what about using some expensive PC equipment as comparison for a change? why do we always presume that average PC-joe is so smart as to always find the best deal?
well, to be mean, if they were so god damnd smart they should have got a mac in the first place, shouln't they..?
i know guy's that's got ripped off bying their PC.... don't you?
<strong> The time for Apple to move for more market share aggressively, is when they have a killer product that can be priced more competitively. Can anyone say IBM 970?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. You?re spot on.
And I believe they?ll do just that, when the timing is right.
<strong>what about using some expensive PC equipment as comparison for a change? </strong><hr></blockquote>
That is a damn good idea, lets do that!
From Apple for $3548 you get the following,
Summary
? Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
? 512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
? 120GB Ultra ATA drive
? Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive
? ATI Radeon 9000
From DELL for $3013 you get the following,
Dell Precision? Workstation 650:
- Dual 2.40Ghz Intel XEON Processors
- 512MB Of RDRAM Memory
- 120GB Ultra ATA Drive
- 4x DVD-R Drive
- ATI FireGL E1
- 3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor
For LESS money than the high end G4 that is absolutly brutalized by a single 2.4ghz Pentium 4 you can get a Dell workstation with DUAL Intel XEON processors that burtalize the Pentium 4 in addition to a professional graphics card.
There is absolutly zero basis for comparison between the 1.25ghz G4 and the Dell Xeon workstation,
Without a doubt you can come up with a configuration that is less expensive than the iMac 17". Please do, since this will give us some numbers on the Apple premium.
Also, look at my post on the previous page concerning margins - give us your take. Again, this will help us quantify premiums, over-priced, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry about that, I missed that. I will have a look at that later this evening
As for the computer,
Here is another Dell, I really hate flogging Dell's, but they are most popular and the benchmark for comparison,
From Dell you can get the following for $1,168.00
1.8ghz Pentium 4
256mb Memory
60gb Hard Drive
GeForce 4mx
17" LCD Display, this will be a larger one that that on the iMac because it isn't widescreen.
4x DVD-R Drive
Again, for a little over half the price you are getting a much faster Dell, with a faster DVD-R drive and a better display.
I have an iMac G3/DVSE - 400mhz - and I'm amazed at how well it works with Jaguar.
I don't know if there is a market for the current iMac G3, but it would be interesting to see the sales figures if Apple could sell it for $499 with a DVD-ROM (instead of CD-ROM).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yeah, I'm sure yours works fine. What I meant is that the current G3 iMacs suck at the price and cheaper PCs are better in a lot of ways.
I went to Dell, and the total was $1367 - but that was with a DVD+R - I didn't see a DVD-R. But I'm not good at configuring at Dell's web site!
So the iMac is $600-800 more. If we use a 30% gross margin, then the iMac cost is $1400, which is more than the Dell to begin with! :eek:
Any idea what Dell's margin is?
If the Apple margin was lowered to 10%, then the iMac would sell for about $1550.
Stag - What would your consumer customers do if presented with the Dell at $1250 versus the iMac at $1550? Would they pay the $300 premium? Would there be such a stampede that Apple would sell 2-3 times as many?
As for me, there is no price that I would buy a WinTel at - even for free </strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem remains, you are calculating an artificially low margin into the equation, the overall gross margin would be much greater were the sales of Apples highest margin products not so poor.
Because sales of lower margin items such as the iBook and eMac are very strong compared to sales of the high margin Power Macintosh G4 and flat panel iMac that are abysmal the higher margins on the big ticket items that aren't selling are not factored into the overall margin.
It doesn't cost Apple $700 more to make the 17" iMac than it does to make the 15" iMac, there is a much higher margin on the 17" iMac than there is in the 15" iMac
As for the question of lowering the price to $1549, I think if Apple were to get the 17" iMac above the psychological 1 Ghz high watermark I think that would be adaquate for that particular model, however Apple would have to make the same sacracife on the lower end LCD iMac to see double the sales.
But that has to be dynamic, they can't leave the same model standing out in the wind all year long while PC's move ahead in performance and fall in price.
However, that also raises the issue that the LCD iMac really isn't the appropriate player for this market.
. . . G4 motherboards are straight out of hell, prior to the eMac fiasco we were replacing more power mac motherboards than anything else.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to say it, but I have to support you on this one. The only two Mac users I know both had motherboard replacements on their G4s. One is a Quicksilver and the other a new dual 1 GHz G4. These are the only Mac users left among those I know. The others have all have a new Windows PC now.
Why would he buy one? He's stated before that he hates Dells and he sells PCs and Macs so why would he get a Dell?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry I was attempting to make a point. And it did not come off very well.
[quote] Posted by: Stagflation Steve
<strong>
I sell Apple and Compaq (well HP), I hate Dell as much as anyone else here does, they are just a good benchmark</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again sorry not pointing fingers. My mistake.
I was attempting to make the point that an Apple is an Apple and a Dell is a Dell. In other words, we buy a Mac because it is a Mac, the sum of the parts, not the peices. We can go through the parts forever and miss the fact that they make a whole unit. Think of it like selling cars, if I'm allowed to breakdown a car into its' parts, price being a part as well, then you could buy a car that had the best parts for the dollar, usually made by Toyota or Honda. Now there are lots of dollars involved with these transactions, but people still buy many different kinds of cars for many different reasons. I believe that Apple is on the right track with the Apple stores, go to the person that lives in an area that is known for money and attempt to sell to them. If Apple goes after the low end, and by this I mean cheap, then Apple may price themselves right into the poor house. Yes you do have a point on price, but Apple still continues to sell computers, and this has always been the case, always. Apples' have been priced higher, my opinion is that I'm buying quality, and style, and ease of use, and many other things. I'm not buying a CPU when I'm buying an iMac I'm buying a package, a Mac, and if Apple wants to throw in a CPU, I say thanks, cheers. Really if I was to go and buy an iMac I would just buy it and trust that it will do what it was advertised to do.
Now a ProDeskTop is something else and we see the sales suffering and Apple is apparently attempting to do something about it. My roommate is a huge Dell fan and Compaq fan as well. I'm looking at 2 Dells and a Compaq and another Compaq on the shelf. Interesting story, guess who has the only working CD writer?? I have to smile when I think that he loves those machines and still is working on them about twice a year. I have a PowerBook and a Cube. When I hear about slow clock speed and lack of features I wonder what it is being used for, 3D work? I'm a consumer I use my machine for recreational programming and web surfing. I'm getting into photography and making movies about naked swine [I'm sick]. And I know that buyers remorse will kick in and I will want a new machine and I'll go to do some cross fades of a couple pigs and the Cube will be right there, getting done what it needs to. The point here is that the reason I buy and continue to buy Macs is not that I'm a stylish geek, it is that I know that when I buy one it will serve me very well. Maybe the Mac is built to serve, not for me to service it. I know that I will have to pay for that and I continue to do so. I don't think that I'm that different in this respect, think of all of those BMW, Meracdies(spelling I know, phonics), Volvo drivers out there. I think those people just want a car that will serve them well. A last point: My Macs tend to serve me longer than other machines do. I think that I should stop rambling here, pick out some things if you wish to discuss further.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Brendon ] I'm attempting to make this more readable, which I should have done before clicking post.
Strangely I don't really think of my iMac as a computer. An Apple is an Apple. When PC folk ask me why I like apple my usual response is that I enjoy using them. I usually just say, "well you know they just work for me." And I think thats why we all use apples because they just tend to work the way they are expected to. They do what you think they will and they hold to what they are. I always tell PC users that it's just more fun opening an apple box up. I say, "You can just see that they actually thought out everything carefully ahead of time, as if they were proud of their name." An apple seems worth the money when you open it and put it on your desk. A PC looks like a machine that you had to buy not something that you wanted to buy.
[quote]Strangely I don't really think of my iMac as a computer. An Apple is an Apple. When PC folk ask me why I like apple my usual response is that I enjoy using them. I usually just say, "well you know they just work for me." And I think thats why we all use apples because they just tend to work the way they are expected to. They do what you think they will and they hold to what they are. I always tell PC users that it's just more fun opening an apple box up. I say, "You can just see that they actually thought out everything carefully ahead of time, as if they were proud of their name." An apple seems worth the money when you open it and put it on your desk. A PC looks like a machine that you had to buy not something that you wanted to buy. <hr></blockquote>
I've never seen anyone write so eloquently about Windows or a PC. When is the last time you heard someone wax poetic about their "box"? The main reason people use PCs it seems is because A) price (this does NOT make them better, in my opinion, more later *cough* child labor *cough*) compatibility (again not "better") and C) megahertz, which we don't even need to bother with.
A). You have to love good ol' Dell child labor. Seriously, who do you think builds your computer? Or anything you buy?
Plus, matsu apparently hasn't heard of the economies of scale. --maybe someone else pointed this out but I couldn't get past the first page...I skipped to Algol's little Mac poem
compatibility. Mac users are a creative and "different" lot so we don't go along with the herd mentality, for starters. We're independent, and also, we are more inquisitive/informed to know about things like samba, VPC, or M$ Remote Desktop Connection. Macs do a pretty good job being compatible if you are resourceful.
This thread turned into an Apple "apologist" thread from the looks of it. Until Apple gets bigger, the simplest way to explain their prices is the economy of scale. matsu! Plus, Macs being better and Apple as a company being better (in certain aspects.) For example Apple is a greener company than most PC companies.
I think with OS X market share will slowly go up to around 10%, then who knows, depending on M$ anti-trust trials. This will help make Macs cheaper, as well as new technology and management improvements at Apple. 2003 is going to be good.
The problem remains, you are calculating an artificially low margin into the equation, the overall gross margin would be much greater were the sales of Apples highest margin products not so poor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Their gross margin is higher than Dell's yes.
That leads into what I'm guessing is one of your reasons for hating Dell: They cut out distributors and retailers, so they need a significantly lower gross margin to net a given profit margin than Apple (or HPaq, or Gateway). Apple doesn't really have that option: Apple needs retail, since they're the alternative and so people need to try them out. Retail means distribution, and both distributors and retailers need to make money. Which means Apple has to factor their profits into the prices of the machines.
[quote]<strong>It doesn't cost Apple $700 more to make the 17" iMac than it does to make the 15" iMac, there is a much higher margin on the 17" iMac than there is in the 15" iMac</strong><hr></blockquote>
The computer industry is a lot like the automotive industry in that regard: The baseline model is sold not far above cost (to the dealer, not the manufacturer), and money is made on options whose profit (not gross) margins range from fat to mind-boggling. $300 for cruise control indeed. In this regard Dell is no different.
[quote]<strong>As for the question of lowering the price to $1549, I think if Apple were to get the 17" iMac above the psychological 1 Ghz high watermark I think that would be adaquate for that particular model, however Apple would have to make the same sacracife on the lower end LCD iMac to see double the sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still think, given the razor-thin difference between 15" and 17" LCD component prices, that the 17" will take over the current price points and the 15", if it still exists, will drop to a new low pricewise. That should goose sales nicely, I'd think.
[quote]<strong>But that has to be dynamic, they can't leave the same model standing out in the wind all year long while PC's move ahead in performance and fall in price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely. Given that they don't, generally, I can only imagine that they ran into an unforeseen difficulty enhancing the current model - TiBook revisions were slow in coming at first, too. And, of course, the eMac needs a significant overhaul even more, since it's suffering from the Apple 17" CRT Curse.
I'm expecting a significant update to both lines. Not just in ways the consumer would notice, but also in the plumbing. That's the only explanation I have for letting what really is their flagship model (from a branding point of view) stagnate for a year.
Comments
<strong>
I wasn't refering to the G4, and I was mainly speaking of the iMac G3. Which is still better than PCs for "iApp" tasks.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iMac G3 is horrible.
well, to be mean, if they were so god damnd smart they should have got a mac in the first place, shouln't they..?
i know guy's that's got ripped off bying their PC.... don't you?
<strong> The time for Apple to move for more market share aggressively, is when they have a killer product that can be priced more competitively. Can anyone say IBM 970?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. You?re spot on.
And I believe they?ll do just that, when the timing is right.
<strong>what about using some expensive PC equipment as comparison for a change? </strong><hr></blockquote>
That is a damn good idea, lets do that!
From Apple for $3548 you get the following,
Summary
? Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
? 512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
? 120GB Ultra ATA drive
? Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive
? ATI Radeon 9000
From DELL for $3013 you get the following,
Dell Precision? Workstation 650:
- Dual 2.40Ghz Intel XEON Processors
- 512MB Of RDRAM Memory
- 120GB Ultra ATA Drive
- 4x DVD-R Drive
- ATI FireGL E1
- 3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor
For LESS money than the high end G4 that is absolutly brutalized by a single 2.4ghz Pentium 4 you can get a Dell workstation with DUAL Intel XEON processors that burtalize the Pentium 4 in addition to a professional graphics card.
There is absolutly zero basis for comparison between the 1.25ghz G4 and the Dell Xeon workstation,
...and the winnaaahh is..?
Ouch. That sounds like a beating for the 'power'Mac, Bob.
Well, Todd, the 'power'Mac is several hundred smackers more than the Dell...you get what you pay for...
Uh?
Lemon Bon Bon
Lady Diana...Prince Charles...Winston Churchill...Margaret Thatcher...Steve Jobs...your 'power'Mac took one hell of a beating...
<strong>
Stag -
Without a doubt you can come up with a configuration that is less expensive than the iMac 17". Please do, since this will give us some numbers on the Apple premium.
Also, look at my post on the previous page concerning margins - give us your take. Again, this will help us quantify premiums, over-priced, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry about that, I missed that. I will have a look at that later this evening
As for the computer,
Here is another Dell, I really hate flogging Dell's, but they are most popular and the benchmark for comparison,
From Dell you can get the following for $1,168.00
1.8ghz Pentium 4
256mb Memory
60gb Hard Drive
GeForce 4mx
17" LCD Display, this will be a larger one that that on the iMac because it isn't widescreen.
4x DVD-R Drive
Again, for a little over half the price you are getting a much faster Dell, with a faster DVD-R drive and a better display.
<strong>
I have an iMac G3/DVSE - 400mhz - and I'm amazed at how well it works with Jaguar.
I don't know if there is a market for the current iMac G3, but it would be interesting to see the sales figures if Apple could sell it for $499 with a DVD-ROM (instead of CD-ROM).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yeah, I'm sure yours works fine. What I meant is that the current G3 iMacs suck at the price and cheaper PCs are better in a lot of ways.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Stagflation Steve ]</p>
<strong>
I went to Dell, and the total was $1367 - but that was with a DVD+R - I didn't see a DVD-R. But I'm not good at configuring at Dell's web site!
So the iMac is $600-800 more. If we use a 30% gross margin, then the iMac cost is $1400, which is more than the Dell to begin with! :eek:
Any idea what Dell's margin is?
If the Apple margin was lowered to 10%, then the iMac would sell for about $1550.
Stag - What would your consumer customers do if presented with the Dell at $1250 versus the iMac at $1550? Would they pay the $300 premium? Would there be such a stampede that Apple would sell 2-3 times as many?
As for me, there is no price that I would buy a WinTel at - even for free
The problem remains, you are calculating an artificially low margin into the equation, the overall gross margin would be much greater were the sales of Apples highest margin products not so poor.
Because sales of lower margin items such as the iBook and eMac are very strong compared to sales of the high margin Power Macintosh G4 and flat panel iMac that are abysmal the higher margins on the big ticket items that aren't selling are not factored into the overall margin.
It doesn't cost Apple $700 more to make the 17" iMac than it does to make the 15" iMac, there is a much higher margin on the 17" iMac than there is in the 15" iMac
As for the question of lowering the price to $1549, I think if Apple were to get the 17" iMac above the psychological 1 Ghz high watermark I think that would be adaquate for that particular model, however Apple would have to make the same sacracife on the lower end LCD iMac to see double the sales.
But that has to be dynamic, they can't leave the same model standing out in the wind all year long while PC's move ahead in performance and fall in price.
However, that also raises the issue that the LCD iMac really isn't the appropriate player for this market.
<strong>
Sorry about that, I missed that. I will have a look at that later this evening
As for the computer,
Here is another Dell, I really hate flogging Dell's, but they are most popular and the benchmark for comparison,
From Dell you can get the following for $1,168.00
1.8ghz Pentium 4
256mb Memory
60gb Hard Drive
GeForce 4mx
17" LCD Display, this will be a larger one that that on the iMac because it isn't widescreen.
4x DVD-R Drive
Again, for a little over half the price you are getting a much faster Dell, with a faster DVD-R drive and a better display.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good work, looks like you should buy one.
<strong>
Good work, looks like you should buy one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would he buy one? He's stated before that he hates Dells and he sells PCs and Macs so why would he get a Dell?
<strong>
. . . G4 motherboards are straight out of hell, prior to the eMac fiasco we were replacing more power mac motherboards than anything else.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to say it, but I have to support you on this one. The only two Mac users I know both had motherboard replacements on their G4s. One is a Quicksilver and the other a new dual 1 GHz G4. These are the only Mac users left among those I know. The others have all have a new Windows PC now.
<strong>
Why would he buy one? He's stated before that he hates Dells and he sells PCs and Macs so why would he get a Dell?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry I was attempting to make a point. And it did not come off very well.
[quote] Posted by: Stagflation Steve
<strong>
I sell Apple and Compaq (well HP), I hate Dell as much as anyone else here does, they are just a good benchmark</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again sorry not pointing fingers. My mistake.
I was attempting to make the point that an Apple is an Apple and a Dell is a Dell. In other words, we buy a Mac because it is a Mac, the sum of the parts, not the peices. We can go through the parts forever and miss the fact that they make a whole unit. Think of it like selling cars, if I'm allowed to breakdown a car into its' parts, price being a part as well, then you could buy a car that had the best parts for the dollar, usually made by Toyota or Honda. Now there are lots of dollars involved with these transactions, but people still buy many different kinds of cars for many different reasons. I believe that Apple is on the right track with the Apple stores, go to the person that lives in an area that is known for money and attempt to sell to them. If Apple goes after the low end, and by this I mean cheap, then Apple may price themselves right into the poor house. Yes you do have a point on price, but Apple still continues to sell computers, and this has always been the case, always. Apples' have been priced higher, my opinion is that I'm buying quality, and style, and ease of use, and many other things. I'm not buying a CPU when I'm buying an iMac I'm buying a package, a Mac, and if Apple wants to throw in a CPU, I say thanks, cheers. Really if I was to go and buy an iMac I would just buy it and trust that it will do what it was advertised to do.
Now a ProDeskTop is something else and we see the sales suffering and Apple is apparently attempting to do something about it. My roommate is a huge Dell fan and Compaq fan as well. I'm looking at 2 Dells and a Compaq and another Compaq on the shelf. Interesting story, guess who has the only working CD writer?? I have to smile when I think that he loves those machines and still is working on them about twice a year. I have a PowerBook and a Cube. When I hear about slow clock speed and lack of features I wonder what it is being used for, 3D work? I'm a consumer I use my machine for recreational programming and web surfing. I'm getting into photography and making movies about naked swine [I'm sick]. And I know that buyers remorse will kick in and I will want a new machine and I'll go to do some cross fades of a couple pigs and the Cube will be right there, getting done what it needs to. The point here is that the reason I buy and continue to buy Macs is not that I'm a stylish geek, it is that I know that when I buy one it will serve me very well. Maybe the Mac is built to serve, not for me to service it. I know that I will have to pay for that and I continue to do so. I don't think that I'm that different in this respect, think of all of those BMW, Meracdies(spelling I know, phonics), Volvo drivers out there. I think those people just want a car that will serve them well. A last point: My Macs tend to serve me longer than other machines do. I think that I should stop rambling here, pick out some things if you wish to discuss further.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Brendon ] I'm attempting to make this more readable, which I should have done before clicking post.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Brendon ]</p>
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: Aquatic ]</p>
I've never seen anyone write so eloquently about Windows or a PC. When is the last time you heard someone wax poetic about their "box"? The main reason people use PCs it seems is because A) price (this does NOT make them better, in my opinion, more later *cough* child labor *cough*)
A). You have to love good ol' Dell child labor. Seriously, who do you think builds your computer? Or anything you buy?
Plus, matsu apparently hasn't heard of the economies of scale. --maybe someone else pointed this out but I couldn't get past the first page...I skipped to Algol's little Mac poem
This thread turned into an Apple "apologist" thread from the looks of it. Until Apple gets bigger, the simplest way to explain their prices is the economy of scale. matsu! Plus, Macs being better and Apple as a company being better (in certain aspects.) For example Apple is a greener company than most PC companies.
I think with OS X market share will slowly go up to around 10%, then who knows, depending on M$ anti-trust trials. This will help make Macs cheaper, as well as new technology and management improvements at Apple. 2003 is going to be good.
Plus girls like my iBook.
<strong>
The problem remains, you are calculating an artificially low margin into the equation, the overall gross margin would be much greater were the sales of Apples highest margin products not so poor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Their gross margin is higher than Dell's yes.
That leads into what I'm guessing is one of your reasons for hating Dell: They cut out distributors and retailers, so they need a significantly lower gross margin to net a given profit margin than Apple (or HPaq, or Gateway). Apple doesn't really have that option: Apple needs retail, since they're the alternative and so people need to try them out. Retail means distribution, and both distributors and retailers need to make money. Which means Apple has to factor their profits into the prices of the machines.
[quote]<strong>It doesn't cost Apple $700 more to make the 17" iMac than it does to make the 15" iMac, there is a much higher margin on the 17" iMac than there is in the 15" iMac</strong><hr></blockquote>
The computer industry is a lot like the automotive industry in that regard: The baseline model is sold not far above cost (to the dealer, not the manufacturer), and money is made on options whose profit (not gross) margins range from fat to mind-boggling. $300 for cruise control indeed.
[quote]<strong>As for the question of lowering the price to $1549, I think if Apple were to get the 17" iMac above the psychological 1 Ghz high watermark I think that would be adaquate for that particular model, however Apple would have to make the same sacracife on the lower end LCD iMac to see double the sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still think, given the razor-thin difference between 15" and 17" LCD component prices, that the 17" will take over the current price points and the 15", if it still exists, will drop to a new low pricewise. That should goose sales nicely, I'd think.
[quote]<strong>But that has to be dynamic, they can't leave the same model standing out in the wind all year long while PC's move ahead in performance and fall in price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely. Given that they don't, generally, I can only imagine that they ran into an unforeseen difficulty enhancing the current model - TiBook revisions were slow in coming at first, too. And, of course, the eMac needs a significant overhaul even more, since it's suffering from the Apple 17" CRT Curse.
I'm expecting a significant update to both lines. Not just in ways the consumer would notice, but also in the plumbing. That's the only explanation I have for letting what really is their flagship model (from a branding point of view) stagnate for a year.