Playing the PC pricing game

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    podmatepodmate Posts: 183member
    Amorph wrote:

    Quote:

    Their attention to the end user begins and ends at pricing, and they get there by silently cutting corners that most end users would reject if they knew about it. Most customers want their hard drives to last more than three months.



    Too true. While I have never had a single problem with the lower end Poweredge line (400sc and 600sc) the business that I work for has huge amounts of trouble with the desktops.

    We have 1 person who is dedicated to rebuilding computers and reloading XP. Our total staff is something like 70 people with ~ 100 machines (including servers).

    The typical failure items on the optiplex are: hard drive, video card, NIC and motherboard, with the occasional CD-RW drive thrown in.

    I've had an XP machine (that I use once a week to "talk" to a foxpro database) for less than a year. It is having so many problems that I was just given a new optiplex to replace it. In this case the problems all stem from XP.



    When I worked for a Mac shop we had ~100 machines (including servers) and we had 1 person who dedicated ~20% of their time for computer issues. Most of the issues had to do with software, not hardware.



    My Quicksilver is ~1.5-2 years old and has been running 24X7 from day 1 without a single problem. About 35% of our 2 year old Dells (shutdown at night, weekends and holidays) need to be replaced because of hardware issues.



    My Ti500 is a road warrior that has many battle scars but still runs just like it was new. Of the ~15 Gateway and Dell laptops that were bought at the same time only 1 is still operational.



    I would much rather spend a little extra and buy a quality product than go cheap and have to replace my computer (due to hardware failure as opposed to whim) every few years.
  • Reply 22 of 39
    x xx x Posts: 189member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    The G5 is irrelevant to whether Apple will offer a cheap notebook with a 15" display. ...



    Amorph,



    I respect your opinion and I respect you, because of that I'm have no desire to continue that debate, but I think you've missed my point...



    As the G5 trickles down into all the other lines and they become ubiquitous and span over a large frequency range over the next couple of years, I think it would benefit Apple to differentaite their products primarily off of the internal specs and not the externals. I'm not really asking for Apple to expand its product line; they'd be able to have the same number of computers but differentiate them based upon other factors (e.g. clock speed, RAM, graphics card, etc.) instead of say AIO or small screens.



    Honestly, does it make good business sense to force someone to



    1) pay $2000 just to have the option of upgrading a graphics card or processor or even the display? I think not.



    2) pay $2000 just to get a 15" screen on a laptop? I think not.



    Hypothetically, if you had G5s that spanned from 1 GHz to 3 GHz there would be plenty of options to distinguish from consumer and professional without having to hack the size of the screen, too.
  • Reply 23 of 39
    Quote:

    by TrevorD



    So Apple should really do one of two things:



    Make it very clear that Macs have higher performance innards right at the Apple Store, or at least with well-labelled links to pages that brag about how well-made Macs are. And make sure to take (thinly veiled) shots at the PC competition's cheap quality. This would help justify higher prices.



    Or, produce lower end machines. This would either be "starter" categories in their current lineup, or a new "iCheap"



    Have you noticed the "Power" or the "i" or the "e" before Apple's computers? Have you ever visited the PowerMac G5 web page? Do you remember the iMac commercials comparing itself to beige boxes? How about the "Burn, Baby, Burn" commercial?



    Apple already has done all your suggestions and they seem pretty straight forward to me.
  • Reply 24 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by k squared

    Have you noticed the "Power" or the "i" or the "e" before Apple's computers? Have you ever visited the PowerMac G5 web page? Do you remember the iMac commercials comparing itself to beige boxes? How about the "Burn, Baby, Burn" commercial?



    Apple already has done all your suggestions and they seem pretty straight forward to me.




    Have you noticed that the posted specs on the eMac and iMac look crappy compared to the PC competition (I'm commenting on posted specs here, not actual performance)? Have you noticed that PCs offer what appear to be top-of-the-line computers for dirt cheap (while their real top-of-the-line PCs, with quality components throughout, cost much more), while to get a Mac that looks even remotely powerful, you have to pay through the nose? Have you noticed that the typical PC user isn't an expert in Mac hardware, and likely doesn't appreciate the fact that the lowly eMac may actually satisfy their needs? Do you realize that there's an overwhelming "Macs are too expensive" feeling out there, and when people go to the Apple Store and see the starting price, they probably turn and run, rather than go over to the product's info page to see why it costs so much?



    I'm a Mac user, and I know the difference between Apple's various lines of computers. I also know that Apple builds their computers with (generally) higher quality than the average PC, and that their computers are well balanced, rather than dropping a high-end processor into a crappy motherboard that can't handle it.



    However, the average PC user doesn't know this. Plus, as much as "Burn, Baby, Burn" fired up Mac users, most PC users disregarded it, saying "there's no way a Mac is faster than Intel"... which the Mac world quickly followed up with the disastrous G4 fiasco, which cemented the "Macs are slow" image even more. It's going to take a long time to change people's minds on the performance front, and I don't think Apple is doing a very good job, especially when Dell offers top-end P4 processors in their low-end boxes, while Apple requires you to dish out >$3000. Sure, the Mac's largely unmentioned internals are much better, but no one ever talks about them.



    Oh, and BTW, those two commercials you mention? They're very old. I don't think Apple's really doing any hard-hitting Mac commercials right now, are they?
  • Reply 25 of 39
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by X X

    As the G5 trickles down into all the other lines and they become ubiquitous and span over a large frequency range over the next couple of years, I think it would benefit Apple to differentaite their products primarily off of the internal specs and not the externals. I'm not really asking for Apple to expand its product line; they'd be able to have the same number of computers but differentiate them based upon other factors (e.g. clock speed, RAM, graphics card, etc.) instead of say AIO or small screens.



    This means differentiating products based on criteria that most people don't understand, and which are only indirectly relevant to the capability of the machine in any case (the software controls access to the hardware, so a slower machine with great software is a better consumer offering than a faster machine with bad software). I think Apple has the right idea here from a consumer perspective, differentiating models primarily on obvious differences in actual utility.



    Besides, spec sheets lie. They're marketing materials, not engineering documents. I'd prefer it if Apple took advantage of the sheer power of the G5 by burying tech specs where they belong - in white papers - and selling the machines based on what they can do out of the box.



    Quote:

    1) pay $2000 just to have the option of upgrading a graphics card or processor or even the display? I think not.



    Only because you're jumping across lines (and exaggerating a bit). It costs less than that to go from a 12" to a 14" iBook, and less than that to go from a 12" to a 15" PowerBook, or a 15" to a 17". Display size upgrades require different cases, which require a lot of different models, which requires a customer base that Apple can't support.



    If by display "upgrades" you mean resolution, that isn't an unambiguous upgrade.



    Graphics cards are a bit tough to upgrade in laptops, because they aren't always cards. They're chips soldered on the board, and different families from different manufacturers communicate differently with the rest of the board, so you can't always just drop them in. Usually a choice of graphics accelerators in laptops is accomplished, again, by lots of different models.



    Also, BTO raises the cost of manufacturing the machines. The more you can assume, the more everything is automated, the simpler the logistics are, etc. Restricting BTO to things which can be simply plugged in to connectors, like hard drives and RAM, helps keep costs down.



    Quote:

    2) pay $2000 just to get a 15" screen on a laptop? I think not.



    This is arbitrary. How much do I have to pay to get a 17" screen in a PC laptop an inch thick? Is it so hard to get the 14" iBook?



    Quote:

    Hypothetically, if you had G5s that spanned from 1 GHz to 3 GHz there would be plenty of options to distinguish from consumer and professional without having to hack the size of the screen, too.



    But the problem isn't the G5. The problem is that you have to introduce lots of models to get the flexibility you want, and Apple can't support lots of models. Notebooks aren't towers. They're not naturally easy to configure to order.
  • Reply 26 of 39
    x xx x Posts: 189member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    This means differentiating products based on criteria that most people don't understand, and which are only indirectly relevant to the capability of the machine in any case (the software controls access to the hardware, so a slower machine with great software is a better consumer offering than a faster machine with bad software).



    You're right; however, consumers have the idea that bigger means better whether it's true or not (80GB HD is better than 40GB HD, 3 GHz is better than 1 GHz, PIV better than PIII). Comparing Apples to Apples bigger would be better. It would'nt be like throwing out a 1.5 GHz PIV compared to a 1 GHz PIII.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    I think Apple has the right idea here from a consumer perspective, differentiating models primarily on obvious differences in actual utility.



    Two points:



    1) Consumers look at 15" PC laptop and say, "Ah! It costs $x.xx, 15" Apple laptop costs $2000." Especially if they don't understand the specs even in regards to the display, e.g. resolution, pixel pitch.



    2) Externally, what differentiates the 12" iBook from the 12" powerbook?



    NB: I'm not wanting Apple to do this now with there current hardware. I just feel in the future when the G5 has scaled down enough to go into a Powerbook that it wouldn't hurt Apple to introduce a 15" iBook.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Besides, spec sheets lie. They're marketing materials, not engineering documents. I'd prefer it if Apple took advantage of the sheer power of the G5 by burying tech specs where they belong - in white papers - and selling the machines based on what they can do out of the box.



    I agree to an extent. Just like typical consumers don't understand the specs, you have a typical salesman who thinks he understands the specs. Unless you make certain specs explicit to these type of people, they'll continue on with their myths about Apple.







    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Only because you're jumping across lines (and exaggerating a bit). It costs less than that to go from a 12" to a 14" iBook, and less than that to go from a 12" to a 15" PowerBook, or a 15" to a 17". Display size upgrades require different cases, which require a lot of different models, which requires a customer base that Apple can't support.



    I understand that, and I also understand that Apple can't have as many models as say Dell or HP because of costs, etc. However, I don't believe adding one extra display size to the lineup would kill them. Currently the powerbook as 3 basic models: 12, 15, and 17 inches. The iBook only has 2: 12 and 14.1 inches.



    If I remember correctly part of the problem with Apple before Steve came along was that they had too many models which created too much confusion for the customers.



    Also, I believe if Apple thought they could handle a new computer like the cube to their matrix, since that's not here anymore, why couldn't they handle one more display size in their iBook line. That would require less engineering and support than what they had with the cube, which I believe was an engineering marvel.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    If by display "upgrades" you mean resolution, that isn't an unambiguous upgrade.



    No, I don't mean resolution.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Graphics cards are a bit tough to upgrade in laptops, because they aren't always cards. They're chips soldered on the board, and different families from different manufacturers communicate differently with the rest of the board, so you can't always just drop them in. Usually a choice of graphics accelerators in laptops is accomplished, again, by lots of different models.



    They didn't make graphics updates for laptops when I worked at Dell because every laptop requires a different form factor for the card, which is true across the entire industry, I'd imagine.



    I mean, can you even buy a ligitimate upgrade card for a notebook? I don't think you can.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Also, BTO raises the cost of manufacturing the machines. The more you can assume, the more everything is automated, the simpler the logistics are, etc. Restricting BTO to things which can be simply plugged in to connectors, like hard drives and RAM, helps keep costs down.



    I understand, and adding one 15" display to the lineup (in the future, of course) would still allow apple to use the same parts as from the 14.1" model.







    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    This is arbitrary. How much do I have to pay to get a 17" screen in a PC laptop an inch thick? Is it so hard to get the 14" iBook?



    No, it's not hard to get the 14", which is why I'm doing it. I would just like to have that extra screen space if I had my choice and have it not cost me $2000, which I cannot currently afford.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    But the problem isn't the G5. The problem is that you have to introduce lots of models to get the flexibility you want, and Apple can't support lots of models. Notebooks aren't towers. They're not naturally easy to configure to order.



    All I really want is an iBook with a 15" display. That's not a whole lot of models and it doesn't need to be.



    Currently with the G4 there doesn't seem to be a major distinguishing specs regarding performance from the Powerbook and iBook. I personally believe that is part of the reason Apple has not given the iBook a 15" screen. There wouldn't be a major performance/feature difference between a 15" iBook and a 15" Powerbook. Thankfully, since we now have a manufacturer and developer of a processor that seems will scale well, I hope and think that Apple will introduce a 15" iBook in some distant future because there will be many many ways to distinguish from the Powerbook line by then.



    Regards!
  • Reply 27 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by X X

    Currently with the G4 there doesn't seem to be a major distinguishing specs regarding performance from the Powerbook and iBook.





    Powerbook has:



    * Higher processor speed (ranging from 1.25 GHz to 1.33 GHz vs. the iBook's 800, 933, and 1GHz models.)



    * Faster GPU (Radeon 9200/32 on the iBooks and Radeon 9600/64 on the higher-end powerbooks)



    * Higher maximum memory capacity (1.25 GB for the 12" and 2 GB for the 15" and 17" as opposed to 640 MB maximum for the iBook.)



    * Digital video out (as opposed to VGA only on the iBook) and the ability to run the external video as the system's sole monitor (instead of only supporting mirroring.)



    * Lower weight (4.6 lbs for the 12" PB, 4.9 lbs for the 12" iBook) and metal construction, which some might feel is more rugged (though it probably actually isn't.)



    * Firewire 800 on the PB



    * Gigabit Ethernet on the 15" and 17" PB models.



    That's a pretty significant list of differences, and many of them apply to the 12" Powerbook as well as the higher-end models.



    -- Mark
  • Reply 28 of 39
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by X X

    You're right; however, consumers have the idea that bigger means better whether it's true or not (80GB HD is better than 40GB HD, 3 GHz is better than 1 GHz, PIV better than PIII). Comparing Apples to Apples bigger would be better. It would'nt be like throwing out a 1.5 GHz PIV compared to a 1 GHz PIII.



    Which is why I'd like Apple to bury the specs if they're not obviously relevant.



    Quote:

    1) Consumers look at 15" PC laptop and say, "Ah! It costs $x.xx, 15" Apple laptop costs $2000." Especially if they don't understand the specs even in regards to the display, e.g. resolution, pixel pitch.



    If they're looking in a price range, which is more typical, they won't even look at the PowerBook. They'll note that the Dell (say) has a bigger screen - which is good, unless it's a SquinTronic(TM) - but the iBook is easier to carry and has better battery life. It's a tradeoff, of course, but there you are.



    Quote:

    2) Externally, what differentiates the 12" iBook from the 12" powerbook?



    Very little. So if you're a consumer, you'll naturally gravitate toward the much cheaper iBook. If you're a professional, you probably have a better idea of what to look for under the hood, and you'll consider the PowerBook.



    Quote:

    NB: I'm not wanting Apple to do this now with there current hardware. I just feel in the future when the G5 has scaled down enough to go into a Powerbook that it wouldn't hurt Apple to introduce a 15" iBook.



    They could do it tomorrow. You can bet that they know that consumers like 15" screens in notebooks. They could even move the 1GHz iBook to a 15" screen without changing anything else substantially, and make it a slightly less dubious value. The main issue is, do they have a market that can sustain three models of iBook? They make much less per iBook than they do per PowerBook, so they have to be more economical with the options they offer. A 15" iBook's screen, at 1024x768, would not compete with a PowerBook, just as the 12" PowerBook doesn't really compete with the 12" iBook.



    Given that they could do it at any time, I consider it significant that they are content with the 14" iBook.



    Quote:

    I agree to an extent. Just like typical consumers don't understand the specs, you have a typical salesman who thinks he understands the specs. Unless you make certain specs explicit to these type of people, they'll continue on with their myths about Apple.



    Or you say screw it and have your own employees sell your computers.



    Quote:

    I understand that, and I also understand that Apple can't have as many models as say Dell or HP because of costs, etc. However, I don't believe adding one extra display size to the lineup would kill them. Currently the powerbook as 3 basic models: 12, 15, and 17 inches. The iBook only has 2: 12 and 14.1 inches.



    The iBook almost certainly has a lower margin than the PowerBook, and Apple knows what can and cannot kill them better than you or I do. They actually have the numbers.



    Quote:

    Also, I believe if Apple thought they could handle a new computer like the cube to their matrix, since that's not here anymore, why couldn't they handle one more display size in their iBook line.



    Do you really want to argue for a new model introduction using the Cube as a precedent?



    Quote:

    They didn't make graphics updates for laptops when I worked at Dell because every laptop requires a different form factor for the card, which is true across the entire industry, I'd imagine.



    Actually, the 15" and 17" PowerBooks both use a Apple-made card that isolates the graphics chipset, but that's probably so they can switch between ATi and nVIDIA opportunistically. They might conceivably be able to build that into a BTO, but they haven't yet. With every other Apple laptop - and I'd imagine, almost every other laptop, the graphics chipset is soldered to the board. Which means one model per GPU, which means more logistical trouble and expense.



    Quote:

    Currently with the G4 there doesn't seem to be a major distinguishing specs regarding performance from the Powerbook and iBook. I personally believe that is part of the reason Apple has not given the iBook a 15" screen.



    That didn't stop them from offering 12" and 14" iBooks with nearly identical specs initially - they're still close. The primary differentiator with iBooks is screen size, and it's been that way as long as there have been two sizes. Apple probably considers the 14" sufficient to meet the demand for a consumer laptop with a big screen.
  • Reply 29 of 39
    x xx x Posts: 189member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Which is why I'd like Apple to bury the specs if they're not obviously relevant.



    ...



    That didn't stop them from offering 12" and 14" iBooks with nearly identical specs initially - they're still close. The primary differentiator with iBooks is screen size, and it's been that way as long as there have been two sizes. Apple probably considers the 14" sufficient to meet the demand for a consumer laptop with a big screen.




    Amorph,



    It's been fun discussing this with you. Just to let you know I'd like to recant my opinions, and here's why. Last week my wife and I went to Fry's to look at the computers and decide which one we wanted. We've decided for the 14" iBook - 933 MHz, which I'm going to purchase through an Apple store. At that time, I left thinking the 14" screen was small. I don't know why, but it could've been due to the fact that it was lined up next to a 12" iBook and just on the other side of the table there was a 15" widescreen Powerbook. For whatever reason, I thought the 14" was much smaller than it actually is.



    Today I went back to walk off my lunch and stopped to look at the computers again and noticed the the 14" display really isn't that different from a 15" (non-widescreen) display. Therefore, I don't care about the 15" anymore in the iBook.



    Regards!
  • Reply 30 of 39
    When it comes to comparing hardware cost/preformance ratio with x86 (windows) vs ppc (osx), apple will not win.



    I took the highest end G5 that starts at 3,000 and added a gig of RAM to it and upped the HD to 250gigs.



    Now that leads it to a little over 3600 dollars for a computer that doesn't even have a moniter yet.



    For 3600 I can buy a 19 inch high end LCD, and still fit my computer out with all the topend parts, some of which are better, like a Liteon DVD-RW/+RW drive. And have enough to get an iPod.



    Apple's hardware is too expensive. Plus my windows box, with the right ram timings and such will beat the G5 especially with its on chip memory controller.
  • Reply 31 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by scavanger

    For 3600 I can buy a 19 inch high end LCD, and still fit my computer out with all the topend parts, some of which are better, like a Liteon DVD-RW/+RW drive.



    Perhaps. However, it doesn't make sense to compare a pre-built computer with a home-built computer when many users would rather not find sources for, purchase, and assemble their own system from scratch. And against manufactured computers, Apple's pricing is very competitive at the high end.



    -- Mark
  • Reply 32 of 39
    Although then there is no comparison. Most high end Windows systems are built by whiteboxes or their owners. The fact is that you can't build your own Mac. Windows OEM's are not designed to be high end.
  • Reply 33 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by scavanger

    Although then there is no comparison. Most high end Windows systems are built by whiteboxes or their owners. The fact is that you can't build your own Mac. Windows OEM's are not designed to be high end.



    That's false. Most high-end Windows systems are purchased by businesses from major systems integrators like HP and Dell.



    Large businesses have no interest in building their own systems or going with small-time third parties. Most home users feel the same way, hence the popularity of brands like eMachines, HP's retail offerings, Dell, and of course Apple.



    -- Mark
  • Reply 34 of 39
    Those are workstation class systems. Workstation != High End.
  • Reply 35 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by scavanger

    Those are workstation class systems. Workstation != High End.



    Nonsense. First off that's a false distinction, second is that businesses don't buy "workstation class" computers for their office staff, which is where most of the computers go.



    -- Mark
  • Reply 36 of 39
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by podmate



    I bought a Dell Poweredge 400sc

    I only need to add a CD-RW (~$100) and AGP video card (~$100)




    Well, you wont be adding an AGP card to any Dell Server, they dont have AGP slots, only varieties of PCI.
  • Reply 37 of 39
    podmatepodmate Posts: 183member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmmpie

    Well, you wont be adding an AGP card to any Dell Server, they dont have AGP slots, only varieties of PCI.



    Wrong. The 400sc has an AGP slot. It uses a slightly modified motherboard from the top of the line consumer model.



    The 600sc and up are missing the AGP slot.
  • Reply 38 of 39
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by podmate

    Wrong. The 400sc has an AGP slot. It uses a slightly modified motherboard from the top of the line consumer model.



    The 600sc and up are missing the AGP slot.






    Are you sure? The specs on Dell's web site say it has 3 PCI slots.





    Slots\t

    \t3 x 32bit/33 MHz open PCI slots (Supports 5v cards)





    Cos its real cheap, and I would buy one if I knew it had an AGP slot.



    EDIT:



    Is it because it has an AGP card in it already? and Dell dont list that as an available slot?
  • Reply 39 of 39
    podmatepodmate Posts: 183member
    I have not installed an AGP card yet, but there is an AGP slot. It is not "supported" by Dell, but the slot does work.



    The following was taken from http://www.aaltonen.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8 which is the "unofficial" 400sc FAQ:





    "VIDEO



    Q: What video card does the 400SC come with?

    A: An ATI Rage XL 8MB PCI card, shown here.



    Q: Does the 400SC have an AGP slot?

    A: Of course! (The AGP slot is, however, not supported by Dell.) Picture here and diagram here. The AGP socket is keyed for universal 0.8v AGP cards that comply with the AGP 3.0 specification or 1.5v AGP cards that comply with the AGP 2.0 specification. The AGP connector supports 8x, 4x AGP 3.0 add-in cards operating at 0.8v, or AGP 2.0 add-in cards operating at 1.5V. There is no support for AGP 2x operation or legacy 3.3V AGP cards.



    Q: Does the 400SC support 8x AGP cards?

    A: Yes. I've personally tested 2 8x AGP cards in the 400SC. The Intel 875P (Canterwood) chipset specifically touts 8x AGP as a feature. There have also been numerous other reports that it works. "





    This is one reason that I bought the 400sc. It will make a decent game machine and was dirt cheap.
Sign In or Register to comment.