Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Another G5 Article
- Thread starter goglamosh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let me start off by saying that I agree that Apple would sell more computers if they lowered the base price of each machine between $200-500, depending on the model. Cheaper is ALWAYS better for the consumer.
BUT ... I don't think it's fair to say that Apple's prices are outrageous. It is fair to say that they are more expensive than machines from the wealth of Wintel PC makers. But that alone doesn't mean the machines are overpriced.
Every recent Mac has FireWire built-in. They have Airport antennae built-in. They have Ethernet built-in. And all 3 just work, without needing to worry about driver incompatibilities. They come with a better operating system, better out-of-the-box software suite, and are much better looking than their PC counterparts. Study after study proves they have a lower cost of upkeep over time, less software incompatibilties, and even the original iMac can run OS 10.2 ... try running XP on a 233 MHz PC and see how you like it.
Could Apple lower the prices? I don't know how much markup they add...but if they can do it and not go out of business, I'm all for it. But doing so would make the Macintosh an even BETTER buy. But remember that the extra $200-500 you pay now, spread out over a 3 year average computer life before upgrade, amounts to between $5.55 and $13.88 extra a month for having bought a Mac.
To me, that seems well worth not needing to run Windows as a primary OS.
-- Ensoniq
BUT ... I don't think it's fair to say that Apple's prices are outrageous. It is fair to say that they are more expensive than machines from the wealth of Wintel PC makers. But that alone doesn't mean the machines are overpriced.
Every recent Mac has FireWire built-in. They have Airport antennae built-in. They have Ethernet built-in. And all 3 just work, without needing to worry about driver incompatibilities. They come with a better operating system, better out-of-the-box software suite, and are much better looking than their PC counterparts. Study after study proves they have a lower cost of upkeep over time, less software incompatibilties, and even the original iMac can run OS 10.2 ... try running XP on a 233 MHz PC and see how you like it.
Could Apple lower the prices? I don't know how much markup they add...but if they can do it and not go out of business, I'm all for it. But doing so would make the Macintosh an even BETTER buy. But remember that the extra $200-500 you pay now, spread out over a 3 year average computer life before upgrade, amounts to between $5.55 and $13.88 extra a month for having bought a Mac.
To me, that seems well worth not needing to run Windows as a primary OS.
-- Ensoniq
Sorry, I need to piece this apart bit by bit.
Well, it sort of does... Apple currently has inferior hardware (Speed, performance, etc)... at a higher price, and with a weaker warranty. (Example... I almost bought an Apple 17" studio display... but then I changed my mind for the top of the line 17" samsung that is $200 less, better picture quality, more features, and a warranty that is three times longer).
There is no hardware reason why this works, it is all software based, so you can't merit the hardware as being better because of this. If you want windows to work like this, let MS make your hardware too
Well, looks are hardly a reason to buy a computer...
Actually, I have run 10.2 on a 233 MHz iMac... its pretty awful. But try running mac OS 10.2 on a 3 GHz mac... oh wait, you can't.
Finally I agree with you. Hardware wise, Macs are way overpriced... almost everything they have in them is inferior technology for an outrageous price and a weak standard warranty. However, the only thing they really have going for them is their OS. Apple needs to either dramatically lower their prices, or really beef up their hardware. Optimally, they'll beef up their hardware, lower their prices, and extend their warranty like they should.
Well, it sort of does... Apple currently has inferior hardware (Speed, performance, etc)... at a higher price, and with a weaker warranty. (Example... I almost bought an Apple 17" studio display... but then I changed my mind for the top of the line 17" samsung that is $200 less, better picture quality, more features, and a warranty that is three times longer).
There is no hardware reason why this works, it is all software based, so you can't merit the hardware as being better because of this. If you want windows to work like this, let MS make your hardware too
Well, looks are hardly a reason to buy a computer...
Actually, I have run 10.2 on a 233 MHz iMac... its pretty awful. But try running mac OS 10.2 on a 3 GHz mac... oh wait, you can't.
Finally I agree with you. Hardware wise, Macs are way overpriced... almost everything they have in them is inferior technology for an outrageous price and a weak standard warranty. However, the only thing they really have going for them is their OS. Apple needs to either dramatically lower their prices, or really beef up their hardware. Optimally, they'll beef up their hardware, lower their prices, and extend their warranty like they should.
Apple hardware is expensive, and some times slow, but at least it is stable and well designed. How may consumer computer companies, actually engineer their own chipsets? Certainly not Dell or Gateway. That adds a ton of value to the computer. And when you buy a Mac you are also paying for some software that is second to none. Another great value. However, a little price cut wouldn't hurt on the consumer end. Nor would a basic, low end, iMac/eMac based, monitorless Mac hurt either.
...
i think iBooks are very affordable, as the eBook series. But the posted topics doesn't talk about prices...
Mac computers clearly beat wintel pc's with similar configuration and I think that the OS clearly help to perform computers and I am sure that jaguar system does it better than winXP...
about the G5 maybe it will be a processor that numericly will not raise the 3.06 ghz of P4 but I think that functionnaly it will be far far ahead of win platform(they can't make things that will not be at the height of the marquet...)... Is better to wait the G5 and then make compairison because we have to remenber that a computer work as a system... You can get the biggest engine for a vehicle but if you don't have the adecuate transmission and other devices it won't bit a nice configured car with a light engine... numbers are not everything...
i think iBooks are very affordable, as the eBook series. But the posted topics doesn't talk about prices...
Mac computers clearly beat wintel pc's with similar configuration and I think that the OS clearly help to perform computers and I am sure that jaguar system does it better than winXP...
about the G5 maybe it will be a processor that numericly will not raise the 3.06 ghz of P4 but I think that functionnaly it will be far far ahead of win platform(they can't make things that will not be at the height of the marquet...)... Is better to wait the G5 and then make compairison because we have to remenber that a computer work as a system... You can get the biggest engine for a vehicle but if you don't have the adecuate transmission and other devices it won't bit a nice configured car with a light engine... numbers are not everything...
the article says:
"If the rumor was, instead of a hot G5, that Apple had developed a new manufacturing process that enabled it to compete price-wise with Windows, that would be the news Apple needs."
but i'm wondering if the manufacturing process of that internals is all that makes Apple's so expensive? is it really that big a part of the price? obviously an Aluminium case, as well as the design that goes into them is also a part of what makes the price so high.
i don't think that Apple could radically reduce their prices anytime soon, but they're definitely on the right track. they've just lowered the 12 & 15" PowerBook price, and the 970 is supposed to be cheaper than the G4 to manufacture... so there might even be another small price drop on the way.
another reason why they might not be reducing prices constantly is because they probably wait until they can take a couple of hundred dollars off. it is better if they can only do this every year or so rather than smaller price drops throught the year, as a couple of hundred $ drop will usually make people sit up and pay attention.
"If the rumor was, instead of a hot G5, that Apple had developed a new manufacturing process that enabled it to compete price-wise with Windows, that would be the news Apple needs."
but i'm wondering if the manufacturing process of that internals is all that makes Apple's so expensive? is it really that big a part of the price? obviously an Aluminium case, as well as the design that goes into them is also a part of what makes the price so high.
i don't think that Apple could radically reduce their prices anytime soon, but they're definitely on the right track. they've just lowered the 12 & 15" PowerBook price, and the 970 is supposed to be cheaper than the G4 to manufacture... so there might even be another small price drop on the way.
another reason why they might not be reducing prices constantly is because they probably wait until they can take a couple of hundred dollars off. it is better if they can only do this every year or so rather than smaller price drops throught the year, as a couple of hundred $ drop will usually make people sit up and pay attention.
well, i don t know about you, but i think all those get the apple computer price lower claims are sucking pretty hard.
I would even pay 5000 $ s for the 17'' PowerBook. I want quality, it is not aviable on the whole x86 market. So I ll get an apple. The little market share, and the evidence of the higher price for quality are just fine. I got no problems with their prices.
Linux as an alternative definetly rocks, but it can never come up to os x ( at the moment ) in the ui. not at all.
my 0.02
I would even pay 5000 $ s for the 17'' PowerBook. I want quality, it is not aviable on the whole x86 market. So I ll get an apple. The little market share, and the evidence of the higher price for quality are just fine. I got no problems with their prices.
Linux as an alternative definetly rocks, but it can never come up to os x ( at the moment ) in the ui. not at all.
my 0.02
I think what the article meant by "manufacturing process" was volume. Volume is what drives down the prices of making products. It's why Dell computers are so cheap. It's called the economies of scale if you want to get technical. Because of market share, Apple can't afford to produce the volume that would be require to drop their prices as drastically as PCs have been able to.
It's possible that driving down the prices to compete with the larger producers would improve Apple's market share, but the question is, would they survive in that interim? If they gamble on that possibility, and their volume of sales doesn't increase significantly, then the entire company could go out of business.
Our wishes aside, what keeps Apple expensive is economics. They can't afford to lower their prices and remain in the financial position that their board, or Jobs, or their investors feel they need to be in.
I'm all for lower-priced hardware, but if Apple is like most companies, they would lower their prices if they could lower their costs. It's just logical to assume at this time that they can't lower their costs or their margins, thus can't lower their prices.
I prefer not to believe that they are a purely money-hungry greedy corporation (most companies aren't) not willing to sacrifice an inch on margins. Every company is in business to maximize profits, but that doesn't mean maximize product price. What you give up in margin, you make up for in volume. That's just the economics of profit maximization (or loss minimization if you're looking at a company losing money).
Anyway, just my two cents.
Alia
That makes sense. Look at the Alienware towers. Pretty pricey, even for PCs. They obviously don't sell as many as Dell do, as their target audience is extremely specific. As a result their prices are similar to Apple's, even if the hardware isn't. Although with the advent of the 970, the price/performance gap may finally be closed.
Originally posted by job
Although with the advent of the 970, the price/performance gap may finally be closed.
IBM's going to be fab'ing the 970 in huge numbers for the server end of things, which should bring the price down below current Moto G4 prices, which should allow Apple to discount their prices in turn.
The processor has the single greatest component cost in a PC.
How much is a 3GHz P4 going for currently? I would think somewhere around $600+.
233 Mhz PC
Yeah well, I have a PC that's 300Mhz running Windows XP way better than an original iMac could ever run 10.2....
and I picked it up for $200 including a monitor....
Yeah well, I have a PC that's 300Mhz running Windows XP way better than an original iMac could ever run 10.2....
and I picked it up for $200 including a monitor....
What!? A better OS is not a reason to buy a computer? Since when do people surf the net and edit video from the BIOS?
irmongoose