<strong>I'll jump in here with my first post. I want a Mac after researching my options. Been a long time frustrated windows user going all the way back to CPM (now I am dating myself).
I think the imac is great for the average person who wants to boot up, check email, do some camera work, etc.
I am the type of person who opens the cpu, looks, inside and tinkers around. I'd love a tower, but am having a hard time justifying the cost vs. benefit.
I can't afford entry level price of $1700 for a machine that doesn't do all that I want.
If Apple had entry level tower without monitor for reasonable price (reasonable in my opinion) in the range of say $800 to $1,000 I'd buy in a minute.
But, it's hard to justify $1700 on a tower when Dell is advertising a Windows XP machine with flat panel in the $800 range. I know the Apple is better, but I can buy 2 of the Windows machines for the cost of entry level Apple tower.
Forgive the ranting, it's because I really want a Mac and am frustrated with my options.
David</strong><hr></blockquote>
David - Obviously you can pick up an older G4 tower for less than $1k. I have a 7500 with a G3 300mhz, 18GB drive, fw/usb, etc for closer to $400. But you can also get them for less than $1300 new.
I don't know, if Apple needs cheap upgradeable tower. Before cheap tower Apple should drop iMac (original model), eMac and iMac prices. Especially in Europe those models costs too much. Concept is good like i/eMac + iApps, but price should be lower. Lower price with a little different marketing Apple could get more customers.
Typical customer like my father doesn't care how fast his computer is. More important thing is, availability of software and common questions like howto setup internet connection etc... They don't care how fast is bus/processor etc... They just need computer for daily things like www & email & msoffice etc... Maybe Apple should say more how easy is life with Mac + OSX.
Maybe DELL can sell cheap towers, but have you ever thought how much problems people have got with those cheap computers?
<strong>Typical customer like my father doesn't care how fast his computer is. More important thing is, availability of software and common questions like howto setup internet connection etc... They don't care how fast is bus/processor etc... They just need computer for daily things like www & email & msoffice etc... Maybe Apple should say more how easy is life with Mac + OSX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you!
If Apple is catering to two camps (and I think they are: the creative professionals and the home user/consumer), then we know what they have to do on the pro end. But on the consumer/soccer mom front, those people don't give two flying rips about G3, G4, Gstring, etc., much less bus speed, DDR, etc.
Just give them something as snappy as possible, as affordable as possible that makes doing all the things they dig doing (surfing, e-mail, digital photos, video, business apps, etc.) pleasant and enjoyable and without frustration.
When it comes to the iStuff, I think Apple is more than doing that! The only quibble I would have would be the expense of some of the things. That factor has kept no fewer than three people I know from purchasing a Mac, even though they love the OS, the iApps, etc. (when I demo things for them).
They just couldn't bring themselves to shell out $1200 when $800 or so got them a "snazzy" Windows XP machine with speakers, bundled scanner, 17" monitor, etc.
Of course, they still call me with questions...
As if I know the first thing about troubleshooting Windows!
As if I know the first thing about troubleshooting Windows! </strong><hr></blockquote>
For me it's literally gotten to the point that I've told friends and family that if they buy a mac, I'll give them tech support 24/7, but I won't even answer a Windows related question if they pay me.
From my own WIntel expirience I can tell that upgradeability is seldomly an issue. Once you buy your machine you get the components that fit your needs.
In time to replace something in order to be up to date - usually after 1,5-2 years - most upgrade paths are closed: CPUs for your specific board are sold out, the next-generation memory technology became mainstream, the new graphics cards cannot reach their full potential due to the old motherboard/CPU and so on and so forth. Not to mention the new Windows version that just won't run the way it should on your "legacy" hardware.
You are usually better off buying a whole new system. Maybe you get to keep your display which you might want to swap sooner rather than later due to technological progress in that field, too - DVI/VGA, bigger screens get more affordable etc.)
I have to admit that the ability to potentially be upgradeable seems tempting. But you usually have to change more than one component.
AIOs (especially the iMac) have a style to them that no multi-piece system can match, although the Cube/Studio Display-combo came very close. And they are usually pretty balanced systems, too. If the video subsystem on the iMac had been a little more powerful (GeForce 4 Ti 4200 or thereabouts) or upgradeable the machine would have a near perfect balance. It is in need of an upgrade though.
What keeps people from choosing a Mac over a WIntel?
1. Presence. But due to the Apple Stores this issue is worked on.
2. Apple's own little OS/hardware monopoly. Apple is the only company supplying Mac OS compatible hardware. It's the lack of choice that scares people. This also leads to less shelve space compared to other companies.
3. The edge that WIntels seem to have/have performance wise. I hope they get up to par soon.
4. The Mac seems to be a rather static platform technology-wise. Apple seems to be pretty slow to adapt the latest developments (Serial ATA, DDR-RAM etc.).
5. The lack of software. You cannot buy Mac software at most supermarkets and department stores. Developers show little dedication to the Mac platform.
6. Price. Apple has a hard standing here because most people don't shop by value (which seldomly is obvious) but rather by price.
This originates from the fact that at one point in time Macs were the only computers running the Mac OS while the Microsoft empire's products ran on a whole bunch of relatively cheap machines. And that number increased rapidly. That was in the late 80s early 90s.
The Mac might have been the userfriendliest system at that time but consumers were not ready to enter the digital age. Computing was for geeks demanding affordable systems and not caring about a neat GUI. A trait that nutrices Linux's success today.
These geeks matured and now run big businesses spreading WIntels all over the world or developing solely for Windows. Thus, giving WIntel a better standing point.
I sell computers. People look for 3 things mainly:
1. Speed
2. Upgradeability
3. Price
It doesn't matter what you think they need, or what Jobs thinks they need-that is what they WANT. A company that doesn't focus on what a customer wants is not a successful one...........................
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
You have this backwards -- the upgradeable tower is the niche product. If you look at the number of potential customers for both an upgradeable and a non-upgradeable machine you'll find that the vast majority just want to buy a machine and use it. How many people customize their car, for example? Aside from decorative fluff, almost none.
People are buying WIntel machines for three primary reasons:
1) They are being sold WIntel machines. You want a computer, you go to the store. You have about a 95% chance to talking to a WIntel salesman in a WIntel store. You're told MHz is most important. You're told that 95% of the computers are WIntel so you should be too.
2) WIntel machines appear cheaper (and usually are, but not by as much as the naive buyer might think). This isn't because the WIntel machines are upgradeable, this is because of volume production, razor thin margins, low quality parts, and cut throat competition.
3) They have an existing investment in WIntel. This can be existing product, or it can knowledge & experience.
For a relatively small percentage of users (like you and I) upgradeability is an issue, but we are the tech-savvy elite (at least in this respect). With the iMac, Apple goes after all those others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I sell computers. People look for 3 things mainly:
1. Speed
2. Upgradeability
3. Price
It doesn't matter what you think they need, or what Jobs thinks they need-that is what they WANT. A company that doesn't focus on what a customer wants is not a successful one...........................
</strong><hr></blockquote>
People look for these 4 things.
1. Price
2. Speed
3. Software
4. Ease-of-use
[ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
In the end, I think most people shop by price. Most would pay more for a mac if the PERCEIVED value was worth it to them. At a certain point the extra money doesn't justify the benefits of the mac.
Plus, (again some truth and some perception) is you are buying a machine in the average range or behind the pack (imac, emac).
To get people to switch they must see a benefit to them at a cost they are willing to pay.
Of course I don't sit on Apple's board and don't know their business plan.
<strong>What keeps people from choosing a Mac over a WIntel?
4. The Mac seems to be a rather static platform technology-wise. Apple seems to be pretty slow to adapt the latest developments (Serial ATA, DDR-RAM etc.).</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may be right. But I think it matters to geeks much more than to 'the rest of us'. And, from a practical point of view, it's not for 100% sure.
[quote]<strong>
5. The lack of software. You cannot buy Mac software at most supermarkets and department stores. Developers show little dedication to the Mac platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope we'll never come to buy software at supermarkets . And you are partly wrong about developers. Those who don't even know about Macs (or just can't afford it) will never be dedicated to Mac OS. 3 to 5% market share is the explanation. At the same time those who know Macs also know that Mac products are faster to develop and cheaper to support.
[quote]<strong>
6. Price. Apple has a hard standing here because most people don't shop by value (which seldomly is obvious) but rather by price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there is definately a place for a budget tower in Apple's product line.
It could be tied to the iMac line; ie. updated at the same time as the iMac line and have the same hardware as the top of the line iMac.
Of course a better graphics card could be a BTO option and you could upgrade later, everything else such as CPU speed and bus speed would be the same. The case would be white inline with the consumer hardware.
Do you think people that want instant Internet/email access really even think about upgrading? would they consider more swapablity an advantage? or do you think they just want something that gets them to their original destination without hassle or fuss. flick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, look at it this way. A computer purchase is always a pretty big ticket item for people - it's not the kind of thing they replace every year. If folks can, after three years of the same computer, keep it going for an extra year or two because they can upgrade it somewhere (not necessarily themselves), i think the incentive is greater. Heck, Apple could offer the upgrades themselves.
I guess I appreciate the 'hobby' aspect of X86 - the fact that you really can take it apart and reconfigure it and upgrade it and make it useful for a long time. And while the imac certainly is a beautiful machine, it's not something most people are going to consider buying because of the price and i think too because you're sort of stuck with whatever you got when you bought it.
imagine a new line up this year :
modular low-end mac, g4 $699
imac g4 - $1199 +
Powermac g4 - $1799 +
Powermac 970 - $3500 +
I realize the emac is supposed to fill the bottom end, but i wonder if it's still too expensive and needlessly canibalizes sales from the imac. That might piss off education sales. But, hey, what do i know anyway?
Upgradability is more about consumer psychology than anything else.
People like to believe the option is there if they want to at some point, just like SUV's most people who buy SUV's will never drive them anywhere outside city streets, but they like to believe they could drive up the side of the mountain if they wanted to.
Stagflation Steve: I couldn't agree more. Though individuals who are "into" computers may actually upgrade, the vast majority (at least of people I know) just but a new unit as it ends up being just about as checp as upgrading and they end up with a totally new unit. God, that was a long sentence....
Yeah, most consumers buy a computer and then never touch it until it 'stops working'. That usually means a RAM upgrade, or adding a networking card for broadband... of course, all systems shipped in the past couple years already have Ethernet. So we're down to RAM upgrades.
I think if prices can come down some more, laptops would easily replace the iMac. However, there's still a need for large screens, and until the price of LCD panels drops, we aren't likely to see many 17" Powerbooks on grandpa's desk...
The only thing making iMac 2 'obselete' is not updating it for a year.
It's a killer machine.
'IF', Apple can up the performance, lower the price offer more options in the line ala Powerbook revamp.
Look for:
CPU upto 1.25 gig. (The 'power'Macs are dual so no threat here...)
Ram upto 512 megs.
Screen upto 19inch.
Graphics card: Geforce Ti 4. (Especially on high end...)
Bigger hard drive.
Blue-tooth.
Wireless card inc' as standard on top model.
After a year the iMacs specs look painfully out of date. Yeesh. They coulda at least updated the processor to a 1 gig fer crying out loud.
LEmon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree 100% with this statement. And would add that people should be able to order the fastest machine without the superdrive. I want to use these as workstations and $350/£200 per station for an unused superdrive is absolutly stupid.
Comments
<strong>I'll jump in here with my first post. I want a Mac after researching my options. Been a long time frustrated windows user going all the way back to CPM (now I am dating myself).
I think the imac is great for the average person who wants to boot up, check email, do some camera work, etc.
I am the type of person who opens the cpu, looks, inside and tinkers around. I'd love a tower, but am having a hard time justifying the cost vs. benefit.
I can't afford entry level price of $1700 for a machine that doesn't do all that I want.
If Apple had entry level tower without monitor for reasonable price (reasonable in my opinion) in the range of say $800 to $1,000 I'd buy in a minute.
But, it's hard to justify $1700 on a tower when Dell is advertising a Windows XP machine with flat panel in the $800 range. I know the Apple is better, but I can buy 2 of the Windows machines for the cost of entry level Apple tower.
Forgive the ranting, it's because I really want a Mac and am frustrated with my options.
David</strong><hr></blockquote>
David - Obviously you can pick up an older G4 tower for less than $1k. I have a 7500 with a G3 300mhz, 18GB drive, fw/usb, etc for closer to $400. But you can also get them for less than $1300 new.
<a href="http://www.jandr.com/JRProductPage.process?RestartFlow=t&Merchant_Id=1&; Section_Id=11&Product_Id=3650487&showcase=t" target="_blank">http://www.jandr.com/JRProductPage.process?RestartFlow=t&Merchant_Id=1&; Section_Id=11&Product_Id=3650487&showcase=t</a>
Education prices start at less than $1300.
Typical customer like my father doesn't care how fast his computer is. More important thing is, availability of software and common questions like howto setup internet connection etc... They don't care how fast is bus/processor etc... They just need computer for daily things like www & email & msoffice etc... Maybe Apple should say more how easy is life with Mac + OSX.
Maybe DELL can sell cheap towers, but have you ever thought how much problems people have got with those cheap computers?
<strong>Typical customer like my father doesn't care how fast his computer is. More important thing is, availability of software and common questions like howto setup internet connection etc... They don't care how fast is bus/processor etc... They just need computer for daily things like www & email & msoffice etc... Maybe Apple should say more how easy is life with Mac + OSX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you!
If Apple is catering to two camps (and I think they are: the creative professionals and the home user/consumer), then we know what they have to do on the pro end. But on the consumer/soccer mom front, those people don't give two flying rips about G3, G4, Gstring, etc., much less bus speed, DDR, etc.
Just give them something as snappy as possible, as affordable as possible that makes doing all the things they dig doing (surfing, e-mail, digital photos, video, business apps, etc.) pleasant and enjoyable and without frustration.
When it comes to the iStuff, I think Apple is more than doing that! The only quibble I would have would be the expense of some of the things. That factor has kept no fewer than three people I know from purchasing a Mac, even though they love the OS, the iApps, etc. (when I demo things for them).
They just couldn't bring themselves to shell out $1200 when $800 or so got them a "snazzy" Windows XP machine with speakers, bundled scanner, 17" monitor, etc.
Of course, they still call me with questions...
As if I know the first thing about troubleshooting Windows!
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
Of course, they still call me with questions...
As if I know the first thing about troubleshooting Windows! </strong><hr></blockquote>
For me it's literally gotten to the point that I've told friends and family that if they buy a mac, I'll give them tech support 24/7, but I won't even answer a Windows related question if they pay me.
In time to replace something in order to be up to date - usually after 1,5-2 years - most upgrade paths are closed: CPUs for your specific board are sold out, the next-generation memory technology became mainstream, the new graphics cards cannot reach their full potential due to the old motherboard/CPU and so on and so forth. Not to mention the new Windows version that just won't run the way it should on your "legacy" hardware.
You are usually better off buying a whole new system. Maybe you get to keep your display which you might want to swap sooner rather than later due to technological progress in that field, too - DVI/VGA, bigger screens get more affordable etc.)
I have to admit that the ability to potentially be upgradeable seems tempting. But you usually have to change more than one component.
AIOs (especially the iMac) have a style to them that no multi-piece system can match, although the Cube/Studio Display-combo came very close. And they are usually pretty balanced systems, too. If the video subsystem on the iMac had been a little more powerful (GeForce 4 Ti 4200 or thereabouts) or upgradeable the machine would have a near perfect balance. It is in need of an upgrade though.
What keeps people from choosing a Mac over a WIntel?
1. Presence. But due to the Apple Stores this issue is worked on.
2. Apple's own little OS/hardware monopoly. Apple is the only company supplying Mac OS compatible hardware. It's the lack of choice that scares people. This also leads to less shelve space compared to other companies.
3. The edge that WIntels seem to have/have performance wise. I hope they get up to par soon.
4. The Mac seems to be a rather static platform technology-wise. Apple seems to be pretty slow to adapt the latest developments (Serial ATA, DDR-RAM etc.).
5. The lack of software. You cannot buy Mac software at most supermarkets and department stores. Developers show little dedication to the Mac platform.
6. Price. Apple has a hard standing here because most people don't shop by value (which seldomly is obvious) but rather by price.
This originates from the fact that at one point in time Macs were the only computers running the Mac OS while the Microsoft empire's products ran on a whole bunch of relatively cheap machines. And that number increased rapidly. That was in the late 80s early 90s.
The Mac might have been the userfriendliest system at that time but consumers were not ready to enter the digital age. Computing was for geeks demanding affordable systems and not caring about a neat GUI. A trait that nutrices Linux's success today.
These geeks matured and now run big businesses spreading WIntels all over the world or developing solely for Windows. Thus, giving WIntel a better standing point.
The Mac was too perfect too early.
[ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: RolandG ]</p>
1. Speed
2. Upgradeability
3. Price
It doesn't matter what you think they need, or what Jobs thinks they need-that is what they WANT. A company that doesn't focus on what a customer wants is not a successful one...........................
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
You have this backwards -- the upgradeable tower is the niche product. If you look at the number of potential customers for both an upgradeable and a non-upgradeable machine you'll find that the vast majority just want to buy a machine and use it. How many people customize their car, for example? Aside from decorative fluff, almost none.
People are buying WIntel machines for three primary reasons:
1) They are being sold WIntel machines. You want a computer, you go to the store. You have about a 95% chance to talking to a WIntel salesman in a WIntel store. You're told MHz is most important. You're told that 95% of the computers are WIntel so you should be too.
2) WIntel machines appear cheaper (and usually are, but not by as much as the naive buyer might think). This isn't because the WIntel machines are upgradeable, this is because of volume production, razor thin margins, low quality parts, and cut throat competition.
3) They have an existing investment in WIntel. This can be existing product, or it can knowledge & experience.
For a relatively small percentage of users (like you and I) upgradeability is an issue, but we are the tech-savvy elite (at least in this respect). With the iMac, Apple goes after all those others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I sell computers. People look for 3 things mainly:
1. Speed
2. Upgradeability
3. Price
It doesn't matter what you think they need, or what Jobs thinks they need-that is what they WANT. A company that doesn't focus on what a customer wants is not a successful one...........................
</strong><hr></blockquote>
People look for these 4 things.
1. Price
2. Speed
3. Software
4. Ease-of-use
[ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: Mr. Macintosh ]</p>
if they up the iBook specs, why would you want a desktop when you can get a laptop with equally good specs with portability for the same price?
Look at the low end iBook. Would you buy that or the crummy 'classic (out of date)' iMac for a hundred less with much less?
The only thing making iMac 2 'obselete' is not updating it for a year.
It's a killer machine.
'IF', Apple can up the performance, lower the price offer more options in the line ala Powerbook revamp.
Look for:
CPU upto 1.25 gig. (The 'power'Macs are dual so no threat here...)
Ram upto 512 megs.
Screen upto 19inch.
Graphics card: Geforce Ti 4. (Especially on high end...)
Bigger hard drive.
Blue-tooth.
Wireless card inc' as standard on top model.
After a year the iMacs specs look painfully out of date. Yeesh. They coulda at least updated the processor to a 1 gig fer crying out loud.
Unless the update is more significant in terms of refining the cost of its design?
LEmon Bon Bon
Plus, (again some truth and some perception) is you are buying a machine in the average range or behind the pack (imac, emac).
To get people to switch they must see a benefit to them at a cost they are willing to pay.
Of course I don't sit on Apple's board and don't know their business plan.
David
<strong>What keeps people from choosing a Mac over a WIntel?
4. The Mac seems to be a rather static platform technology-wise. Apple seems to be pretty slow to adapt the latest developments (Serial ATA, DDR-RAM etc.).</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may be right. But I think it matters to geeks much more than to 'the rest of us'. And, from a practical point of view, it's not for 100% sure.
[quote]<strong>
5. The lack of software. You cannot buy Mac software at most supermarkets and department stores. Developers show little dedication to the Mac platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope we'll never come to buy software at supermarkets
[quote]<strong>
6. Price. Apple has a hard standing here because most people don't shop by value (which seldomly is obvious) but rather by price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
It could be tied to the iMac line; ie. updated at the same time as the iMac line and have the same hardware as the top of the line iMac.
Of course a better graphics card could be a BTO option and you could upgrade later, everything else such as CPU speed and bus speed would be the same. The case would be white inline with the consumer hardware.
I know I would buy one if they came out.
<strong>Quick thought:
Do you think people that want instant Internet/email access really even think about upgrading? would they consider more swapablity an advantage? or do you think they just want something that gets them to their original destination without hassle or fuss. flick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, look at it this way. A computer purchase is always a pretty big ticket item for people - it's not the kind of thing they replace every year. If folks can, after three years of the same computer, keep it going for an extra year or two because they can upgrade it somewhere (not necessarily themselves), i think the incentive is greater. Heck, Apple could offer the upgrades themselves.
I guess I appreciate the 'hobby' aspect of X86 - the fact that you really can take it apart and reconfigure it and upgrade it and make it useful for a long time. And while the imac certainly is a beautiful machine, it's not something most people are going to consider buying because of the price and i think too because you're sort of stuck with whatever you got when you bought it.
imagine a new line up this year :
modular low-end mac, g4 $699
imac g4 - $1199 +
Powermac g4 - $1799 +
Powermac 970 - $3500 +
I realize the emac is supposed to fill the bottom end, but i wonder if it's still too expensive and needlessly canibalizes sales from the imac. That might piss off education sales. But, hey, what do i know anyway?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
People like to believe the option is there if they want to at some point, just like SUV's most people who buy SUV's will never drive them anywhere outside city streets, but they like to believe they could drive up the side of the mountain if they wanted to.
I think if prices can come down some more, laptops would easily replace the iMac. However, there's still a need for large screens, and until the price of LCD panels drops, we aren't likely to see many 17" Powerbooks on grandpa's desk...
<strong>
The only thing making iMac 2 'obselete' is not updating it for a year.
It's a killer machine.
'IF', Apple can up the performance, lower the price offer more options in the line ala Powerbook revamp.
Look for:
CPU upto 1.25 gig. (The 'power'Macs are dual so no threat here...)
Ram upto 512 megs.
Screen upto 19inch.
Graphics card: Geforce Ti 4. (Especially on high end...)
Bigger hard drive.
Blue-tooth.
Wireless card inc' as standard on top model.
After a year the iMacs specs look painfully out of date. Yeesh. They coulda at least updated the processor to a 1 gig fer crying out loud.
LEmon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree 100% with this statement. And would add that people should be able to order the fastest machine without the superdrive. I want to use these as workstations and $350/£200 per station for an unused superdrive is absolutly stupid.