JMO, but isnt the reason the iMac is not selling very well, because MOST people are now buying laptops for general purpose computing use?.
The ibook is priced extremely well now at 1099, and most businesses will buy the eMac for their staff at 799 instead of a 1299 imac!.
Hell, ive even heard of freelance graphics people buying emacs!
The only time im seeing imac sales is to people that are doing ilife without the need for portability. Its a great machine - but damm expensive if its a second computer!, I just think this is a much smaller market than it used to be - everyone wants laptops.
Lower prices and a G5 will help spike sales, but thats about it.
JMO, but isnt the reason the iMac is not selling very well, because MOST people are now buying laptops for general purpose computing use?.
The ibook is priced extremely well now at 1099, and most businesses will buy the eMac for their staff at 799 instead of a 1299 imac!.
True. Take a look at Apple's Q2 2004 earning statement (here). In Q2 '04 they shifted 217k iMacs and and 201k iBooks, compared to 256k iMacs and 133k iBooks in Q2 '03.
Obviosuly this will partly be due to a stagnated iMac lineup, but the difference is considerable nonetheless.
Joe Average is not going to buy a mac period. All his average friends use cheap windows boxes so why would he ever consider a mac? Cos macs are for fashion queers, designer fruitcakes, musicians and hippies.
The fact that he can get software from each of his friends is more than enough reason to not consider buying a mac, ever !
so stop trying to think that apple could win Joe Average over!
and start wishing that they won't, cos I think nobody here would actually like it if apples would ever get common and mundane.... think about it.
second part: Apple is not into building cheap $500 boxes for very good reasons, get over yourselves!
If you want a $500 box, go get one, and have fun replacing it every year from now on. Reinstalling windows every 6 months due to viruses or just the fact that windows blows, and sucks at the same time! (courtesy of 3DTiaB)
Joe Average is not going to buy a mac period. All his average friends use cheap windows boxes so why would he ever consider a mac? Cos macs are for fashion queers, designer fruitcakes, musicians and hippies.
The fact that he can get software from each of his friends is more than enough reason to not consider buying a mac, ever !
I disagree. Sure, Apple has to overcome obstacles like user familiarity, platform interoperability, price etc, but there is no reason to assume they won't be able to do this (I am not suggesting they will, just that it is not an impossibility). Apple's value-proposition to the consumer and professional alike is a better quality, more enjoyable user experience. People will pay for this. Mercedes don't sell S-Class cars because they are fast, they sell them because of i) the brand and ii) the quality of the 'user' experience. Buying a Mac is the same, except there is a large degree of consumer inertia/resistance as regards buying a non-Windows PC, most of which is unjustified.
To suggest that Apple will never sell to Joe consumer is mistaken. The iPod has sold well for all the reasons that Macs can sell well - it is better designed, easier to use, and a more functional product - despite its worst-in-class price tag. The three core differences when selling PCs are that i) people feel that they ought to buy Windows "because everybody does; ii) people can use Windows and fear they won't be able to use the Mac OS (I train competent Windows users, and it's amazing how routinized and unnatural their interaction with computers is...they learn how to do things by remembering a series of steps, so it'd be a nightmare for them to change OSes); iii) consumers consider 'value' for computers in very mechanical terms - they don't think about the 'feel' of a computer like they would a house, clothes or even an iPod. People don't relish the 'elegance' of an operating system like they do nice upholstery in a BMW. Not to stretch the car analogy, but consider also that people consider very strongly the servicing costs of cars, and how often they break down; they do not when buying a PC (otherwise Macs would sell by the bucket-load). People don't understand computers, so they latch on to easy metrics to use as 'cues' for their decisions - hence the MHz myth. It doesn't matter whether MHz are are fair measure, they are used as such, which is what's important in selling PCs.
These problems are not new - they have been around ever since Windows became the defacto desktop operating system. As a poster above noted, selling to switchers is much harder than selling to first-time PC buyers, which is why the original iMac sold so well. Apple needs to change the terms on which people buy computers: persuade people that using a Mac is a substantively 'better' experience, and that this experience is valuable - in terms of foregone MHz and additional cost. The Switcher campaign tried this (badly), and failed, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. The Digial Hub strategy is another example of Apple trying to manipulate the position the PC holds in our (consumer) lives - if PCs exist to manager our media, then Mac OS X beats Windows hands down; the problem is, people don't see computers in those terms.
It's worth remembering, though, that for Apple to be successful, they do not have to dominate and the Mac OS does not have to break above a few percent of the market. Macintosh may only have a ~1% market share, but Apple makes ALL of the PCs that comprise that 1%, so they are the 6th (?) largest PC manufacturer in the world, and in the Fortune 500. There is no way that Apple needs a large market share to be viable.
(I am not suggesting they will, just that it is not an impossibility).
To suggest that Apple will never sell to Joe consumer is mistaken. The iPod has sold well for all the reasons that Macs can sell well - it is better designed, easier to use, and a more functional product - despite its worst-in-class price tag. J.
I"m not suggesting that it is impossible, it just scales very high on the improbability drive......
Comparing the success of the iPod to the Macintosh is (albeit glorious) not fair, if only things were that simple.
The iPod had a far better chance of success because it is platform independent. It is a device on its own with little compatibility issues.
It is not, like the macintosh, a single Englishman between Americans. You (Mr Mac) understand the windows world with little difficulty because you are used to it through experience media etc, but the windows world thinks you talk funny. They have to think to understand what you are saying, not because you speak a different language, because you don't, but because you use different grammar, expressions (mate, can I bum a fag of ye?) and accent.
I'm not suggesting these problems can't be overcome, but they involve effort.
Joe Average doesn't want to buy something which requires effort. Nope, Joe Average likes the microwave dinners he already knows and he cares very little about the fact that homecooking would provide a better and healthier meal. He doesn't care because he is already content with his microwave dinners, why put in the effort if he thinks he's happy just the way things are?
I think a lot of people here think too much of people (fair play to you), most people look at learning something new as an obstacle, something they need to plan and prepare for. They don't just start and, nope to them it's like climbing the mount everest or something I don't know. It's like after completing their education and getting a job they give up on personal development. They are content with who they are and just wanna relax and live life comfortably without unnecessary hassle. Mind you, that's what switching to mac is to them. Extra hassle = less tv time.
now this might seem a very biased perspective to you, and of course it is.
but I wouldn't be so biased if peeps wouldn't keep confirming them...
there will be people who switch to mac and are gonna love it, but the majority will keep on using windows..... Bill Gates just won, that's ok, it's not a matter of winning. I for one, am perfectly happy in our sunny community under the appletree.
if only the outsiders would stop nagging about their stupid windows boxes
I'm not at all interested in winning windows peeps over to buy macs, and I don't think Stevie J is much either. His and our goal should be improving the macintosh computing experience.
windows peeps can follow or hold ground, such is life, such is freedom.
I think their computing experience is their own responsibility, I will suggest it, and when they don't listen to me I will (try and) not listen to them when they come bitching about their pc not working due to some virus or whatever. I try to stay away from I TOLD YOU SOs...... i try...
you have good comments, welcome to AI (if you are new, you didn't say)
64-128 MB of VRAM, 120-160GB HDD, integrated BT at no charge,
17" 1.5Ghz G4, 64MB VRAM, 256MB RAM, 1299USD
20" 1.5Ghz G4, 128MB VRAM, 512MB RAM, 1799USD
System board level VRAM and HDD's are cheap, they might cost apple a couple of bucks more to integrate, but they have a disproportionately favorable effect on curb appeal.
You then have 4 AIO models, total:
eMac 1.25 Combo for 799
eMac 1.25 Super for 999
iMac 1.5 17" Super for 1299
iMac 1.5 20" Super for 1799
You know it's eminently reasonable, there's nothing in an iMac to keep it from dropping each model down one rung in the price structure. eMacs give you a true sense of what the guts are worth.
With the above layout, Apple has a real chance to pull 'em in with the eMac, and sell 'em on an iMac when they aren't looking.
The good ole' gum drop price structure came to reflect the same approach, and those did rather well.
By the way, my posts were not so much speaking of the iMac (which is in fairly sorry shape with regard to the rest of Apple's machines) but Mac's in general. All Apple's line is really missing is a lower priced tower-type machine.
Personally I could never consider an iMac with its current form factor since I have a 3yr old son who may exercise it in ways it was not intended (the orignal iMac stands up to his use quite well). The original imac was quick (for its time), rugged and attractive. The current one is attractive. The eMac is really what the original *could* have evolved into. I am hoping for something to reintroduce a bit of speed (in line with top powerbook at least) and a more rugged form factor while keeping it stylish.
I can appreciate the inertia argument. PC users will continue to use PCs because they currently use and know PCs. That of course is a defeatist argument. It is also unfair. As long as the spec sheet on the iMac at the price point it is being offered at is so disproportionate to a compatibly priced PC, then you can not blame the consumer for passing on the Mac. Until Apple puts in a compatible graphics card, HD, memory, the best processor they have available, etc., then they are not even trying. Barring that, they need to put it in a price category where it is compatible. Barring that, they just need to continue to expect the sales they are getting.
I like this line-up. If they did this I'm sure a lot of people would consider iMacs. But it is a $500 price drop on the popular 17" model, and that seems a bit much.
I like this line-up. If they did this I'm sure a lot of people would consider iMacs. But it is a $500 price drop on the popular 17" model, and that seems a bit much.
My original iMac was $1299 (lime green, Rev C) ( Still running very well I might add) ( In computer years, it is now 75) ( 5 years old x 15= 75) this was a great price at the time, considering the bang for the buck and what the PC market was duing at the time. $1299, now is perceived to be a lot in computer terms these days. The general public now looks for sub $1000 computers as where they want to be even with a flat panel.
Never doubt market perception as a moving force in any industry.
To you and the one you responded to. Let me get this straight. Joe is stupid because he compared every tag item and finds the almost $2000 iMac lacking in every comparable category?
That was not your argument, nor was it what I responded to.
Unless you believe that the most thorough research conceivable on computers boils down to clock speed and price...
Quote:
Let's just say he goes to the Net to read reviews, both from Mac centric and none Mac centric sources. He looks at every conceivable benchmark he can find and every opinion piece he can read and still finds the iMac severely lagging behind in the price-performance department. So he decides to buy the PC. What has he done so wrong here?
If this had anything to do with your original argument, I'd answer it.
As it is, if people actually did that much homework, Apple would have a higher market share. If people factored in that the #1 performance bottleneck in 99.44% of cases is the user, and therefor that ease of use is the most effective performance optimization available, their share would be higher still. Five digit SPECmarks mean nothing if you can't effectively tap into the power that posted them. Viruses, trojans, security leaks and the like all count.
Quote:
Just a thought. If last year's PC kicked the crap out of a dual 4.2 GH PM, how do you think the iMac will compare to this year's PC in the same price range.
Judging by the reviews posted by non-Mac sites, quite well.
Price/theoretical performance is not the be-all and end-all metric (hint: laptop sales). That's the central flaw in your (current) reasoning.
I notice with satisfaction that you can't answer the integrated graphics criticism. But it still applies, trivially and inevitably.
I like this line-up. If they did this I'm sure a lot of people would consider iMacs.
No they wouldn't. Average Joes, switchers, what ever you want to call them do not buy desktops with clock speeds <2.5GHz. It doesn't matter how much they cost or what they look like or what their real world capabilities are. 1.5Ghz is a joke at any price.
Hypothetically speaking of course, if Apple could legally market a $1299 17" iMac as 3GHz machine, even if it were just on paper and the internals and real world performance were unchanged, then and only then would it sell. People don't care what happens once they get the machine home and use it. All they care about is the clock speed/price ratio while they're in the store. This is what Apple gets killed on.
Bottom line: Apple must achieve perceived hardware parity before they can justify the Apple tax.
I notice with satisfaction that you can't answer the integrated graphics criticism. But it still applies, trivially and inevitably.
There is no integrated graphics criticism that applies at this price point. I notice you mention this option in $499 PCs to make a point about an $1800 Mac with some satisfaction of my own. As for laptops, they are ergonomic nightmares with one truly killer redeeming attribute. They are portable. The iMac does not have that going for it. Like it or not, desktops are judged differently from laptops. The iMac is no laptop. Therefore, it needs to have a certain performance metric to price ratio.
No they wouldn't. Average Joes, switchers, what ever you want to call them do not buy desktops with clock speeds <2.5GHz. It doesn't matter how much they cost or what they look like or what their real world capabilities are. 1.5Ghz is a joke at any price.
Hypothetically speaking of course, if Apple could legally market a $1299 17" iMac as 3GHz machine, even if it were just on paper and the internals and real world performance were unchanged, then and only then would it sell. People don't care what happens once they get the machine home and use it. All they care about is the clock speed/price ratio while they're in the store. This is what Apple gets killed on.
Bottom line: Apple must achieve perceived hardware parity before they can justify the Apple tax.
It is actual hardware parity that Apple has to have. A 1.5GHz G4 is just plan slow when compared to the practically standard 2.8GHz P4 on the PC side.
Consumers need speed. Nowadays they take digital pictures and play with them in photoshop elements, and make home movies with there miniDV camcorders and edit them on there computer. (No one likes to wait 5 minutes for a transition to render.)
Right now If you compare the real world performance of a $1,799.00 or $2,199.00 iMac to PCs of equivalent price, the iMac comes out so far behind it is just not funny. A minor speed bump to a 1.5GHz G4 will not help.
The iMac needs, at the very least, a 2GHz G5 to compete against equivalently priced PCs (which are running 3.2GHz HT P4s on a 800MHz FSB).
I was really hoping that Apple was going to get aggressive in the price/performance arena this year, but so far things have been quite disappointing.
I was really hoping that Apple was going to get aggressive in the price/performance arena this year, but so far things have been quite disappointing.
[DISCLAIMER] All following remarks are in regard to hardware price/performance issues as seen by the average consumer. I am intentionally excluding the considerable value of all the Mac intangibles that are largely hidden during the buying process. [/DISCLAIMER]
Apple currently only makes two products with a compelling price/performance ratio: the Dual 2GHz G5 and the 12" iBook. Everything else is either a step behind (Powerbooks) or a complete joke (iMacs, Single 1.6 G5).
The 2x2 Power Mac is still one of the fastest machines on the market, beaten only by more expensive Wintel workstations. The 1GHz bus and 8GB RAM capacity are still industry bests. If you push big files around for a living, it's a steal even at $3K.
The just released 12" iBook is a bargain at $1100 with its robust, yet graceful design and full compliment of features at an entry level laptop price.
It is no coincidence that these are Apple's two best selling products. They can make a great high-end workstation and a great low-end consumer laptop, but everything in between is lackluster to embarrassing. Why is that? What can be done about it?
I honestly don't remember a year being this boring since jobs has come back.
Man, we're all so damn hard on Apple. Boring? Perhaps... it seems there have been fewer product refreshes than we've probably grown accustomed to. I don't know.
But look, I'm really optimistic on Apple right now. I mean, step back for a moment and get some perspective. (Apologies in advance for the fanboy thing.)
Apple is an amazing company. They are unique is sooo many ways. They break the rules to delight us in ways nobody else can or will.
Do you remember the first time you held a 3G iPod in your hand? I do. New out of its cubical box, freshly unwrapped, perfect and chrome and beautiful. I had never touched anything like it before. This was alien technology in my hand, truly ahead of its time. I played and played with those touch controls and just marveled.
Mind you, I did this as the owner of a first-generation 5GB iPod. When Apple went to the touch-pad wheel I wrote it off as a cost-cutting measure (because it certainly wasn't an improvement). But there in my hand: Apple went back to the drawing board didn't just improve it, but practically reinvented it. Amazing.
So my example is the iPod, but I think Apple deserve similar credit - in the same spirit, it not to the same degree - for their other products, especially software. We can moan and complain all we want, but take a look around: who else is doing products like Apple? On the hardware front, maybe Sony. Along the software vector? Nobody. Certainly not the 800-pound gorilla that lives in my backyard.
Has the year been boring? Yeah, I guess so. But the past several years have been fantastic IMHO. Apple is truly healthy, and innovating, and being strategic, and moving into new territory. From what Jobs inherited in '97 to what we have now... in just 7 years? It's beautiful.
I was at walmart earlier tonight getting some drinks, when I noticed a stack of HPs in the movie/electronics section. They had 2.7-3.2Ghz P4 with DDR ram and etc. (monitor included) Although the graphics were slow integrated chipsets. I read the specs over carefully, and they had good specs besides the GPUs and were priced under $1000 for the most part. The iMac must be a lot slower than these machines and they cost a lot more. The iMac may have a great design and screen etc, but in the end you need to get the performance you pay for as well. The G4 is all the iMac really needs. The problem is that moto can not seem to create a decent FSB. The G4 really can't be pushed over 1.5Ghz on a 167mhz bus. Thus, apple is not left with any choice other than to add G5s. Honestly, I don't think G5 iMacs would hurt sales of powermacs or PowerBooks. However, despite the need for the G5 in the iMac, I would bet one more revision at 1.5Ghz. Unless moto can create a decent FSB and a G4 that can clock 2+Ghz, I would suspect that the G4 will not exist in any apple product by the 3rd revision of each line other than the iBook.
I was at walmart earlier tonight getting some drinks, when I noticed a stack of HPs in the movie/electronics section. They had 2.7-3.2Ghz P4 with DDR ram and etc. (monitor included) Although the graphics were slow integrated chipsets. I read the specs over carefully, and they had good specs besides the GPUs and were priced under $1000 for the most part. The iMac must be a lot slower than these machines and they cost a lot more. The iMac may have a great design and screen etc, but in the end you need to get the performance you pay for as well. The G4 is all the iMac really needs. The problem is that moto can not seem to create a decent FSB. The G4 really can't be pushed over 1.5Ghz on a 167mhz bus. Thus, apple is not left with any choice other than to add G5s. Honestly, I don't think G5 iMacs would hurt sales of powermacs or PowerBooks. However, despite the need for the G5 in the iMac, I would bet one more revision at 1.5Ghz. Unless moto can create a decent FSB and a G4 that can clock 2+Ghz, I would suspect that the G4 will not exist in any apple product by the 3rd revision of each line other than the iBook.
Any word on a better G4 from moto?
What you can do, and how quickly you can do it has almost nothing to do with CPU speed these days for 90%+ of people. Why doesn't anyone here seem to "get it"? Especially in a mac crowd! The problem is not - IS NOT - CPU speed, DDR "trueness", or any other spec that's "lacking" on the mac. The problem is that most people are stupid, and have yet to understand the reality of computing - Getting things done, in a simple and effective manner, and with the freedom to do as you will, is the ultimate power of computing. Macs offer that with much more abundance than any other platform out there, for most people, they just don't know it yet.
[edit] p.s. please sign my online petition. see my sig. [/edit]
What you can do, and how quickly you can do it has almost nothing to do with CPU speed these days for 90%+ of people. Why doesn't anyone here seem to "get it"? Especially in a mac crowd! The problem is not - IS NOT - CPU speed, DDR "trueness", or any other spec that's "lacking" on the mac. The problem is that most people are stupid, and have yet to understand the reality of computing - Getting things done, in a simple and effective manner, and with the freedom to do as you will, is the ultimate power of computing. Macs offer that with much more abundance than any other platform out there, for most people, they just don't know it yet.
[edit] p.s. please sign my online petition. see my sig. [/edit]
Okay, in theory I agree with you. The iMac may be slower but because of the OS and software far more can be done with it. The problem is that computers still have specs listed on the boxes and when people compare computers, especially PC users, they tend to take into account the specs above other things. Also, the iMacs are very expensive and should have some degree of equal specs with PC machines of similar prices. I realize that most people do not need the power and most people are stupid. However, this is not going to make them sell. Something most be done about the iMacs. In all honesty they could probably be eliminated from the lineup completely without much trouble and replaced with a few lower end G5 towers. These days people who want a small computer tend to buy laptops and price wise, at least currently, they are pretty similar. If apple is going to keep the iMac around they need to substantially rethink their idea of what the iMac is. Currently it is just a very big iBook. If apple could either increase the performance or decrease the price they would probably sell better. ( by increase performance I mean a G5) I think they should be more upgradable as well. Anyway, the discussion of what the iMac should become could go on for another 10 pages or be a thread in and of its self. The point is that currently the iMac is not selling well and something must be done to alleviate the lack of sales if Apple is going to continue to spend research money and time on the model.
Comments
The ibook is priced extremely well now at 1099, and most businesses will buy the eMac for their staff at 799 instead of a 1299 imac!.
Hell, ive even heard of freelance graphics people buying emacs!
The only time im seeing imac sales is to people that are doing ilife without the need for portability. Its a great machine - but damm expensive if its a second computer!, I just think this is a much smaller market than it used to be - everyone wants laptops.
Lower prices and a G5 will help spike sales, but thats about it.
Originally posted by hasapi
JMO, but isnt the reason the iMac is not selling very well, because MOST people are now buying laptops for general purpose computing use?.
The ibook is priced extremely well now at 1099, and most businesses will buy the eMac for their staff at 799 instead of a 1299 imac!.
True. Take a look at Apple's Q2 2004 earning statement (here). In Q2 '04 they shifted 217k iMacs and and 201k iBooks, compared to 256k iMacs and 133k iBooks in Q2 '03.
Obviosuly this will partly be due to a stagnated iMac lineup, but the difference is considerable nonetheless.
J.
Joe Average is not going to buy a mac period. All his average friends use cheap windows boxes so why would he ever consider a mac? Cos macs are for fashion queers, designer fruitcakes, musicians and hippies.
The fact that he can get software from each of his friends is more than enough reason to not consider buying a mac, ever !
so stop trying to think that apple could win Joe Average over!
and start wishing that they won't, cos I think nobody here would actually like it if apples would ever get common and mundane.... think about it.
second part: Apple is not into building cheap $500 boxes for very good reasons, get over yourselves!
If you want a $500 box, go get one, and have fun replacing it every year from now on. Reinstalling windows every 6 months due to viruses or just the fact that windows blows, and sucks at the same time! (courtesy of 3DTiaB)
YOUxDO=THE.MATH
Originally posted by ~ufo~
ok bottom line is:
Joe Average is not going to buy a mac period. All his average friends use cheap windows boxes so why would he ever consider a mac? Cos macs are for fashion queers, designer fruitcakes, musicians and hippies.
The fact that he can get software from each of his friends is more than enough reason to not consider buying a mac, ever !
I disagree. Sure, Apple has to overcome obstacles like user familiarity, platform interoperability, price etc, but there is no reason to assume they won't be able to do this (I am not suggesting they will, just that it is not an impossibility). Apple's value-proposition to the consumer and professional alike is a better quality, more enjoyable user experience. People will pay for this. Mercedes don't sell S-Class cars because they are fast, they sell them because of i) the brand and ii) the quality of the 'user' experience. Buying a Mac is the same, except there is a large degree of consumer inertia/resistance as regards buying a non-Windows PC, most of which is unjustified.
To suggest that Apple will never sell to Joe consumer is mistaken. The iPod has sold well for all the reasons that Macs can sell well - it is better designed, easier to use, and a more functional product - despite its worst-in-class price tag. The three core differences when selling PCs are that i) people feel that they ought to buy Windows "because everybody does; ii) people can use Windows and fear they won't be able to use the Mac OS (I train competent Windows users, and it's amazing how routinized and unnatural their interaction with computers is...they learn how to do things by remembering a series of steps, so it'd be a nightmare for them to change OSes); iii) consumers consider 'value' for computers in very mechanical terms - they don't think about the 'feel' of a computer like they would a house, clothes or even an iPod. People don't relish the 'elegance' of an operating system like they do nice upholstery in a BMW. Not to stretch the car analogy, but consider also that people consider very strongly the servicing costs of cars, and how often they break down; they do not when buying a PC (otherwise Macs would sell by the bucket-load). People don't understand computers, so they latch on to easy metrics to use as 'cues' for their decisions - hence the MHz myth. It doesn't matter whether MHz are are fair measure, they are used as such, which is what's important in selling PCs.
These problems are not new - they have been around ever since Windows became the defacto desktop operating system. As a poster above noted, selling to switchers is much harder than selling to first-time PC buyers, which is why the original iMac sold so well. Apple needs to change the terms on which people buy computers: persuade people that using a Mac is a substantively 'better' experience, and that this experience is valuable - in terms of foregone MHz and additional cost. The Switcher campaign tried this (badly), and failed, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. The Digial Hub strategy is another example of Apple trying to manipulate the position the PC holds in our (consumer) lives - if PCs exist to manager our media, then Mac OS X beats Windows hands down; the problem is, people don't see computers in those terms.
It's worth remembering, though, that for Apple to be successful, they do not have to dominate and the Mac OS does not have to break above a few percent of the market. Macintosh may only have a ~1% market share, but Apple makes ALL of the PCs that comprise that 1%, so they are the 6th (?) largest PC manufacturer in the world, and in the Fortune 500. There is no way that Apple needs a large market share to be viable.
Just my 2c. I'd love to know what people think.
J.
Originally posted by James Cocker
(I am not suggesting they will, just that it is not an impossibility).
To suggest that Apple will never sell to Joe consumer is mistaken. The iPod has sold well for all the reasons that Macs can sell well - it is better designed, easier to use, and a more functional product - despite its worst-in-class price tag. J.
I"m not suggesting that it is impossible, it just scales very high on the improbability drive......
Comparing the success of the iPod to the Macintosh is (albeit glorious) not fair, if only things were that simple.
The iPod had a far better chance of success because it is platform independent. It is a device on its own with little compatibility issues.
It is not, like the macintosh, a single Englishman between Americans. You (Mr Mac) understand the windows world with little difficulty because you are used to it through experience media etc, but the windows world thinks you talk funny. They have to think to understand what you are saying, not because you speak a different language, because you don't, but because you use different grammar, expressions (mate, can I bum a fag of ye?) and accent.
I'm not suggesting these problems can't be overcome, but they involve effort.
Joe Average doesn't want to buy something which requires effort. Nope, Joe Average likes the microwave dinners he already knows and he cares very little about the fact that homecooking would provide a better and healthier meal. He doesn't care because he is already content with his microwave dinners, why put in the effort if he thinks he's happy just the way things are?
I think a lot of people here think too much of people (fair play to you), most people look at learning something new as an obstacle, something they need to plan and prepare for. They don't just start and, nope to them it's like climbing the mount everest or something I don't know. It's like after completing their education and getting a job they give up on personal development. They are content with who they are and just wanna relax and live life comfortably without unnecessary hassle. Mind you, that's what switching to mac is to them. Extra hassle = less tv time.
now this might seem a very biased perspective to you, and of course it is.
but I wouldn't be so biased if peeps wouldn't keep confirming them...
there will be people who switch to mac and are gonna love it, but the majority will keep on using windows..... Bill Gates just won, that's ok, it's not a matter of winning. I for one, am perfectly happy in our sunny community under the appletree.
if only the outsiders would stop nagging about their stupid windows boxes
I'm not at all interested in winning windows peeps over to buy macs, and I don't think Stevie J is much either. His and our goal should be improving the macintosh computing experience.
windows peeps can follow or hold ground, such is life, such is freedom.
I think their computing experience is their own responsibility, I will suggest it, and when they don't listen to me I will (try and) not listen to them when they come bitching about their pc not working due to some virus or whatever. I try to stay away from I TOLD YOU SOs...... i try...
you have good comments, welcome to AI (if you are new, you didn't say)
Two models:
Both with 8X superdrives
64-128 MB of VRAM, 120-160GB HDD, integrated BT at no charge,
17" 1.5Ghz G4, 64MB VRAM, 256MB RAM, 1299USD
20" 1.5Ghz G4, 128MB VRAM, 512MB RAM, 1799USD
System board level VRAM and HDD's are cheap, they might cost apple a couple of bucks more to integrate, but they have a disproportionately favorable effect on curb appeal.
You then have 4 AIO models, total:
eMac 1.25 Combo for 799
eMac 1.25 Super for 999
iMac 1.5 17" Super for 1299
iMac 1.5 20" Super for 1799
You know it's eminently reasonable, there's nothing in an iMac to keep it from dropping each model down one rung in the price structure. eMacs give you a true sense of what the guts are worth.
With the above layout, Apple has a real chance to pull 'em in with the eMac, and sell 'em on an iMac when they aren't looking.
The good ole' gum drop price structure came to reflect the same approach, and those did rather well.
Personally I could never consider an iMac with its current form factor since I have a 3yr old son who may exercise it in ways it was not intended (the orignal iMac stands up to his use quite well). The original imac was quick (for its time), rugged and attractive. The current one is attractive. The eMac is really what the original *could* have evolved into. I am hoping for something to reintroduce a bit of speed (in line with top powerbook at least) and a more rugged form factor while keeping it stylish.
Originally posted by Matsu
...
eMac 1.25 Combo for 799
eMac 1.25 Super for 999
iMac 1.5 17" Super for 1299
iMac 1.5 20" Super for 1799
...
I like this line-up. If they did this I'm sure a lot of people would consider iMacs. But it is a $500 price drop on the popular 17" model, and that seems a bit much.
Originally posted by cubist
I like this line-up. If they did this I'm sure a lot of people would consider iMacs. But it is a $500 price drop on the popular 17" model, and that seems a bit much.
My original iMac was $1299 (lime green, Rev C) ( Still running very well I might add) ( In computer years, it is now 75) ( 5 years old x 15= 75) this was a great price at the time, considering the bang for the buck and what the PC market was duing at the time. $1299, now is perceived to be a lot in computer terms these days. The general public now looks for sub $1000 computers as where they want to be even with a flat panel.
Never doubt market perception as a moving force in any industry.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
To you and the one you responded to. Let me get this straight. Joe is stupid because he compared every tag item and finds the almost $2000 iMac lacking in every comparable category?
That was not your argument, nor was it what I responded to.
Unless you believe that the most thorough research conceivable on computers boils down to clock speed and price...
Let's just say he goes to the Net to read reviews, both from Mac centric and none Mac centric sources. He looks at every conceivable benchmark he can find and every opinion piece he can read and still finds the iMac severely lagging behind in the price-performance department. So he decides to buy the PC. What has he done so wrong here?
If this had anything to do with your original argument, I'd answer it.
As it is, if people actually did that much homework, Apple would have a higher market share. If people factored in that the #1 performance bottleneck in 99.44% of cases is the user, and therefor that ease of use is the most effective performance optimization available, their share would be higher still. Five digit SPECmarks mean nothing if you can't effectively tap into the power that posted them. Viruses, trojans, security leaks and the like all count.
Just a thought. If last year's PC kicked the crap out of a dual 4.2 GH PM, how do you think the iMac will compare to this year's PC in the same price range.
Judging by the reviews posted by non-Mac sites, quite well.
Price/theoretical performance is not the be-all and end-all metric (hint: laptop sales). That's the central flaw in your (current) reasoning.
I notice with satisfaction that you can't answer the integrated graphics criticism. But it still applies, trivially and inevitably.
Originally posted by Matsu
eMac 1.25 Combo for 799
eMac 1.25 Super for 999
iMac 1.5 17" Super for 1299
iMac 1.5 20" Super for 1799
Originally posted by cubist
I like this line-up. If they did this I'm sure a lot of people would consider iMacs.
No they wouldn't. Average Joes, switchers, what ever you want to call them do not buy desktops with clock speeds <2.5GHz. It doesn't matter how much they cost or what they look like or what their real world capabilities are. 1.5Ghz is a joke at any price.
Hypothetically speaking of course, if Apple could legally market a $1299 17" iMac as 3GHz machine, even if it were just on paper and the internals and real world performance were unchanged, then and only then would it sell. People don't care what happens once they get the machine home and use it. All they care about is the clock speed/price ratio while they're in the store. This is what Apple gets killed on.
Bottom line: Apple must achieve perceived hardware parity before they can justify the Apple tax.
Originally posted by Amorph
I notice with satisfaction that you can't answer the integrated graphics criticism. But it still applies, trivially and inevitably.
There is no integrated graphics criticism that applies at this price point. I notice you mention this option in $499 PCs to make a point about an $1800 Mac with some satisfaction of my own. As for laptops, they are ergonomic nightmares with one truly killer redeeming attribute. They are portable. The iMac does not have that going for it. Like it or not, desktops are judged differently from laptops. The iMac is no laptop. Therefore, it needs to have a certain performance metric to price ratio.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
No they wouldn't. Average Joes, switchers, what ever you want to call them do not buy desktops with clock speeds <2.5GHz. It doesn't matter how much they cost or what they look like or what their real world capabilities are. 1.5Ghz is a joke at any price.
Hypothetically speaking of course, if Apple could legally market a $1299 17" iMac as 3GHz machine, even if it were just on paper and the internals and real world performance were unchanged, then and only then would it sell. People don't care what happens once they get the machine home and use it. All they care about is the clock speed/price ratio while they're in the store. This is what Apple gets killed on.
Bottom line: Apple must achieve perceived hardware parity before they can justify the Apple tax.
It is actual hardware parity that Apple has to have. A 1.5GHz G4 is just plan slow when compared to the practically standard 2.8GHz P4 on the PC side.
Consumers need speed. Nowadays they take digital pictures and play with them in photoshop elements, and make home movies with there miniDV camcorders and edit them on there computer. (No one likes to wait 5 minutes for a transition to render.)
Right now If you compare the real world performance of a $1,799.00 or $2,199.00 iMac to PCs of equivalent price, the iMac comes out so far behind it is just not funny. A minor speed bump to a 1.5GHz G4 will not help.
The iMac needs, at the very least, a 2GHz G5 to compete against equivalently priced PCs (which are running 3.2GHz HT P4s on a 800MHz FSB).
I was really hoping that Apple was going to get aggressive in the price/performance arena this year, but so far things have been quite disappointing.
Originally posted by Res
I was really hoping that Apple was going to get aggressive in the price/performance arena this year, but so far things have been quite disappointing.
[DISCLAIMER] All following remarks are in regard to hardware price/performance issues as seen by the average consumer. I am intentionally excluding the considerable value of all the Mac intangibles that are largely hidden during the buying process. [/DISCLAIMER]
Apple currently only makes two products with a compelling price/performance ratio: the Dual 2GHz G5 and the 12" iBook. Everything else is either a step behind (Powerbooks) or a complete joke (iMacs, Single 1.6 G5).
The 2x2 Power Mac is still one of the fastest machines on the market, beaten only by more expensive Wintel workstations. The 1GHz bus and 8GB RAM capacity are still industry bests. If you push big files around for a living, it's a steal even at $3K.
The just released 12" iBook is a bargain at $1100 with its robust, yet graceful design and full compliment of features at an entry level laptop price.
It is no coincidence that these are Apple's two best selling products. They can make a great high-end workstation and a great low-end consumer laptop, but everything in between is lackluster to embarrassing. Why is that? What can be done about it?
Originally posted by emig647
I honestly don't remember a year being this boring since jobs has come back.
Man, we're all so damn hard on Apple. Boring? Perhaps... it seems there have been fewer product refreshes than we've probably grown accustomed to. I don't know.
But look, I'm really optimistic on Apple right now. I mean, step back for a moment and get some perspective. (Apologies in advance for the fanboy thing.)
Apple is an amazing company. They are unique is sooo many ways. They break the rules to delight us in ways nobody else can or will.
Do you remember the first time you held a 3G iPod in your hand? I do. New out of its cubical box, freshly unwrapped, perfect and chrome and beautiful. I had never touched anything like it before. This was alien technology in my hand, truly ahead of its time. I played and played with those touch controls and just marveled.
Mind you, I did this as the owner of a first-generation 5GB iPod. When Apple went to the touch-pad wheel I wrote it off as a cost-cutting measure (because it certainly wasn't an improvement). But there in my hand: Apple went back to the drawing board didn't just improve it, but practically reinvented it. Amazing.
So my example is the iPod, but I think Apple deserve similar credit - in the same spirit, it not to the same degree - for their other products, especially software. We can moan and complain all we want, but take a look around: who else is doing products like Apple? On the hardware front, maybe Sony. Along the software vector? Nobody. Certainly not the 800-pound gorilla that lives in my backyard.
Has the year been boring? Yeah, I guess so. But the past several years have been fantastic IMHO. Apple is truly healthy, and innovating, and being strategic, and moving into new territory. From what Jobs inherited in '97 to what we have now... in just 7 years? It's beautiful.
Any word on a better G4 from moto?
Originally posted by Algol
I was at walmart earlier tonight getting some drinks, when I noticed a stack of HPs in the movie/electronics section. They had 2.7-3.2Ghz P4 with DDR ram and etc. (monitor included) Although the graphics were slow integrated chipsets. I read the specs over carefully, and they had good specs besides the GPUs and were priced under $1000 for the most part. The iMac must be a lot slower than these machines and they cost a lot more. The iMac may have a great design and screen etc, but in the end you need to get the performance you pay for as well. The G4 is all the iMac really needs. The problem is that moto can not seem to create a decent FSB. The G4 really can't be pushed over 1.5Ghz on a 167mhz bus. Thus, apple is not left with any choice other than to add G5s. Honestly, I don't think G5 iMacs would hurt sales of powermacs or PowerBooks. However, despite the need for the G5 in the iMac, I would bet one more revision at 1.5Ghz. Unless moto can create a decent FSB and a G4 that can clock 2+Ghz, I would suspect that the G4 will not exist in any apple product by the 3rd revision of each line other than the iBook.
Any word on a better G4 from moto?
What you can do, and how quickly you can do it has almost nothing to do with CPU speed these days for 90%+ of people. Why doesn't anyone here seem to "get it"? Especially in a mac crowd! The problem is not - IS NOT - CPU speed, DDR "trueness", or any other spec that's "lacking" on the mac. The problem is that most people are stupid, and have yet to understand the reality of computing - Getting things done, in a simple and effective manner, and with the freedom to do as you will, is the ultimate power of computing. Macs offer that with much more abundance than any other platform out there, for most people, they just don't know it yet.
[edit] p.s. please sign my online petition. see my sig. [/edit]
Originally posted by concentricity
What you can do, and how quickly you can do it has almost nothing to do with CPU speed these days for 90%+ of people. Why doesn't anyone here seem to "get it"? Especially in a mac crowd! The problem is not - IS NOT - CPU speed, DDR "trueness", or any other spec that's "lacking" on the mac. The problem is that most people are stupid, and have yet to understand the reality of computing - Getting things done, in a simple and effective manner, and with the freedom to do as you will, is the ultimate power of computing. Macs offer that with much more abundance than any other platform out there, for most people, they just don't know it yet.
[edit] p.s. please sign my online petition. see my sig. [/edit]
Okay, in theory I agree with you. The iMac may be slower but because of the OS and software far more can be done with it. The problem is that computers still have specs listed on the boxes and when people compare computers, especially PC users, they tend to take into account the specs above other things. Also, the iMacs are very expensive and should have some degree of equal specs with PC machines of similar prices. I realize that most people do not need the power and most people are stupid. However, this is not going to make them sell. Something most be done about the iMacs. In all honesty they could probably be eliminated from the lineup completely without much trouble and replaced with a few lower end G5 towers. These days people who want a small computer tend to buy laptops and price wise, at least currently, they are pretty similar. If apple is going to keep the iMac around they need to substantially rethink their idea of what the iMac is. Currently it is just a very big iBook. If apple could either increase the performance or decrease the price they would probably sell better. ( by increase performance I mean a G5) I think they should be more upgradable as well. Anyway, the discussion of what the iMac should become could go on for another 10 pages or be a thread in and of its self. The point is that currently the iMac is not selling well and something must be done to alleviate the lack of sales if Apple is going to continue to spend research money and time on the model.