or at least the same price. This is the opportunity to make marketshare gains. Many PC Tower users probably love 'X' and would love to give it a try ie a hot-rod Doom III machine. But Apple may price them out of reach. But I'm hoping the last round of Tower cuts is a indication of a more forward thinking Apple. In terms of of their stated 10% growth target.
I'm sure plenty of PC 'Switchers' out there want more than a limited eMac/iMac2 (boutique!) machine as their 'switch' option. Let's have that consumer tower. IF Apple are the best at making a-i-o machines...they don't sell too many. Most of the PC sales are still towers. They're in the shops everywhere. A nice stylish Ives consumer tower would go down very well. Well, that's MY opinion.
However, if they are using cutting edge mobo and cpu...you can argue that they have to charge more to get back that investment. I'd argue, instead, that they need to think long term. ie don't get greedy. This has been Apple's mistake in the past. They simply charge too much for things in the first instance. No use charging less after the initial hoopla is worn off and people begin to think you're too pricey. They can recoup that 970 investment across the whole range. They need to be more aggressive than in the past re: G3-G4 transition. No trickle effect...more blitzreig.
Supply and demand. It may be a sad fact, Leonis, that Apple put the prices up. They do this when the 'times are good'. But if they want growth they're going to have to rethink this. Their strategy on the iPod shows they not adverse to pushing the prices down.
I guess we'll see. It's all hot air until Steve does his thing. But past indications don't look good for (initially, as in the next half year...) cheaper POWERMacs.
Many will take the hit. Dual 2 gig revision A? Or Much cheaper Revision B at lower price. Dilemma time...
But a nice dilemma.
Lemon Bon Bon