Current G5 Towers basically the same since June 2003
I would love a G5 tower, who wouldn't? IBM and the rest of the industry may have trouble scaling processors beyond 90 nm or whatever the barrier is, but why does Apple not offset that with some other specs?
Regarding the top end, there is a 20% speed boost and 64 megs more vram. Otherwise it's the same machine.
Regarding the middle one, it went from a single 1.8 to a dual 2.0 ghz G5. Otherwise it's the same machine.
Regarding the low end, it went from a single 1.6 to a dual 1.8 Ghz G5. Otherwise it's the same machine.
The processor updates are perfectly acceptable, but why not the rest of the machine? If I ever get a new mac over the G4.400 it looks like it would be a mac mini at this rate.
Regarding the top end, there is a 20% speed boost and 64 megs more vram. Otherwise it's the same machine.
Regarding the middle one, it went from a single 1.8 to a dual 2.0 ghz G5. Otherwise it's the same machine.
Regarding the low end, it went from a single 1.6 to a dual 1.8 Ghz G5. Otherwise it's the same machine.
The processor updates are perfectly acceptable, but why not the rest of the machine? If I ever get a new mac over the G4.400 it looks like it would be a mac mini at this rate.
Comments
Originally posted by MajorMatt
I would love a G5 tower, who wouldn't? IBM and the rest of the industry may have trouble scaling processors beyond 90 nm or whatever the barrier is, but why does Apple not offset that with some other specs?
Regarding the top end, there is a 20% speed boost and 64 megs more vram. Otherwise it's the same machine.
Regarding the middle one, it went from a single 1.8 to a dual 2.0 ghz G5. Otherwise it's the same machine.
Regarding the low end, it went from a single 1.6 to a dual 1.8 Ghz G5. Otherwise it's the same machine.
The processor updates are perfectly acceptable, but why not the rest of the machine? If I ever get a new mac over the G4.400 it looks like it would be a mac mini at this rate.
um... so are you complaining about the case? cause there's nothing wrong with it. if the 'guts' are acceptable to you, why does the rest matter?
Originally posted by ipodandimac
um... so are you complaining about the case? cause there's nothing wrong with it. if the 'guts' are acceptable to you, why does the rest matter?
I think he's referring to the things like base memory and HD included. For example, 256MB and 80GB in a $2000 machine is a bit low, don't you think?
Originally posted by hmurchison
BTO
exactly
Could Apple update their component upgrade prices to better reflect current commodity pricing? $100 for an upgrade from 80GB to 160GB? That's at least 60% margin for Apple.
Originally posted by MCQ
Okay. I guess I'm not going to win the "add more to the base spec" argument then. BTO it is.
Could Apple update their component upgrade prices to better reflect current commodity pricing? $100 for an upgrade from 80GB to 160GB? That's at least 60% margin for Apple.
Yes, it is this thing that apple has to do each quarter, called report a profit.
Go to best buy, grab a 100$ HDD, they didnt pay more than $40 for it...I garentee
Originally posted by a_greer
Yes, it is this thing that apple has to do each quarter, called report a profit.
I'm well aware of Apple's need to profit. I typically make comments on their financials after each quarter's financial statements are released - in fact, I was the first to note on this forum that their operating margin rose to 11.5% last quarter. That's not the point.
I believe Apple stated during their quarterly conference call that their gross margins were higher than expected due to a favorable market for component pricing. At some point, it would be nice to see some of those cost savings passed onto the customer.
As a sidenote. HP's upgrade from 80GB to 160GB on many models is ~$50, Dell's upgrade is ~$30, Gateway's is ~$35.
Originally posted by MCQ
I'm well aware of Apple's need to profit. I typically make comments on their financials after each quarter's financial statements are released - in fact, I was the first to note on this forum that their operating margin rose to 11.5% last quarter. That's not the point.
I believe Apple stated during their quarterly conference call that their gross margins were higher than expected due to a favorable market for component pricing. At some point, it would be nice to see some of those cost savings passed onto the customer.
As a sidenote. HP's upgrade from 80GB to 160GB on many models is ~$50, Dell's upgrade is ~$30, Gateway's is ~$35.
Hate to say it, but go buy a dell then, tell me what you get outside of the drive at 500$, you get a celeron chip, 256 megs of ram, That hdd will be most likely 4200 rpm, or 5400 if you are lucky, you will get XP home, you will not get anything like iLife, no style, none of the extra fit and finish that apple is famus for.
When you buy an apple, you are buying
A) security and stability - it is unix
c) hardware style and superb interface, like I said earlier, fit and finish is one of Apples strongest points.
edit:
Not to be rude, but dells are made of cheap plastic, and they areugly as sin, same with gateway and most consumer level HP towers, apple uses metal, or high quality plastic, rin your hand over a dell tower then run your hand over the lower bezel of the g5 imac, the differance is astounding.
Apple does have high BTO prices, but damn, you get what you pay for.
Originally posted by a_greer
Hate to say it, but go buy a dell then, tell me what you get outside of the drive at 500$, you get a celeron chip, 256 megs of ram, That hdd will be most likely 4200 rpm, or 5400 if you are lucky, you will get XP home, you will not get anything like iLife, no style, none of the extra fit and finish that apple is famus for.
When you buy an apple, you are buying
A) security and stability - it is unix
c) hardware style and superb interface, like I said earlier, fit and finish is one of Apples strongest points.
I think you're crossing threads somehow
I made zero mention of the Mac mini in here. I was referring to upgrade costs on a $2000 tower.
And, I know what I'm buying. I've used Apple products for years, and currently own a 12" PB
In any event, I apologize for partially hijacking the thread. To get back on topic:
I think Apple will do a better job with the next PM revision of bringing base specs up on the models, especially given the "favorable component market". Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen till an actual revision.
Originally posted by MCQ
I think you're crossing threads somehow
I made zero mention of the Mac mini in here. I was referring to upgrade costs on a $2000 tower.
And, I know what I'm buying. I've used Apple products for years, and currently own a 12" PB
In any event, I apologize for partially hijacking the thread. To get back on topic:
I think Apple will do a better job with the next PM revision of bringing base specs up on the models, especially given the "favorable component market". Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen till an actual revision.
sorry, I misread, the apple bto prices are high, but on the tower, you can just order the parts and DIY, save even more $$ - I have seen the inside of a g5 tower, and it looks like a dream to service.
Originally posted by MCQ
Okay. I guess I'm not going to win the "add more to the base spec" argument then. BTO it is.
BTO is for the very rich. Apple is ridiculously overcharging on RAM and HD. Order the bare minimum and buy the stuff from PC retailers. 80GB (and even 160GB in the top model) in the pro tower is such a slap in the face, it is unbelievable...
Originally posted by Smircle
BTO is for the very rich. Apple is ridiculously overcharging on RAM and HD. Order the bare minimum and buy the stuff from PC retailers. 80GB (and even 160GB in the top model) in the pro tower is such a slap in the face, it is unbelievable...
Well, I agree that they don't offer much in the way of HD size and memory, I think I still perfer adding my one. In fact I wish they gave the option of buying a bare bones system. For instance, I had to toss out the 80Gig HD because I wanted two 10,000 rpm Western Digitals.
I also paid less for my 2 1 Gig modules then I would have to for Apples 4 512mb chips, Kingston to.
Originally posted by MCQ
Okay. I guess I'm not going to win the "add more to the base spec" argument then. BTO it is.
Could Apple update their component upgrade prices to better reflect current commodity pricing? $100 for an upgrade from 80GB to 160GB? That's at least 60% margin for Apple.
That's why my Apple stock portfolio went from $12000 (Jan '01) to $123,500 last time I read it... I think if you wish to save money on those types of upgrades you should buy them from outside venders.
I got a WD Raptor for $200 as a boot disk, and switch out the 160gb for a 250gb as my second drive. It would have been much more expensive to add a second drive with Apple, and I got better performance with the 10000rpm drive. All for less $$. RAM, I called Crucial, etc... granted the GPU is only from Apple, but then you can get many 3rd party ATI cards from elsewhere too..
Or, bite the bullet, and pay Apple to send it BTO.. and earn me a few cents.
Future:
Current:
It'd give it a smoother look, and probably increase airflow.
Originally posted by Smircle
BTO is for the very rich. Apple is ridiculously overcharging on RAM and HD. Order the bare minimum and buy the stuff from PC retailers. 80GB (and even 160GB in the top model) in the pro tower is such a slap in the face, it is unbelievable...
That's kind of the point I'm making. Sure, I know I could just buy outside and install it myself - again that's not the point.
My point is, if they offered more reasonable upgrade pricing, they may be ablle to obtain higher sellthrough on certain BTO upgrades. It could offset the difference in margins, and still yield them higher profits. Of course, I have no clue what their sales data is like on that, so I don't know if it's feasible for them. Just a thought.
Originally posted by MCQ
My point is, if they offered more reasonable upgrade pricing, they may be ablle to obtain higher sellthrough on certain BTO upgrades.
I know. I don't understand it either. But I have been following Apple products and pricing since 1991 and the whole time they have been stingy with RAM and HD sizes while overcharging on BTO. I doubt this is going to change any time soon
The sales philosophy is the same with BMW and other "luxury" goods.
If you are selling to people who can afford it, you offer the convenience of on-line BTO and they pony up for it.
People like you and me, who research our computers and read websites like AppleInsider, are not what the BTO options are marketed towards.
Maybe they are wrong, maybe lower cost BTO options would increase sales. Maybe providing more options would help sales. But I doubt it. They probably have a hundred people whose job it is to research this sort of thing and set prices according to customer trends.
Okay, that's just my theory.
NOW, A QUESTION:
You guys who bought a second (or third) hard drive for your G5 PowerMacs... what am I looking for and how much should I expect to spend for 250GB? I want a "Serial ATA" drive, at 10,000rpms? What brands are considered the most reliable? Where do you go for the best prices? Retailers you trust?
The subject heading of this thread is a frustration I definitely share: They haven't done squat to the PowerMac since last summer, and the specs themselves didn't budge enough to please hungry hungry me. So I guess I'll get the stuff myself!
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...144-160&depa=1