Yeah so keep laughing while Linux overtakes Apple on the desktop.
Apple themselves know they need a low-cost system to get people to look, however they don't advertise it enough (likely due to the fact that it's CRT based). If they didn't know it they wouldn't have put the emac up for non-education sales.
It's people like you that keeps Apple's marketshare growing and growing and oh yeah it's not is it?
Really? Dell seems to be doing fine doing just that.
However, I never said low-quality or that Apple should price themselves the same as Dell. $699 should be more than adequate for a low-end headless Mac. One that doesn't have anywhere near the performance of a PowerMac or be quite as stylish as an iMac, but it would have to have decent quality and style. There is no reason that Apple could not make decent margins on such a system at $699 and likely even at $599. Again you miss the point, upselling works, but only if people look at what you have to offer in the first place.
If Apple did that they'd lose their status and cease to be the Apple people know and love.
Apple have a certain design and business philosophy, and to change that would drastically alter the way the purchasing public sees them. If Apple sold budget desktop systems that had 'alright' quality, they'd just be another vendor.
As it stands now, Apple isn't just another vendor, it's an icon.
There's no nettiquette in these sordid modern days.
As for the eMac being low-quality, i've not used one, but the price and physical style of the item are as important as the quality.
£130 Nike trainers (or sneakers for my american comrades) are no more comfortable than a £30 pair from another shoe maker, but they *look* much better, and the price, in modern culture, denotes class and status, so people pay the prices.
The same applies to Apple. It's not just about the quality. It's about the price, it's about the image, it's about culture.
I don't think the eMac is that cheap-looking. It definitely doesn't have the same kind of sheen that a PowerMac has, but nor does it feel like the $500 cheap HP box you'd pick up at Radio Shack. It's polished, friendly, and soft around the edges. I suspect that it's one reason why it costs $799 and not $699.
As far as the iMac G5, Apple will ideally find a way to lower the cost but avoid making the case look low-rent. The iMac G4's stainless steel, pivoting arm was cited as one of the big reasons why Apple had a hard time lowering the cost. If Apple could simplify the design while still letting it remain unique, that and the introduction of the more cost-effective G5s could make for a $999 box - hopefully with a display.
Good god you people are idiots, the eMac IS a low-quality computer and yet you dare to say that Apple would never sell such a thing!
No, it is that you have given nothing noteable or even remotely compelling as evidence for Apple to try to compete on a Wal-Mart basis, and the only incoherent argument you have fathomed out of your arse is that Dell is doing it, and to that I reply that they are not, they are two seperate beasts entirely! Dell does not make an OS, or an iLife suite, or Keynote, or FCP, etc. They are not the same, Dell can sell hardware for the price they do, because they don't spend money on software, they buy in bulk and sell at a profit to the ignorant consumer that doesn't know the difference (i.e. you). The eMac is sold for general public use due to the demand for the eMac, Apple responded to its customers and gave them what they asked for, not for your diluted reasoning. Apple still needs to get back its investments in software!! Can you hear me now?! Good!
I don't know about your sales experience, but people are not on expendable budgets and most of the time will not be upsold, actually only about 5% are upsold, so that argument as well is mute. When you can back up your theories please reply, but until then keep the name calling and lack of respect to yourself!
eMac sells cheap to institutions. What are we arguing about?
As a consumer machine the eMac is worth about 699, being generous with the Apple-tax, and accounting for the 20-50 bucks Apple would have to spend on an combo-drive. I know Apple sells them for as little as 599 to schools and colleges, so it's not a strecth at all to say a 699 eMac is possible. Similar PC would set you back 500.
Personally, So long as it's anchored to that CRT, I don't care what Apple does with the eMac, I won't buy one. That doesn't mean I think Apple should sell me an LCD based AIO for 699, they could sell me a headless eMac for 699, but maybe that's not in the cards.
Fine.
I'll spend the grand, but it better have a decent display -- that means a 17" LCD, no, not a 15". Prices on larger displays have fallen drastically, to the point where 15" displays don't really make sense for the desktop anymore, not when you can get a 17" for 100-150 dollars more. I just bought a lovely 19" display (DVI and VGA) for a price that would make it entirely possible to put a competent PC next to it at a total of 1000USD. (about 500 for the display and 500 for the PC)
A 17" LCD is scads cheaper than my 19", bare panels, that Apple is already buying for notebooks, cheaper still, less than 200 with circuitry and backlight. 200 bucks worth of display with about 500 dollars worth of computer glued to it, and sold for 1K. It is realistic actually.
I don't know about your sales experience, but people are not on expendable budgets and most of the time will not be upsold, actually only about 5% are upsold, so that argument as well is mute.
... and since Apple doesn't provide a low-priced, decently-speced Mac, the budget-conscious potential customer buys another PC.
There's no need to make a low-quality or zero-margin Mac, but there should definitely be a low-priced-as-possible-while-still-able-to-perform model available, and it should be marketed appropriately. Still offer the higher-priced iMac as the one people really want, but have the low-priced one available for those (especially switchers) who can't justify the price. I don't think the current eMac does that effectively (or cheaply enough), and Apple makes no effort to promote it.
Sure, many customers won't go for the upsell, but guess what? It's still a sale that didn't go to a competitor; it's still another Apple customer who will potentially buy more stuff from Apple and Mac-friendly developers; it's still another notch up in marketshare. And when this person is ready to upgrade their computer, they're much more likely to buy yet another Mac, rather than a PC... and who knows, maybe they'll go for the iMac this time, because now they know that a better Mac is worth the money (something they probably didn't appreciate the first time around).
You know I too believe Apple has to make a cheaper iMac. But to compare them over and over and over again to Dell is beyond stupid. What does Dell do? They slap cheap parts together and sell them as complete systems. There's some design to this, as for example in their laptop design, which one can't simply toss some things together and sell.
But these are very different companies. Where is Dell's OS? What software does Dell support? They don't. They simply sell Microsoft licenses. Where is the development for OS X supposed to come from? All those iLife applications, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Final Cut Pro, etc. could be supported, as well as the continues support of OS X with lowering all the prices??
Look, I don't like Apple prices, I do think they can come down and should. But it is beyond stupid to hear all these damn reasons, over and over and over again, from people like Matsu. We GET it OK? But can you fathom that Dell is a different company than Apple? Sure it would help Apple to have a really cheap super awesome system to get all these people in the door. But its not going to happen on the level you think it should happen. I think Apple isn't totally incompetent. Look they just celebrated customer number 2 million at the SOHO store. That's a sign things are moving in the right direction. And I bet there will be a lowend iMac which will be below $1299.
People here are talking about a headless iMac. I think we will see a bodyless iMac. Think iBook without the battery and the keyboard and with a screen on the outside. It could even have the same mounting as the Apple displays.
Now PowerBook7,1 PowerBook7,2 PowerMac8,1 (new iMac) and PowerMac9,1 (?) all get the SMU_Neo2 specs. Hmm, in 10.3.4 just the PowerMac8,1 had that spec.
Looks like we get a PowerTune G5 system for PowerBooks, iMacs and a new PowerMac, from what I can tell.
You are still missing the point that OS X is not Windows home edition, it is a pro OS, and you simply cannot run it on cheap hardware, there is no way around it. That is why on my G3, and even my G4 I have issues with X because it is a big and powerful OS.
You have made a good point and I haven't thought of it quite like that. I don't know the difference in requirements for WinXP versus OSX. I guess I would have hoped that the linux part of the os equation would offer a modicum of scaleability.
I do know that my 1.5 year old TiBook has the performance to adequately run a lowend iMac and it could be made with about $600 worth of parts. That means that all of the software (iApps and such) would be just given away free and Apple would not be paying for any R&D funding with the profits.
Lower-end consumers don't want to pay for future R&D...I don't mind.
You have made a good point and I haven't thought of it quite like that. I don't know the difference in requirements for WinXP versus OSX. I guess I would have hoped that the linux part of the os equation would offer a modicum of scaleability.
I do know that my 1.5 year old TiBook has the performance to adequately run a lowend iMac and it could be made with about $600 worth of parts. That means that all of the software (iApps and such) would be just given away free and Apple would not be paying for any R&D funding with the profits.
Lower-end consumers don't want to pay for future R&D...I don't mind.
The trick is that Darwin and the Unix-y bits *can* run on more modest hardware. It is Aqua and all the graphic accellerations that end up eating hardware like mad. If Apple continued to produce the emac as a headless machine for $499 or whatever people are clamoring for it would be slammmed for not supporting future OS improvements like Coreimage. Apple can't seem to win. The OS is an amazing piece of software but it drives the hardware rather hard and to some extent prevents Apple from keeping lower end hardware in their product lineup when newer machines are released.
right now, and probably for the next few years we will pay higher prices as the requirements for the OS are hard on the hardware, but when technology catches up with what Apple is doing with software, you will see our prices drop, at least that is what I would expect, but I have been proven wrong before.
I like that point of view iJerry. That seems very logical. Apple extremely ahead of their time with a lot of this technology. M$ is copying a lot of this technology for longhorn and when will that be released??? 2006?
I believe the recommended requirements for longhorn is dual core 4ghz chips. Dual Core sure would be nice ... imagine what apple could do with such an animal.
You know I too believe Apple has to make a cheaper iMac. But to compare them over and over and over again to Dell is beyond stupid. What does Dell do? They slap cheap parts together and sell them as complete systems. There's some design to this, as for example in their laptop design, which one can't simply toss some things together and sell.
No, Dell spends a lot of money on R&D to figure out the best way to slap cheap parts together. Apple spends almost as much to figure out the prettiest way.
[b]
Quote:
But these are very different companies. Where is Dell's OS? What software does Dell support? They don't. They simply sell Microsoft licenses. Where is the development for OS X supposed to come from? All those iLife applications, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Final Cut Pro, etc. could be supported, as well as the continues support of OS X with lowering all the prices??
[b]
Out of Apple's total R&D expenditure comes hardware and software. Mopst of the latter is purchased by some peopel with a very good eye for talent and then treated witht he right look and feel bits. Apple spends R&D, apple gets an OS to go along with it. DELL spends on R&D and still has to buy licenses. Motion, FCP, DVD SP, and the associated harware is a seperate purchase form the mac. It pays for itself when you buy the hardware. Hardware sales and margins do not support the development of these products -- not with cash, rather they provide an exclusive environment that drives their sales. You've got it ass-backwards: FCP and DVD-SP sales kick money back to the mac -- they don't create any reason why the mac should be more expensive, especially since they aren't bundled with the machine. iLife is neat, no question, and it's a gimme -- paid for by the pro app customers, dev time covered by the pro apps that supply the technological base.
Quote:
Look, I don't like Apple prices, I do think they can come down and should. But it is beyond stupid to hear all these damn reasons, over and over and over again, from people like Matsu. We GET it OK? But can you fathom that Dell is a different company than Apple? Sure it would help Apple to have a really cheap super awesome system to get all these people in the door. But its not going to happen on the level you think it should happen. I think Apple isn't totally incompetent. Look they just celebrated customer number 2 million at the SOHO store. That's a sign things are moving in the right direction. And I bet there will be a lowend iMac which will be below $1299.
It's not anymore stupid than hearing the same uncritical myths over and over and over again. I don't give a shit that DELL is a different company. They both sell computers of comparable function into the same markets. There are good reasons for buying either. Furthermore, I find it completely ridiculous that any intelligent criticism of Apple is met with complete over-reaction. I never said Apple should sell a powermac for 500USD. I merely pointed out the following facts:
Most vendors, not cheap budget no-name companies, sell a 17" LCD based system for 999.
Most CRT based bundles are about 500-600 USD, not 800-1000.
The eMac is already sold at the 500-600 range, just not to consumers or regular edu customers.
The bulk of eMac sales come out of these discounted units not available to regular edu/consumers.
Apple has itself stated two items.
One. That the iMac is the intended consumer machine. It is what they want you to buy when you buy a machine for the home.
Two. That Apple believes that 999 is the sweet spot for a consumer/family/home-office machine, and that they were dissapointed that the iMac was unable to hit that mark.
Taken with other statements, like the original "the eMac was made especially for education"...
It's rather easy to see that even Apple thinks the eMac is a poor fit for the consumer and that the iMac needs to cost 999 if it will ever again get some traction in the market.
The price of LCD components is another indicator, 17" OEM panels cost little more than 15" panels at this point, and both are cheap enough for inclusion into a 1000 USD system bundle.
Also, Apple has never demonstrated much interest in selling cheap machines (at least not to consumers, though they're learning to compete in edu)
999 is a perfectly acceptable consumer mark for them, for a full featured machine. I agree with them.
This machine will be an iMac.
Makes no sense to keep a high-end eMac after that. They can keep the combo drive machine. 799 is a little rich for it, especially with a 999 iMac coming. 699 is totally reasonable considering the machine doesn't need a superdrive, and is already sold much cheaper to schools and colleges.
And now we read that the OSX is a pro OS, and therefor cannot run on more affordable hardware ??!?@?##(&^#)^#?
Yeah, sure buddy. Total bollocks. Explain then how it runs on iBooks? Pro and not pro are not distinctions made based on the cost of the hardware.
Fcat is, Apple can build a perfectly reliable, full featured, price competitive notebook for the consumer -- they refuse to build a similar desktop to their own detriment.
1: the eMac is a good quality computer (some parts of it sure but that display wouldn't have been considered good quality 4 years ago).
2: Apple not only can't but shouldn't try to attract more consumers by having a less expensive consumer system. $699 is by no means a price point Apple can't or shouldn't be able to reach w/ a headless consumer system (sorry to disillusion you guys but the Wal-Mart bottomfeeders look for systems costing 399-499 not 699 or more).
3: you guys have actually said something meaningful and intelligent sounding.
Hmmm...lets see, ibooks are G4s, I wonder why they are now, could it be OS X?! OMG! yeah! Also, can these other slower computers run OS X, sure, can they take advantage of all the technologies associated with OS X? Afraid not! That is the point, I guess you missed it with the dismissal of everything else that was based on market study and research, but hey, that doesn't matter to you, just what you have in your own little world, so I am done on this topic after this post, as all I continue to hear is the same ol' illogical thinking; and to think, I actually wanted to help clear some of the madness up.
As for the assumptions about what myself, or others are saying, unless we say it do not throw words into our mouths, the only reference I made about the eMac is that Apple sold it to the masses out of demand, I made no other statements about it, thank you very much! So, don't assume anything about me, as you will be wrong, just as you are about what Apple should do!
If anything, Apple should keep price points as low as possible(if thats a $999 iMac, then so be it) while still keeping their margin, and use the money generated by that to buy up other software companies like Adobe or Macromedia, the key term for those of you that have trouble reading an entire post is "like". That does not necessarily mean those exact companies, but it can. They need to re-establish their niche, and take back from the PC what they helped to start, as well as move in to other sectors that are owned by MS, which would be the long overdue Office competitor with a database component.
That is it, I am done here, as there is no more intelligent conversation to be had, as all people seem to be capable of doing is talk about what they want and insult or assume where they feel they can.
Comments
Apple themselves know they need a low-cost system to get people to look, however they don't advertise it enough (likely due to the fact that it's CRT based). If they didn't know it they wouldn't have put the emac up for non-education sales.
It's people like you that keeps Apple's marketshare growing and growing and oh yeah it's not is it?
Originally posted by Dazaran
Really? Dell seems to be doing fine doing just that.
However, I never said low-quality or that Apple should price themselves the same as Dell. $699 should be more than adequate for a low-end headless Mac. One that doesn't have anywhere near the performance of a PowerMac or be quite as stylish as an iMac, but it would have to have decent quality and style. There is no reason that Apple could not make decent margins on such a system at $699 and likely even at $599. Again you miss the point, upselling works, but only if people look at what you have to offer in the first place.
If Apple did that they'd lose their status and cease to be the Apple people know and love.
Apple have a certain design and business philosophy, and to change that would drastically alter the way the purchasing public sees them. If Apple sold budget desktop systems that had 'alright' quality, they'd just be another vendor.
As it stands now, Apple isn't just another vendor, it's an icon.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Good god you people are idiots
Watch your tongue.
There's no nettiquette in these sordid modern days.
As for the eMac being low-quality, i've not used one, but the price and physical style of the item are as important as the quality.
£130 Nike trainers (or sneakers for my american comrades) are no more comfortable than a £30 pair from another shoe maker, but they *look* much better, and the price, in modern culture, denotes class and status, so people pay the prices.
The same applies to Apple. It's not just about the quality. It's about the price, it's about the image, it's about culture.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Good god you people are idiots, the eMac IS a low-quality computer and yet you dare to say that Apple would never sell such a thing!
As far as the iMac G5, Apple will ideally find a way to lower the cost but avoid making the case look low-rent. The iMac G4's stainless steel, pivoting arm was cited as one of the big reasons why Apple had a hard time lowering the cost. If Apple could simplify the design while still letting it remain unique, that and the introduction of the more cost-effective G5s could make for a $999 box - hopefully with a display.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Good god you people are idiots, the eMac IS a low-quality computer and yet you dare to say that Apple would never sell such a thing!
No, it is that you have given nothing noteable or even remotely compelling as evidence for Apple to try to compete on a Wal-Mart basis, and the only incoherent argument you have fathomed out of your arse is that Dell is doing it, and to that I reply that they are not, they are two seperate beasts entirely! Dell does not make an OS, or an iLife suite, or Keynote, or FCP, etc. They are not the same, Dell can sell hardware for the price they do, because they don't spend money on software, they buy in bulk and sell at a profit to the ignorant consumer that doesn't know the difference (i.e. you). The eMac is sold for general public use due to the demand for the eMac, Apple responded to its customers and gave them what they asked for, not for your diluted reasoning. Apple still needs to get back its investments in software!! Can you hear me now?! Good!
I don't know about your sales experience, but people are not on expendable budgets and most of the time will not be upsold, actually only about 5% are upsold, so that argument as well is mute. When you can back up your theories please reply, but until then keep the name calling and lack of respect to yourself!
As a consumer machine the eMac is worth about 699, being generous with the Apple-tax, and accounting for the 20-50 bucks Apple would have to spend on an combo-drive. I know Apple sells them for as little as 599 to schools and colleges, so it's not a strecth at all to say a 699 eMac is possible. Similar PC would set you back 500.
Personally, So long as it's anchored to that CRT, I don't care what Apple does with the eMac, I won't buy one. That doesn't mean I think Apple should sell me an LCD based AIO for 699, they could sell me a headless eMac for 699, but maybe that's not in the cards.
Fine.
I'll spend the grand, but it better have a decent display -- that means a 17" LCD, no, not a 15". Prices on larger displays have fallen drastically, to the point where 15" displays don't really make sense for the desktop anymore, not when you can get a 17" for 100-150 dollars more. I just bought a lovely 19" display (DVI and VGA) for a price that would make it entirely possible to put a competent PC next to it at a total of 1000USD. (about 500 for the display and 500 for the PC)
A 17" LCD is scads cheaper than my 19", bare panels, that Apple is already buying for notebooks, cheaper still, less than 200 with circuitry and backlight. 200 bucks worth of display with about 500 dollars worth of computer glued to it, and sold for 1K. It is realistic actually.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Good god you people are idiots, the eMac IS a low-quality computer and yet you dare to say that Apple would never sell such a thing!
And I suppose you're really smart, right?
I don't even think you've used one. The eMac is of higher quality than even higher priced Dells.
I don't know about your sales experience, but people are not on expendable budgets and most of the time will not be upsold, actually only about 5% are upsold, so that argument as well is mute.
... and since Apple doesn't provide a low-priced, decently-speced Mac, the budget-conscious potential customer buys another PC.
There's no need to make a low-quality or zero-margin Mac, but there should definitely be a low-priced-as-possible-while-still-able-to-perform model available, and it should be marketed appropriately. Still offer the higher-priced iMac as the one people really want, but have the low-priced one available for those (especially switchers) who can't justify the price. I don't think the current eMac does that effectively (or cheaply enough), and Apple makes no effort to promote it.
Sure, many customers won't go for the upsell, but guess what? It's still a sale that didn't go to a competitor; it's still another Apple customer who will potentially buy more stuff from Apple and Mac-friendly developers; it's still another notch up in marketshare. And when this person is ready to upgrade their computer, they're much more likely to buy yet another Mac, rather than a PC... and who knows, maybe they'll go for the iMac this time, because now they know that a better Mac is worth the money (something they probably didn't appreciate the first time around).
But these are very different companies. Where is Dell's OS? What software does Dell support? They don't. They simply sell Microsoft licenses. Where is the development for OS X supposed to come from? All those iLife applications, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Final Cut Pro, etc. could be supported, as well as the continues support of OS X with lowering all the prices??
Look, I don't like Apple prices, I do think they can come down and should. But it is beyond stupid to hear all these damn reasons, over and over and over again, from people like Matsu. We GET it OK? But can you fathom that Dell is a different company than Apple? Sure it would help Apple to have a really cheap super awesome system to get all these people in the door. But its not going to happen on the level you think it should happen. I think Apple isn't totally incompetent. Look they just celebrated customer number 2 million at the SOHO store. That's a sign things are moving in the right direction. And I bet there will be a lowend iMac which will be below $1299.
Peek at this file from the latest Mac OS X 10.3.5 update:
/System/Library/Extensions/AppleMacRISC4PE.kext/Content/Info.plist
<key>IOPlatformPluginTable</key>
<dict>
<key>PowerBook7,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>
<key>PowerBook7,2</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>
<key>PowerMac7,2</key>
<string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>
<key>PowerMac7,3</key>
<string>PowerMac7_2_PlatformPlugin</string>
<key>PowerMac8,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>
<key>PowerMac9,1</key>
<string>SMU_Neo2_PlatformPlugin</string>
<key>RackMac3,1</key>
<string>RackMac3_1_PlatformPlugin</string>
Now PowerBook7,1 PowerBook7,2 PowerMac8,1 (new iMac) and PowerMac9,1 (?) all get the SMU_Neo2 specs. Hmm, in 10.3.4 just the PowerMac8,1 had that spec.
Looks like we get a PowerTune G5 system for PowerBooks, iMacs and a new PowerMac, from what I can tell.
Originally posted by ijerry
You are still missing the point that OS X is not Windows home edition, it is a pro OS, and you simply cannot run it on cheap hardware, there is no way around it. That is why on my G3, and even my G4 I have issues with X because it is a big and powerful OS.
You have made a good point and I haven't thought of it quite like that. I don't know the difference in requirements for WinXP versus OSX. I guess I would have hoped that the linux part of the os equation would offer a modicum of scaleability.
I do know that my 1.5 year old TiBook has the performance to adequately run a lowend iMac and it could be made with about $600 worth of parts. That means that all of the software (iApps and such) would be just given away free and Apple would not be paying for any R&D funding with the profits.
Lower-end consumers don't want to pay for future R&D...I don't mind.
Originally posted by MacGregor
You have made a good point and I haven't thought of it quite like that. I don't know the difference in requirements for WinXP versus OSX. I guess I would have hoped that the linux part of the os equation would offer a modicum of scaleability.
I do know that my 1.5 year old TiBook has the performance to adequately run a lowend iMac and it could be made with about $600 worth of parts. That means that all of the software (iApps and such) would be just given away free and Apple would not be paying for any R&D funding with the profits.
Lower-end consumers don't want to pay for future R&D...I don't mind.
The trick is that Darwin and the Unix-y bits *can* run on more modest hardware. It is Aqua and all the graphic accellerations that end up eating hardware like mad. If Apple continued to produce the emac as a headless machine for $499 or whatever people are clamoring for it would be slammmed for not supporting future OS improvements like Coreimage. Apple can't seem to win. The OS is an amazing piece of software but it drives the hardware rather hard and to some extent prevents Apple from keeping lower end hardware in their product lineup when newer machines are released.
I believe the recommended requirements for longhorn is dual core 4ghz chips. Dual Core sure would be nice
You know I too believe Apple has to make a cheaper iMac. But to compare them over and over and over again to Dell is beyond stupid. What does Dell do? They slap cheap parts together and sell them as complete systems. There's some design to this, as for example in their laptop design, which one can't simply toss some things together and sell.
No, Dell spends a lot of money on R&D to figure out the best way to slap cheap parts together. Apple spends almost as much to figure out the prettiest way.
[b]
But these are very different companies. Where is Dell's OS? What software does Dell support? They don't. They simply sell Microsoft licenses. Where is the development for OS X supposed to come from? All those iLife applications, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Final Cut Pro, etc. could be supported, as well as the continues support of OS X with lowering all the prices??
[b]
Out of Apple's total R&D expenditure comes hardware and software. Mopst of the latter is purchased by some peopel with a very good eye for talent and then treated witht he right look and feel bits. Apple spends R&D, apple gets an OS to go along with it. DELL spends on R&D and still has to buy licenses. Motion, FCP, DVD SP, and the associated harware is a seperate purchase form the mac. It pays for itself when you buy the hardware. Hardware sales and margins do not support the development of these products -- not with cash, rather they provide an exclusive environment that drives their sales. You've got it ass-backwards: FCP and DVD-SP sales kick money back to the mac -- they don't create any reason why the mac should be more expensive, especially since they aren't bundled with the machine. iLife is neat, no question, and it's a gimme -- paid for by the pro app customers, dev time covered by the pro apps that supply the technological base.
Quote:
Look, I don't like Apple prices, I do think they can come down and should. But it is beyond stupid to hear all these damn reasons, over and over and over again, from people like Matsu. We GET it OK? But can you fathom that Dell is a different company than Apple? Sure it would help Apple to have a really cheap super awesome system to get all these people in the door. But its not going to happen on the level you think it should happen. I think Apple isn't totally incompetent. Look they just celebrated customer number 2 million at the SOHO store. That's a sign things are moving in the right direction. And I bet there will be a lowend iMac which will be below $1299.
It's not anymore stupid than hearing the same uncritical myths over and over and over again. I don't give a shit that DELL is a different company. They both sell computers of comparable function into the same markets. There are good reasons for buying either. Furthermore, I find it completely ridiculous that any intelligent criticism of Apple is met with complete over-reaction. I never said Apple should sell a powermac for 500USD. I merely pointed out the following facts:
Most vendors, not cheap budget no-name companies, sell a 17" LCD based system for 999.
Most CRT based bundles are about 500-600 USD, not 800-1000.
The eMac is already sold at the 500-600 range, just not to consumers or regular edu customers.
The bulk of eMac sales come out of these discounted units not available to regular edu/consumers.
Apple has itself stated two items.
One. That the iMac is the intended consumer machine. It is what they want you to buy when you buy a machine for the home.
Two. That Apple believes that 999 is the sweet spot for a consumer/family/home-office machine, and that they were dissapointed that the iMac was unable to hit that mark.
Taken with other statements, like the original "the eMac was made especially for education"...
It's rather easy to see that even Apple thinks the eMac is a poor fit for the consumer and that the iMac needs to cost 999 if it will ever again get some traction in the market.
The price of LCD components is another indicator, 17" OEM panels cost little more than 15" panels at this point, and both are cheap enough for inclusion into a 1000 USD system bundle.
Also, Apple has never demonstrated much interest in selling cheap machines (at least not to consumers, though they're learning to compete in edu)
999 is a perfectly acceptable consumer mark for them, for a full featured machine. I agree with them.
This machine will be an iMac.
Makes no sense to keep a high-end eMac after that. They can keep the combo drive machine. 799 is a little rich for it, especially with a 999 iMac coming. 699 is totally reasonable considering the machine doesn't need a superdrive, and is already sold much cheaper to schools and colleges.
And now we read that the OSX is a pro OS, and therefor cannot run on more affordable hardware ??!?@?##(&^#)^#?
Yeah, sure buddy. Total bollocks. Explain then how it runs on iBooks? Pro and not pro are not distinctions made based on the cost of the hardware.
Fcat is, Apple can build a perfectly reliable, full featured, price competitive notebook for the consumer -- they refuse to build a similar desktop to their own detriment.
1: the eMac is a good quality computer (some parts of it sure but that display wouldn't have been considered good quality 4 years ago).
2: Apple not only can't but shouldn't try to attract more consumers by having a less expensive consumer system. $699 is by no means a price point Apple can't or shouldn't be able to reach w/ a headless consumer system (sorry to disillusion you guys but the Wal-Mart bottomfeeders look for systems costing 399-499 not 699 or more).
3: you guys have actually said something meaningful and intelligent sounding.
As for the assumptions about what myself, or others are saying, unless we say it do not throw words into our mouths, the only reference I made about the eMac is that Apple sold it to the masses out of demand, I made no other statements about it, thank you very much! So, don't assume anything about me, as you will be wrong, just as you are about what Apple should do!
If anything, Apple should keep price points as low as possible(if thats a $999 iMac, then so be it) while still keeping their margin, and use the money generated by that to buy up other software companies like Adobe or Macromedia, the key term for those of you that have trouble reading an entire post is "like". That does not necessarily mean those exact companies, but it can. They need to re-establish their niche, and take back from the PC what they helped to start, as well as move in to other sectors that are owned by MS, which would be the long overdue Office competitor with a database component.
That is it, I am done here, as there is no more intelligent conversation to be had, as all people seem to be capable of doing is talk about what they want and insult or assume where they feel they can.
end of line...