This is why Apple's market share doesn't grow...

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacUsers

    Oh oh oh... Photoshop filters... i'm on it...



    But you said it can kill in just about anything... so just photoshop will not backup your clame.
  • Reply 22 of 53
    macusersmacusers Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    But you said it can kill in just about anything... so just photoshop will not backup your clame.



    be that way
  • Reply 23 of 53
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dferigmu

    How is wanting to pay $2000 instead of $4000 for the same specs being cheap? I think it's actually smart.



    Money doesn't come easily for everyone you know. I had to work really hard to save enough money for a new Mac.



    BTW, Apple is just a company, not your best friend, in case you forgot.




    Not using windows is worth 2 grand.
  • Reply 24 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacUsers

    be that way



    And as for the waiting for your PC to boot comment...

    My "PC" boots in ~25 seconds. How you might ask? I use Linux and that is how long it takes to get to a command line. Add another ~5 (when using windowmaker) if I wish to start X11. I can cut that down even more if I don't run my custom startup scripts (they start my DSL connection and do other user related thing).
  • Reply 25 of 53
    macusersmacusers Posts: 840member
    Ya, but that doesn't count... we're talking off the shelf here.



    Ok... here are the results to my simple test.



    Photoshop:



    iMac 400 G3: Radial blur... Zoom 100 Best... 8 seconds to the eagle sample image. Pentium 4 1.6: Same image, same test... 10 seconds.



    Taking that image and using the super simple Cut Out filter... 5 seconds on Windows. A second or less on iMac.



    Was going to do an iTunes test but after trying to open iTunes several times and a weird noise coming out of the back and iTunes never opening.. this test could not be conducted...



    I mean.. opening My Computer takes 5 seconds and it takes about a second to open a Finder window. It's sad.



    I'm not doing any tests because it's pointless. I said the iMac is faster and it is. Case closed.



    I turned off that piece of crap for now.. it smelled like burnt plastic. I made sure the smell wasn't coming from any other place either. Arg... Windows sucks... I can't believe you made me use that thing.



    This is hard to believe.. maybe it's defective.. have had it for almost 2 years now. What a piece of crap.
  • Reply 26 of 53
    So why do you own it then?
  • Reply 27 of 53
    macusersmacusers Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    So why do you own it then?



    Testing web sites.. that's about it. I don't know. You want it?



    Nah, I'll keep it.



    Anyway, I wasn't trying to be mean... I just think Windows computers can't compare to Macs. From the software that comes with them, to the looks, to the performance. Mac's rule. They are more expensive, but I think their worth it.



    To summerize: The iMac is slow as crap, but the Vaio bought 2 years later is even slower after less than 2 years of normal usage. The Vaio has broken down 3 times while the iMac has always worked the exact same way.
  • Reply 28 of 53
    gargoylegargoyle Posts: 660member
    OK. While your there, add $500+ to the PC price to get some iLife '04 like apps. And I am sure there is another $200 worth of other smaller programs that are hidden all over panther. Like Font Book, sure its not the best program for pro's with 1000's of fonts. But for average Joe its good enough.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    dferigmudferigmu Posts: 269member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ipodandimac

    hmm heres my comparison:



    piece of shit that LOOKS fast on paper but doesnt get the job done in the real world (PC), vs. elegant, fast, stable, powerful system (apple).




    If PCs can't get the job done, then why do they own 95% of the market?



    All I'm saying is that if Apple updated more frequently and lowered prices, it would sell more hardware. What's wrong with that?
  • Reply 30 of 53
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dferigmu

    If PCs can't get the job done, then why do they own 95% of the market?



    All I'm saying is that if Apple updated more frequently and lowered prices, it would sell more hardware. What's wrong with that?




    Ignorant people, that's why they have 95% of the market.



    You may be right, but I know I pay more for an Apple because it's hands down a better machine. You get what you pay for. Macs aren't that much more expensive when you look at what you get with it. The specs match up even if the Mhz don't. I'm in college too, and I can deal with the higher prices, I love Macs.



    And the slow update cycles aren't exactly Apple's fault. They have to wait for the new processors to come in and be available in volume. I wish they would update more, but the way things are going now is just fine with me.
  • Reply 31 of 53
    jadejade Posts: 379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel



    No, things -won't- change from a price perspective unless Apple finds a magic way to get parts for cheaper. The only way to do that is to go with X86 hardware, which I think most of us agree is not a great idea. In Econ 101 they'll teach you that things get cheaper as more are produced. It's a concept called economies of scale, and it's the only thing Dell has going for it right now. So if you care so much about price, then you buy a Dell. People who want good PC notebooks don't buy Dells. Of course, PC desktops are all the same now so there's a big "whatever" on that front.





    Wrong Answer. Actually the processor is the least of Apple's problems. Apart from the motherboard and the processor apple is using the same parts as the Wintel crowd. So why is it that an Apple that cost $600-800 more than a fairly comparable PC have:



    1/2 the RAM

    1/2 the Hard drive

    1/2 the video memory

    1/2 the speed of the DVD writer.





    We all know about the megahertz myth, adn how g4 processors have kept pace fairly well with the intel land. But what is the excuse for Apple bundling substandard amounts of ram and hard drive space in the new machines. Or pricing remaining consistent, even though the prodeuct has been languishing on the market for 5-8 months.



    Specs aren't everything but you want value for your money. Would you buy a BMW 330i over a Ford Focus if the BMW only came with 2 tires, missing 2 doors, 3 seat belts and a gas tank that only held 5 gallons, whe the Focus included full sheetmetal, 4 tires, 5 seat belts and a normal sized tank and was 1/2 the price of the BMW?



    If I was upgrading my g3 imac, I would be in the same boat, looking at how much more I got with my money if I were to buy a PC. Especially, if like most people, I used a PC at work and was comfortable enough using windows.
  • Reply 32 of 53
    dferigmudferigmu Posts: 269member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DMBand0026

    Ignorant people, that's why they have 95% of the market.



    You may be right, but I know I pay more for an Apple because it's hands down a better machine. You get what you pay for. Macs aren't that much more expensive when you look at what you get with it. The specs match up even if the Mhz don't. I'm in college too, and I can deal with the higher prices, I love Macs.



    And the slow update cycles aren't exactly Apple's fault. They have to wait for the new processors to come in and be available in volume. I wish they would update more, but the way things are going now is just fine with me.




    1. 95% of the US population arn't ignorant just because they use PCs. Some are very ignorant for not trying Macs but others can't afford them or don't know about them and that's Apple's fault.



    2. I agree with pretty much everything else you said. I love Macs and I never want to buy a PC unless I have to for work or some other reason. I would just like to see lower prices.
  • Reply 33 of 53
    macusersmacusers Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dferigmu

    1. 95% of the US population arn't ignorant just because they use PCs. Some are very ignorant for not trying Macs but others can't afford them or don't know about them and that's Apple's fault.



    2. I agree with pretty much everything else you said. I love Macs and I never want to buy a PC unless I have to for work or some other reason. I would just like to see lower prices.




    Do you qualify for education pricing? You said you were in college.
  • Reply 34 of 53
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dferigmu

    1. 95% of the US population arn't ignorant just because they use PCs. Some are very ignorant for not trying Macs but others can't afford them or don't know about them and that's Apple's fault.



    2. I agree with pretty much everything else you said. I love Macs and I never want to buy a PC unless I have to for work or some other reason. I would just like to see lower prices.




    What are you willing to give up from your Mac to get to those prices? iLife? OSX? FCP? QuickTime? FireWire? None of these things exist in your perfect world where Apple is just another box builder. It costs money to come up with that next breakthrough.
  • Reply 35 of 53
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jade

    Wrong Answer.



    . . . .





    OK, how much does a Pentium 4 (3Ghz) cost when you make a zillion of them? How much does an intel mobo cost when you make almost as many?



    Vs.



    Price of 1.8Ghz G5 (much less quantity than P4)

    Price of Apple made motherboard (much less quantity that Intel boards)

    Price of Apple OEM graphics board (you get the idea)



    The difference is probably close to $800



    Believe me, Apple is not trying to rip people off. They couldn't take 800 bucks off the cost of the machine and be profitable. In fact, I bet they'd lose a lot of money. Furthermore, they spend a hell of a lot of money on industrial design and software design that must be offset by hardware pricing.



    Lastly, I don't think that getting prices lower would really make that much of a difference as far as market share is concerned. I'm pretty sure that idea has been attempted in the past (way back in the 90's), and it never really worked. When Apple had 18% market share, it was because computers weren't all over the place. People who needed macs bought macs, and that market hasn't really grown at the same rate as the general, status-quo following public.



    The incessant "Macs cost too much" argument is ill-conceived. Macs do cost more, and they may not have the same specs. But that links entirely to supply-chain capabilities, manufacturing logistics, and corporate structuring. From an economic point of view, the PC market is more or less in perfect competition. That's good for the consumer. Apple can't get reasonbly get there, so they have to establish themselves as a luxury product.



    The auto market is a bad comparison in general, because all cars can drive on the same roads, and most cars -- save the rotaries -- can generally be understood by mechanics. But even so, the specs of many luxury products -- like luxury cars -- are no better than those for regular products. Often worse. But with the mac you get an added feel and stability, and generally a better user experience. That's the f-ing crowning characteristic of a luxury product: refinement. And you pay for it.
  • Reply 36 of 53
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dferigmu

    1. 95% of the US population arn't ignorant just because they use PCs. Some are very ignorant for not trying Macs but others can't afford them or don't know about them and that's Apple's fault.



    Read my post before this. It's not Apple's fault. It's the fault of supply chains, manufacturing logistics, and economies of scale.



    So blame it on capitalism if you want to point the finger. Otherwise, stop posting here and use the time to make some money so you can buy a mac.
  • Reply 37 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dferigmu

    Powermac 1.6GHz G5

    256MB DDR333 SDRAM

    80GB HD

    NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra

    4X SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)

    $1,799.00



    vs.



    Dell Dimension 8300

    Pentium 4 3GHz

    256MB DDR SDRAM

    80GB Hard Drive

    8x DVD+RW Drive

    128MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 Graphics Card

    $1,019



    ... snip ...



    I love Apple and I will never buy a PC unless I am forced to, but come on! This is getting ridiculous. Not only does Apple not upgrade their computers for 5-7 months, but they expect you to pay full price even when the hardware is far from outdated. We're paying $600, $800, and even $1800 more for the same specs!



    Yes, Macs are more stable and higher in quality, but that doesn't equal prices so much higher than the competition. If Apple wants to increase market share, updates have to be more frequent and prices must fall. Who's going to pay almost $2000 more for a top-of-the-line Apple when they can get a top-of-the-line Dell with the same exact specs? Someone with a lot of money, which the majority of the earth's population does not.




    Not a single system you mentioned was similar to the Mac you compared it against. I did the same comparison a different way. Equipped a home-built PC with similarly rated parts that you would find in a given Power Mac. Dual 2.0ghz AMD 64-bit CPU's, 512mb DDR400 RAM, a quality motherboard, NIC, sound card, an ATI 9800 Pro, and top it off with WinXP Pro.



    The difference was less than $50 (certainly pocket change for most of us). The difference was negligibly higher on a PC equipped similarly to the lowest end PowerMac G5.



    The myth that Macs are more expensive is just that - a myth. Now, if you're talking about a PC with the NIC, sound, and video built onto the motherboard, you can build an adequate PC for under $600. By "adequate", I mean capable of running just about every program ever written well, but having a bit of a problem with modern games.



    I think Apple needs to keep their legacy hardware viable for much longer than they do. Can you upgrade a Power Mac beyond the dual 2ghz CPU's? No. Will you ever be able to? Not unless someone comes out with an accelerator card that takes the 3gz chipsd that everyone is speculating about, and even that comes with a great big "IF" in terms of compatibility.
  • Reply 38 of 53
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gargoyle

    But for average Joe its good enough. [/B]



    You might want to be very careful tossing around such a phrase when trying to argue the reasons to buy a Mac instead of a PC.
  • Reply 39 of 53
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    I know PC vs Mac "speed" has been bandied about in this thread so I thought it'd be a good idea to post a couple of links (as unbiased as I could find) which showcase the G5 vs the PC world.



    First up is Rob Galbraith's fairly comprehensive benchmarking from a Digital Camera user's perspective, including some Photoshop benchmarks on pages 10 and 11 or you can skip right to the conclusion on page 14.



    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6451-6410



    Second is the (im)famous PSBench benchmark. Some Ars-ians compiled this information...



    http://homepage.mac.com/ashby/.Pictu...ench_chart.jpg



    Cheers,



    C.
  • Reply 40 of 53
    I am recent Mac switcher. Just bought my first Mac actually -- a iBook G4 933.



    Let me tell you exactly what made me (a long time Windows user) finally switch from his 2 GHZ PC to a 933MHZ Mac.



    1) Mac OS X -- This operating system is just plain awesome. Fast, stable, and simple beautiful to look at. Everything is just so easy to use and I feel as if I am in control rather than just the operating system.



    2) My iBook is just so beautiful. A very rugged and polished design. I am always getting compliments.



    3) For some reason, this iBook seems to feel so much faster than my PC ever was. I guess that's multitasking for you. While one application is busy doing something, it doesn't slow the machine to a crawl and force me to wait until it is done. I can switch to another app and start working in that.



    Mac OS X may be only $129, but I would gladly for almost double that to get a fast, stable, and cutting-edge operating system.



    Mike
Sign In or Register to comment.