Apple Getting Snobbish???

[gkarris]

Let's see:

A $600 phone
New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?
Getting rid of the Mini?
Their CHEAPEST laptop is $1099?

What's up? :(

I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...

[mjstew33]

Woah, woah, woah buddy.

We don't know that there will be an Alluminum iMac.

We don't know that the Mac mini will be discontinued.

We don't know ANY of that.

There laptops at $1099 are extremely powerful for what you get. A great price compared to other manufacturers.

The iPhone is like no other. Have you looked at the damned thing? It's an amazing work of art which has a great price which many are willing to pay!

Make valid points, next time.

[dejo]

A $600 phone
Way to ignore the $499 iPhone.

[gkarris]

Way to ignore the $499 iPhone.

Sony ignored the $499 PS3...

Who's gonna buy the smaller one???

[gkarris]

Woah, woah, woah buddy.

We don't know that there will be an Alluminum iMac.

We don't know that the Mac mini will be discontinued.

We don't know ANY of that.

There laptops at $1099 are extremely powerful for what you get. A great price compared to other manufacturers.

The iPhone is like no other. Have you looked at the damned thing? It's an amazing work of art which has a great price which many are willing to pay!

Make valid points, next time.

All a matter of discussion - "MacRumors" not "MacFacts"...

Just wanted to discuss a long-time PC fan's arguments...

[dejo]

Who's gonna buy the smaller one???
If that is your logic, you probably need to ignore the 20" iMac and the $1099 MacBook as well.

[Queso]

Apple? Getting snobbish??!? Where have you been for the last 30 years?

[stoid]

Apple? Getting snobbish??!? Where have you been for the last 30 years?

Have you seen Apple's CEO talk?

When has he ever hinted that Apple makes products for anyone but the elite. He personally compared his company to BMW for goodness sake!

[dpaanlka]

If that is your logic, you probably need to ignore the 20" iMac and the $1099 MacBook as well.

Don't forget about the $999 iMac.

New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?

Wouldn't that make it $200 cheaper than current 20" iMac?

[gkarris]

If that is your logic, you probably need to ignore the 20" iMac and the $1099 MacBook as well.

They're going to "ignore" the 17" iMac...

12" formfactor Powerbook gone...

[FleurDuMal]

Let's see:

A $600 phone
New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?
Getting rid of the Mini?
Their CHEAPEST laptop is $1099?

What's up? :(

I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...

How else are we to keep the riff-raff out?

[flopticalcube]

If the rumors pan out to be true, it looks like Apple is trying to move the brand further upmarket. Good or bad is open to debate.

[zap2]

Most of those things are not snobish, they high end products. Snoobish is expecting people to overpay for an oudated computer, not making nice things.


And the Mac Mini is still here, and even if its gone, its not like the iMac is overpriced, its a good deal for what you get, but not all people want a 1000 computer.

[Blue Velvet]

Just wanted to discuss a long-time PC fan's arguments...


They're not arguments because they're not based on facts. I bet you that the Mini will stay. And I also bet you that Apple are very aware of what price points they need to keep their products at... besides, most people keep their Macs for longer periods than they would a PC, which makes them better value in the medium to long term.

Just because some things are more expensive than others, doesn't mean they're 'snobbish'. How can anyone claim iPods, for instance, are exclusive when they have 70% of the market in the U.S.?

[gkarris]

Don't forget about the $999 iMac.



Wouldn't that make it $200 cheaper than current 20" iMac?

I don't see the new updated 20" iMac as being only $999, not at the new MacBook Pro specs (Santa Rosa)...

They're not arguments becuase they're not based on facts. I bet you that the Mini will stay. And I also bet you that Apple are very aware of what price points they need to keep their products at... besides, most people keep their Macs for longer periods than they would a PC, which makes them better value in the medium to long term.

Just because some things are more expensive than others, doesn't mean they're 'snobbish'. How can anyone claim iPods, for instance, are exclusive when they have 70% of the market in the U.S.?

I didn't mention the iPods, since they start at $79 and can connect to Windows and Macs...

[twistedlegato]

Sony ignored the $499 PS3...

Who's gonna buy the smaller one???

That is sort of true....

[SMM]

They're going to "ignore" the 17" iMac...

12" formfactor Powerbook gone...

One person's opinion, wrapped by rumor and speculation is hardly enough to warrant a 'Snobish' tag. So, what is your motive?

[gkarris]

The $499 Mini became the $599 Mini...

Will the $999 17" iMac become the $1099 20" iMac? Very possible... Lots more features for $100 more...

History repeats itself...

[Queso]

The $499 Mini became the $599 Mini...

Will the $999 17" iMac become the $1099 20" iMac? Very possible... Lots more features for $100 more...

History repeats itself...
Amazing. So you haven't noticed the fall in the dollar's value then? You're effectively getting more for the same amount.

[gkarris]

Amazing. So you haven't noticed the fall in the dollar's value then? You're effectively getting more for the same amount.

I agree, but what about the person just looking at price and the price trend the company's going?

[Queso]

I agree, but what about the person just looking at price and the price trend the company's going?
From a UK perspective it's all getting cheaper.

[dpaanlka]

I don't see the new updated 20" iMac as being only $999, not at the new MacBook Pro specs (Santa Rosa)...

No, you're just ignoring that the $999 17" iMac exists.

And your "aluminum" 20" iMac at $1200 would be $200 cheaper than the current 20" iMac.

Not that that's going to happen.

[SC68Cal]

Let's not base our perceptions about a brand being "premium" based on rumors.

[devilot]

From a UK perspective it's all getting cheaper.Go ahead and rub it in. ;) Silly £ being worth so much more than the USD. *sniff*

[Lycanthrope]

I just love the fact that I'm in a minority with my Apple Macs, that's partially the attraction. In order to keep the quality and beautiful design you need to keep the price high and that will always mean a certain exclusivity.

That being said, BMW used to be an exclusive car and now they are as unbiquitous as Fords here in Sunny Belgium.

[gkarris]

I gues tomorrow during the keynote and the products released (if any) the directions Apple's going.

I'm hoping for the Mac midrange tower...

[tomoisyourgod]

Let's see:

A $600 phone
New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?
Getting rid of the Mini?
Their CHEAPEST laptop is $1099?

What's up? :(

I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...

no they don't make cheap products.

you get a lot of value out of these products though.

[gkarris]

Found this article...

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0706imacwwdc.html

Brushed aluminum iMac in the pipeline

June 7, 2007 - Apple is poised to deliver its third Mac revision in less than a month next week when the company takes the wraps off its new iMac line. Sources with reliable track records report the new iMac, wrapped in a brushed aluminum enclosure, is currently tracking for release at or around Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference on June 11.

Update: While sources are confident that the company's plans have called for an announcement next week, they caution that the release schedule may have changed. If that proves to be the case, the aluminum iMacs would presumably follow in the ensuing weeks.

Since the inception of Intel-based systems in January 2006, the iMac platform has shared many of its internals with the MacBook Pro, meaning the new iMac will surely benefit from the same improvements the MacBook Pro received earlier this week. This includes the implementation of Intel's new Santa Rosa architecture, which features a 20 percent faster front-side bus than the outgoing models and processor speeds up to 2.4GHz.

As previously reported, the 17-inch model will not be included in the new iMac line-up, which will feature models with 20-inch and 24-inch displays only. Prices will drop accordingly on the models with larger displays, which current start at $1,499 for the 20-inch, but they are not expected to match the outgoing 17-inch Mac's $999 entry-level price point.

The iMac's new enclosure will better match that of Apple's high-end systems as the company repositions the iMac as a more premium offering.

Also expected at WWDC next week is the Mac OS X 10.4.10 update, while Apple may also take advantage of the timing to replace its 23-inch Cinema Display with a 24-inch model that uses the same panel as the iMac.

[Counter]

Go ahead and rub it in. ;) Silly £ being worth so much more than the USD. *sniff*

Pounds are awesome and dollars are only worth half as much.

Don't worry though, we usually pay exactly double for everything.

[gnasher729]

Let's see:

A $600 phone
New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?
Getting rid of the Mini?
Their CHEAPEST laptop is $1099?

What's up? :(

I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...

Now what does Safari do when you type the word "snobish"? You can see a red squiggly line below it. That means you have misspelt it. Call me snobbish, but please don't call me snobish when I correct your spelling.

[Fluoxetine]

That means you have misspelled it.

There, fixed that for you.

Joke, joke, not looking to get into a style flamewar. In all seriousness, though, Apple has been a pretty snobbish outfit since the time of the Lisa -- and the drive to make all competing products look obsolete and useless is part of what makes Apple's hardware great.

In short, as Steve often says, Microsoft doesn't need to lose for Apple to win, it just has to look bad.

[dukebound85]

Let's see:

I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...

1000 bucks in 1980 is a heck of alot more than 1000 bucks today......

[gkarris]

Now what does Safari do when you type the word "snobish"? You can see a red squiggly line below it. That means you have misspelt it. Call me snobbish, but please don't call me snobish when I correct your spelling.

Was using IE on a wonderful Dehli Dell...

1000 bucks in 1980 is a heck of alot more than 1000 bucks today......

But, people were soooo happy they can now get a Mac under $1000. The same for the Mini at under $500.

Prices are creeping back up...

Maybe we can get one and on the way home in our new Mercedez with an Apple GPS???

[revenuee]

It's the snobbish feel of the mac that makes it so appealing to me.

I think the general arguement on this board is that we (the mac user community) are willing to pay a premium for both what is a superior functioning product, with the added feel of a luxury product.

I bought two computers 8 or 9 years ago ---

a PII with 400 mhz and a g4 with 400 mhz

I rearly used the PC and the G4 was my work horse - rendering video, editing photos

guess which one is STILL ticking? -- only in the last few weeks has it started acting up -- AND I've been looking for an excuse to buy a new computer -- so BRING on the updates to the 24inch iMac -- I've got my credit card waiting, and I am willing to pay for my snobbish ways.

[gkarris]

Interestingly enough, one of Ballmer's arguments against Apple is the expensive iPhone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo

I think what Apple ends up doing with the Mini and the iMac will seal its image...

[CalBoy]

There, fixed that for you.
Actually, spelt is an accepted past participle of "spell."

As for snobbish, I kind of see the OP's point. However, Apple is not a Dell or HP or Gateway. It's on a different level. Apple competes with Sony and IBM (Lenovo now). No one claims Lenovo is snobby because its notebooks are pricey. Apple does charge more, but one gets more features and better designs as a result. Frankly, I'd rather pay for better design than save 10% and have a bad looking computer.

[walangij]

As for snobbish, I kind of see the OP's point. However, Apple is not a Dell or HP or Gateway. It's on a different level. Apple competes with Sony and IBM (Lenovo now). No one claims Lenovo is snobby because its notebooks are pricey. Apple does charge more, but one gets more features and better designs as a result. Frankly, I'd rather pay for better design than save 10% and have a bad looking computer.

I agree, but I think the problem in general is that Apple has broadened its market base so much in the last few years with the iPod that many people are looking to switch, but don't want to drop that much cash. The common PC user looking to switch doesn't know the difference between CD, C2D, SR, ect. and they wonder "why doesn't Apple have a notebook for $600 like gateway blah blah blah" and they don't know the difference between Lenovo and Compaq except for the name "they both make computers don't they?". Apple could make a lot of money in this cheapy category, but it looks like they don't care.

[Cleverboy]

iPhone for $600.

With its other products like the iPod, who's popular competitor the Zune, is forcing Microsoft to sell the product AT A LOSS in coming up with a similarly valued product that does the same thing with hardware/software, it seems clear that Apple isn't looking to be a loss leader OR cannibalize its sales, but to sell hardware at what they see the market bearing for such devices. While I'd love a cheaper iPhone, Apple knows its internal costs, and when it'll be ready to start stripping out accessories and cutting costs.

I was on Nextel/Sprint, and I have to say, I paid $250 each for my last two phones, and they were somewhat dissappointing, and never played music, used a REAL web browser or synced with my computer. They offered "deals" for signing a contract, but when I went to get my phones, those "promotions" were never available.

It's one thing to say, objectively that $600 is a lot of money. It is. It's something else to say that iPhone is charging $600 and its not worth $600 because the ONLY difference between it, and its competitors is an Apple logo. God as my witness, if there was a competing product that cost less and delivered on the same features... I'd have just gotten that. Such a product doesn't exist. I've been browsing the web for the past week with only my thumb. 700,000 sales and going strong.

I also think the $1999 iMac is a truly amazing value for the money. No one has announced anything about getting rid of the mini. Until they do, you can't use it in an argument. Apple knows what they're doing.

~ CB

[CalBoy]

I agree, but I think the problem in general is that Apple has broadened its market base so much in the last few years with the iPod that many people are looking to switch, but don't want to drop that much cash. The common PC user looking to switch doesn't know the difference between CD, C2D, SR, ect. and they wonder "why doesn't Apple have a notebook for $600 like gateway blah blah blah" and they don't know the difference between Lenovo and Compaq except for the name "they both make computers don't they?". Apple could make a lot of money in this cheapy category, but it looks like they don't care.

I think it would be bad for Apple to go into the "cheap" category. Those computers would be slower, prone to more problems, and would ruin the experience of owning a Mac.

Let's face it, those who are looking for a $500 laptop have no idea what is important in computer comparison shopping, and probably don't really care much about it. The Mini can attract their attention well enough (when it sees an update!!!).

Apple should be seeking to switch those PC buyers who know what is important in computer comparison, and that seems to be working well. I know two college professors who are currently using Thinkpads, and both have told me that they're very interested in getting MBPs. In fact, after one saw mine, he's almost set on getting one.

Apple might make a lot of money in the short term, but like I said, that would ruin their product image. Do you see BMW or Mercedes make a "middle class" model? No. They've chosen their target demographic, and they seem to be doing just fine (as is Apple. $100 billion in market cap. is impressive).

[CalBoy]

With its other products like the iPod, who's popular competitor the Zune, is forcing Microsoft to sell the product AT A LOSS in coming up with a similarly valued product that does the same thing with hardware/software, it seems clear that Apple isn't looking to be a loss leader OR cannibalize its sales, but to sell hardware at what they see the market bearing for such devices.

Who said that? Do you have a link or source? I knew that the first XBox was sold at a loss (as was the PS3) but who said the Zune was sold at a loss? It's the same price as an iPod.

Also, there's no reason to be a loss leader unless you can make your money in another way. For example, if Apple sold iPods at a much lower price (a loss even) and then made all its money through iTunes, then loss-selling would make sense. Your statement about Apple not being a loss leader doesn't make any sense.

[zap2]

Also, there's no reason to be a loss leader unless you can make your money in another way. For example, if Apple sold iPods at a much lower price (a loss even) and then made all its money through iTunes, then loss-selling would make sense. Your statement about Apple not being a loss leader doesn't make any sense.

Why would Apple even think about making an iPod, and selling it for a lose? Apple is in a spot, were they really don't need to worry about making a market, only keeping the one they have.

Why both risking taking a lose, when you can be sure to make a profit, by upping the price a little? Apple doesn't need to make inroads in the portable music player world.

[Cormier6083]

Apple isn't snobish. They just make insanely great products.
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7062/igodmw6.jpg

[CalBoy]

Why would Apple even think about making an iPod, and selling it for a lose? Apple is in a spot, were they really don't need to worry about making a market, only keeping the one they have.

Why both risking taking a lose, when you can be sure to make a profit, by upping the price a little? Apple doesn't need to make inroads in the portable music player world.

I was just giving an example of where loss-leading would make sense. If (heaven forbid) the Zune somehow begins to take a bite out of the massive iPod market share, then loss-leading would make a little more sense. I guess a better example would be something like TiVo. TiVo doesn't need to make money off of the unit itself, instead, all of their revenues can be generated from the monthly fee. Either way, you prove my point: loss-leadind doesn't make sense for Apple.

[walangij]

I think it would be bad for Apple to go into the "cheap" category. Those computers would be slower, prone to more problems, and would ruin the experience of owning a Mac.

Let's face it, those who are looking for a $500 laptop have no idea what is important in computer comparison shopping, and probably don't really care much about it. The Mini can attract their attention well enough (when it sees an update!!!).

Apple should be seeking to switch those PC buyers who know what is important in computer comparison, and that seems to be working well. I know two college professors who are currently using Thinkpads, and both have told me that they're very interested in getting MBPs. In fact, after one saw mine, he's almost set on getting one.

Apple might make a lot of money in the short term, but like I said, that would ruin their product image. Do you see BMW or Mercedes make a "middle class" model? No. They've chosen their target demographic, and they seem to be doing just fine (as is Apple. $100 billion in market cap. is impressive).

I don't know if I agree. I don't think it would be bad for Apple to expand into a cheaper market. The experience of owning a Mac is not about hardware, it is about the OS. If it were about hardware, then MBP owners and my friends with BBs would be purchasing highly spec'd alienware type computers for raw power with the incredible VISTA :eek: I know many users who use G4 PB macs which are god awfully slow in comparison to SR MBPs, but they still love them b/c of the stability and the OS.

That being said, generalizing that people who purchase 500 dollar computers are ignorant tech consumers is just wrong. Some people would LOVE to have a mac, but they just can't afford it. Yet in a similar way like your analogy, I know lots of people who would LOVE a BMW/Mercedes but they just can't afford it either. Yet computers are different than cars because the difference between a toyota and a mercedes is in the tens of thousands, while the difference between an HP and a Macbook is in the hundreds.

If Apple truly wishes to expand further into the computer market then they must introduce more solutions to fill their price gaps. But it doesn't look like they are interested with this anymore especially if they drop the mini. But this would still be fine and satisfy investors if they continue to be successful with the iPod, continue to convince current Apple Users to upgrade every couple of years, and steal market cap in the cell phone market with their iPhone.

So in general, I don't think that Apple is snobbish at all. They are in the business to make money, plain and simple, revolutionizing the markets is what they need to do to do that. Apple users though do have a stereotype of being snobbish, which I must say is not always a good thing. The genius behind Apple, I have to argue, hasn't always been exclusive and great technology, it has been a unique user experience paired with incredible marketing.

[gkarris]

Imagine someone over at a friend's or neighbor's and seeing the Mac Mini G4. "How much was it?" "$499 - I just hooked it up to the monitor I had."

Now, the person shows up at the Apple store and finds out the cheapest Apple computing device is only "a phone with internet" at $499. MacBooks start at $1,099, and iMacs start at $1,199.

"Where's the Minis?" "Apple doesn't have those anymore."

"What about a desktop without the monitor?" "MacPros start at $2,499"

The person ends up at Wal-Mart with a Dell...

If Apple wants the OS X and iLife experience out there - they need go down from their loft a bit...

Keep the Minis (or have a direct replacement).

[BKKbill]

Of course Apple is snobbish that's the whole point. Do you really thing we would even think about spending this kind of money and get a PC. :rolleyes:

[zap2]

I think some people here are thinking low end computers are only for cheap people.....there are people who have $$$$ but don't need a 2k computer....apple should have a market for them, an updated Mini is needed

[skye12]

They aren't snobbish. They are better. In the end there cheaper too.

Quality is always cheaper, though more expensive. If you cannot
understand this, please go to www.dell.com immediately!

[toughboy]

Have you seen Apple's CEO talk?

When has he ever hinted that Apple makes products for anyone but the elite. He personally compared his company to BMW for goodness sake!

He has a name, it's Steve Jobs.

Since when does the word "elite" stand for making fabulous products and the different people who buys them?

[Cleverboy]

Who said that? Do you have a link or source? I knew that the first XBox was sold at a loss (as was the PS3) but who said the Zune was sold at a loss? It's the same price as an iPod.Gimme a minute, I'll tell ya. Google, google, google, google. Ah, here we are (sorting through the mounds upon mounds of references). Posted on ars technica by Ken Fisher http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060928-7853.html)
There will be plenty of talk about what Microsoft is losing on each player sold. Microsoft doesn't have the buying power Apple has, and the device has a larger screen and built-in wireless. Apple is presumably turning a profit on the 30GB iPod, but Microsoft is losing a bit on the Zune player. Scott Erickson, Microsoft's senior director of product marketing for Zune, told Reuters that that effort is "not going to be profitable this holiday, but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060928-7853.html

And, as reported by Mac Rumors as well (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/09/28/zune-pricing-similar-to-ipod/), you can make some solid assumptions based on the fuller quote from the Reuters article:
"We had to look at what was in the market and offer a competitive price," said Scott Erickson, Microsoft's senior director of product marketing for Zune. "We're not going to be profitable this holiday but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy." The company also added in the original article that the investment "may take years to bear fruit." Google the quote, and you'll find numerous references drawing the same conclusion, including this one (http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=7805) from the Online Reporter:
Posted on The Online Reporter http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=7805)
Microsoft admits that Zune will be a money-losing product and service for a long period - at least through the first generation of Zunes. It calls its approach "a multiyear strategy," and that, as with the Xbox gaming console on which it still loses money, it's in for the long haul.
http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=7805

Also, there's no reason to be a loss leader unless you can make your money in another way. For example, if Apple sold iPods at a much lower price (a loss even) and then made all its money through iTunes, then loss-selling would make sense.Of course it makes sense. What makes you think Apple only has one way to make money from the iPhone and one reason to sell them? Let's be clear though, I DISAGREE that it would be a GOOD IDEA if they had decided to do it... because it would be UNNECESSARY. But it would certainly make sense. As such, the following is just playing Devil's Advocate.

Your statement about Apple not being a loss leader doesn't make any sense.My statement was: "--it seems clear that Apple isn't looking to be a loss leader OR cannibalize its sales, but to sell hardware at what they see the market bearing for such devices". If Apple DID decide to use a "loss leader" strategy (just for argument sake), do you think Apple will ONLY make its money from an iPhone through iTunes (presumeably referring to content sales)? Moreover would those content sales alone be the ONLY justification? Well, for other ways Apple is making money hand-over-fist on the iPhone, let's play a quick game of "Did You Know"?

iPhone Profits: Did You Know?

Apple receives a portion of the recurring cellular subscription fees?
Apple's "Made for iPod" licensing program brings Apple a $4 per accessory fee from third-party manufacturers, and that its new "Made for iPhone" program isn't likely to be much different?
Aside from music, movies, and tv shows, Apple intends to sell software applications and ringtones through its iTunes store (both of which represent popular categories for the sector and uniquely appealing prospects for its customers)?
Nintendo and Apple may be planning to sell iPhone compatible Nintendo game titles for $29 through iTunes (something previously less than feasible given the iPods far more limited controls)?

While it would be expected that production efficiencies over time and economy of scale would offset much of the initial cost of the product (its been suggested that some components in the iPhone have not been manufactured in as high a capacity as Apple is demanding, and that cost would certainly go down in time).

Over time, iPhone/AppleTV/iPod will represent significant recurring software revenue for Apple alongside its Macintosh development, with the remarkeable concept that they will all be the same basic OS platform with different user-interfaces. If securing this paradigm is not a highly important and long-term goal for Apple, --worth being a loss-leader, I'm not sure what is.

But again... the funny thing is, Apple doesn't need to lose money to get where it needs to go.

Steve Jobs broadcast on CNBC via YouTube http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX1Lz8PDgg8)
"As far as this goes, y'know... this is the future. And, its' not... Y'know... I wish we could sell it for $100 today, we can't. It's a little more expensive than that. But, as we bring the cost down, year over year, and can appeal to more and more people, I don't see why everybody wouldn't want one of these."

He's such a poker player. They've got time.

~ CB

[CalBoy]

I don't know if I agree. I don't think it would be bad for Apple to expand into a cheaper market. The experience of owning a Mac is not about hardware, it is about the OS. If it were about hardware, then MBP owners and my friends with BBs would be purchasing highly spec'd alienware type computers for raw power with the incredible VISTA :eek: I know many users who use G4 PB macs which are god awfully slow in comparison to SR MBPs, but they still love them b/c of the stability and the OS.

You realize that they're still able to use them because Apple makes products that good right? When have you heard of a $500 notebook lasting for years? It doesn't happen very often. Why? Because they're cheaper computers that aren't meant for the long run. They have lower end processors and cheaper parts; essentially they are the "left overs" of the previous year's purchase orders. The experience of owning a Mac is both the OS and the hardware. Both are leagues ahead of PCs. That takes a premium. Going for bargain basement is a bad idea. It would create a host of problems, and would lower the marketing position Apple currently has.

That being said, generalizing that people who purchase 500 dollar computers are ignorant tech consumers is just wrong. Some people would LOVE to have a mac, but they just can't afford it. Yet in a similar way like your analogy, I know lots of people who would LOVE a BMW/Mercedes but they just can't afford it either. Yet computers are different than cars because the difference between a toyota and a mercedes is in the tens of thousands, while the difference between an HP and a Macbook is in the hundreds.

When was the last time you spent $500 for a primary computer? Thought so. My point was that most people who look for $500 computers don't know much about computers, and Apple probably would be better for them, but they don't know why. They don't take the time to understand the range of products before them, so they just purchase what seems to be the best price.
Where did you get the idea that HP and Apple are hundreds apart? For similar specs, the difference is at most $50(and this ignores the cost of virus protection, the extra RAM needed for Vista, and the heavier weight of HP's models).

If Apple truly wishes to expand further into the computer market then they must introduce more solutions to fill their price gaps. But it doesn't look like they are interested with this anymore especially if they drop the mini. But this would still be fine and satisfy investors if they continue to be successful with the iPod, continue to convince current Apple Users to upgrade every couple of years, and steal market cap in the cell phone market with their iPhone.

Frankly, too much expansion can be a bad thing too. As is true of all things, there is always a trade off. If Apple expands too quickly, we may see a decline in quality (as I"m sure some of you out there have already experienced). I think the iPod and Vista are drawing plenty of people to Apple for the moment. It better keep it up and continue to deliver quality products.

So in general, I don't think that Apple is snobbish at all. They are in the business to make money, plain and simple, revolutionizing the markets is what they need to do to do that. Apple users though do have a stereotype of being snobbish, which I must say is not always a good thing. The genius behind Apple, I have to argue, hasn't always been exclusive and great technology, it has been a unique user experience paired with incredible marketing.

I think Apple users seem snobbish because they just have it so good. We like to show off our stuff, and why not? It's sexy, fast, and all ours:D Otherwise, yes, Apple has a brilliant marketing department.

[CalBoy]

"We're not going to be profitable this holiday but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy."[/i] The company also added in the original article that the investment "may take years to bear fruit."

That doesn't mean that each Zune is being sold at a loss. If production costs are $200, and it's being sold for $250, then it's not a loss. I believe Microsoft was saying that the Zune's development cost would take a few years to pay off. Very different from the PS3, which costs more to make than it is being sold for.

Of course it makes sense. What makes you think Apple only has one way to make money from the iPhone and one reason to sell them? Let's be clear though, I DISAGREE that it would be a GOOD IDEA if they had decided to do it... because it would be UNNECESSARY. But it would certainly make sense. As such, the following is just playing Devil's Advocate.

My statement was: "--it seems clear that Apple isn't looking to be a loss leader OR cannibalize its sales, but to sell hardware at what they see the market bearing for such devices". If Apple DID decide to use a "loss leader" strategy (just for argument sake), do you think Apple will ONLY make its money from an iPhone through iTunes (presumeably referring to content sales)? Moreover would those content sales alone be the ONLY justification? Well, for other ways Apple is making money hand-over-fist on the iPhone, let's play a quick game of "Did You Know"?

iPhone Profits: Did You Know?

Apple receives a portion of the recurring cellular subscription fees?
Apple's "Made for iPod" licensing program brings Apple a $4 per accessory fee from third-party manufacturers, and that its new "Made for iPhone" program isn't likely to be much different?
Aside from music, movies, and tv shows, Apple intends to sell software applications and ringtones through its iTunes store (both of which represent popular categories for the sector and uniquely appealing prospects for its customers)?
Nintendo and Apple may be planning to sell iPhone compatible Nintendo game titles for $29 through iTunes (something previously less than feasible given the iPods far more limited controls)?

While it would be expected that production efficiencies over time and economy of scale would offset much of the initial cost of the product (its been suggested that some components in the iPhone have not been manufactured in as high a capacity as Apple is demanding, and that cost would certainly go down in time).

Over time, iPhone/AppleTV/iPod will represent significant recurring software revenue for Apple alongside its Macintosh development, with the remarkeable concept that they will all be the same basic OS platform with different user-interfaces. If securing this paradigm is not a highly important and long-term goal for Apple, --worth being a loss-leader, I'm not sure what is.

Even with all that (which I knew) it doesn't make sense for Apple to be a loss-leader. The revenues generated from the sale of accessories and ringtones will never add up to be as much as the price of the phone. What does make sense is if Apple cut the price on its phone in order to sell more service plans. Loss-leading only makes sense when there's an advantage that can be gained from it. Like I said, loss-leading for Apple wouldn't make sense because Apple doesn't make enough from its other revenue sources (like accessories) to even consider loss-leading.

[Cassie]

Imagine someone over at a friend's or neighbor's and seeing the Mac Mini G4. "How much was it?" "$499 - I just hooked it up to the monitor I had."

Now, the person shows up at the Apple store and finds out the cheapest Apple computing device is only "a phone with internet" at $499. MacBooks start at $1,099, and iMacs start at $1,199.

"Where's the Minis?" "Apple doesn't have those anymore."

"What about a desktop without the monitor?" "MacPros start at $2,499"

The person ends up at Wal-Mart with a Dell...

If Apple wants the OS X and iLife experience out there - they need go down from their loft a bit...

Keep the Minis (or have a direct replacement).

Why a G4? Why not a Mac mini Core Duo? (The current model)

Sorry, I'm bored.

These are just rumors of mini's being dropped. I don't see it happening, but it could happen. Apple had better have a damn good replacement, or they'll be a lot of pissed mac users. I also doubt they'll drop the 17" iMac. When I got to choose a mac, I had to decide between a top of line mini, or the 17" iMac. There's a lot of people just like me making that decision. Apple will not drop the mini.

[Cleverboy]

That doesn't mean that each Zune is being sold at a loss. If production costs are $200, and it's being sold for $250, then it's not a loss. I believe Microsoft was saying that the Zune's development cost would take a few years to pay off. Very different from the PS3, which costs more to make than it is being sold for. Mm... quibble all you like, I never said Zune was a loss-leader product on raw components, but that the Zune was simply sold at a loss, which was reflected clearly by Microsoft's statements that the project simply wouldn't be profitable (bend and writhe, there's only one way to read that). Next time, you could ask me to clarify, but I thought I was pretty clear in my second post.

Moreover, do you realize manufacturing process and licensing fees also account for whether a product is "sold at a loss"? Why wouldn't they be? If it cost me (total) $350 to put out a product I then SOLD for $300, and I told you that the raw components cost me $250, but I paid $100 in licensing fees and labor cost, I'm still selling said product AT A LOSS. Microsoft contracted Toshiba to create the Zune, and did a number of other things to launch the product immediately and gain holiday marketshare. It was so important to launch for Christmas 2006, that the Zune did not even work with Windows Vista until a month after it shipped its business version. I'm pretty sure you're either struggling to bend the facts so that you can simply sound "correct", or you really don't know what you're talking about. It's not BAD that Zune is sold at a loss. It's just a mark of how much technology goes into a new product and how much financial muscle is required to push it out. Don't confuse the message here, I'm not mocking them, my original statement only used them as an example of the work involved. Ok?
Even with all that (which I knew) it doesn't make sense for Apple to be a loss-leader. The revenues generated from the sale of accessories and ringtones will never add up to be as much as the price of the phone.You're being a little whacky you know... You DO realize something being a loss-leader, is usually NEVER a 100% loss?
In marketing, a loss leader (also called a key value item in the United Kingdom) is a type of pricing strategy where an item is sold below cost in an effort to stimulate other, profitable sales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

You're acting like I said it would make sense that Apple gave away iPhones. :eek: When Go Daddy sells a .COM domain name for $3-$5... their wholesale cost at the registry is still $6, but they make up the difference by requiring purchasers accompany the product with other offerings with higher margins. Of course it "makes sense", just as I outlined. Also, there is a certain "value of a customer" figure that all companies bat around. It uses averaging to determine how much value each customer brings in, versus how much (on average), the company can afford to pay in acquiring that customer. If you're saying that Apple customers are so disloyal and generally do not buy more Apple products once they've made an initial purchase, I really disagree.

Now, neither of us have access to Apple's latest agreements and financials, so we won't know for some time how much "extra" revenue comes in from these ancillary sources. Until then, we can just disagree. Strongly. :)

--Note: I'm only playing devil's advocate however, because as I said, I think things are fine the way they are. Why sell something for less when you: a.) erode your high-value brand, b.) leave money on the table, c.) slow the rate at which you recoup development costs. Doesn't make "financial sense" is markedly different from doesn't make "strategic sense". Perhaps we're talking past each other, and we're each arguing a slightly different sense of "sense"... both right in our own regard. I'm arguing that it COULD make financial sense to do it (we're talking potential not absolutes, with no crystal balls on hand), but that I agree that strategically, an simply from opinion, that such a thing would be far less advantageous and the reward, much less predictable. If you can "stack the deck" or "have your cake and eat it do" why not, right?

For instance, Steve Jobs, as a board member, was reported recently to be pushing Disney to stop producing "Direct-to-Video" versions of its cartoon classics like "Peter Pan 2" or "Lion King 2 1/2". The point being NOT that it didn't make Disney extra money, but that it eroded their brand. Not that Disney didn't sell more product, but that the esteem to which the company was held and its brand equity was experiencing diminishing returns. While it might make sense for the iPhone to be sold as a loss leader (discounted by Apple over its costs, etc) it would not necessarily be in Apple's interests from a number of persectives other than basic customer acquisition.

~ CB

[CalBoy]

Mm... quibble all you like, I never said Zune was a loss-leader product on raw components, but that the Zune was simply sold at a loss, which was reflected clearly by Microsoft's statements that the project simply wouldn't be profitable (bend and writhe, there's only one way to read that). Next time, you could ask me to clarify, but I thought I was pretty clear in my second post.

Moreover, do you realize manufacturing process and licensing fees also account for whether a product is "sold at a loss"? Why wouldn't they be? If it cost me (total) $350 to put out a product I then SOLD for $300, and I told you that the raw components cost me $250, but I paid $100 in licensing fees and labor cost, I'm still selling said product AT A LOSS. Microsoft contracted Toshiba to create the Zune, and did a number of other things to launch the product immediately and gain holiday marketshare. It was so important to launch for Christmas 2006, that the Zune did not even work with Windows Vista until a month after it shipped its business version. I'm pretty sure you're either struggling to bend the facts so that you can simply sound "correct", or you really don't know what you're talking about. It's not BAD that Zune is sold at a loss. It's just a mark of how much technology goes into a new product and how much financial muscle is required to push it out. Don't confuse the message here, I'm not mocking them, my original statement only used them as an example of the work involved. Ok?
You're being a little whacky you know... You DO realize something being a loss-leader, is usually NEVER a 100% loss?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

I was taking all things into account. The Zune is not currently a "loss-leader" because it is not being used to generate other revenue for Microsoft (at least not enough to warrant a loss). The Zune's costs are related to the expense it took to create the product, not out of a desire to push Microsoft's music store (or something similar).

I am aware that it isn't a 100% loss, but on a $500-$600 phone, even a 10% loss is a lot of money. The average person is not going to be buying $60 worth of ringtones and accessories.

However, after reading your first post, I can tell that you weren't implying that the Zune was a loss-leader, which means this has gone on long enough.

You're acting like I said it would make sense that Apple gave away iPhones. :eek: When Go Daddy sells a .COM domain name for $3-$5... their wholesale cost at the registry is still $6, but they make up the difference by requiring purchasers accompany the product with other offerings with higher margins. Of course it "makes sense", just as I outlined. Also, there is a certain "value of a customer" figure that all companies bat around. It uses averaging to determine how much value each customer brings in, versus how much (on average), the company can afford to pay in acquiring that customer. If you're saying that Apple customers are so disloyal and generally do not buy more Apple products once they've made an initial purchase, I really disagree.

They may be more likely to buy more Apple products, but that doesn't mean that they are going to be spending enough to recoup their loss on the first product. Like you said, we simply don't know about Apple's financials to say so.

Now, neither of us have access to Apple's latest agreements and financials, so we won't know for some time how much "extra" revenue comes in from these ancillary sources. Until then, we can just disagree. Strongly. :) Agree^^^^

--Note: I'm only playing devil's advocate however, because as I said, I think things are fine the way they are. Why sell something for less when you: a.) erode your high-value brand, b.) leave money on the table, c.) slow the rate at which you recoup development costs. Doesn't make "financial sense" is markedly different from doesn't make "strategic sense". Perhaps we're talking past each other, and we're each arguing a slightly different sense of "sense"... both right in our own regard. I'm arguing that it COULD make financial sense to do it (we're talking potential not absolutes, with no crystal balls on hand), but that I agree that strategically, an simply from opinion, that such a thing would be far less advantageous and the reward, much less predictable. If you can "stack the deck" or "have your cake and eat it do" why not, right?

For instance, Steve Jobs, as a board member, was reported recently to be pushing Disney to stop producing "Direct-to-Video" versions of its cartoon classics like "Peter Pan 2" or "Lion King 2 1/2". The point being NOT that it didn't make Disney extra money, but that it eroded their brand. Not that Disney didn't sell more product, but that the esteem to which the company was held and its brand equity was experiencing diminishing returns. While it might make sense for the iPhone to be sold as a loss leader (discounted by Apple over its costs, etc) it would not necessarily be in Apple's interests from a number of persectives other than basic customer acquisition.

Agree with that. No need to be a loss-leader in the current market. I'm kind of glad Jobs is forcing Disney to shape up. I remembered reading that story in the paper and thought it made sense (although I'm sure Disney's accountants are mad:p )

I think we really are talking about two slightly different things, which is why we're having such a hard time figuring out what the other is saying. Oh well, the point is that Apple isn't really snobbish:)

[Fahrwahr]

Why a G4? Why not a Mac mini Core Duo? (The current model)
The point was that the last time the low-end desktop computer cost only $499 was the Mac mini G4 -- with the Core Solo / Duo, Apple raised the minimum price to $599.
These are just rumors of mini's being dropped. I don't see it happening, but it could happen. Apple had better have a damn good replacement, or they'll be a lot of pissed mac users. I also doubt they'll drop the 17" iMac. When I got to choose a mac, I had to decide between a top of line mini, or the 17" iMac. There's a lot of people just like me making that decision. Apple will not drop the mini.
Let's hope they don't neglect the low end any further. Otherwise, the "halo effect" from the iPod won't be as powerful as it could have been.

[walangij]

You realize that they're still able to use them because Apple makes products that good right? When have you heard of a $500 notebook lasting for years? It doesn't happen very often. Why? Because they're cheaper computers that aren't meant for the long run. They have lower end processors and cheaper parts; essentially they are the "left overs" of the previous year's purchase orders. The experience of owning a Mac is both the OS and the hardware. Both are leagues ahead of PCs. That takes a premium. Going for bargain basement is a bad idea. It would create a host of problems, and would lower the marketing position Apple currently has.


You are right, I haven't seen many cheap notebooks last for that long, but I have seen some and I don't think it is because of the hardware, the hardware is fine. The almighty XP is the problem in most cases.

It is the OS that makes a Mac a Mac, plain and simple. I'm just trying to emphasize that Apple rarely utilizes the current edge of technology. Don't you remember when Apple computers came with a measly 512mb and small hard drives while almost all computers had 1GB and much larger hard drives? I'm sure you do b/c many users here would complain about that. I have to emphasize that owning a Mac is mostly OS rather than hardware. The common "it just works" isn't b/c the hardware is any different, OSX is the difference. If Apple released their OS to run natively on Windows boxes, then there would be no difference between their Apple Computers and say a Dell XPS that runs OSX. Apple maintains its consumer base expands with converts because:
1. Consumer is attracted to the design.
2. Consumer remains Apple user because of the OS.
I don't think any consumers looks at Apple and says "WOW SANTA ROSA", Hardware isn't a selling point to new consumers, it is a selling point to existing Mac users.
Now saying this, I don't see Apple releasing a sub-standard notebook, those that want Macbooks are the same users that look at the inspiron Dells and thinkpads, ect.


When was the last time you spent $500 for a primary computer? Thought so. My point was that most people who look for $500 computers don't know much about computers, and Apple probably would be better for them, but they don't know why. They don't take the time to understand the range of products before them, so they just purchase what seems to be the best price.
Where did you get the idea that HP and Apple are hundreds apart? For similar specs, the difference is at most $50(and this ignores the cost of virus protection, the extra RAM needed for Vista, and the heavier weight of HP's models).


Sure, I may not spend 500 dollars on a computer but many people do and those many people can equal major profits for Apple if they choose to pursue. If these "bargain basement" users "buy for the best price" and Apple just happens to be in this price range, then I don't see how it could hurt Apple at all, except that Macs would be much more common than they are now. Apple could manage to maintain a good product at a low price range without dropping their quality. But their profit margins on this machine would be lower and I don't know if it fits their business plan.

Also, the idea that HP's and Apples are hundreds apart was just pointing out that the analogy of computers to cars is not A-A.
Apple might make a lot of money in the short term, but like I said, that would ruin their product image. Do you see BMW or Mercedes make a "middle class" model? No. They've chosen their target demographic, and they seem to be doing just fine
So your analogy about MB/BMW and Apple just does not fly. Making a lower end computer does not hurt a computer company's product image unless they choose to do so. Though some may say it might with many more Mac users and the "elite Mac user" being a thing of the past. I think it is safe to say that Apple's "target demographic" is everyone.



Frankly, too much expansion can be a bad thing too. As is true of all things, there is always a trade off. If Apple expands too quickly, we may see a decline in quality (as I"m sure some of you out there have already experienced). I think the iPod and Vista are drawing plenty of people to Apple for the moment. It better keep it up and continue to deliver quality products.


True, but the expansion of a company being directly correlated to a decline of quality is because of poor planning. Any company can expand and maintain, even improve quality if they really care about their products -but as we see most companies are more about maintaining profits rather than quality to keep shareholders happy. The iPod has won many converts. I don't know about Vista, I don't think that there has been a surge of new mac users b/c they just bought Vista and thought it was horrible. I've seen many Vista machines that work perfectly, just like Macs and these users were happy with their products. I've also seen many Mac converts at my university who are not happy with their macbooks or iMacs. They work fine, but I think they were expecting a "WOW THIS IS AMAZING" life-changing computer experience, but when all you do is surf the web and IM, its not much different than a windows box. But for their disappointment, I blame hype.


I think Apple users seem snobbish because they just have it so good. We like to show off our stuff, and why not? It's sexy, fast, and all ours:D Otherwise, yes, Apple has a brilliant marketing department.

Yep, that is totally correct. I'm also glad to see that PC manufacturers are at least making an effort the make their computers sleeker/sexier like the Intel notebook we saw a few months ago, that is a beautiful PC and hopefully Apple releases something even better as we can expect that something on par will be released.




Now then:
I don't know if it is stereotypical of Mac users and I hope that in general it is not, but at my university, the majority of Mac users are too snobbish to the point where they bash people when they purchase a thinkpad instead of a MBP or install vista on their XP computers. Helping people choose correctly is fine, but bashing Microsoft/users I don't agree with.

So with all that said, I hope they maintain the Mac Mini line b/c my dad sure wants one but I told him to wait for an update.

[CalBoy]

You are right, I haven't seen many cheap notebooks last for that long, but I have seen some and I don't think it is because of the hardware, the hardware is fine. The almighty XP is the problem in most cases.

True, but even so, $500 hardware is not going to last as long as long as a more expensive hardware.

It is the OS that makes a Mac a Mac, plain and simple. I'm just trying to emphasize that Apple rarely utilizes the current edge of technology. Don't you remember when Apple computers came with a measly 512mb and small hard drives while almost all computers had 1GB and much larger hard drives? I'm sure you do b/c many users here would complain about that. I have to emphasize that owning a Mac is mostly OS rather than hardware. The common "it just works" isn't b/c the hardware is any different, OSX is the difference. If Apple released their OS to run natively on Windows boxes, then there would be no difference between their Apple Computers and say a Dell XPS that runs OSX. Apple maintains its consumer base expands with converts because:
1. Consumer is attracted to the design.
2. Consumer remains Apple user because of the OS.
I don't think any consumers looks at Apple and says "WOW SANTA ROSA", Hardware isn't a selling point to new consumers, it is a selling point to existing Mac users.
Now saying this, I don't see Apple releasing a sub-standard notebook, those that want Macbooks are the same users that look at the inspiron Dells and thinkpads, ect.

I still don't entirely agree. Apple does have very nice hardware. For me, both were selling points. The OS was important, but so was the hardware design.


Sure, I may not spend 500 dollars on a computer but many people do and those many people can equal major profits for Apple if they choose to pursue. If these "bargain basement" users "buy for the best price" and Apple just happens to be in this price range, then I don't see how it could hurt Apple at all, except that Macs would be much more common than they are now. Apple could manage to maintain a good product at a low price range without dropping their quality. But their profit margins on this machine would be lower and I don't know if it fits their business plan.

Also, the idea that HP's and Apples are hundreds apart was just pointing out that the analogy of computers to cars is not A-A.

So your analogy about MB/BMW and Apple just does not fly. Making a lower end computer does not hurt a computer company's product image unless they choose to do so. Though some may say it might with many more Mac users and the "elite Mac user" being a thing of the past. I think it is safe to say that Apple's "target demographic" is everyone.

We weren't talking about profits, we were talking about product image. Believe it or not, but being expensive is a marketing point. Sometimes people won't touch a more "economical" product because they believe it's cheap. Apple doesn't want that. They've chosen their niche, and they're sticking to it.


Yep, that is totally correct. I'm also glad to see that PC manufacturers are at least making an effort the make their computers sleeker/sexier like the Intel notebook we saw a few months ago, that is a beautiful PC and hopefully Apple releases something even better as we can expect that something on par will be released.

Still not as sexy as my mbp:D Seriously, they've gotten better, but they're still not as good as Apple. PC makers don't seem to understand that less is more when it comes to notebooks.



Now then:
I don't know if it is stereotypical of Mac users and I hope that in general it is not, but at my university, the majority of Mac users are too snobbish to the point where they bash people when they purchase a thinkpad instead of a MBP or install vista on their XP computers. Helping people choose correctly is fine, but bashing Microsoft/users I don't agree with.

So with all that said, I hope they maintain the Mac Mini line b/c my dad sure wants one but I told him to wait for an update.

Well most college students are snobby because they think they know it all:p (including me!) Seriously though, I don't bash PC users. I do encourage OS X, but I don't bash.
I hope the Mini stays alive too. It's a good concept.

[Cleverboy]

However, after reading your first post, I can tell that you weren't implying that the Zune was a loss-leader, which means this has gone on long enough. Yes!
Oh well, the point is that Apple isn't really snobbish:)I agree. I believe people give Apple the grandeur of a "fashion design" company, due to what often amounts to a higher selling price than other things in the same category. Often though, you're getting more, and its more difficult to keep feature parity with a much more simplified product line and operational methodology. Sometimes this attitude on Apple's part is frustrating, other times its absolutely masterful and visionary. It's interesting to watch and frustrating to see mislabeled.

~ CB

[killerrobot]

Is it just me or does all of Apple's hardware get made by the same chinese/korean sweatshops as every other computers hardware?

I also feel that everyones arguments about the g4 lasting forever (which it does) is valid, but I don't think that is going to be true now that Apple is on Intel and updating all their machines every 6 months. I would really like to know how many people are still using their first C2D in another year vs. how many upgraded. I have a 4 year old dell inspiron that's still running fine (for internet, word etc.). Yeah I upgraded, but so does everyone else with a g4 that needs to do massive photoshop/editing work.

I don't think Apple is snobish, I think most of their users are -- especially because if you type Dell or Microsoft in these forums most people try flame them like it was the worst thing ever.

[zap2]

if you type Dell or Microsoft in these forums most people try flame them like it was the worst thing ever.

Not really...its gotten better IMO, Mods won't let terrible flame wars starts, sometimes people come, and they are clearly attacking Apple(or trying to do it all sly like), in which case, people defend it.

Really, its not that bad here.

[killerrobot]

Not really...its gotten better IMO, Mods won't let terrible flame wars starts, sometimes people come, and they are clearly attacking Apple(or trying to do it all sly like), in which case, people defend it.

Really, its not that bad here.

I know I'm exaggerating a little, but man look at where this post has gone with one guy saying he bought a dell. No one can just be happy for him that he got a new computer.:(

[CalBoy]

I agree. I believe people give Apple the grandeur of a "fashion design" company, due to what often amounts to a higher selling price than other things in the same category. Often though, you're getting more, and its more difficult to keep feature parity with a much more simplified product line and operational methodology. Sometimes this attitude on Apple's part is frustrating, other times its absolutely masterful and visionary. It's interesting to watch and frustrating to see mislabeled.

~ CB

I like the simple product line. In the PC world, trying to compare models is very difficult; certain models will have things that others don't, and then there's always the difficulty of pricing. Apple's basic idea of "here's what we offer, take it or leave it" is nice and easy. While I would like to see a little product variety (like a small pro notebook and a larger consumer notebook), it's still a pretty good line-up. As you put it, at times it is frustrating.

I know I'm exaggerating a little, but man look at where this post has gone with one guy saying he bought a dell. No one can just be happy for him that he got a new computer.:(

Well, you do have to remember that this site is named Mac Rumors. I think you're going to see some of that. I think that poster could reasonably forsee such a response n'est-ce pas?

[gkarris]

Hopefully, the iPhone Nano is true, and it will be reasonably priced and available on ALL CARRIERS. Add this to hopefully a Mini replacement and it proves me wrong that Apple has become snobbish!

[CalBoy]

Hopefully, the iPhone Nano is true, and it will be reasonably priced and available on ALL CARRIERS. Add this to hopefully a Mini replacement and it proves me wrong that Apple has become snobbish!

Don't bet on the all carriers horse. ATT is probably going to hold them to that 5 year deal.

[gkarris]

Don't bet on the all carriers horse. ATT is probably going to hold them to that 5 year deal.

Yea, but a deal with the iPhone may be different from the iPhone Nano...

[rhagen]

Yea, but a deal with the iPhone may be different from the iPhone Nano...

I am pretty sure something in the contract states that any phone from apple will be with AT&T for the 5 years.

[CalBoy]

I am pretty sure something in the contract states that any phone from apple will be with AT&T for the 5 years.

Yeah, lawyers aren't stupid:p Although, I wonder how profit sharing will work. Apple might be able to demand a little more for the plans since the nano phone may have more buyers than the regular iPhone.

[LethalWolfe]

I think basing your position on speculation of future products that may or may not appear is, well, a bit baseless. But looking back Apple (at least most Apple users) has, for as long as I can remember, looked down on the common PC. Just look at the now iconic 1984 Apple commercial or the Think Different ad campaign.

Only looking at hardware doesn't show a complete picture though. How much does OS X cost? How about iLife? Final Cut Express? Final Cut Studio 2? Yes, you *might* pay a bit more for a Mac compared to a similar spec'ed Dell, but once you start factoring software it's a different story.


Lethal

[Music_Producer]

It's not about being snobbish.. Apple serves the professional market with the MacPro, MacBook Pro, etc. Until a few years ago Apple consumers were generally professionals working in the audio/video department, photography, etc. If you are going to complain about the $600 price of a device as great as the iPhone, maybe I could call you cheap.. instead of calling Apple snobbish. Why don't you just compare it to the SOny Mylo? The mylo is an 'internet device' .. memory? 1 gb.. no real internet browser.. no cell phone capabilities, and that's what? $300? So you pay $300 more for an 8 gb ipod, with video, sleekest interface.. awesome hardware.. geez! Quit complaining.

The people who want to go out and buy a Celeron desktop that costs $399 - just want to email, browse the web, and chat online (mostly) When I work with my music needs, I find nothing comes close to obviously Apple hardware+software to make my work much, much easy. Hell I would gladly pay them up to 9-10k if they could come up with a 8 core macbook pro maxed out with goodies.

It doesn't seem like Apple wants to make super cheap products that would appeal to the budget minded consumer - for that they would have to sacrifice power, design, components used, etc. Might as well just make a plastic box, stick an apple logo on it and make it run OS X. Sure, they do make their profit margins on their hardware, but what company doesn't?

I personally think that Apple *consumers* tend to have more taste, and you might perceive that as being snobbish. I for one wish they hadn't come out with the ipod, the Apple store is always crowded since they launched .. and now with the iphone, even more so. :p

I expect Apple to make powerful and beautiful computers - appropriately priced.. and they do deliver just that. No one else even comes close.

Instead of calling Apple snobbish you should call some of the fashion labels snobbish.. how anyone can pay $8000 for a stupid purse is beyond my understanding.

[Eraserhead]

Apple are not going to enter the $500 PC market for several reasons.

#1 Cheap PC users don't buy any software (except for Office, possibly), so the only money to be made is up front, so software developers don't get extra sales.

#2 The margins on $500 PC's are very low as the market is extremely competitive, certainly not close to the 30% margins Apple is used to.

#3 The quality of $500 PC's is very low as they have to use lower end hardware, either Apple would look like a rip-off at the price point or they'd have to use the same hardware which is extremely unreliable, many cheap computers break after about 2 years or so.

#4 Many buyers of cheap computers don't understand technology as they aren't willing to spend more, so they are more likely to get viruses/spyware, yes you are shutting out poor computer geeks, but they'd probably build their own PC anyway as the specs are better.

#5 With regards to point 1 and 4, they are less likely to upgrade their OS to the latest version, which means that the cool new features in the OS take longer to propagate, it's going to take 5 years for developers to release Vista only software using it's cool features, however in 2 years (maybe less for open-source/freeware) you will see Leopard only software.

#6 you can get a $500 Mac, just buy a second hand one on eBay, it'll probably last longer than a $500 new PC anyhow, as it's been made of better quality materials.*

* Though a high quality (business) PC laptop would probably last even longer ;).

[cleanup]

Apple's products have always been relatively expensive.

What bugs me is the drop in quality over the past few years, when it comes to Macs. My MacBook is nowhere near as well built as my cousin's iBook. The screen is so flimsy. I can push on it and it will literally do the following:

1. Make a clicking noise. I assume it wasn't properly mounted.
2. Show the most LCD ripples I've ever seen on a laptop screen when pressed.
3. Move so far back that I can see it bending and separating away from the bezel.

My cousin's iBook, however, is as solid as a rock.

[Eraserhead]

1. Make a clicking noise. I assume it wasn't properly mounted.
2. Show the most LCD ripples I've ever seen on a laptop screen when pressed.
3. Move so far back that I can see it bending and separating away from the bezel.

FWIW my CD Macbook doesn't do any of those things, and produces far less ripples than any machine I've used before, it sounds like you have a lemon.

[gkarris]

Apple are not going to enter the $500 PC market for several reasons.

#1 Cheap PC users don't buy any software (except for Office, possibly), so the only money to be made is up front, so software developers don't get extra sales.

#2 The margins on $500 PC's are very low as the market is extremely competitive, certainly not close to the 30% margins Apple is used to.

#3 The quality of $500 PC's is very low as they have to use lower end hardware, either Apple would look like a rip-off at the price point or they'd have to use the same hardware which is extremely unreliable, many cheap computers break after about 2 years or so.

#4 Many buyers of cheap computers don't understand technology as they aren't willing to spend more, so they are more likely to get viruses/spyware, yes you are shutting out poor computer geeks, but they'd probably build their own PC anyway as the specs are better.

#5 With regards to point 1 and 4, they are less likely to upgrade their OS to the latest version, which means that the cool new features in the OS take longer to propagate, it's going to take 5 years for developers to release Vista only software using it's cool features, however in 2 years (maybe less for open-source/freeware) you will see Leopard only software.

#6 you can get a $500 Mac, just buy a second hand one on eBay, it'll probably last longer than a $500 new PC anyhow, as it's been made of better quality materials.*

* Though a high quality (business) PC laptop would probably last even longer ;).


Well put. But doesn't Apple want to be a part of EVERYONE'S digital lifestyle? Not just the people who own nice mansions and expensive cars?

Look at the rumors for now a cheaper iPhone. Look at the shuffle. Heck, I remember when the Classic (a cheap desktop), the LC (a cheap color) and the IIsi (a cheap business) came out. There was a ton of buzz (I still have all the release materials from the rags). I even went to the store and got my basic Classic for $849 (I had a corporate employee purchase plan discount from Computerland).

The buzz was, a Mac under $1000 that was very affordable and now more people can own one! Why buy a $1000 green-screened IBM clone?

If Apple wants more people into the OS X fold, they will need an Mini replacement... or at least keep them...

[CalBoy]

Apple are not going to enter the $500 PC market for several reasons.

#1 Cheap PC users don't buy any software (except for Office, possibly), so the only money to be made is up front, so software developers don't get extra sales.

#2 The margins on $500 PC's are very low as the market is extremely competitive, certainly not close to the 30% margins Apple is used to.

#3 The quality of $500 PC's is very low as they have to use lower end hardware, either Apple would look like a rip-off at the price point or they'd have to use the same hardware which is extremely unreliable, many cheap computers break after about 2 years or so.

#4 Many buyers of cheap computers don't understand technology as they aren't willing to spend more, so they are more likely to get viruses/spyware, yes you are shutting out poor computer geeks, but they'd probably build their own PC anyway as the specs are better.

#5 With regards to point 1 and 4, they are less likely to upgrade their OS to the latest version, which means that the cool new features in the OS take longer to propagate, it's going to take 5 years for developers to release Vista only software using it's cool features, however in 2 years (maybe less for open-source/freeware) you will see Leopard only software.

#6 you can get a $500 Mac, just buy a second hand one on eBay, it'll probably last longer than a $500 new PC anyhow, as it's been made of better quality materials.*

* Though a high quality (business) PC laptop would probably last even longer ;).

Agreed. In fact, I've been arguing most of these points throughout this thread:)

[CalBoy]

Well put. But doesn't Apple want to be a part of EVERYONE'S digital lifestyle? Not just the people who own nice mansions and expensive cars?

I have neither, and I doubt most Mac users do. We all value different things when it comes to products. Some want good computers and others might want a German sedan.

If Apple wants more people into the OS X fold, they will need an Mini replacement... or at least keep them...

The Mini does need to be kept. It's a good entry level computer that does serve a good purpose.

[Rodimus Prime]

#5 With regards to point 1 and 4, they are less likely to upgrade their OS to the latest version, which means that the cool new features in the OS take longer to propagate, it's going to take 5 years for developers to release Vista only software using it's cool features, however in 2 years (maybe less for open-source/freeware) you will see Leopard only software.
;).

I might want to correct that and say we will start seeing the Vista only software by April 2009 when mainstream support for XP is dropped. It was around the time mainstream support for windows 2000 was drop we start seeing XP only software and it was the same thing when it happen to ME, and 98. So based on that pattern it will be no different with XP.
Just figure I would correct that little error and it might happen even sooner given XP age. XP is a very old OS and is really showing it age right now.

[walangij]

Apple are not going to enter the $500 PC market for several reasons.

#1 Cheap PC users don't buy any software (except for Office, possibly), so the only money to be made is up front, so software developers don't get extra sales.

#2 The margins on $500 PC's are very low as the market is extremely competitive, certainly not close to the 30% margins Apple is used to.

#3 The quality of $500 PC's is very low as they have to use lower end hardware, either Apple would look like a rip-off at the price point or they'd have to use the same hardware which is extremely unreliable, many cheap computers break after about 2 years or so.

#4 Many buyers of cheap computers don't understand technology as they aren't willing to spend more, so they are more likely to get viruses/spyware, yes you are shutting out poor computer geeks, but they'd probably build their own PC anyway as the specs are better.

#5 With regards to point 1 and 4, they are less likely to upgrade their OS to the latest version, which means that the cool new features in the OS take longer to propagate, it's going to take 5 years for developers to release Vista only software using it's cool features, however in 2 years (maybe less for open-source/freeware) you will see Leopard only software.

#6 you can get a $500 Mac, just buy a second hand one on eBay, it'll probably last longer than a $500 new PC anyhow, as it's been made of better quality materials.*

* Though a high quality (business) PC laptop would probably last even longer ;).

Great points and analysis in a simple form.
1. is spot on.
2. is correct, in all the tech industry, hardware sales have very very small profit margins on most items, but Apple has the capability to have their very nice margins in comparison.
3. I think while "low" in quality, the cheapest intel processors/ram/hard drives would do fine for a mac mini user. Sure the 500 dollar range for a low end mini would be nothing really, but BTO makes it satisfactory still. As we have all seen, competition drives down prices and like you have said the competition in the sub-standard computing arena is very very intense w/ companies even selling at a loss to buy market share.
4. Couldn't this be a selling point for a cheap mac and OSX? But then again, only if Apple wants to sell for less profit which likely they won't.
5. nice
6. a $500 mac on ebay is a good suggestion, but then again most of these buyers will want something NEW and not "old and used", even buying a new POS is better than a used mac for some :confused:

[M3G4]

To be fair, since the advent of OS X and iLife, Mac's have increased in their value for money. Since when has ANYTHING bundled with windows offered so much flexibility, compatibility and power, straight out of the box, that was included with the price of the OS/price of the computer?

People seem to overlook that iLife, whilst it may seem quite lacking when pitted against apple's higher-end software, is still an incredibly powerful set of tools. Windows never has, and probably never will, have anything comparable to Garageband or iPhoto. To get software that is intertwined and as powerful as what you get FREE with an apple mac on a PC would cost way into the $/£100's.

iLife was one of the things on the mac that left me in awe. I've never seen such awesome application integration - the ability to carry projects seamlessly between applications without a crash, or a problem anywhere along the way was something I could only dream of using my £750 dell workstation. Yes, the dell was nice and powerful, and given the right software could really kick some ass... but to be fair, for that ass to be kicked, a lot of notes needed to be chucked toward a till!

I think Apple has the right to be snobby when it's computers not only have the guarantee of quality hardware, but also an operating system that is easy to use, and an incredible productivity suite, that (sorry to be a cliché) "just works" as soon as you switch it on.

[gkarris]

I think Apple has the right to be snobby when it's computers not only have the guarantee of quality hardware, but also an operating system that is easy to use, and an incredible productivity suite, that (sorry to be a cliché) "just works" as soon as you switch it on.

Funny, guy at church used his slightly older computer to edit a video and burn a DVD and it took him 2 very long evenings.

He then went over to his new audio editing machine to see if it was faster and, low and behold, none of the programs would run. He spent about $2,000 on this high-end audio PC...

[-::ubermann::-]

When was the last time you spent $500 for a primary computer? Thought so. My point was that most people who look for $500 computers don't know much about computers, and Apple probably would be better for them, but they don't know why. They don't take the time to understand the range of products before them, so they just purchase what seems to be the best price.
before i got my laptop(macbook) i built a custom PC with 400dollars, for primary use, im poor, im student and i dont think i dont know about computers, oh and i have never got a virus under windows
you say people who buy 500dollars PC's are often ignorant about computers but so do many mac users,we have ignorants on both sides, have you seen apple's Mac vs PC TV commercials? they are just stupid, nothing else
your point is invalid

[-::ubermann::-]

apple does not use low quality hardware? intelGMA 950? macbook's monitor? the combo drive? are good examples of low quality
when i have a very damaged disc my macbook usually isnt able to read them, but my custom pc's 30$ dvdRW can read it, how is that?
im not bashing macs(i still prefer them over some PC's) but some of you guys seem to be not only fans, but fanatics to apple which is not a good thing also

[MacPossum]

I for one like the... 'higher' prices on Apple computers. Not because I'm some millionaire or live in a mansion. Forgive me if you think of I'm being rude but the slightly more expensive prodcuts seem to keep the 'rift-raft' out of the bunch. I think this is one of the reasons why we don't see people creativing viruses for OS X. Apple offers a small line of computer products when compared to something like Dell, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Sony, and the other computer companies.

Apple products seem to last longer than those other guys stuff. Think about it. Some people here are still using Mac's that are 4 or 5 years old and they're still running like they did on day one! There's always going to be complainers about this problem and that one with their electronics but Apple does a wonderful job of giving us top-of-the-line products.

Here's one vote for hoping Apple doesn't go down the cheap road, they don't need to.

[netdog]

Let's see:

A $600 phone
New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?
Getting rid of the Mini?
Their CHEAPEST laptop is $1099?

What's up? :(

I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...

Guess he works for Apple given all the inside information here :rolleyes:

[aristobrat]

before i got my laptop(macbook) i built a custom PC with 400dollars, for primary use, im poor, im student and i dont think i dont know about computers, oh and i have never got a virus under windows
you say people who buy 500dollars PC's are often ignorant about computers but so do many mac users,we have ignorants on both sides, have you seen apple's Mac vs PC TV commercials? they are just stupid, nothing else
your point is invalid
A: "i built a custom PC with 400dollars"
B: "i have never got a virus under windows"

C: "i dont know about computers"

Speaking of invalid points, what you say in A+B directly contradict what you say in C. :confused:

[-::ubermann::-]

A: "i built a custom PC with 400dollars"
B: "i have never got a virus under windows"

C: "i dont know about computers"

Speaking of invalid points, what you say in A+B directly contradict what you say in C. :confused:

where did you get point C? :confused:

[aristobrat]

From your post. Perhaps I misunderstood your double-negatives?

im student and i dont think i dont know about computers

[-::ubermann::-]

From your post. Perhaps I misunderstood your double-negatives?
yeah, you did

[CalBoy]

before i got my laptop(macbook) i built a custom PC with 400dollars, for primary use, im poor, im student and i dont think i dont know about computers, oh and i have never got a virus under windows
you say people who buy 500dollars PC's are often ignorant about computers but so do many mac users,we have ignorants on both sides, have you seen apple's Mac vs PC TV commercials? they are just stupid, nothing else
your point is invalid

I note you built that computer yourself. I was refering to those who attempt to purchase $500 computers, not build them. You're not the average computer-illiterate user.

[aristobrat]

yeah, you did
Then your comment still doesn't apply to the point being made.

[gkarris]

Well, tomorrow we find out what Apple will do.

Will they keep the 17"?

How much for an entry level iMac?

Will they keep the Minis?

How much for an entry level Mac?

As far as the Minis, we may not find that out until October...

[mongoos150]

If that is your logic, you probably need to ignore the 20" iMac and the $1099 MacBook as well.+1

[rmhop81]

apple has always had this approach.........the price isn't the big issue for me. It's how these Hardcore mac zealots approach the price tags of apple. I don't mind paying $1500 for an all in one machine that no one else makes. I don't mind paying that premium bc no one else has come out with something like it. for instance....the mac mini that i use for my media center. The problem is apple charges a premium on stuff that doesn'tn require a premium....like a desktop or a laptop. Come on, charging $2200 for a mac pro with less specs than a brand new $800 dell? $500 will get you a darn good setup nowadays. Tech prices have gone way down while apple prices have either risen or stayed the same. I can get 2 24inch lcds, quad core desktop pc for around $1800....still $400 less than the cheapest mac pro that has LESS specs than the dell. try 2 23inch lcds and a mac pro....you're looking at $1800 in JUST the lcd's. It's all the same hardware, but the mac zealots won't come to that reality.....just bc dell has a badge on it doesn't mean they make their own crappy parts. It's all from the same companies........

$1,000 for a basic starter computer is pretty sad considering the price of current tech hardware. A lot of people aren't going to go for a $1,000 Apple when they could go for an HP or a Dell for less than half that cost. I have this view bc i have both PC and apple. I use to have a MB, MBP, and an iMac so it's not like i'm a dell fanboi by any means. Most of the apple users have one sided view and only see apple and won't come to the truth that they are REALLY overpaying for their hardware. OSX aside....bc that's gonna be the main argument......the hardware prices are out of control.

[CalBoy]

apple has always had this approach.........the price isn't the big issue for me. It's how these Hardcore mac zealots approach the price tags of apple. I don't mind paying $1500 for an all in one machine that no one else makes. I don't mind paying that premium bc no one else has come out with something like it. for instance....the mac mini that i use for my media center. The problem is apple charges a premium on stuff that doesn'tn require a premium....like a desktop or a laptop. Come on, charging $2200 for a mac pro with less specs than a brand new $800 dell? $500 will get you a darn good setup nowadays. Tech prices have gone way down while apple prices have either risen or stayed the same. I can get 2 24inch lcds, quad core desktop pc for around $1800....still $400 less than the cheapest mac pro that has LESS specs than the dell. try 2 23inch lcds and a mac pro....you're looking at $1800 in JUST the lcd's. It's all the same hardware, but the mac zealots won't come to that reality.....just bc dell has a badge on it doesn't mean they make their own crappy parts. It's all from the same companies........

$1,000 for a basic starter computer is pretty sad considering the price of current tech hardware. A lot of people aren't going to go for a $1,000 Apple when they could go for an HP or a Dell for less than half that cost. I have this view bc i have both PC and apple. I use to have a MB, MBP, and an iMac so it's not like i'm a dell fanboi by any means. Most of the apple users have one sided view and only see apple and won't come to the truth that they are REALLY overpaying for their hardware. OSX aside....bc that's gonna be the main argument......the hardware prices are out of control.

Yes indeed, $500 will get you a decent computer these days, however, don't expect it to be a SR 2.2+GHZ with an LED backlit screen weighing only 5.3 lbs and being only an inch thick. When you compare equal specs with equal specs, you'll notice that Apple isn't far off (in fact, in some cases, it's a little cheaper, esspecially for us students:)). Now, I'm saying this from the notebook point of view, I don't really bother keeping track of desktop prices because desktops bore me a little:o What you need to keep in mind, is that while Apple may start at the $1,000 level while HP and Dell might start at the $500 level is that they are drastically different computers (again, notebook perspective). Apple chooses to not sell at the bargain basement level, as does IBM(Lenovo) and Sony. Having higher standards is not equal to being a snob.

[gkarris]

Let's see:

A $600 phone
New 20" Aluminum iMac, a $1200 all-in-one?
Getting rid of the Mini?
Their CHEAPEST laptop is $1099?

What's up? :(

I remember when this was the problem before back in the late 80's, so to combat it, Apple came out with the Mac Classic (first Mac under $1000!) the LC, and the IIsi...

Called it...

Will we see a Mac with a lower price point? Will the Mini survive until the end of the day???

[CalBoy]

Called it...

Will we see a Mac with a lower price point? Will the Mini survive until the end of the day???

Well it clearly did didn't it? Although not as much as I expected, but nonetheless, it continues to be an Apple product.

[gkarris]

Well it clearly did didn't it? Although not as much as I expected, but nonetheless, it continues to be an Apple product.

Looks like the death of the 17" insured the life of the Mini.

The keyboards got upscaled as well. $49 for the basic keyboard. The old $29 is already sold out everywhere.

[CalBoy]

The keyboards got upscaled as well. $49 for the basic keyboard. The old $29 is already sold out everywhere.

There's one thing I can agree with! The new keyboard is way overpriced. Basic components like keyboards are so cheap, so why does Apple feel the need to charge $50? Because it's premium. Just like how Microsoft charges a lot for its keyboards. Personally, I'm going to hunt down a good old $30 one and snatch it up.

[Fairly]

He personally compared his company to BMW for goodness sake!
BMWs don't whine and moo, don't have exploding batteries, and they don't have any discoloration either. And if you click this link you should find "site not found". :D
http://www.bmwdefects.com/

[kumbaya]

1000 bucks in 1980 is a heck of alot more than 1000 bucks today......

Interesting link (http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/)

$1000 in 1980 is worth $2447 in 2006

Even more interesting:
$1199 (iMac) in 2006 was $490 in 1980
$599 (Mac Mini) in 2006 was $245 in 1980

So we're really only paying $490 for the iMac :p

*Using the Consumer Price Index measure of changing value of money...

[gkarris]

There's one thing I can agree with! The new keyboard is way overpriced. Basic components like keyboards are so cheap, so why does Apple feel the need to charge $50? Because it's premium. Just like how Microsoft charges a lot for its keyboards. Personally, I'm going to hunt down a good old $30 one and snatch it up.

I just ordered one new from this site:

http://www.powermax.com

for some reason, they still have the old wired ones in stock...

[vicious7]

To be fair, since the advent of OS X and iLife, Mac's have increased in their value for money. Since when has ANYTHING bundled with windows offered so much flexibility, compatibility and power, straight out of the box, that was included with the price of the OS/price of the computer?

People seem to overlook that iLife, whilst it may seem quite lacking when pitted against apple's higher-end software, is still an incredibly powerful set of tools. Windows never has, and probably never will, have anything comparable...

This is one of the many reasons why Apple is Apple - so much so that it's just about computing, any longer, but a lifestyle.

[megfilmworks]

This is one of the many reasons why Apple is Apple - so much so that it's just about computing, any longer, but a lifestyle.
I agree, Apple has become a lifestyle company, where Microsoft is a no style company.

[Belly-laughs]

…you mean a no life company, no?

[-::ubermann::-]

iLife costs 79$ so it doesn't increase mac's value, quality hardware isn't the strong point of macs either
When I bought my macbook was an exceptional moment, it costed the same as a similar spec DELL with a RadeonX1900, so I decided to go for the Mac

but paying $2499 for a MacPro? I don't think it worths the money, you can get a better machine for half the price, want stability? put Debian, or Ubuntu if you want ease
You don't want that learning curve that Linux implies? did you mention "ignorant people who buys 500-dollars machines"?? lol
There are many people like me who are students and can't afford so expensive machines, money is a matter, regardless of computer literacy, not only computer-illiterate people buy 500 dollars machines
And also why aren't Apples stores in developing countries? Dell, Sony, Microsoft have plenty of official distribution throughout the world, i think Apple is snobbish, indeed

[gkarris]

Here's the latest. Steve Jobs calls unlocking the iPhone "breaking in" - so, what about laws allowing owners to unlock their phones?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=357272

Add that to the whole "nothing is wrong with your iPod Touch so we're not taking it back" deal...

[CalBoy]

Here's the latest. Steve Jobs calls unlocking the iPhone "breaking in" - so, what about laws allowing owners to unlock their phones?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=357272
While this is bad on Jobs' part, I don't think that "snob" is the word I would use. I think "power hungry" or "Napoleonic" is better.


Add that to the hole "nothing is wrong with your iPod Touch so we're not taking it back" deal...

It's WHOLE. The 'hole' you've used refers to a puncture. As for your point on this, I'd say that this is more of a PR strategy, or rather, a lack of. It doesn't point to snobbery, it points to bad customer service. Walmart has bad customer service, but that doesn't make it a snobby company;)

[LethalWolfe]

Here's the latest. Steve Jobs calls unlocking the iPhone "breaking in" - so, what about laws allowing owners to unlock their phones?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=357272

That's not being snobby. That's Apple trying to protect it's business partners. If you paid big bucks to be the exclusive iPhone carrier but Apple did nothing to prevent you from losing your exclusivity you'd be pretty pissed and wonder what the hell you gave Apple all that money for.


Lethal

[gkarris]

While this is bad on Jobs' part, I don't think that "snob" is the word I would use. I think "power hungry" or "Napoleonic" is better.



It's WHOLE. The 'hole' you've used refers to a puncture. As for your point on this, I'd say that this is more of a PR strategy, or rather, a lack of. It doesn't point to snobbery, it points to bad customer service. Walmart has bad customer service, but that doesn't make it a snobby company;)

Fixed. Thanks - typing this on my Dehli Dell at work (that's a HOLE other story.. dHELL HOLE)

[Cybergypsy]

That would make us AppleSnobs...OK i can live with that:D

[flopticalcube]

That would make us AppleSnobs...OK i can live with that:D

iSnobs

[CalBoy]

iSnobs

Coming this Christmas...and I hear it's going to be 3G ready:p

[gkarris]

According to this article, Apple's getting rotten:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/customers-ask-is-apple-going-rotten/

[gkarris]

Want FW? Get a MacBook Pro...

What's next, Mini users must now get an iMac?

Good time to resurrect this thread..... :eek:

[Definity]

That's not being snobby. That's Apple trying to protect it's business partners. If you paid big bucks to be the exclusive iPhone carrier but Apple did nothing to prevent you from losing your exclusivity you'd be pretty pissed and wonder what the hell you gave Apple all that money for.


Lethal

I thought you guys over there had to pay a monthly contract (like you do here)?

In my opinion, it should be down to AT&T or whoever supply it over in the US to deal with that. Here with O2 supplying it, we can only get them with a £45 a month contract that you'd be tied to for 18 or so months. It's still locked to 02 though and would be after your contract runs out.

I think that's unfair, having it be tied to O2 seeing as they get their money regardless.

[gkarris]

If the Mini is discountinued, the "entry" level Mac is the White MacBook for $999, in today's economy.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=586243

That and the "I'm a Mac" ads, Apple is truly getting "snobbish" with the computers...

[iBeast]

Want FW? Get a MacBook Pro...

What's next, Mini users must now get an iMac?

Good time to resurrect this thread..... :eek:

Quit whining.

[chagla]

Quit whining.
yah, just shut up and listen to what lord S.J says and live with it. apple knows what's best for you.

i've always found apple and most of their users to be very snobbish. i've decided not to spend even a penny for their product. i pity those who think using apple brand somehow makes them cool. i'm yet to see something more lamer.

:apple:

[JNB]

yah, just shut up and listen to what lord S.J says and live with it. apple knows what's best for you.

i've always found apple and most of their users to be very snobbish. i've decided not to spend even a penny for their product. i pity those who think using apple brand somehow makes them cool. i'm yet to see something more lamer.

:apple:

Yeah, that's telling them... :rolleyes:

[gkarris]

yah, just shut up and listen to what lord S.J says and live with it. apple knows what's best for you.

i've always found apple and most of their users to be very snobbish. i've decided not to spend even a penny for their product. i pity those who think using apple brand somehow makes them cool. i'm yet to see something more lamer.

:apple:

Yeah, that's telling them... :rolleyes:

Yes, but with the "upscaled" MacBooks, and the likely discontinuation of the Mini, Apple is upping the ante... :eek:

S.J. said it during the conference call - they only cater to their "smart" customers... :eek:

[Michael CM1]

The guy who has this in his profile:

Mac Mini 1.66 CD 512/60
Black MacBook 2.2 C2D 4/320
iPhone 4Gig
:apple:TV

is playing the "in today's economy" card? First of all, your original post from A YEAR AGO complained about the Mac Mini going away, which it still hasn't. You also dropped $500 on an iPhone (unless you found a 4GB model some other way) and own two computers and the Apple TV.

Holy mother.

It's not snobbery, it's making stuff that actually works. The "brick" design took a lot of R&D, and that's not free. Taking all of those harmful chemicals out of electronics also doesn't come free.

Apple may make some crazy moves at times, but I don't think they've produced any POS computers in many years. You can't say the same thing about HP, the leader in PC sales. They sell POS machines daily to people who then have to replace the broken $#@t about 90 days later.

[gkarris]

The guy who has this in his profile:

Mac Mini 1.66 CD 512/60
Black MacBook 2.2 C2D 4/320
iPhone 4Gig
:apple:TV

is playing the "in today's economy" card? First of all, your original post from A YEAR AGO complained about the Mac Mini going away, which it still hasn't. You also dropped $500 on an iPhone (unless you found a 4GB model some other way) and own two computers and the Apple TV.

Holy mother.

It's not snobbery, it's making stuff that actually works. The "brick" design took a lot of R&D, and that's not free. Taking all of those harmful chemicals out of electronics also doesn't come free.

Apple may make some crazy moves at times, but I don't think they've produced any POS computers in many years. You can't say the same thing about HP, the leader in PC sales. They sell POS machines daily to people who then have to replace the broken $#@t about 90 days later.

My iPhone is $299 and I spend $50/month for T-Mobile. My Black MacBook is $1049. I bought the AppleTV used. I bought the bottom Mini.

Let me bottom line this for you....

This discussion has the real deal:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6476256&postcount=62

It's called "Blue Ocean Stategy", where a company creates it's own "Blue Ocean" to sail on, and in creating it's own market and following, just starts doing WHAT IT WANTS.

So, now it all makes sense....

[itransition]

Apple couldn't be treated as snobbish.. In fact the marketers determine the image of company, they couldn't brand themselves as snobs. Only people could be snobbish, not companies that provide wide range of products.

[mcavjame]

Apple couldn't be treated as snobbish.. In fact the marketers determine the image of company, they couldn't brand themselves as snobs. Only people could be snobbish, not companies that provide wide range of products.

Just wanted to point out that the original post was from 2007.

[JuanGuapo]

Company = No
Stores = Sometimes

[rhett7660]

Company = No
Stores = Sometimes
Users = Sometimes



Added another one there for yeah... but then again I think anybody on any platform can be Snobbish....... Not just Apple users.

[JuanGuapo]

Added another one there for yeah... but then again I think anybody on any platform can be Snobbish....... Not just Apple users.

Agreed.... Although I don't know what is worse: A Mac fanboy or a PC zealot.

As always I use Mac, I like Mac, but that doesn't mean you have to. :)