Because it seems most of you have already bought PCs to replace your Macs and are even typing these posts on them. You all sound like you are in an abusive relationship. Move along. Get on with your lives. Once you go back to PCs posting about how Apple sucks on an Apple messageboard is pointless and makes you look like trolls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't. I don't plan on getting a PC and I love Macs, I just want to see Apple's marketshare increase and for them to price things reasonably.
<strong>using those numbers they have more than a $250 margin, they can manage.</strong><hr></blockquote>What numbers? You're pulling this all out of your ass. You have no idea how much it would cost to design a new computer and bring it to market. The people that do know are the ones making millions running companies.
Its one thing to speculate about the potential of hypothetical products at various price points.
Its an entirely different matter to actually quantify these with dollar amounts and then to claim them as fact.
For someone in your position, merely attempting to do so is ludicrous. You have no idea how much it would cost to redesign motherboards and retool the production line. It gets even more complicated when you consider competing product lines cannibalizing sales. Also, you must take into account the effect on brand image if Apple were to retool everything to sell bargain-basement hardware. Perhaps they make a few more bucks in the short run but end up hurting the viability of their niche platform. There are hundreds of factors to take into account.
Material-component cost analysis is useful in ruling out products at particular price points. Simplistic market analysis can quickly indicate the minimum price a finished good can sell for in order to recoup material costs. What it can't tell you is the the total cost of getting a product on to store shelves at a particular production volume. What you're attempting to do is calculate Apple's margin by subtracting material costs from a product's retail price.
I'll buy some of your argument. Yet those numbers are completely bunk!
<strong>What numbers? You're pulling this all out of your ass. You have no idea how much it would cost to design a new computer and bring it to market. The people that do know are the ones making millions running companies.
Its one thing to speculate about the potential of hypothetical products at various price points.
Its an entirely different matter to actually quantify these with dollar amounts and then to claim them as fact.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't pull anything out of my ass, you can verify all those numbers,
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong>For someone in your position, merely attempting to do so is ludicrous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And what do you know about my position exactly?
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong> Also, you must take into account the effect on brand image if Apple were to retool everything to sell bargain-basement hardware</strong><hr></blockquote>
People have been making that argument for 18 years, it was bullshit in 1984 and it hasn't improved with age, you have to adapt to the market, if you wait for it to adapt to you, your going to fail.
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong>What it can't tell you is the the total cost of getting a product on to store shelves at a particular production volume. What you're attempting to do is calculate Apple's margin by subtracting material costs from a product's retail price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The same applies to every other product, you can estimate gross and net margin with publically available information
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong>I'll buy some of your argument. Yet those numbers are completely bunk!
<strong>You have no idea how much it would cost to design a new computer and bring it to market. The people that do know are the ones making millions running companies.
Sure, many are pissed at Apple's higher prices but, we really don't know what their costs are...unless you happen to work for them. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Stagnating Steve, if you are so happy with your PC then why do you continue to hang out here? It doesn't make sense. You are obviously very strongly against Apple otherwise you wouldn't go though all the trouble to piss on anything positive brought up. There is a difference between an honest desire to see them compete better and just denouncing anything related to them out of spite. I just see someone who's bitter.
<strong>Stagnating Steve, if you are so happy with your PC then why do you continue to hang out here? It doesn't make sense. You are obviously very strongly against Apple otherwise you wouldn't go though all the trouble to piss on anything positive brought up. There is a difference between an honest desire to see them compete better and just denouncing anything related to them out of spite. I just see someone who's bitter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
he is to 1 extreme as you are to the other. who's to say he's wrong and you're not... you're being just as ridiculous and unopen as he is
<strong>Stagnating Steve, if you are so happy with your PC then why do you continue to hang out here? It doesn't make sense. You are obviously very strongly against Apple otherwise you wouldn't go though all the trouble to piss on anything positive brought up. There is a difference between an honest desire to see them compete better and just denouncing anything related to them out of spite. I just see someone who's bitter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I see is somone who is presenting facts and asking for a bit more from Apple on the price front. He has shown nothing to me that says he hates Apple, but he has stated that he thinks Apple prices their computers too high.
As far as I am concerned, Apples machines are still a bit expensive, but the prices are much more comparable to PCs than they used to be. However, since Apple makes most of their profit on hardware rather than software the higher prices seem reasonable to me. Or maybe you all would like to pay $200+ for the next release of OS X, or $30 each for the iApps. Maybe a $30 entry price for Quicktime would be good and $60 for the pro version? Apple has to make a profit, they don't charge all that much for thier software, they make up for that fact in hardware sales. They have not made up for it enough this year however, witness .Mac for an example of what happens then...
<strong>If I am wrong, PROVE IT</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it isn't his job to prove that such prices don't exist as that is near on impossible. It is your job to prove such prices do exist.
Hate to break it to you but that's the way it goes and I have never met a company or person yet, who was competent in their job, that didn't ask for reference on quoted numbers.
Now you have said they are all readily available so quote the sources. Prove the numbers or else they are as good as made up. I'd also like to see your cost analysis regarding product development costs too. Component costs only go part of the way.
Finally lets talk market research. What's the expected market and what's the potential gain? Of course all of this will require adequate referencing *shrug* Fail to do so and the argument remains as unproven crap. Lots of claims get made but it is rarely until they undergo full scrutiny that you see why they fall down and you don't appear to have done much.
<strong>Surfing is probably three times faster than on my iMac DV 400 with same memory.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is an interesting performance "metric" (I understand it is probably only an impression rather than an actual measurement, BUT, you just said that the Dell Dimenion 2300 w/133MHz bus and a 1.8GHz Celeron CPU (running Windows ?) is 3X faster than an Apple iMac w/100MHz bus and a 400MHz G3 (running OS 9? X?).
This is an interesting performance "metric" (I understand it is probably only an impression rather than an actual measurement, BUT, you just said that the Dell Dimenion 2300 w/133MHz bus and a 1.8GHz Celeron CPU (running Windows ?) is 3X faster than an Apple iMac w/100MHz bus and a 400MHz G3 (running OS 9? X?).
That seems VERY interesting to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever surfed the web on a Mac and then went to the same sites on a PC? The only browser on OS X that comes close is Chimera, but IE for Windows is still faster.
Or maybe you all would like to pay $200+ for the next release of OS X, or $30 each for the iApps. Maybe a $30 entry price for Quicktime would be good and $60 for the pro version? Apple has to make a profit, they don't charge all that much for thier software, they make up for that fact in hardware sales. They have not made up for it enough this year however, witness .Mac for an example of what happens then...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would rather they didn't. I think OS X should be priced at $300 with a $200 rebate if you buy Hardware. If that is what it costs to develope, then that is what it should cost to have.
To maintain the lie that the Hardware is expensive to Design and build is well beyond old. Apple doesn't have to redesign the wheel everytime they make a new machine.
If I want to just buy a new computer, I shouldn't have to subsidize OS X so that everyone else can buy it cheaper. Thats just wrong.
All the figuring about how much Apple could sell a product for and make a profit is useless and a waste of time. Even if we had Apple's cost for every little part, and there are a lot of them we don't even think about, and we had Apple's exact labor costs associated with the product, we still would not know a proper selling price. If you want a wild guess, multiply by 3.
Apple likely has such a number they use when discussing potential new products, and Dell has a number too that you can bet is lower. Later, they refine the price point. There are many costs that are not a part of the direct manufacturing cost, like product development and testing, marketing, administration, advertising, facilities and on and on. Apple has supporting engineering costs too, especially software development. Dell just adds Microsoft's OS charge to the manufacturing cost of each PC they build. Apple must support OS X and the free applications development, whether they sell one Mac or a million. No one outside Apple has access to this kind of cost information, so no one can say what Apple must sell a product for.
I think all we can say is what we think Apple needs to do with price and products to compete.
<strong>All the figuring about how much Apple could sell a product for and make a profit is useless and a waste of time. Even if we had Apple's cost for every little part, and there are a lot of them we don't even think about, and we had Apple's exact labor costs associated with the product, we still would not know a proper selling price. If you want a wild guess, multiply by 3.
Apple likely has such a number they use when discussing potential new products, and Dell has a number too that you can bet is lower. Later, they refine the price point. There are many costs that are not a part of the direct manufacturing cost, like product development and testing, marketing, administration, advertising, facilities and on and on. Apple has supporting engineering costs too, especially software development. Dell just adds Microsoft's OS charge to the manufacturing cost of each PC they build. Apple must support OS X and the free applications development, whether they sell one Mac or a million. No one outside Apple has access to this kind of cost information, so no one can say what Apple must sell a product for.
I think all we can say is what we think Apple needs to do with price and products to compete.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever surfed the web on a Mac and then went to the same sites on a PC? The only browser on OS X that comes close is Chimera, but IE for Windows is still faster.
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you are missing my point. I haven't denied that web surfing on a PC is faster than a Mac (though I am content on my iBook 600 w/Chimera).
Look at the number and the specs...
He says (again, probably not a formal measurement( that browsing on his 1.8GHz Celeron w/133MHz bus is THREE TIME FASTER than on his 400MHz G3 w/100MHz bus.
It SEEMS to me that the disparity OUGHT to be MUCH greater.
Comments
<strong>
Because it seems most of you have already bought PCs to replace your Macs and are even typing these posts on them. You all sound like you are in an abusive relationship. Move along. Get on with your lives. Once you go back to PCs posting about how Apple sucks on an Apple messageboard is pointless and makes you look like trolls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't. I don't plan on getting a PC and I love Macs, I just want to see Apple's marketshare increase and for them to price things reasonably.
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>using those numbers they have more than a $250 margin, they can manage.</strong><hr></blockquote>What numbers? You're pulling this all out of your ass. You have no idea how much it would cost to design a new computer and bring it to market. The people that do know are the ones making millions running companies.
Its one thing to speculate about the potential of hypothetical products at various price points.
Its an entirely different matter to actually quantify these with dollar amounts and then to claim them as fact.
For someone in your position, merely attempting to do so is ludicrous. You have no idea how much it would cost to redesign motherboards and retool the production line. It gets even more complicated when you consider competing product lines cannibalizing sales. Also, you must take into account the effect on brand image if Apple were to retool everything to sell bargain-basement hardware. Perhaps they make a few more bucks in the short run but end up hurting the viability of their niche platform. There are hundreds of factors to take into account.
Material-component cost analysis is useful in ruling out products at particular price points. Simplistic market analysis can quickly indicate the minimum price a finished good can sell for in order to recoup material costs. What it can't tell you is the the total cost of getting a product on to store shelves at a particular production volume. What you're attempting to do is calculate Apple's margin by subtracting material costs from a product's retail price.
I'll buy some of your argument. Yet those numbers are completely bunk!
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: dfiler ]</p>
<strong>What numbers? You're pulling this all out of your ass. You have no idea how much it would cost to design a new computer and bring it to market. The people that do know are the ones making millions running companies.
Its one thing to speculate about the potential of hypothetical products at various price points.
Its an entirely different matter to actually quantify these with dollar amounts and then to claim them as fact.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't pull anything out of my ass, you can verify all those numbers,
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong>For someone in your position, merely attempting to do so is ludicrous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And what do you know about my position exactly?
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong> Also, you must take into account the effect on brand image if Apple were to retool everything to sell bargain-basement hardware</strong><hr></blockquote>
People have been making that argument for 18 years, it was bullshit in 1984 and it hasn't improved with age, you have to adapt to the market, if you wait for it to adapt to you, your going to fail.
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong>What it can't tell you is the the total cost of getting a product on to store shelves at a particular production volume. What you're attempting to do is calculate Apple's margin by subtracting material costs from a product's retail price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The same applies to every other product, you can estimate gross and net margin with publically available information
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong>I'll buy some of your argument. Yet those numbers are completely bunk!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prove it!
<strong>You have no idea how much it would cost to design a new computer and bring it to market. The people that do know are the ones making millions running companies.
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: dfiler ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen!
Sure, many are pissed at Apple's higher prices but, we really don't know what their costs are...unless you happen to work for them. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>Stagnating Steve, if you are so happy with your PC then why do you continue to hang out here? It doesn't make sense. You are obviously very strongly against Apple otherwise you wouldn't go though all the trouble to piss on anything positive brought up. There is a difference between an honest desire to see them compete better and just denouncing anything related to them out of spite. I just see someone who's bitter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
he is to 1 extreme as you are to the other. who's to say he's wrong and you're not... you're being just as ridiculous and unopen as he is
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>Stagnating Steve, if you are so happy with your PC then why do you continue to hang out here? It doesn't make sense. You are obviously very strongly against Apple otherwise you wouldn't go though all the trouble to piss on anything positive brought up. There is a difference between an honest desire to see them compete better and just denouncing anything related to them out of spite. I just see someone who's bitter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All I see is somone who is presenting facts and asking for a bit more from Apple on the price front. He has shown nothing to me that says he hates Apple, but he has stated that he thinks Apple prices their computers too high.
As far as I am concerned, Apples machines are still a bit expensive, but the prices are much more comparable to PCs than they used to be. However, since Apple makes most of their profit on hardware rather than software the higher prices seem reasonable to me. Or maybe you all would like to pay $200+ for the next release of OS X, or $30 each for the iApps. Maybe a $30 entry price for Quicktime would be good and $60 for the pro version? Apple has to make a profit, they don't charge all that much for thier software, they make up for that fact in hardware sales. They have not made up for it enough this year however, witness .Mac for an example of what happens then...
nice discussion, really about the eMacs future too man! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Personally I don't think Apple will release new eMacs soon.
I think their first priority lays at releasing new iMacs. Did you notice the pricedrop of iMacs? Good indication that something might be coming.
Most likely a speedboost to 1 Ghz and a 800 and/or 933 mhz iMac. I would vote for 800 otherwise the pricedifference can't be justified.
eMacs? If they even keep selling them they will most likely upgrade them to 933 mhz, but they will NOT be faster than iMacs that's for sure.
I think Apple will not even think about releasing a monitor-less eMac. Why not? Take a look at what happened to the Cube... ;-)
Oh and btw, I'm totally unhappy with my new PC. I have it 3 months now and it's already failing on me! I wanna get a new mac now! :-(
<strong>It could look like an LC III for all I care,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant what should it look like from a SPECIFICATION perspective, not visual.
<strong>
I meant what should it look like from a SPECIFICATION perspective, not visual.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Keep reading
<strong>
I think their first priority lays at releasing new iMacs. Did you notice the pricedrop of iMacs? Good indication that something might be coming.
Most likely a speedboost to 1 Ghz and a 800 and/or 933 mhz iMac. I would vote for 800 otherwise the pricedifference can't be justified.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Obviously there'll be iMac updates since they haven't been updated since January
<strong>If I am wrong, PROVE IT</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it isn't his job to prove that such prices don't exist as that is near on impossible. It is your job to prove such prices do exist.
Hate to break it to you but that's the way it goes and I have never met a company or person yet, who was competent in their job, that didn't ask for reference on quoted numbers.
Now you have said they are all readily available so quote the sources. Prove the numbers or else they are as good as made up. I'd also like to see your cost analysis regarding product development costs too. Component costs only go part of the way.
Finally lets talk market research. What's the expected market and what's the potential gain? Of course all of this will require adequate referencing *shrug* Fail to do so and the argument remains as unproven crap. Lots of claims get made but it is rarely until they undergo full scrutiny that you see why they fall down and you don't appear to have done much.
<strong>Surfing is probably three times faster than on my iMac DV 400 with same memory.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is an interesting performance "metric" (I understand it is probably only an impression rather than an actual measurement, BUT, you just said that the Dell Dimenion 2300 w/133MHz bus and a 1.8GHz Celeron CPU (running Windows ?) is 3X faster than an Apple iMac w/100MHz bus and a 400MHz G3 (running OS 9? X?).
That seems VERY interesting to me.
<strong>
This is an interesting performance "metric" (I understand it is probably only an impression rather than an actual measurement, BUT, you just said that the Dell Dimenion 2300 w/133MHz bus and a 1.8GHz Celeron CPU (running Windows ?) is 3X faster than an Apple iMac w/100MHz bus and a 400MHz G3 (running OS 9? X?).
That seems VERY interesting to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever surfed the web on a Mac and then went to the same sites on a PC? The only browser on OS X that comes close is Chimera, but IE for Windows is still faster.
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>
...
Or maybe you all would like to pay $200+ for the next release of OS X, or $30 each for the iApps. Maybe a $30 entry price for Quicktime would be good and $60 for the pro version? Apple has to make a profit, they don't charge all that much for thier software, they make up for that fact in hardware sales. They have not made up for it enough this year however, witness .Mac for an example of what happens then...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would rather they didn't. I think OS X should be priced at $300 with a $200 rebate if you buy Hardware. If that is what it costs to develope, then that is what it should cost to have.
To maintain the lie that the Hardware is expensive to Design and build is well beyond old. Apple doesn't have to redesign the wheel everytime they make a new machine.
If I want to just buy a new computer, I shouldn't have to subsidize OS X so that everyone else can buy it cheaper. Thats just wrong.
Apple likely has such a number they use when discussing potential new products, and Dell has a number too that you can bet is lower. Later, they refine the price point. There are many costs that are not a part of the direct manufacturing cost, like product development and testing, marketing, administration, advertising, facilities and on and on. Apple has supporting engineering costs too, especially software development. Dell just adds Microsoft's OS charge to the manufacturing cost of each PC they build. Apple must support OS X and the free applications development, whether they sell one Mac or a million. No one outside Apple has access to this kind of cost information, so no one can say what Apple must sell a product for.
I think all we can say is what we think Apple needs to do with price and products to compete.
<strong>All the figuring about how much Apple could sell a product for and make a profit is useless and a waste of time. Even if we had Apple's cost for every little part, and there are a lot of them we don't even think about, and we had Apple's exact labor costs associated with the product, we still would not know a proper selling price. If you want a wild guess, multiply by 3.
Apple likely has such a number they use when discussing potential new products, and Dell has a number too that you can bet is lower. Later, they refine the price point. There are many costs that are not a part of the direct manufacturing cost, like product development and testing, marketing, administration, advertising, facilities and on and on. Apple has supporting engineering costs too, especially software development. Dell just adds Microsoft's OS charge to the manufacturing cost of each PC they build. Apple must support OS X and the free applications development, whether they sell one Mac or a million. No one outside Apple has access to this kind of cost information, so no one can say what Apple must sell a product for.
I think all we can say is what we think Apple needs to do with price and products to compete.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yeah!! Prove it!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
Have you ever surfed the web on a Mac and then went to the same sites on a PC? The only browser on OS X that comes close is Chimera, but IE for Windows is still faster.
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you are missing my point. I haven't denied that web surfing on a PC is faster than a Mac (though I am content on my iBook 600 w/Chimera).
Look at the number and the specs...
He says (again, probably not a formal measurement( that browsing on his 1.8GHz Celeron w/133MHz bus is THREE TIME FASTER than on his 400MHz G3 w/100MHz bus.
It SEEMS to me that the disparity OUGHT to be MUCH greater.