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.
Yes. There are folks who just don't need much of that, except for OS X. They don't need a breakthrough computer, and they don't play Halo, or anything close. Solitaire anyone?
Now the wrong reply to this would be, "Let them buy a PC." It's that kind of thinking that keeps Apple's market share low. If I had a grandma who just wanted to do internet and email, I'd like her to have a Mac running OS X. She wouldn't need Firewire, hardly any iLife applications, and certainly no more than a G3 processor. I'd buy her a used Beige G3 and install Jaguar. Most folks want something up to date so they get a cheap PC. In either case, a used Beige G3 or a PC, Apple doesn't get a nickel in sales.
. . . I see a lot of people walking into the Tysons Apple Store here. I'm sure Apple would sell a lot more computers that are priced at the same level as the competition. . .
People see value in different ways. For some it is just raw performance and price that matters. Others value refinements and quality, and are willing to pay more to get it. Apple caters to the second group and ignores the first. I believe Apple needs to address both groups if they intend to raise market share.
I really like my G5. Sure it cost too much if I just look at performance and price. Yet I appreciate the fine case and engineering refinements. The variable speed fans, and push-pull air flow over the processors makes it a friendly and quiet piece of gear. The case looks solid and I doubt I'll get tired of seeing it. To me, Dell computer cases appear to be cheap junk trying to look classy. Obviously, 95 percent of the market doesn't see things the way I do.
Apple should return to the strategy they had with the original iMac, but it need not be an all-in-one. The original iMac was a low-cost bare-bones Mac for the masses. Peripheral I/O was reduced to just USB, there was just one removable media drive, a CD-ROM, and it was network ready with Ethernet. The only built in "luxury" was a modem, which could have been an add-on USB option. As the iMac "improved" over the years, Apple lost their really low-end Mac, and have not seemed interested in making another. The eMac only stepped back a little ways.
I believe Apple could use two models of the Mac that address those who are interested in a very reasonable price for the performance they need. I didn't say lowest price, and it does not need to include high-end performance.
I'm sorry but let's try to be the voice of reason here.
Everyone on these boards knows that anyday Apple plans to announce new Powermac G5s. There are numerous threads offering conjecture on this.
So with this in mind I have to ask.
Why create an emotive thread with a plea for Apple to reduce it's price by comparing Macs on their last legs. Sure Apple should offer rebates and the like to clear the channel but in this case they are not.
#2 Never compare a Dual Pro Mac to a Single. Those of us that are cross platform and have built our PCs know that buying a Dual Pro PC motherboard spec'd like Apple can range from $200-500+ dollars. Let's keep it "Apples to Apples"(pun intended)
I'm not angry about Apples prices. I realize that things change once the new computers are here. Honestly this happens at the end of every cycle. There are always a bunch of threads that pop up lamenting the price disparity of 8 month old Macs with that of PCs that have had their price cuts.
Now if someone is looking to do just email, and surfing on the cheap. Well there is web TV...
Most buy a cheap Dell, like my neighbor did a couple weeks ago. He didn't want to pay $800 for an eMac. He has no interest in iLife stuff, not yet anyway. He thought $600 sounded better and went with Wintel.
I'm typing on a 300 MHz Beige G3 right now. The G5 is often busy with other stuff, so for me, email and internet has a dedicated Beige G3 running Jaguar. It's never busy doing something else, and I never have to wait for someone else to finsh their work. I have another Beige G3 dedicated to a keyboard and electronic music. These perform well enough for their assigned tasks. If the performance is up to the task, and the price is low enough, I'd much rather have several Macs, instead of doing everything on one.
If Apple made a simple, low-cost Mac with USB, basic CD-ROM and Ethernet, I'd start replacing these Beige G3s, because the new Macs would run Panther. I've got good displays, so I don't need one built in. Heck, IBM has the 750 GX sitting on the shelf, just waiting for Apple (or anyone) to buy it. It's 1 GHz with 1 MB of L2 cache, and probably very cheap.
Why create an emotive thread with a plea for Apple to reduce it's price by comparing Macs on their last legs. Sure Apple should offer rebates and the like to clear the channel but in this case they are not...
Honestly this happens at the end of every cycle. There are always a bunch of threads that pop up lamenting the price disparity of 8 month old Macs with that of PCs that have had their price cuts.
In that lies the problem. Apple products have a fixed pricing scheme and a slow update cycle compared to the PC. Therefore, Throughout most of their lives, Macs are behind the curve when it comes to pricing and up-to-date specs. The only time they look good in these categories is when they are first released and excitement is high. When that wears off, they start looking a bit overpriced. Shortly thereafter, the specs start showing their age as they were often not the top of the line in the first place. This situation is not just something that happens at the end of the cycle. It is systemic. It is Apple's business model. It is a constant. That is why such threads are so prevalent. If Apple updated more frequently or slashed prices in keeping with the age of the product and its components, such threads and perceptions would not continually dog Apple. If the faithful feel this way, imagine how it plays in PC land.
Apple's prices will never (never!) be as cheap as PC's.
However, I think part of the problem is really the huge differencial in prices.
Many including myself, will accept paying more for better quality (Apple hardware and software). But I wonder how greater marketshare Apple would have, if they cut profit margins and lowered prices by 10-15%?
In that lies the problem. Apple products have a fixed pricing scheme and a slow update cycle compared to the PC. Therefore, Throughout most of their lives, Macs are behind the curve when it comes to pricing and up-to-date specs. The only time they look good in these categories is when they are first released and excitement is high. When that wears off, they start looking a bit overpriced. Shortly thereafter, the specs start showing their age as they were often not the top of the line in the first place. This situation is not just something that happens at the end of the cycle. It is systemic. It is Apple's business model. It is a constant. That is why such threads are so prevalent. If Apple updated more frequently or slashed prices in keeping with the age of the product and its components, such threads and perceptions would not continually dog Apple. If the faithful feel this way, imagine how it plays in PC land.
Yeah but $100 off an outdated iMac is hardly a discount. PM G5 prices are better though.
Then check out the refurbed machines at the Apple store. Recently they had the 1.6GHz G5 for $1399, the single 1.8 for $1599, and the 15" iMac for $999. They pop up every week or so.
Comments
Originally posted by MacUsers
Do you qualify for education pricing? You said you were in college.
Yeah but $100 off an outdated iMac is hardly a discount. PM G5 prices are better though.
Originally posted by HOM
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.
Yes. There are folks who just don't need much of that, except for OS X. They don't need a breakthrough computer, and they don't play Halo, or anything close. Solitaire anyone?
Now the wrong reply to this would be, "Let them buy a PC." It's that kind of thinking that keeps Apple's market share low. If I had a grandma who just wanted to do internet and email, I'd like her to have a Mac running OS X. She wouldn't need Firewire, hardly any iLife applications, and certainly no more than a G3 processor. I'd buy her a used Beige G3 and install Jaguar. Most folks want something up to date so they get a cheap PC. In either case, a used Beige G3 or a PC, Apple doesn't get a nickel in sales.
Originally posted by dferigmu
. . . I see a lot of people walking into the Tysons Apple Store here. I'm sure Apple would sell a lot more computers that are priced at the same level as the competition. . .
People see value in different ways. For some it is just raw performance and price that matters. Others value refinements and quality, and are willing to pay more to get it. Apple caters to the second group and ignores the first. I believe Apple needs to address both groups if they intend to raise market share.
I really like my G5. Sure it cost too much if I just look at performance and price. Yet I appreciate the fine case and engineering refinements. The variable speed fans, and push-pull air flow over the processors makes it a friendly and quiet piece of gear. The case looks solid and I doubt I'll get tired of seeing it. To me, Dell computer cases appear to be cheap junk trying to look classy. Obviously, 95 percent of the market doesn't see things the way I do.
Apple should return to the strategy they had with the original iMac, but it need not be an all-in-one. The original iMac was a low-cost bare-bones Mac for the masses. Peripheral I/O was reduced to just USB, there was just one removable media drive, a CD-ROM, and it was network ready with Ethernet. The only built in "luxury" was a modem, which could have been an add-on USB option. As the iMac "improved" over the years, Apple lost their really low-end Mac, and have not seemed interested in making another. The eMac only stepped back a little ways.
I believe Apple could use two models of the Mac that address those who are interested in a very reasonable price for the performance they need. I didn't say lowest price, and it does not need to include high-end performance.
Now if someone is looking to do just email, and surfing on the cheap. Well there is web TV...
Although they should be belly up within a few months...
Everyone on these boards knows that anyday Apple plans to announce new Powermac G5s. There are numerous threads offering conjecture on this.
So with this in mind I have to ask.
Why create an emotive thread with a plea for Apple to reduce it's price by comparing Macs on their last legs. Sure Apple should offer rebates and the like to clear the channel but in this case they are not.
#2 Never compare a Dual Pro Mac to a Single. Those of us that are cross platform and have built our PCs know that buying a Dual Pro PC motherboard spec'd like Apple can range from $200-500+ dollars. Let's keep it "Apples to Apples"(pun intended)
I'm not angry about Apples prices. I realize that things change once the new computers are here. Honestly this happens at the end of every cycle. There are always a bunch of threads that pop up lamenting the price disparity of 8 month old Macs with that of PCs that have had their price cuts.
Originally posted by Mac_ken_Cheez
Now if someone is looking to do just email, and surfing on the cheap. Well there is web TV...
Most buy a cheap Dell, like my neighbor did a couple weeks ago. He didn't want to pay $800 for an eMac. He has no interest in iLife stuff, not yet anyway. He thought $600 sounded better and went with Wintel.
I'm typing on a 300 MHz Beige G3 right now. The G5 is often busy with other stuff, so for me, email and internet has a dedicated Beige G3 running Jaguar. It's never busy doing something else, and I never have to wait for someone else to finsh their work. I have another Beige G3 dedicated to a keyboard and electronic music. These perform well enough for their assigned tasks. If the performance is up to the task, and the price is low enough, I'd much rather have several Macs, instead of doing everything on one.
If Apple made a simple, low-cost Mac with USB, basic CD-ROM and Ethernet, I'd start replacing these Beige G3s, because the new Macs would run Panther. I've got good displays, so I don't need one built in. Heck, IBM has the 750 GX sitting on the shelf, just waiting for Apple (or anyone) to buy it. It's 1 GHz with 1 MB of L2 cache, and probably very cheap.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I
Why create an emotive thread with a plea for Apple to reduce it's price by comparing Macs on their last legs. Sure Apple should offer rebates and the like to clear the channel but in this case they are not...
Honestly this happens at the end of every cycle. There are always a bunch of threads that pop up lamenting the price disparity of 8 month old Macs with that of PCs that have had their price cuts.
In that lies the problem. Apple products have a fixed pricing scheme and a slow update cycle compared to the PC. Therefore, Throughout most of their lives, Macs are behind the curve when it comes to pricing and up-to-date specs. The only time they look good in these categories is when they are first released and excitement is high. When that wears off, they start looking a bit overpriced. Shortly thereafter, the specs start showing their age as they were often not the top of the line in the first place. This situation is not just something that happens at the end of the cycle. It is systemic. It is Apple's business model. It is a constant. That is why such threads are so prevalent. If Apple updated more frequently or slashed prices in keeping with the age of the product and its components, such threads and perceptions would not continually dog Apple. If the faithful feel this way, imagine how it plays in PC land.
However, I think part of the problem is really the huge differencial in prices.
Many including myself, will accept paying more for better quality (Apple hardware and software). But I wonder how greater marketshare Apple would have, if they cut profit margins and lowered prices by 10-15%?
in order to increase its marketshare Apple (who? 8) ) could always advertise.
radical, I know but . . .
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
In that lies the problem. Apple products have a fixed pricing scheme and a slow update cycle compared to the PC. Therefore, Throughout most of their lives, Macs are behind the curve when it comes to pricing and up-to-date specs. The only time they look good in these categories is when they are first released and excitement is high. When that wears off, they start looking a bit overpriced. Shortly thereafter, the specs start showing their age as they were often not the top of the line in the first place. This situation is not just something that happens at the end of the cycle. It is systemic. It is Apple's business model. It is a constant. That is why such threads are so prevalent. If Apple updated more frequently or slashed prices in keeping with the age of the product and its components, such threads and perceptions would not continually dog Apple. If the faithful feel this way, imagine how it plays in PC land.
Wow! There's someone actually realistic in here.
And quite obnoxious too. It was an honor to read through both pages...
Originally posted by dferigmu
Yeah but $100 off an outdated iMac is hardly a discount. PM G5 prices are better though.
Then check out the refurbed machines at the Apple store. Recently they had the 1.6GHz G5 for $1399, the single 1.8 for $1599, and the 15" iMac for $999. They pop up every week or so.