PC Magazine 10 Worst Products of the Year
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1735287,00.asp
Feel free to discuss. I think the evaluation of the eMac as a gaming computer is wrong.
Feel free to discuss. I think the evaluation of the eMac as a gaming computer is wrong.
Comments
And you don't buy a computer to play games. That's what the PS 2 and XBox are for.
Despite that, and despite him being a major dick about the eMac, he brings up a few valid arguments in his harsh critique. At 800 dollars, the eMac is at the high end of the market it is being sold to. I know its hard for mac users to understand that when its our cheapest product and our high end is 3000 dollars plus 3299 display but its true. And for the eMac to have some of the specs it does today with hard drives, ram, graphic chips and optical drives being so cheap is truly pathetic.
nut, I have a theory about the eMac pricing - it's not really geared towards the consumer, but at education (hence the 'e', duh) for labs. Education customers demand (and get) education discounts... so Apple jacks up the public price, gives the edu market what it *really* should sell for, and still makes a profit, unlike other box makers who might sell to edu at a loss strictly to get the service contract.
The public sees an overpriced entry box, but edu sees the price they like, and Apple gets to keep making a profit.
I don't see what's positive about it, except its ability to absorb a fair amount of physical damage. It's huge, heavy, slow in all respects for a 2004 desktop computer, isn't expandable, has a mediocre display, is ugly, and on top of that, they charge $800 for it. Absolutely one of the worst desktop computers of 2004.
For an education lab, it's quite excellent. Put it in the proper context, at the proper price (edu), and it becomes much more attractive. It's the context people miss. It isn't intended for public consumption - but if it were only offered to edu, they'd want a discount over and above whatever price Apple pushed it at... so this way Apple can point to the (too high) retail price, say "See? You're getting a heck of a discount!", sell it at the proper price, and *still* have room to go down further if necessary to undercut competitors.
It's clever for the intent: selling eMacs to education. It does, however, mar their public perception a bit. However, since they don't really have any credibility in the low end market *anyway*, they didn't have much to lose.
Originally posted by Zapchud
I, for one, agree with the general consensus about the eMac.
I don't see what's positive about it, except its ability to absorb a fair amount of physical damage. It's huge, heavy, slow in all respects for a 2004 desktop computer, isn't expandable, has a mediocre display, is ugly, and on top of that, they charge $800 for it. Absolutely one of the worst desktop computers of 2004.
For a consumer PC, you may be right. For its primary market, the lack of expandability is a good thing--you don't want people to get insider it and mess around. Heavy is good, make it harder to steal and harder to knock off the dest. Speed could be better, but it's mostly going to be used for web research and word processing, and it is plent fast enough for that. Absorbing damage, in a primary school setting, is an abolute must. Also, bought in bulk at a discount, they pay a lot less than $800 dollars.
Originally, the emac was not even going to be released to the consumer market--but there was enough of an outcry that apple made it available. But viewing it the same way you would a cheap PC at CompUSA is incorrect.
Although I do wish Apple had a model like that.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I think we're in consensus here!
Dang, you do type fast.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Apparently he's concerned about offloading multi-gigabyte porn files.
nut, I have a theory about the eMac pricing - it's not really geared towards the consumer, but at education (hence the 'e', duh) for labs. Education customers demand (and get) education discounts... so Apple jacks up the public price, gives the edu market what it *really* should sell for, and still makes a profit, unlike other box makers who might sell to edu at a loss strictly to get the service contract.
The public sees an overpriced entry box, but edu sees the price they like, and Apple gets to keep making a profit.
yes. of course. schools get them for 499-599 in bulk.
however, I have yet to see sales numbers of the eMac to education. Now this is just a guess based on sales patterns of schools I've been to and seen.... but eMacs aren't too popular. Despite being an all-in-one they are still huge, the screen is included which is quickly becoming undesirable with cheap LCDs, and more and more elementary and high schools (which the eMac is targeted at) are purchasing iBooks for 800 bucks instead.
With that said, the eMac is certainly better suited for schools than the consumer space. However, the reality is, it is Apple's only desktop below 1300 dollars and as a result deserves and scrutiny it gets for being a poor consumer product.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
<snip>
Yeah, it has some qualities that are positive in the educational sector, while they are negative on the consumer sector, like heavy. If the price is right, which it isn't for the consumer, it's not too bad.
We are in consensus. :-)
1)
it costs $800
2)
it's not a gamer machine
it doesn't have DVD-R
also other components are slow, old
1), 2) -> the price is unreasonable and the computer is bad in its consumer market segment.
All true. I don't think every computer must be a gamer machine (hey, I'm using a Mac, aren't I), I don't think every computer has to have DVD-R (mine doesn't, in fact in the past I've lived for four years without optical drives at all, using only the network). But these are the kind of things that would explain the price. None are present in the eMac.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
It is not one of the worst products of 2004, it does its job for K-12.
It's sold as a consumer product too, and PCMag's assessing it in that capacity.
Certainly there are worse products, starting from those that don't work at all, but I think the eMac might be the best known bad PC.
I have to agree, his evaluation of the eMac as a gaming machine is unfair. At least it HAS a graphics cheap, not intels bloody Intel Intergrated Graphics, which believe it or not, Dell still puts in their machines costing up to $5000.
The problem is he couches that complaint in terms of slamming the eMac as if it were that offering. I don't even think the emac was introduced this year, so I don't see how it can be one of the worst products of 2004.
Originally posted by pyriX
I have to agree, his evaluation of the eMac as a gaming machine is unfair. At least it HAS a graphics cheap, not intels bloody Intel Intergrated Graphics, which believe it or not, Dell still puts in their machines costing up to $5000.
Good point. In PC land (e.g. my eMachine), you have to get up above $550-600 just to get an integrated GeForce, forget about an independent graphics card. And that price obviously doesn't include a monitor. what's the cheapest Dell bundle you can get with a real graphics card?