I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.
News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
I respectfully disagree in a couple of ways. The fact that Apple's hardware sales represent their profitability and ability to finance the R&D of everything the company does, means it must cost more. End of story...or is it?
So, does this cost differential mean nobody will buy? Sure, if the customer is uninformed, which is probably the same number as the market share comparisson. Have a nice day.
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.
News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
where do you get that system from, or are you talking about individually bought parts?
You can get a similar price from any PC manufactere witg similar specs. Go to best buy and check it out: Sony, HP, Compaq, Gateway, Dell. This is appealing to the average current PC user because they already have a monitor. For the $1800 of the imac you could have a 19" monitor and a tower with 512 RAM, 160HC, and 128-256 video. And a printer.
So lets pretend your local computer superstore carries Apple products, and it is pretty easy to argue that the processor is not really important, but if you buy a Mac you get 1/2 the hard drive 1/2 the RAM and 1/2 to 1/4 of the video memory in an equivalently priced PC. Pretty easy decision for the average PC user.
I am a 20 year PC user and I just bought my first mac, an ibook and I con't wait for the g5 powerbooks to come out, but you won't see me purchase an apple desktop because I can get a lot more PC for half of the price of the Apple desktops.
PS: apple doesn't make all their margin on powermacs. Its the powerbooks that take the cake. Laptops make up like 50% of Apple sales.
*** Actually the 12" ibook was the first thing that made me think about switching. I had a 12" Sony laptop. When it went out after about 14 months I looked for a nother 12" notebook and they were all 2x as much as I paid initially. (my Sony 12" was like $1400 in 1998 so really really cheap)
I think the most important goal for Apple is before the marketing is getting the specs up to speed. The laptops match up pretty well, although there are cheaper PC laptops, Apple's are much more capable gaming/video editing machines than the the 600-1200 PC notebooks. Even the powerbooks, although a little steep, compare well with the Centrino notebooks. But Apple should really make wireless standard across the powerbook line. for $1100 and up on the PC side you get built in wireless.
Once the the RAM, hard drive and video are up to par with similarly priced PCs, Apple can start an Apple hardware marketing campaign. $1800 should get you 512 RAM and 160 hard drive in a desktop, no contest.
I respectfully disagree in a couple of ways. The fact that Apple's hardware sales represent their profitability and ability to finance the R&D of everything the company does, means it must cost more.
Hm. Just a thought. Do some people ignore the difference between 'expensive' and 'overpriced'? A good expensive thing is not necessarily overpriced, it just costs more than a bad cheap crap.
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.
News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
In general... if new users cared more about price & specs than they do function and form... the iPod wouldn't have nearly the market share it does. What is it now... something like 35%? It is by far the most expensive product in it's class and there are alternatives now... which perform just as well (and to some even better)for a price 25% or more less. What Apple does works... There will always be a population willing to pay a premium for whatever reason. Yes... there are lots of people who will go out and get the most cost effective solution... but that hardly covers everyone. Alot of us feel there is more to a computer than just the "numbers"... that's typically what makes a Mac person a Mac person. It's the whole "feel" of the product.
I know I can go out and buy a Wintel box at dirt cheap prices... right on to to thousands of dollars. You go Apple because you want more out of your computer than a number cruncher. You want something that just screams "touch me". I think the whole "Think Different" slogan still works (well... except for the iPod because we can hardly call that being different any more).
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.
News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
new users usually don't even know what the specs mean, and salespeople at the local office depot tell them that more is better so they can sell a higher dollar system. When they ask "What about a Mac?" the sales people say "There is no software for them" or they point out the CPU speed and say they are slower not knowing how they work. I have witnessed this many times myself. I have picked up numerous customers that way. When I tell them the benefits of a mac they say "really?" In my experience new user are timid about using a PC, afraid that it will sit on their desk and not be used because they don't know how to use it. When I explain the benefits of a mac 75-85% of new computer users go mac. I switched my mom to a mac and she loves it. She could not seem to get anything to work on her XP machine. She was calling me everyday about one problem or another. She too was timid about doing anything, afraid it would not work. Now she is buzzing along like an expert.
New Users Don't Care About Specs!! It is geeks like you that tell them specs are important. No offense. New users don't even know what the specs mean!
No, it is unique, because Apple is unique. Apple is the only company left doing what they do, and if you want to buy what they make, you pay a premium. So it is unique, and it is your problem if you like and want to use it.
I guess if I start with all the reasons I have stood firmly by PCs and hated Macs... it would be something like this:
- Macs are way over priced
- Why in the world would you spend more money on a machine that can only run a tiny percentage of the software out there.
- Why would you spend more on a machine with performance specs far below an equally priced PC
- All those annoying Mac people just annoy me..."Oh... buy a Mac because it's just better"... "Oh... I wasted my money on a Mac... so why shouldn't you?"
- I've lived with a person for years who constantly tells me how wonderful the Mac OS is (even before X)... how stable it is... how crappy Windows is. Ya just get sick of hearing about it after a while.
Well... now, after less than a month of owning an iBook... I'm one of those people I used to complain about. I went with the iBook mostly to try out OS X (I wanted to get away from Windows... and I don't think most Linux distros are ready for prime time). I use my iBook as my exclusive notebook now. I still love my Sony Vaio 2.4GHz P4 notebook... it's just thick enough to rest my iBook on so I can use it comfortably when I'm on my couch.
If the very reasonably priced iBook wasn't there... I would never have purchased a Mac. However... I got the iBook because it's a good value at that price. I don't think making a crap machine just to be in the low end market is something Apple should ever consider.
You're right! That's not a decision you want to be in marketing wise. If Apple had the same brialliance in their marketing as they do in their engineering then I believe more people wouldn't feel they'd need windows to run the internet.
That's an easy decision to make from the comfort of an armchair.
Unfortunately for your thesis, Apple is currently considered a brilliant marketer, and if you look at the success of their non-Mac ventures you can see that for yourself. And, given that they have succeeded in clawing themselves back from irrelevance to one of the top brands in any category, it's safe to say that something besides marketing is holding the Mac back.
One of the things I've consistently argued - and Joey backs it up in his last post - is that you have to actually use a Mac to understand its advantages. If you list what a Mac can do, and make a campaign around it, it'll be fundamentally indistinguishable from MS' ads for XP Home, or HP's "digital lifestyle" ads. From the ads, you'd think everything was as effortless as a Mac (scratch that: twice as effortless) and that's a problem for Apple. Everyone promises the Moon.
So, if you're a truly brilliant strategist and you're faced with a major obstacle that you could overcome, perhaps, at a significant cost, then you find a route around it. Whence the iPod, and the real brilliance of the iPod from a marketing perspective: You have to hold and use an iPod to understand its advantages as well, and millions upon millions of people are doing just that. In that respect, as a premium-priced device that is not packed with features and which has an elegance that you discover in person, it's a great way to teach people to appreciate Macs. And the more people there are who use it with Windows, and who use iTunes, the more people will appreciate Apple's design and integration skills, and the more people will realize that Apple is not an island cut off from the world.
Something that gets people to conclude that from their own experience is worth more than any marketing campaign that directly tackles the issue.
Quote:
However, my comment was in regards to Apple's whole history, not just the current times, which the internet would fall under. Faelyn's comment as well was in regards to Apple's whole history, which Steve Jobs, himself, made reference to in some meeting about how Apple used to behave arrogantly.
I don't see how those are at all relevant now, though. Induction over Apple's history fails because, for once, Apple actually has competent management, and (not coincidentally) a solid, focused platform.
Quote:
I think you'd agree that Apple hasn't always had the best business decisions, whether it's dealing with the lawsuit by Microsoft in 1989 or by offering a thousand different configurations for a computer.
True, but what Apple did in 1989 or 1995 has no bearing on what they're doing now, except perhaps as a historical lesson in what not to do. Steve has also made it quite plain that he thinks of Apple as starting over.
I do not believe that your theory is incorrect with respect to the eMac. Sales of the iMac may depress margins but that may very well be the result of not obtaining economies of scale with repsect to this machine.
Your evaluation of the components in the eMac are pretty accurate. Most likely the tube is the most expensive part and is probally costing Apple between 20 & $30 wholesale. If this machine is actually depressing margins than the physical design must be an issue, it is not a sum of the parts issue. Then agian none of Apples hardware reflect the cost of the parts, one often precieves Apple to be a giant money sucking machine and the Macs the suction cup that gathers the money.
One possibility is the lack of "design for manufacturing". The G5 towers do appear to be designed for volume manufacturing. Niether the e or i mac seem to be manufacturing friendly, this could raise the cost to a substaintial degree.
Quote:
Originally posted by Antithesis
Well, that would pretty much blow a hole through my theory, then.
Still, I'm left wondering WHAT Apple's doing to make the eMac so darned expensive to manufacture. Somehow, 1+1 just ain't equaling 2.
*shrugs*
Oh, well. I appreciate the clarification, anyways.
Funny how in one paragraphy you say pricing isn't the problem then directly below you point out the pricing is a problem.
Let me let you in on a little secret pricing is the problem. Apple if charging top dollar for hardware that is at times three or more generations old. The company always under delivers hardware, that is on the day of delivery the hardware is not competitive in the market. 6 months later it is still available at the same price while the rest of the world has moved a generation or two beyond.
When discussing the possibility of a XMac people constantly state that they don't want cheap hardware coming from Apple. Currently though what they get from Apple is expensive throughly outdated hardware and they want use to believe that this is good! It is not folks.
Apples name is out there, much more so than DENON, but along with that is the perception that they have hardware that has litle value in it. The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. Unfortunately the perception to some extent is justified, I would consider it irresponsible for any school to use tax payer dollars to buy the current eMac for example. You do not use my tax dollars to buy outdated, low functionality equipment for any reason.
It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
The average consumer doesn't even consider macs when purchasing a new computer... because its like choosing a Denon receiver over a Pioneer / Kenwood / Sony / Panasonic receiver. The Denon is usually more powerful and nicer than any of those other receivers. But the name is not out there like it can be. I really don't think the problem is pricing as much as the name.
The problem I have with apple is they keep the same prices for months. The PowerMac has been out for 7 months now... prices are STILL the same. That is definitely a problem that needs to be dealth with. It doesn't make sense to buy 7 month old hardware for the same price as it was the day it was released. Apple needs to have price drops in their products... not just when new products come out but as they deteriorate as a value on the market also.
I guess the "locked" pricing that Apple has always had is something of a double edged sword. On the one hand... the products do age and remain at the same price until they're discontinued or a new model comes out. On the other hand... you don't have to worry about spending "x" dollars... and then the next day find out the price just dropped significantly. It also makes shopping for Mac stuff a lot easier. You don't really have to go through the madness of checking every site for the best price since you won't usually find a difference of more than a few $$ for any current items.
If you feel there's an issue with your schools spending their tax dollars on eMacs... I would think that should be something you take up with the schools... that's not Apple's fault.
Oddly enough... the Apple crowd tends to be a bit MORE tech savy than the average PC crowd. People tend to use PCs because that's just what they have at work, had at school, or used at a friends house... so they buy one. People that have Macs... have them because they want them. They know what a PC is. They know they can get a PC cheaper.... but they still go with their Macs because they CHOOSE to. It's all about choice.
The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. - The laughing stock for the community?? I can just see the neighbors peeking out their curtains and blinds as the town fool (Mac owner) walks down the street. "Martha... I just saw Bill walking down the street... He must be such a disappointment to his family... no wonder his wife left him... I'm sure she just couldn't take the embarassment any longer... can you believe it... he actually went out and bought a second Mac!"
"It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!" - It's "all about value" for alot of people... but not for everyone. There are less "tangible" things that people value also. While you can't always put a label on these things (and U Mac folks know what I mean)... it doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay for them... or that they're stupid or ignorrant for doing so.
I thought I was done postin and then I read your post. You hit your target like a sharp shooter I have to add a few myself.
Quote:
Originally posted by Joey
I guess if I start with all the reasons I have stood firmly by PCs and hated Macs... it would be something like this:
- Macs are way over priced
This is cetainly the perception with the desktop lines. It is in fact pretty accurate with repsect to the desktops. Which leads one to ask why if Apple can produce a competitive laptop it can't do the same for the desktop?
Quote:
- Why in the world would you spend more money on a machine that can only run a tiny percentage of the software out there.
Actually I never ask this question. I've been running Linux for a few years now. The reality is if you have the software you need to pursue your interests you are all set.
The problem is many people are gamers and equate software with games for their PC's. This is a problem for both Apple and the Linux crowds if they intend to use their machines as gaiming devices. This has never been my intention so it is not a problem. It can however be for some people and they tend to over emphasis their conerns to others.
Quote:
- Why would you spend more on a machine with performance specs far below an equally priced PC
This is a real concern. Laptop wise Apple use to do real good now it gets out performed in just abotu all categories of shipping hardware. If your budget is at all tight Apple is out of the question.
Frankly this is what has driven me to Linux. The other major PC OS was crap a few years ago, and the Mac was a very poor performer for the dollar invested (still is?). So a quick introduction to Linux sealed the fate of both MS and Apple. It helped of course that my college expereince was all one Unix hardware.
Quote:
- All those annoying Mac people just annoy me..."Oh... buy a Mac because it's just better"... "Oh... I wasted my money on a Mac... so why shouldn't you?"
Funny thing is I have a lot of people come up to me and ask about computers and which ones they should buy. I often reccomend Macs as they represnet solid machinery for people who are not machinery people if you know what I mean. The last individual to come up to me want a reccomendation on a Dell, not a PC in general but a Dell. The first thing that comes to mind is why not go to a local vendor where you get a better deal for a store bought machine.
Nope can't do that wouldn't even consider. Further inquiry indicated that her son (older woman) owned a Power Mac G5 (envy setting in) so I suggested she look at the Mac line. Nope I want a Dell! Mind you not a PC but a Dell.
So I have to wonder is it all marketing. It often appears that way, direct exposure to Apple hardware does not lead to intersts in buying that hardware.
Quote:
- I've lived with a person for years who constantly tells me how wonderful the Mac OS is (even before X)... how stable it is... how crappy Windows is. Ya just get sick of hearing about it after a while.
I often try to convince people of the elgance and stability of Linux relative to the ocmmercial offerings. People probally get sick of hearing it. On the other hand I don't even bother with people that don't have a clue.
Quote:
Well... now, after less than a month of owning an iBook... I'm one of those people I used to complain about. I went with the iBook mostly to try out OS X (I wanted to get away from Windows... and I don't think most Linux distros are ready for prime time). I use my iBook as my exclusive notebook now. I still love my Sony Vaio 2.4GHz P4 notebook... it's just thick enough to rest my iBook on so I can use it comfortably when I'm on my couch.
I've often looked at the ibook, it certainly is a reasonably priced machine from Apple. The reason for the interest is that OS/x is a reasonable laptop alternative to getting Linux to run on portable hardware.
There is still an issue of viability though. When using Linux, or OS/X for that matter, to the fullest memeory becomes very valuable. The fact that Apple short changes its machines memory wise puts me off. I have a hard time trusitng a company that would purposely be sof far behind the times.
On the iBook the memory issue is a big problem as the base memory is soldered in. For a portable this is a good thing for reliability. It is however a marketing fiasco if the complement of soldered in memmory is two to three generations behind where it should be.
Quote:
If the very reasonably priced iBook wasn't there... I would never have purchased a Mac. However... I got the iBook because it's a good value at that price. I don't think making a crap machine just to be in the low end market is something Apple should ever consider.
Here we go agian, suggesting that a low cost desktop machine would be a piece of crap. Using todays technology it should be mcuh better than the ibook and cost less. It is ot a question of building a crap machine it is a quesiton of building a cost competitive machine. If Apple can do so with a iBook there is nothing to keep them form doing it with a desktop.
Clearly yoou point out that value and price sells machines. This is what I've been concerned about for some time, Apple is loosing makret share relative to desktops due to their very high prices on outdate equipment. It is not about makeing a crap machine, it is about makeing a machine for a market that they are not even in! The fact that it is low cost does not mean it is crap any more than the iBook is crap because of its low cost.
The iBook is crap for much the same reasons as many other Apple machines. What you pay for the machine does not justify the very small base memory configuration. The iBook fortuantely does meet or exceeds a number of other qualifications which makes it a reasonable purchase for some. Apples desktop line misses in so many features that it is amazing that they sell at all.
Jesus, since when did it matter that you could use Cakewalk Home Studio on a 5 Ghz PC when instead you could use Garageband on a capable 1 Ghz G4? It is not about price to me, it is about platform, software, design, and simplicity.
If you want to pay less for a PC you will get more hardware, but less of a good overall computing experience. Windows is so last decade, still is, always will be behind the Mac. People stopped innovating at Apple while Steve was gone, now he's back and look how the Mac has reacted and transformed.
Software and the OS SHOULD drive the purchase, hardware and design next, Apple's combination of all of these makes me want a Mac over a PC. A PC delivers more hardware for the dollar, but what else can it do once all that stuff is on your desk?--It can definately get hacked to hell, thats for sure.
I guess the "locked" pricing that Apple has always had is something of a double edged sword. On the one hand... the products do age and remain at the same price until they're discontinued or a new model comes out. On the other hand... you don't have to worry about spending "x" dollars... and then the next day find out the price just dropped significantly. It also makes shopping for Mac stuff a lot easier. You don't really have to go through the madness of checking every site for the best price since you won't usually find a difference of more than a few $$ for any current items.
The problem is that within months you are paying far to much for the machine. Further when Apple comes out with updates it can leave one with a sour taste in his mouth to know that and upgraded machine is out that is a nice improvement but cost the same or less than his machine did.
Quote:
If you feel there's an issue with your schools spending their tax dollars on eMacs... I would think that should be something you take up with the schools... that's not Apple's fault.
I think you missed the point here. Schools aren't buying Apple hardware anymore. At least not to the extent that they use to. One reason is that it would be very questionalble for any administrator to sink money into a class room of outdated e or i Macs. Really how many voters would be happy to see such waste when they can barely get funding for non mandated programs.
Apple is at fault because they do not have competitive machines. One can not make a reasonable argument for spending money on an eMac (being Apples only low cost machine) for impelementation into a schools computer program. It is slow, has limited memory capacity and is all around outdated. That is Apples fault, they abandoned a market they once had a fairly solid lock on.
Quote:
Oddly enough... the Apple crowd tends to be a bit MORE tech savy than the average PC crowd. People tend to use PCs because that's just what they have at work, had at school, or used at a friends house... so they buy one. People that have Macs... have them because they want them. They know what a PC is. They know they can get a PC cheaper.... but they still go with their Macs because they CHOOSE to. It's all about choice.
Well this is a bit of a change if it is in fact the case. I owuld tend to agree though that a lot of people buy PC's with no clue as to there usage.
Quote:
The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. - The laughing stock for the community?? I can just see the neighbors peeking out their curtains and blinds as the town fool (Mac owner) walks down the street. "Martha... I just saw Bill walking down the street... He must be such a disappointment to his family... no wonder his wife left him... I'm sure she just couldn't take the embarassment any longer... can you believe it... he actually went out and bought a second Mac!"
Well as far as wives leaving their husbands many have left for far less.
IN any event I still maintain that people often perceive Mac owners as having more money than they know what to do with.
Quote:
"It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!" - It's "all about value" for alot of people... but not for everyone. There are less "tangible" things that people value also. While you can't always put a label on these things (and U Mac folks know what I mean)... it doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay for them... or that they're stupid or ignorrant for doing so.
Now no one has broght up the stupid or ignorrant labels until know. I think those labels are rather sad. It is not like I would not buy a Mac, OS/X does have some attractive features, it is just that I can not justify the expense of the desktop line.
Lets face it, you pay a lot of money for a machine that doesn't perform all that well. If money is an issue you spend that money on PC hardware and find a way to make it work to your satisfaction (LINUX). This may not be a perfect solution but it is viable and very low cost.
The point is Apple does not have a similar entry point into their OS. I can not go out and buy a headless G5, for $850, to attach to any of the monitors I have sitting around the house. Even if I could it is very likely that Apple would find a way to cripple the machine, mcuh as it has done with the eMac and Imacs.
So Apple has givne up on a segment of the market that would love to have a reasonably priced desktop. This segment will not look at the more expensive machines especially with the current value equation. Apple through the iBook has demonstrated an abiltiy to market a machine that meets a low price point and is a fairly good value, why they can't do this with the desktop is beyond me.
I didn't mean to suggest that an inexpensive machine need be a bad machine... I just meant that Apple should not produce a low end machine unless they can produce something outstanding at that lower price point.
My first and only experience with a Mac is the iBook... so I think I tend to have that in my mind as I'm thinking about competetive pricing. I don't really get the whole eMac thing at all. It just seems so non-Mac. It's big, clunky, not particularly innovative (as it's little brother the one-piece iMac was in it's day). I wouldn't even begin to try to defend that one or understand the logic anyone would have in getting one.
I have to agree with the memory issue in the iBook. 128MB being hardwired and 128MB in a slot is an unusual configuration. It also kinda sucks when you upgrade the memory... you can pretty much trash the 128MB that you take out (unless you know someone to give it to)... it's also often much cheaper to get say two 256MB or two 512MB memory modules than one 512MB or 1GB.
Dell has got the marketing/advertising thing down pretty well... Like you said... people refer to Dell by name. They advertise like crazy... and tout their excellent customer service. The result... so many people think that Dell is an excellent company and they provide excellent service. My experience with Dell is that their machines are on par with other major manufacturers and their customer support is useless (at least the technical end).
I guess that's another plus for the Apple side (and perhaps another reason to pay a little more)... Apple makes the OS and the hardware... so they typically work together flawlessly. As you mentioned getting Linux to run on a notebook can be rough... maybe not getting it to run... but getting it to recognize all the components, power management, etc can be a challange. The same holds true for a Windows notebook. Windows has tons of drivers built in... and you'll likely get them on some "restore" CD that comes with the box. My Vaio notebook was a pain in the ass... It came with XP Home and tons of Sony crap-ware. I wanted to do a clean install of XP Pro on it. No problem with installing the OS... I just could not get the drivers (keyboard function keys, power management, etc). They were in some Sony proprietary format. They have an "application restore" CD that says it won't run under that version of Windows (Pro vs. Home)... couldn't download them anywhere. I ended up doing a full restore from their CDs and then doing an upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro. I know there's tons of stuff on there I don't need... I just can't easily get rid of it. With my iBook and OS X... I do a clean install of the OS and the OS knows exactly what everything is on my iBook. It doesn't prompt me to insert a driver CD... it doesn't search for a driver on the HDD and then not find it.
These are some of the "intangible" things I think that are worth paying more for. I'd rather have a machine that "just works" and pay a bit more for it (even if it is slower... I'm not a power user... it just has to do what I need it for).
(hmmm... if I actually spent this much time on my actual work... I'd be due for a raise! I wondered why they keep moving my desk closer to the door)
Frist off my concenr is abotu havign the Mac around in a few years as aviable platform. It will not be around if market share continues to erode. Without market share "platform, software, design and simplicity" go away.
Apple will simply erode away to nothingness as a computer producer if they can not increase market share dramatically. They will never do this with the current price performance ratios they have. Performance is an issue with Mac hardware, it is silly to deny this.
As far as the PC world goes Windows is nto the only option. The problem is that Apple has removed themselves from being an option for anybody who has to take care with the money he has due to the rather sad state of the desktop line.
Apple has to become much more performance oriented and price sensitive if they are ever going to be able to regain market share. The advantages offered by OS/X, there are many, are not significant enough to sell the hardware they currently have on the market in a share expanding manner. This is a matter of fact and can be seen in Apples sales figures.
You can continue to belive that Software and OS should sell the hardware. The problem is there is no proof in the pudding. If the OS and software supported by the Mac was able to sell hardware Apple would not be slipping away from us. The fact is it is slipping away. One has to ownder how well the Mac will be supported software wise when Apple becomes #12 or 18 in the manufacture sales ratings. Do you really believe that software will be all that plentifull when that happens? Really do you?
Last I heard Apple was #7 in sales, that is already a concern. Do you believe that continuing to sell underpwoered and outdated hardware will improve that position? It won't but I think deep down everyone realizes that. The question becomes how do the new machines that are coming fit into the market place. Will they be marketed so that Apple atleast has a chance of remaining viable in the market place? The next couple of months will do much to determine Apples future as a computer manufacture. No effort to increase market share is certain to cause considerable problems for the platform.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Jesus, since when did it matter that you could use Cakewalk Home Studio on a 5 Ghz PC when instead you could use Garageband on a capable 1 Ghz G4? It is not about price to me, it is about platform, software, design, and simplicity.
If you want to pay less for a PC you will get more hardware, but less of a good overall computing experience. Windows is so last decade, still is, always will be behind the Mac. People stopped innovating at Apple while Steve was gone, now he's back and look how the Mac has reacted and transformed.
Software and the OS SHOULD drive the purchase, hardware and design next, Apple's combination of all of these makes me want a Mac over a PC. A PC delivers more hardware for the dollar, but what else can it do once all that stuff is on your desk?--It can definately get hacked to hell, thats for sure.
Microsoft didn't make it's money on hardware. I know you can't get the whole Mac experience using X on a non-Mac platform. But here Apple has a viable OS... one on par with consumer usability as Windows XP, and they don't take advantage of this opportunity. With the way things have been going in the world... more and more people are switching from Windows to the only other platform they can switch to without getting new hardware... and that's Linux. While Linux has come a long way.... it's not nearly as mature (from a consumer/ease of use point of view) as OS X. There is a real revenue opportunity here for Apple. I'm sure they must be able to see this. Every person, company, municipality, or country that moves away from Windows to Linux... could have moved to X. The momentum behind this move may already be so great as to make it impossible for Apple to take advantage of. Bring in some revenue in the OS end where profits are high... then they wouldn't have to worry about having tight margins on their hardware. People would get the feel for OS X and even maybe decide to get Mac hardware.
I'm not really sure I see a negative to this at all. I know talk of porting X over to x86 has been going on since the OS was released. This just seems to be an excellent time to release something like that and take advantage of the changing tides (if it's not already too late).
Comments
News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
So, does this cost differential mean nobody will buy? Sure, if the customer is uninformed, which is probably the same number as the market share comparisson.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.
News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
Amen!!
Originally posted by NaplesX
where do you get that system from, or are you talking about individually bought parts?
You can get a similar price from any PC manufactere witg similar specs. Go to best buy and check it out: Sony, HP, Compaq, Gateway, Dell. This is appealing to the average current PC user because they already have a monitor. For the $1800 of the imac you could have a 19" monitor and a tower with 512 RAM, 160HC, and 128-256 video. And a printer.
So lets pretend your local computer superstore carries Apple products, and it is pretty easy to argue that the processor is not really important, but if you buy a Mac you get 1/2 the hard drive 1/2 the RAM and 1/2 to 1/4 of the video memory in an equivalently priced PC. Pretty easy decision for the average PC user.
I am a 20 year PC user and I just bought my first mac, an ibook and I con't wait for the g5 powerbooks to come out, but you won't see me purchase an apple desktop because I can get a lot more PC for half of the price of the Apple desktops.
PS: apple doesn't make all their margin on powermacs. Its the powerbooks that take the cake. Laptops make up like 50% of Apple sales.
*** Actually the 12" ibook was the first thing that made me think about switching. I had a 12" Sony laptop. When it went out after about 14 months I looked for a nother 12" notebook and they were all 2x as much as I paid initially. (my Sony 12" was like $1400 in 1998 so really really cheap)
I think the most important goal for Apple is before the marketing is getting the specs up to speed. The laptops match up pretty well, although there are cheaper PC laptops, Apple's are much more capable gaming/video editing machines than the the 600-1200 PC notebooks. Even the powerbooks, although a little steep, compare well with the Centrino notebooks. But Apple should really make wireless standard across the powerbook line. for $1100 and up on the PC side you get built in wireless.
Once the the RAM, hard drive and video are up to par with similarly priced PCs, Apple can start an Apple hardware marketing campaign. $1800 should get you 512 RAM and 160 hard drive in a desktop, no contest.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I respectfully disagree in a couple of ways. The fact that Apple's hardware sales represent their profitability and ability to finance the R&D of everything the company does, means it must cost more.
A.) Not unique
B.) Not my problem
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.
News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
In general... if new users cared more about price & specs than they do function and form... the iPod wouldn't have nearly the market share it does. What is it now... something like 35%? It is by far the most expensive product in it's class and there are alternatives now... which perform just as well (and to some even better)for a price 25% or more less. What Apple does works... There will always be a population willing to pay a premium for whatever reason. Yes... there are lots of people who will go out and get the most cost effective solution... but that hardly covers everyone. Alot of us feel there is more to a computer than just the "numbers"... that's typically what makes a Mac person a Mac person. It's the whole "feel" of the product.
I know I can go out and buy a Wintel box at dirt cheap prices... right on to to thousands of dollars. You go Apple because you want more out of your computer than a number cruncher. You want something that just screams "touch me". I think the whole "Think Different" slogan still works (well... except for the iPod because we can hardly call that being different any more).
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I think that sometimes Mac users get so caught up in the pricing RDF that they don't really realize just how far out of range Mac prices are. The system Matsu pointed out is not unique. For less than the price of an iMac, you can buy more than the low and even mid range PM offers. It is truly amazing how much PC you get for $2,000 + including a great monitor. When money is no object, then Macs are on equal footing with PCs. But money is an object for 98$ of all computer shoppers. You can't say that Apple is being passed over unfairly by shoppers. Some of you ignore the higher price for older specs and pretend that doesn't make a difference. If Apple really believes they can gain switchers by selling the notion that price and specs don't matter, they are delusional and are not serious about the consumer market.
News-flash, new users care more about price and specs than they do function and form. They don't think about what they can do with the computer until after they know they can afford the computer. Once they decide they can afford the computer, they want to make sure they are getting the best bang for their buck. Even if they look at a Mac, the smaller HDs, less and slower ram, graphics cards with half the memory, etc are enough to convince them that the Mac is not competitive. Don't even try telling them what they can do with a Mac at that point. It's too late. They will tell you what you can do with the Mac, and it won't be pretty. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a percentage of people who don't care about money and specs. It is roughly the same percentage as the Mac Market-share.
new users usually don't even know what the specs mean, and salespeople at the local office depot tell them that more is better so they can sell a higher dollar system. When they ask "What about a Mac?" the sales people say "There is no software for them" or they point out the CPU speed and say they are slower not knowing how they work. I have witnessed this many times myself. I have picked up numerous customers that way. When I tell them the benefits of a mac they say "really?" In my experience new user are timid about using a PC, afraid that it will sit on their desk and not be used because they don't know how to use it. When I explain the benefits of a mac 75-85% of new computer users go mac. I switched my mom to a mac and she loves it. She could not seem to get anything to work on her XP machine. She was calling me everyday about one problem or another. She too was timid about doing anything, afraid it would not work. Now she is buzzing along like an expert.
New Users Don't Care About Specs!! It is geeks like you that tell them specs are important. No offense. New users don't even know what the specs mean!
Originally posted by Matsu
A.) Not unique
B.) Not my problem
No, it is unique, because Apple is unique. Apple is the only company left doing what they do, and if you want to buy what they make, you pay a premium. So it is unique, and it is your problem if you like and want to use it.
- Macs are way over priced
- Why in the world would you spend more money on a machine that can only run a tiny percentage of the software out there.
- Why would you spend more on a machine with performance specs far below an equally priced PC
- All those annoying Mac people just annoy me..."Oh... buy a Mac because it's just better"... "Oh... I wasted my money on a Mac... so why shouldn't you?"
- I've lived with a person for years who constantly tells me how wonderful the Mac OS is (even before X)... how stable it is... how crappy Windows is. Ya just get sick of hearing about it after a while.
Well... now, after less than a month of owning an iBook... I'm one of those people I used to complain about. I went with the iBook mostly to try out OS X (I wanted to get away from Windows... and I don't think most Linux distros are ready for prime time). I use my iBook as my exclusive notebook now. I still love my Sony Vaio 2.4GHz P4 notebook... it's just thick enough to rest my iBook on so I can use it comfortably when I'm on my couch.
If the very reasonably priced iBook wasn't there... I would never have purchased a Mac. However... I got the iBook because it's a good value at that price. I don't think making a crap machine just to be in the low end market is something Apple should ever consider.
Originally posted by X X
You're right! That's not a decision you want to be in marketing wise. If Apple had the same brialliance in their marketing as they do in their engineering then I believe more people wouldn't feel they'd need windows to run the internet.
That's an easy decision to make from the comfort of an armchair.
Unfortunately for your thesis, Apple is currently considered a brilliant marketer, and if you look at the success of their non-Mac ventures you can see that for yourself. And, given that they have succeeded in clawing themselves back from irrelevance to one of the top brands in any category, it's safe to say that something besides marketing is holding the Mac back.
One of the things I've consistently argued - and Joey backs it up in his last post - is that you have to actually use a Mac to understand its advantages. If you list what a Mac can do, and make a campaign around it, it'll be fundamentally indistinguishable from MS' ads for XP Home, or HP's "digital lifestyle" ads. From the ads, you'd think everything was as effortless as a Mac (scratch that: twice as effortless) and that's a problem for Apple. Everyone promises the Moon.
So, if you're a truly brilliant strategist and you're faced with a major obstacle that you could overcome, perhaps, at a significant cost, then you find a route around it. Whence the iPod, and the real brilliance of the iPod from a marketing perspective: You have to hold and use an iPod to understand its advantages as well, and millions upon millions of people are doing just that. In that respect, as a premium-priced device that is not packed with features and which has an elegance that you discover in person, it's a great way to teach people to appreciate Macs. And the more people there are who use it with Windows, and who use iTunes, the more people will appreciate Apple's design and integration skills, and the more people will realize that Apple is not an island cut off from the world.
Something that gets people to conclude that from their own experience is worth more than any marketing campaign that directly tackles the issue.
However, my comment was in regards to Apple's whole history, not just the current times, which the internet would fall under. Faelyn's comment as well was in regards to Apple's whole history, which Steve Jobs, himself, made reference to in some meeting about how Apple used to behave arrogantly.
I don't see how those are at all relevant now, though. Induction over Apple's history fails because, for once, Apple actually has competent management, and (not coincidentally) a solid, focused platform.
I think you'd agree that Apple hasn't always had the best business decisions, whether it's dealing with the lawsuit by Microsoft in 1989 or by offering a thousand different configurations for a computer.
True, but what Apple did in 1989 or 1995 has no bearing on what they're doing now, except perhaps as a historical lesson in what not to do. Steve has also made it quite plain that he thinks of Apple as starting over.
Your evaluation of the components in the eMac are pretty accurate. Most likely the tube is the most expensive part and is probally costing Apple between 20 & $30 wholesale. If this machine is actually depressing margins than the physical design must be an issue, it is not a sum of the parts issue. Then agian none of Apples hardware reflect the cost of the parts, one often precieves Apple to be a giant money sucking machine and the Macs the suction cup that gathers the money.
One possibility is the lack of "design for manufacturing". The G5 towers do appear to be designed for volume manufacturing. Niether the e or i mac seem to be manufacturing friendly, this could raise the cost to a substaintial degree.
Originally posted by Antithesis
Well, that would pretty much blow a hole through my theory, then.
Still, I'm left wondering WHAT Apple's doing to make the eMac so darned expensive to manufacture. Somehow, 1+1 just ain't equaling 2.
*shrugs*
Oh, well. I appreciate the clarification, anyways.
-Antithesis
Let me let you in on a little secret pricing is the problem. Apple if charging top dollar for hardware that is at times three or more generations old. The company always under delivers hardware, that is on the day of delivery the hardware is not competitive in the market. 6 months later it is still available at the same price while the rest of the world has moved a generation or two beyond.
When discussing the possibility of a XMac people constantly state that they don't want cheap hardware coming from Apple. Currently though what they get from Apple is expensive throughly outdated hardware and they want use to believe that this is good! It is not folks.
Apples name is out there, much more so than DENON, but along with that is the perception that they have hardware that has litle value in it. The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. Unfortunately the perception to some extent is justified, I would consider it irresponsible for any school to use tax payer dollars to buy the current eMac for example. You do not use my tax dollars to buy outdated, low functionality equipment for any reason.
It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!
Dave
Originally posted by emig647
The average consumer doesn't even consider macs when purchasing a new computer... because its like choosing a Denon receiver over a Pioneer / Kenwood / Sony / Panasonic receiver. The Denon is usually more powerful and nicer than any of those other receivers. But the name is not out there like it can be. I really don't think the problem is pricing as much as the name.
The problem I have with apple is they keep the same prices for months. The PowerMac has been out for 7 months now... prices are STILL the same. That is definitely a problem that needs to be dealth with. It doesn't make sense to buy 7 month old hardware for the same price as it was the day it was released. Apple needs to have price drops in their products... not just when new products come out but as they deteriorate as a value on the market also.
If you feel there's an issue with your schools spending their tax dollars on eMacs... I would think that should be something you take up with the schools... that's not Apple's fault.
Oddly enough... the Apple crowd tends to be a bit MORE tech savy than the average PC crowd. People tend to use PCs because that's just what they have at work, had at school, or used at a friends house... so they buy one. People that have Macs... have them because they want them. They know what a PC is. They know they can get a PC cheaper.... but they still go with their Macs because they CHOOSE to. It's all about choice.
The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. - The laughing stock for the community?? I can just see the neighbors peeking out their curtains and blinds as the town fool (Mac owner) walks down the street. "Martha... I just saw Bill walking down the street... He must be such a disappointment to his family... no wonder his wife left him... I'm sure she just couldn't take the embarassment any longer... can you believe it... he actually went out and bought a second Mac!"
"It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!" - It's "all about value" for alot of people... but not for everyone. There are less "tangible" things that people value also. While you can't always put a label on these things (and U Mac folks know what I mean)... it doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay for them... or that they're stupid or ignorrant for doing so.
I thought I was done postin and then I read your post. You hit your target like a sharp shooter I have to add a few myself.
Originally posted by Joey
I guess if I start with all the reasons I have stood firmly by PCs and hated Macs... it would be something like this:
- Macs are way over priced
This is cetainly the perception with the desktop lines. It is in fact pretty accurate with repsect to the desktops. Which leads one to ask why if Apple can produce a competitive laptop it can't do the same for the desktop?
- Why in the world would you spend more money on a machine that can only run a tiny percentage of the software out there.
Actually I never ask this question. I've been running Linux for a few years now. The reality is if you have the software you need to pursue your interests you are all set.
The problem is many people are gamers and equate software with games for their PC's. This is a problem for both Apple and the Linux crowds if they intend to use their machines as gaiming devices. This has never been my intention so it is not a problem. It can however be for some people and they tend to over emphasis their conerns to others.
- Why would you spend more on a machine with performance specs far below an equally priced PC
This is a real concern. Laptop wise Apple use to do real good now it gets out performed in just abotu all categories of shipping hardware. If your budget is at all tight Apple is out of the question.
Frankly this is what has driven me to Linux. The other major PC OS was crap a few years ago, and the Mac was a very poor performer for the dollar invested (still is?). So a quick introduction to Linux sealed the fate of both MS and Apple. It helped of course that my college expereince was all one Unix hardware.
- All those annoying Mac people just annoy me..."Oh... buy a Mac because it's just better"... "Oh... I wasted my money on a Mac... so why shouldn't you?"
Funny thing is I have a lot of people come up to me and ask about computers and which ones they should buy. I often reccomend Macs as they represnet solid machinery for people who are not machinery people if you know what I mean. The last individual to come up to me want a reccomendation on a Dell, not a PC in general but a Dell. The first thing that comes to mind is why not go to a local vendor where you get a better deal for a store bought machine.
Nope can't do that wouldn't even consider. Further inquiry indicated that her son (older woman) owned a Power Mac G5 (envy setting in) so I suggested she look at the Mac line. Nope I want a Dell! Mind you not a PC but a Dell.
So I have to wonder is it all marketing. It often appears that way, direct exposure to Apple hardware does not lead to intersts in buying that hardware.
- I've lived with a person for years who constantly tells me how wonderful the Mac OS is (even before X)... how stable it is... how crappy Windows is. Ya just get sick of hearing about it after a while.
I often try to convince people of the elgance and stability of Linux relative to the ocmmercial offerings. People probally get sick of hearing it. On the other hand I don't even bother with people that don't have a clue.
Well... now, after less than a month of owning an iBook... I'm one of those people I used to complain about. I went with the iBook mostly to try out OS X (I wanted to get away from Windows... and I don't think most Linux distros are ready for prime time). I use my iBook as my exclusive notebook now. I still love my Sony Vaio 2.4GHz P4 notebook... it's just thick enough to rest my iBook on so I can use it comfortably when I'm on my couch.
I've often looked at the ibook, it certainly is a reasonably priced machine from Apple. The reason for the interest is that OS/x is a reasonable laptop alternative to getting Linux to run on portable hardware.
There is still an issue of viability though. When using Linux, or OS/X for that matter, to the fullest memeory becomes very valuable. The fact that Apple short changes its machines memory wise puts me off. I have a hard time trusitng a company that would purposely be sof far behind the times.
On the iBook the memory issue is a big problem as the base memory is soldered in. For a portable this is a good thing for reliability. It is however a marketing fiasco if the complement of soldered in memmory is two to three generations behind where it should be.
If the very reasonably priced iBook wasn't there... I would never have purchased a Mac. However... I got the iBook because it's a good value at that price. I don't think making a crap machine just to be in the low end market is something Apple should ever consider.
Here we go agian, suggesting that a low cost desktop machine would be a piece of crap. Using todays technology it should be mcuh better than the ibook and cost less. It is ot a question of building a crap machine it is a quesiton of building a cost competitive machine. If Apple can do so with a iBook there is nothing to keep them form doing it with a desktop.
Clearly yoou point out that value and price sells machines. This is what I've been concerned about for some time, Apple is loosing makret share relative to desktops due to their very high prices on outdate equipment. It is not about makeing a crap machine, it is about makeing a machine for a market that they are not even in! The fact that it is low cost does not mean it is crap any more than the iBook is crap because of its low cost.
The iBook is crap for much the same reasons as many other Apple machines. What you pay for the machine does not justify the very small base memory configuration. The iBook fortuantely does meet or exceeds a number of other qualifications which makes it a reasonable purchase for some. Apples desktop line misses in so many features that it is amazing that they sell at all.
If you want to pay less for a PC you will get more hardware, but less of a good overall computing experience. Windows is so last decade, still is, always will be behind the Mac. People stopped innovating at Apple while Steve was gone, now he's back and look how the Mac has reacted and transformed.
Software and the OS SHOULD drive the purchase, hardware and design next, Apple's combination of all of these makes me want a Mac over a PC. A PC delivers more hardware for the dollar, but what else can it do once all that stuff is on your desk?--It can definately get hacked to hell, thats for sure.
Originally posted by Joey
I guess the "locked" pricing that Apple has always had is something of a double edged sword. On the one hand... the products do age and remain at the same price until they're discontinued or a new model comes out. On the other hand... you don't have to worry about spending "x" dollars... and then the next day find out the price just dropped significantly. It also makes shopping for Mac stuff a lot easier. You don't really have to go through the madness of checking every site for the best price since you won't usually find a difference of more than a few $$ for any current items.
The problem is that within months you are paying far to much for the machine. Further when Apple comes out with updates it can leave one with a sour taste in his mouth to know that and upgraded machine is out that is a nice improvement but cost the same or less than his machine did.
Quote:
If you feel there's an issue with your schools spending their tax dollars on eMacs... I would think that should be something you take up with the schools... that's not Apple's fault.
I think you missed the point here. Schools aren't buying Apple hardware anymore. At least not to the extent that they use to. One reason is that it would be very questionalble for any administrator to sink money into a class room of outdated e or i Macs. Really how many voters would be happy to see such waste when they can barely get funding for non mandated programs.
Apple is at fault because they do not have competitive machines. One can not make a reasonable argument for spending money on an eMac (being Apples only low cost machine) for impelementation into a schools computer program. It is slow, has limited memory capacity and is all around outdated. That is Apples fault, they abandoned a market they once had a fairly solid lock on.
Quote:
Oddly enough... the Apple crowd tends to be a bit MORE tech savy than the average PC crowd. People tend to use PCs because that's just what they have at work, had at school, or used at a friends house... so they buy one. People that have Macs... have them because they want them. They know what a PC is. They know they can get a PC cheaper.... but they still go with their Macs because they CHOOSE to. It's all about choice.
Well this is a bit of a change if it is in fact the case. I owuld tend to agree though that a lot of people buy PC's with no clue as to there usage.
Quote:
The perception is that the performance per dollar spent is so bad that just purchasing a Apple makes one the laughing stock for the community. - The laughing stock for the community?? I can just see the neighbors peeking out their curtains and blinds as the town fool (Mac owner) walks down the street. "Martha... I just saw Bill walking down the street... He must be such a disappointment to his family... no wonder his wife left him... I'm sure she just couldn't take the embarassment any longer... can you believe it... he actually went out and bought a second Mac!"
Well as far as wives leaving their husbands many have left for far less.
IN any event I still maintain that people often perceive Mac owners as having more money than they know what to do with.
Quote:
"It is all about value and the e and i Mac fail almost every measure of value for a computing device!" - It's "all about value" for alot of people... but not for everyone. There are less "tangible" things that people value also. While you can't always put a label on these things (and U Mac folks know what I mean)... it doesn't mean that people aren't willing to pay for them... or that they're stupid or ignorrant for doing so.
Now no one has broght up the stupid or ignorrant labels until know. I think those labels are rather sad. It is not like I would not buy a Mac, OS/X does have some attractive features, it is just that I can not justify the expense of the desktop line.
Lets face it, you pay a lot of money for a machine that doesn't perform all that well. If money is an issue you spend that money on PC hardware and find a way to make it work to your satisfaction (LINUX). This may not be a perfect solution but it is viable and very low cost.
The point is Apple does not have a similar entry point into their OS. I can not go out and buy a headless G5, for $850, to attach to any of the monitors I have sitting around the house. Even if I could it is very likely that Apple would find a way to cripple the machine, mcuh as it has done with the eMac and Imacs.
So Apple has givne up on a segment of the market that would love to have a reasonably priced desktop. This segment will not look at the more expensive machines especially with the current value equation. Apple through the iBook has demonstrated an abiltiy to market a machine that meets a low price point and is a fairly good value, why they can't do this with the desktop is beyond me.
Quote:
My first and only experience with a Mac is the iBook... so I think I tend to have that in my mind as I'm thinking about competetive pricing. I don't really get the whole eMac thing at all. It just seems so non-Mac. It's big, clunky, not particularly innovative (as it's little brother the one-piece iMac was in it's day). I wouldn't even begin to try to defend that one or understand the logic anyone would have in getting one.
I have to agree with the memory issue in the iBook. 128MB being hardwired and 128MB in a slot is an unusual configuration. It also kinda sucks when you upgrade the memory... you can pretty much trash the 128MB that you take out (unless you know someone to give it to)... it's also often much cheaper to get say two 256MB or two 512MB memory modules than one 512MB or 1GB.
Dell has got the marketing/advertising thing down pretty well... Like you said... people refer to Dell by name. They advertise like crazy... and tout their excellent customer service. The result... so many people think that Dell is an excellent company and they provide excellent service. My experience with Dell is that their machines are on par with other major manufacturers and their customer support is useless (at least the technical end).
I guess that's another plus for the Apple side (and perhaps another reason to pay a little more)... Apple makes the OS and the hardware... so they typically work together flawlessly. As you mentioned getting Linux to run on a notebook can be rough... maybe not getting it to run... but getting it to recognize all the components, power management, etc can be a challange. The same holds true for a Windows notebook. Windows has tons of drivers built in... and you'll likely get them on some "restore" CD that comes with the box. My Vaio notebook was a pain in the ass... It came with XP Home and tons of Sony crap-ware. I wanted to do a clean install of XP Pro on it. No problem with installing the OS... I just could not get the drivers (keyboard function keys, power management, etc). They were in some Sony proprietary format. They have an "application restore" CD that says it won't run under that version of Windows (Pro vs. Home)... couldn't download them anywhere. I ended up doing a full restore from their CDs and then doing an upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro. I know there's tons of stuff on there I don't need... I just can't easily get rid of it. With my iBook and OS X... I do a clean install of the OS and the OS knows exactly what everything is on my iBook. It doesn't prompt me to insert a driver CD... it doesn't search for a driver on the HDD and then not find it.
These are some of the "intangible" things I think that are worth paying more for. I'd rather have a machine that "just works" and pay a bit more for it (even if it is slower... I'm not a power user... it just has to do what I need it for).
(hmmm... if I actually spent this much time on my actual work... I'd be due for a raise! I wondered why they keep moving my desk closer to the door)
Apple will simply erode away to nothingness as a computer producer if they can not increase market share dramatically. They will never do this with the current price performance ratios they have. Performance is an issue with Mac hardware, it is silly to deny this.
As far as the PC world goes Windows is nto the only option. The problem is that Apple has removed themselves from being an option for anybody who has to take care with the money he has due to the rather sad state of the desktop line.
Apple has to become much more performance oriented and price sensitive if they are ever going to be able to regain market share. The advantages offered by OS/X, there are many, are not significant enough to sell the hardware they currently have on the market in a share expanding manner. This is a matter of fact and can be seen in Apples sales figures.
You can continue to belive that Software and OS should sell the hardware. The problem is there is no proof in the pudding. If the OS and software supported by the Mac was able to sell hardware Apple would not be slipping away from us. The fact is it is slipping away. One has to ownder how well the Mac will be supported software wise when Apple becomes #12 or 18 in the manufacture sales ratings. Do you really believe that software will be all that plentifull when that happens? Really do you?
Last I heard Apple was #7 in sales, that is already a concern. Do you believe that continuing to sell underpwoered and outdated hardware will improve that position? It won't but I think deep down everyone realizes that. The question becomes how do the new machines that are coming fit into the market place. Will they be marketed so that Apple atleast has a chance of remaining viable in the market place? The next couple of months will do much to determine Apples future as a computer manufacture. No effort to increase market share is certain to cause considerable problems for the platform.
Dave
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Jesus, since when did it matter that you could use Cakewalk Home Studio on a 5 Ghz PC when instead you could use Garageband on a capable 1 Ghz G4? It is not about price to me, it is about platform, software, design, and simplicity.
If you want to pay less for a PC you will get more hardware, but less of a good overall computing experience. Windows is so last decade, still is, always will be behind the Mac. People stopped innovating at Apple while Steve was gone, now he's back and look how the Mac has reacted and transformed.
Software and the OS SHOULD drive the purchase, hardware and design next, Apple's combination of all of these makes me want a Mac over a PC. A PC delivers more hardware for the dollar, but what else can it do once all that stuff is on your desk?--It can definately get hacked to hell, thats for sure.
Microsoft didn't make it's money on hardware. I know you can't get the whole Mac experience using X on a non-Mac platform. But here Apple has a viable OS... one on par with consumer usability as Windows XP, and they don't take advantage of this opportunity. With the way things have been going in the world... more and more people are switching from Windows to the only other platform they can switch to without getting new hardware... and that's Linux. While Linux has come a long way.... it's not nearly as mature (from a consumer/ease of use point of view) as OS X. There is a real revenue opportunity here for Apple. I'm sure they must be able to see this. Every person, company, municipality, or country that moves away from Windows to Linux... could have moved to X. The momentum behind this move may already be so great as to make it impossible for Apple to take advantage of. Bring in some revenue in the OS end where profits are high... then they wouldn't have to worry about having tight margins on their hardware. People would get the feel for OS X and even maybe decide to get Mac hardware.
I'm not really sure I see a negative to this at all. I know talk of porting X over to x86 has been going on since the OS was released. This just seems to be an excellent time to release something like that and take advantage of the changing tides (if it's not already too late).