Mac Marketshare Growth in High End Retail Market [Archive]

IJ Reilly

May 19, 2008, 05:48 PM

Last March, the NPD Group reported that Apple’s retail market share — its cut of the computers sold in brick-and-mortar stores — had climbed to 14%, a figure that’s roughly double its overall share of the U.S. market and reflects the power of the Apple Store to draw customers and move product.

What NPD didn’t report at the time was the huge growth in Apple’s share of the so-called “premium” computer market — machines that cost more than $1,000.

To some extent, Apple’s (AAPL) share of this market is growing by default. Companies like HP (HPQ), Dell (DELL) and Lenovo ship enormous quantities of PCs at price points between $500 and $750, whereas the only Macintosh that sells for less than $1,000 is the $599 Mini.

Still, Apple’s share of the $1,000-plus retail market was less than 18% in January 2006 according to NPD. By September 2007, it had grown to more than 57%. And in the first quarter of 2008 it hit a record 66%.

From Fortune (http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/19/report-apples-market-share-of-pcs-over-1000-hits-66/?).

Sun Baked

May 19, 2008, 05:51 PM

Huge growth rate in the most profitable segment of the market.

Has to hurt everyone else big time.

flopticalcube

May 19, 2008, 05:54 PM

Is that the premium segment of the retail market? Not a lot of B&M sell computers over $1000.

I like this quote:

“If you don’t give people a choice,” Baker said, “people will spend more.”

FF_productions

May 19, 2008, 05:57 PM

That's pretty impressive...but the majority of the market (consumers) want a computer under $1k.

Ok, I sound like I speak for everyone, but in all honesty, if the Mini was a little more competitive and they had more to offer in the sub-$1k area, Apple would be doing even better.

I know that Dell and most of the others tend to take big hits when they sell computers at such low prices, but Apple can just put less pricy/advanced hardware inside and turn a profit. Put in an efficient single/dual core processor, and get it out there for a cheaper price.

mkrishnan

May 19, 2008, 06:04 PM

Is that the premium segment of the retail market? Not a lot of B&M sell computers over $1000.

True, although both Dell and Compaq have/had been talking a lot of stuff about wanting to be in this market. The XPS line was supposed to be Dell's huge entré into this market. And if this includes business notebook computers, do remember that most of them are >$1000 still. Lenovo might sell lots of computers to consumers for $600, but I don't think the average Thinkpad price is <$1000, is it?

flopticalcube

May 19, 2008, 06:06 PM

True, although both Dell and Compaq have/had been talking a lot of stuff about wanting to be in this market. The XPS line was supposed to be Dell's huge entré into this market. And if this includes business notebook computers, do remember that most of them are >$1000 still. Lenovo might sell lots of computers to consumers for $600, but I don't think the average Thinkpad price is <$1000, is it?

Yes, but most of these do not sell through B&M, ie the retail channel.

PlaceofDis

May 19, 2008, 06:07 PM

I know that Dell and most of the others tend to take big hits when they sell computers at such low prices, but Apple can just put less pricy/advanced hardware inside and turn a profit. Put in an efficient single/dual core processor, and get it out there for a cheaper price.

erm, isn't that what they're doing with the mini already?

its nice to see apple grow like this, and quite impressive.

mkrishnan

May 19, 2008, 06:08 PM

Yes, but most of these do not sell through B&M, ie the retail channel.

I thought B&M stood for builders and manufacturers. Actually now that I think of it more, I've never heard that term. Sorry. What is B&M?

(Oh, and sorry, I didn't realize the 66% was only of retail premium computers)

flopticalcube

May 19, 2008, 06:11 PM

I thought B&M stood for builders and manufacturers. Actually now that I think of it more, I've never heard that term. Sorry. What is B&M?

(Oh, and sorry, I didn't realize the 66% was only of retail premium computers)

Bricks & Mortar. You got it.

PlaceofDis

May 19, 2008, 06:13 PM

IJ Reilly

May 19, 2008, 06:53 PM

I like this quote:

Honestly, I thought that remark was fairly clueless. First, Apple does offer a choice under $1,000. Second, everyone has another choice -- they don't have to buy a Mac. Third, if making money in the PC market was as easy as "don't give people a choice," then everybody would be doing it. Obviously, Apple has figured out how to sell computers into the $1,000+ market in a way the rest of the industry has not, and it wasn't about not giving them a choice. It was about giving them a choice they wanted to make.

Eidorian

May 19, 2008, 06:56 PM

Apple should update the Mac mini so they can capture the sub-$1,000 market. :rolleyes:

Quad cores roll for $600 or less nowadays.

IJ Reilly

May 19, 2008, 07:05 PM

I don't think Apple wants to capture the sub-$1,000 market. There is very little money to be made in that market. The margins are very poor.

Eidorian

May 19, 2008, 07:08 PM

I don't think Apple wants to capture the sub-$1,000 market. There is very little money to be made in that market. The margins are very poor.Using laptop processors and 2.5" hard drives isn't helping their margins.

There's still money to be made on a $600 computer. Keep in mind I could build a tolerable midrange quad core for $400 on a good day. I just helped a friend do so. It was an Intel Core 2 Quad as well.

IJ Reilly

May 19, 2008, 07:24 PM

Using laptop processors and 2.5" hard drives isn't helping their margins.

There's still money to be made on a $600 computer. Keep in mind I could build a tolerable midrange quad core for $400 on a good day. I just helped a friend do so. It was an Intel Core 2 Quad as well.

Some money, but not healthy margins. Apple's margins are the envy of the industry because they are not trying to sell in the parts of the market where the margins are poor, which is the bottom end. The margins in the Windows PC business stink, and they pretty much alway have. What we are seeing now is a manifestation of a characteristic which has always separated Apple's business from the Windows OEMs. The PC makers are selling a virtual commodity product. They all function the way Microsoft dictates, which forces the OEMs to distinguish their products mainly on price, resulting in a race to the bottom. They have few opportunities for creating a value-added product, which is what Apple does so well.

EagerDragon

May 19, 2008, 07:57 PM

FF_productions

May 19, 2008, 08:37 PM

erm, isn't that what they're doing with the mini already?

its nice to see apple grow like this, and quite impressive.

The Mini is so badly supported and lacks up-to-date hardware..

What's worse, it's a BYOKDM system, unless you want to pay another $600 (price of the system!) for a 20 inch LCD from Apple along with $50-100 for a keyboard/mouse...mine as well get the iMac.

boss1

May 19, 2008, 08:52 PM

What strikes me most interesting about this data is that the number of PC's on the market at a retail price point of + 1000 has diminished.

While there may be various reasons for this I can't help but draw my own conclusion that HP, Dell etc can't justify the cost of a + 1000 PC in quantity to the consumer (specialty consumers and hard core gamers aside ).

Because no matter how hard they try they have very little to offer / differentiate at those price points. Where as Apple has been able to do just that and keep that market segment.

The world has finally realized that there is little substance behind the short lived trendy marketed scheme of advertising a PC company with Cow patches and a "im getting a dell" kid. Underneath all the hoopla it's just a PC.

Naturally this is something most mac users have known for quite some time but it's nice to see it translate into actual market share as a result finally.

people are willing to pay premium if the product is right. Apple has demonstrated this fact.

Analog Kid

May 19, 2008, 09:01 PM

Apple has demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in a market of 6% profit margins. Nothing below 28% makes Apple Happy. It is rather obvious that there is a market for a well designed system that just works and works for years.

Way to go Apple.
I think this is about right. While the rest of the industry was needling Apple that they didn't have an entry in the "high growth" area of the market, Apple let their competitors fight it out in the high growth space and then came in behind them to take over the high margin space.

Now HP and Dell get all the whiny, "I paid $400 for this machine and demand $500 in customer support", customers and Apple gets the "I'll take one of those and all the accessories, please" customers.

robbyx

May 19, 2008, 09:04 PM

Honestly, I thought that remark was fairly clueless. First, Apple does offer a choice under $1,000. Second, everyone has another choice -- they don't have to buy a Mac. Third, if making money in the PC market was as easy as "don't give people a choice," then everybody would be doing it. Obviously, Apple has figured out how to sell computers into the $1,000+ market in a way the rest of the industry has not, and it wasn't about not giving them a choice. It was about giving them a choice they wanted to make.

I'm not sure I agree entirely. Apple's marketing, plus run-away iPod sales, the iPhone, and all the BUZZ, is definitely attracting customers in a big way. But look at where one finds an Apple Store. They're not at the corner strip mall. They're always in some upscale mall or area of town where more affluent people shop. These people are getting Apple's message loud and clear - and they are responding.

I think Apple has figured out the way to (finally!!!) sell computers, period. The trouble is, they only care about the more affluent shopper. They're not interested in targeting the sub-$1000 market. The Mini is a joke. I love mine. It's a great home server. But it's not that much machine for $599, especially when you still have to buy your monitor, mouse and keyboard. At $399, not a bad package. At $599? Not so much.

Getting into places like Best Buy is the most crucial step to reaching the rest of the market. There are plenty of places that Apple will never deem worthy of an Apple Store, but those people still want to buy computers. And they want to touch them, try them out, talk about them, be sold on why they should take the plunge, etc. Apple needs to bolster their presence in these stores. I think Apple should staff B&Ms more than 50 miles from an Apple Store with Apple employees, not rely upon the store employees to sell the product.

Of course, a $399 as-is Mini or $599 TRICKED OUT Mini would go a long way towards expanding their share of the sub-$1000 market. But first the products need to be in reach. Get them into Circuit City, Best Buy, and all those places, and staff the stores. That'll make more people, especially those out of reach of an Apple store, buy.

Eidorian

May 19, 2008, 10:09 PM

Agreed!You make it sound like sub-$1,00 computers are a bad thing. :confused:

Keep in mind my workstation is still my quad core desktop. I wish it ran OS X but the price was right. It still hasn't broken $1,000 with all the small upgrades it has gotten since November.

boss1

May 19, 2008, 10:47 PM

are we implying that data this isn't fair because not a lot of B&M's sell PC's priced over 1000?

Well that's true in the same way that not a lot of B&M car dealers sell cars priced over 75K however the point eluding is the fact that very recently many B&M's did in fact sell and compete at +1k per PC. And that Apple has managed to continue to offer value to this day in that market even after the competition imploded to nearly the generic value of salt. Hell even salt has managed to distinguish itself if you want to pay premium for the currently trendy Ungrinded Sea Salt.

The PC market is reaching the brink of becoming a plain utility (marginalized segments aside pls)

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 12:03 AM

You make it sound like sub-$1,00 computers are a bad thing. :confused:

Not "bad" as such, but not very profitable either. Apple's "open secret" is that they aren't very interested in the lower-cost market. For all the complaints about the mini's middling specs, I believe it an overlooked fact of life that Apple is never going to try to match the generic PC makers on a pure bang-for-buck basis. The mini is addressed at the sub-$1,000 market in a completely different way. The freedom to address a market in the way which preserves their margins is one that is unique to Apple. They are not going to trade away this advantage just because some people would like them to sell budget boxes that complete with the likes of HP and Dell.

MacRumors

May 20, 2008, 12:26 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

eWeek first reported (http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/channel/macs_defy_windows-gravity.html) on an interesting breakdown of Apple's retail marketshare. According to numbers from the NPD Group, Apple's Q1 2008 retail (brick and mortar) reached 14%. Note that by limiting it to retail, they've excluded online sales and institutional/enterprise sales.

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2008/05/19/234608-macq108_400.jpg
Chart from eWeek (http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/channel/macs_defy_windows-gravity.html)

More surprising, however, is if you limit the data to computers priced above $1,000, Apple represents 66% of all retail computer sales.Apple's success above $1,000 defies some of the conventional retail thinking about PCs, where the emphasis is on lower pricing and greater features. "Consumers don't care about features," Stephen asserted. "People see a value proposition in an offering that gives them a great experience."As with all statistics, it's difficult to take these raw numbers at face value. Instead, the most revealing finding is how quickly this market share has been increasing. Fortune reports (http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/) that Apple's $1,000+ January 2006 marketshare was only 18%. Their share grew to 57% by September 2007 and finally to 66% in the 1st quarter of this year. These numbers confirm Apple's reporting (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/23/apple-2q-2008-results-conference-call-highlights-profit/) of large year-over-year growth of Mac sales during their financial results.

One long term question becomes whether or not the saturation of their target market ($1,000+ computers) will limit Apple's future growth. If more customers aren't attracted to this high-end market over time, Apple's Mac sales growth will necessarily stall. Meanwhile, up until now, Apple has been resistant to compete in the low margin market. Apple's only sub-$1,000 offering, the Mac mini, has been rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/21/mac-mini-not-dead-yet/) to be just hanging on to life.

This phenomenon could explain Apple's willingness to experiment in seemingly niche markets that were not previously satisfied by Apple's offerings. A product like the MacBook Air (http://www.apple.com/macbookair/) might be able to further expand their already-large marketshare amongst customers in the $1,000+ market. If Apple's success continues, however, there will be no where else to look but to the sub $1000 market for additional customers.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/19/mac-marketshare-growth-in-high-end-retail-market/)

Grimace

May 20, 2008, 12:28 AM

arn

May 20, 2008, 12:31 AM

I don't think Apple wants the $500-$750 market anyway. Apple wants to make $$$ and the profit margins in that range are miniscule. Higher-end products usually command higher profit margins. iTunes breaks even so that we will buy expensive iPods!

Possibly.

I think what this shows is that if Apple wants to ever get to above 10-15% marketshare, they are going to have to compete in the sub $1,000 price range.

Either that, or somehow convince people who are buying the sub $1000 computers to buy $1000+ computers.

If Apple keeps doing well, they will have to compete in the $500-$700 market, because that will be where the rest of the customers are. Let's say Apple takes 100% of the above $1000 market. That still means Apple only has like 15% (a guess) of total PC marketshare. It's not like they can just say year after year, oh we're happy with 100% of the above $1000 market, and not go after the rest of the market.

arn

megfilmworks

May 20, 2008, 12:32 AM

Absolutely, that is the key to the success of Apple and its product line.

Call42350

May 20, 2008, 12:35 AM

So would the online and institutional sales help or hurt these numbers?

arn

May 20, 2008, 12:36 AM

So would the online and institutional sales help or hurt these numbers?

institutional/enterprise sales would hurt these numbers as there are a lot of companies buying PCs.

arn

Grimace

May 20, 2008, 12:37 AM

Call me crazy but I don't think Apple wants every customer out there. I think the goal is to sell computers that are profitable, even if it means selling less profitable ones that "halo" into future purchases of more profitable computers.

Apple doesn't want the "mod" squad building Mac Pro Minis - Apple wants to present its all-in-one solution that works, leaving the variables and a fair chunk of potential "mod" customers out in the cold. Apple creates its own customer niche/base, and then tries to serve it 100%. Just an observation...

Sun Baked

May 20, 2008, 12:39 AM

I don't think Apple wants the $500-$750 market anyway. Apple wants to make $$$ and the profit margins in that range are miniscule. Higher-end products usually command higher profit margins. iTunes breaks even so that we will buy expensive iPods!

Look what happened to the companies that offered bargain-basement computers: Gateway, eMachines, Dell -- yikes, not profitable...selling eleventy-threeve-zillion computers at $299 won't help if your margins and R&D costs limit profit to 5%.

Actually nice to have management of a company that looks at the total company and the future, instead of looking at filling a temporary short term goal of gaining marketshare at the expense of the balance sheet (cough eMachines and subsequent BK).

We knew Apple had one of the fastest growing PC businesses around without catering to headless iMacs and others cheap crap crowd, didn't realize it was actually capturing THIS MUCH of the premium market so quick.

Yes, should be interesting to see where Apple goes later with this. Since they are still basically a 2 chipset company ... and there is ample opportunity for growth on their terms.

Chef Medeski

May 20, 2008, 12:41 AM

rareflares

May 20, 2008, 12:48 AM

inkswamp

May 20, 2008, 12:48 AM

Call me crazy but I don't think Apple wants every customer out there. I think the goal is to sell computers that are profitable, even if it means selling less profitable ones that "halo" into future purchases of more profitable computers.

But Apple's current line-up doesn't make sense to a lot of potential customers. Apple needs to deal with the fact that they are attracting lots and lots of interest from Windows users who are looking for something a little more PC-like, hardware-wise. It's not a matter of whether Apple's approach is better or worse. It's all about what these customers are accustomed to and can relate to. I know two Windows users myself who were expressing a strong interest in buying Macs, but each eventually caved and went with a Windows box because the iMac being an all-in-one didn't make sense, the Mini was underpowered and the Mac Pro was too expensive. (I know a third PC user interested and he's building a hackintosh... and going a good job with it too.)

We can all argue the merits Apple's current line of computers, but it's painfully obvious at this point that Apple should just take the components of a couple of the iMacs and repackage them into headless machines for around $900-1400. I don't think that would so much cannibalize the existing line-up as it would attract a ton of new customers.

thejadedmonkey

May 20, 2008, 12:55 AM

twoodcc

May 20, 2008, 12:55 AM

great news for Apple, though i would like to see more hardware under $1000

mambodancer

May 20, 2008, 01:00 AM

Possibly.

I think what this shows is that if Apple wants to ever get to above 10-15% marketshare, they are going to have to compete in the sub $1,000 price range.

Either that, or somehow convince people who are buying the sub $1000 computers to buy $1000+ computers.

If Apple keeps doing well, they will have to compete in the $500-$700 market, because that will be where the rest of the customers are. Let's say Apple takes 100% of the above $1000 market. That still means Apple only has like 15% (a guess) of total PC marketshare. It's not like they can just say year after year, oh we're happy with 100% of the above $1000 market, and not go after the rest of the market.

arn

I see this kind of faulty thinking all the time. As if market share equates at all with profitability or long term success. It just doesn't.

Having owned a computer store in the 90's, our market share in Boulder was small compared to our competitors (Radio Shack, Computerland, etc.) However, we were one of the most profitable stores in Denver because we focused on service and support and constantly watched our margins. We would not bid on educational markets that in some cases required stores to sell below cost and hoped to make it up on service contracts. That was insanity. I can remember one of the top selling Connecting Points receiving an award for top reseller of the year (I think about 26M in sales versus our 2M) at a corporate trade show at the same time ITT commercial finance was padlocking their doors for default on their loans. A lot of these businesses essentially had the motto "Sell it below cost and make it up in volume!"

Apple needs to be really careful about pursuing the low margin/sub-$1000 Macs if the company is to stay as healthy as it has been.

Axemantitan

May 20, 2008, 01:01 AM

This is good news for Apple. But, do remember that this is only for retail. As I recall, Dell is online- and phone-orders only. They are still the leading PC manufacturer.

MacinDoc

May 20, 2008, 01:15 AM

Useless statistics because of the sales that were excluded. Yes, Apple's share of B & M sales is increasing, but Apple is increasing the number of its retail stores, so that should come as no surprise. And to separate out machines that were more than $1000 is almost like saying that Apple sells 99.9% of all machines that come with OS X pre-installed. Apple sells primarily (relatively) low-volume, premium-priced computers, so one would expect that the majority of premium-priced computes sold would be Macs, if Apple were to have any significant market share.

arn

May 20, 2008, 01:22 AM

Apple sells primarily (relatively) low-volume, premium-priced computers, so one would expect that the majority of premium-priced computes sold would be Macs, if Apple were to have any significant market share.

True, but that share was only 18% in 2006. and is 66% now.

arn

mj_1903

May 20, 2008, 01:45 AM

It's not like they can just say year after year, oh we're happy with 100% of the above $1000 market, and not go after the rest of the market.

Sure they can. That market will continue to grow both on a domestic scale via population growth and an international scale as China and India gain a wealthy middle class. Even if they only focused on $1000+ computers it could easily grow the Mac division at 10-15% per year for the next decade.

inkswamp

May 20, 2008, 01:50 AM

Apple needs to be really careful about pursuing the low margin/sub-$1000 Macs if the company is to stay as healthy as it has been.

You know, I don't think it's so much the sub-$1000 pricing as it is producing a headless Mac more powerful than the Mini.

vhalik

May 20, 2008, 02:03 AM

It would be nice to dip into the sub $1000 PC's, but the margin is near to non-existent.

vhalik

May 20, 2008, 02:06 AM

This is good news for Apple. But, do remember that this is only for retail. As I recall, Dell is online- and phone-orders only. They are still the leading PC manufacturer.

Actually, Dell is sold in Best Buy stores now. At least it has been here in Denver.

rjohnstone

May 20, 2008, 02:12 AM

Let's look at corporate contract sales. This are is where Dell, Lenovo and HP make their real money.
They typically have a 2 or 3 year cycle on equipment replacement which makes the revenue stream very consistent.

We use Dell's workstations and Lenovo ThinkPads and don't pay anywhere near the retail price for them.
A T61 with a street price of $2,500 costs less than $1,000 under contract.
And I seriously doubt Lenovo is hurting on the margins.

So as with any report, it's all in how you look at the numbers.

shikimo

May 20, 2008, 02:36 AM

The Mini is so badly supported and lacks up-to-date hardware..

What's worse, it's a BYOKDM system, unless you want to pay another $600 (price of the system!) for a 20 inch LCD from Apple along with $50-100 for a keyboard/mouse...mine as well get the iMac.

How is the mini badly supported?

And what about all those people who already have a nice monitor? I spent 549 EUR on my mini last August, have a 22" monitor, got a keyboard and mouse that work fine for 44 EUR, and voilà I'm running OSX for less than 600 EUR (19,60% of which was TVA). That's a lot cheaper than an iMac, I've got a bigger screen and, even though I know the mini is underspec'd for the price, it does everything I want it to so who cares? Is an iMac a better value? Of course it is, no argument there; however, I saved 400 EUR by not buying one (as compared with low-end iMac, 999 EUR), and I'm certainly not the only one...

...and besides, now I can use that money to bet on the Penguins to win the Stanley Cup!

Bonte

May 20, 2008, 02:42 AM

The sub $1000 Macs are the iPhone and Touch products, maybe a bigger touch in the future but i don't think Apple wants to compete with cheap PC's. There is no profit margin and not much after-sales profit aka iTunes music and apps.

All cheap Macs will be iPod-like and heavily dependent on iTunes for revenue.

macidiot

May 20, 2008, 02:59 AM

Apple's strategy has been quite clear for some time. In a market that was a race to the bottom, Apple decided to differentiate itself. It did so with quality and design. This is why companies like Dell will and have faltered. Why buy a Dell over any other brand when literally only a plastic logo differentiates it?

As for eventually entering the low end for continued growth, Apple doesn't need it. And frankly, what would be the point of competing in a zero profit market? The next growth area will be business use. It won't be a lot in overall terms, but substantial enough to maintain growth.

iPod growth has essentially flattened out. I suspect computer growth will flatten out in 2-3 years. If it continues past that, it would mean huge trouble for Microsoft, as Apple would be over 20% market share. I just don't see that happening worldwide. Possibly in the US, but virtually impossible globally.

The next real growth driver for Apple is the iPhone. If Apple extends the line to multiple price points, I can see them moving 30-50 million units a year, easily.

Even so, with the current product map, I see Apple growth slowing in a couple of years. Of course, it should be bigger than Microsoft by then... ;)

halhiker

May 20, 2008, 03:08 AM

The most surprising thing about this survey is that anyone is buying a PC that costs more than $1000. Are those people on crack?

Oh, gamers. Right.

So the answer is yes.

Dagless

May 20, 2008, 04:18 AM

I'm quite amazed at how much marketshare Apple are gaining. About 3 years ago when I bought my PowerBook I posted on another forum, asking if anyone else had a Mac.

It became a dangerous thread full of some nasty comments.
Fastforward to now and the vast majority of them are now running Macs. Everyone and their dog has either an iMac or MacBook. The market is really changing.

johnnyjibbs

May 20, 2008, 04:31 AM

Apple's success above $1,000 defies some of the conventional retail thinking about PCs, where the emphasis is on lower pricing and greater features. "Consumers don't care about features," Stephen asserted. "People see a value proposition in an offering that gives them a great experience."
There is something inherently wrong with this statement. If you cut the price off at $1000, then the "cheap PC" statement is irrelevant, because the $1000+ "cheap PC" is most likely very niche (not to mention contradictory). What we need to know before these figures are useful is what percentage of the total market we are looking at. If the $1000+ market represents 1% of all computer sales, then this is a no s*** sherlock; if it represents a sizeable piece of the total market (in terms of volume rather than sales revenue) then there is something here.

slapguts

May 20, 2008, 04:42 AM

johnsy

May 20, 2008, 04:54 AM

the funny thing is that the only looser is Pc manufacturers. Microsoft will loose OEM licensing income but will gain from people who still would like to have Windows and OS X on their macs.

i0Nic

May 20, 2008, 05:27 AM

Apple will not compete in the sub $1,000 market. Apple have high brand equity, pricing them to compete with low-cost manufacturers will only lower the market perceptions of premium quality and therefore lower brand equity.

Apple are not aiming to become the dominant leader in the overall PC market. They are happy growing their niche, and more importantly becoming a major player in the Post-PC era. As has been said, profit margins for low cost computers is not that great, the world of post-PC's is going to be huge and this is where the profits and leadership opportunities are.

ralnar

May 20, 2008, 05:48 AM

elgruga

May 20, 2008, 05:53 AM

Apple sell a computer for over a $1000 and they make the same profit as Dell do when they sell FOUR 'under $1000' pieces of junk.

Every time we have a section of people clamouring for some cheap 'headless mac' for $499 - Yawn.
BUY a Mac Pro - you can afford it, sell your mind-destroying 60" screen TV.

Get over this crap - Apple sells beautiful powerful machines for a premium - if you cant understand this, tough!

Jobs will NOT make a cheap machine - even the mini isnt cheap.

How can you argue with the PHENOMENAL growth and BRILLIANT products of this company?

But all I hear is the 'why cant we be like Dell' nonsense.
Dell is going DOWN. Is that what you 'headless Mac' crowd want?

Just to be clear here:

There is MORE profit in selling ONE Mac than there is in at least FOUR Dells.
GET IT?

Want a cheap Mac? Steal one - its the only way its going to happen.

PLUS: WHY do we have to compare the Mac with all the rubbish out there? If you buy a Mac you get OSX - no-one else offers this exceptional OS. Isnt that worth something?
Isnt the sheer pleasure of a great machine with the finest OS worth something to you?

You get the finest computer on the planet and then everyone wants it to turn into cheap junk.
BWAH!

i0Nic

May 20, 2008, 05:53 AM

Comparing apples to pears.

Apple's 1000$+ desktop is iMac which includes a display. A comparable PC setup will contain a sub-1000$ PC and a display.

What's amazing is that Apple's share in the lower segment is 14%. Does the Mini sell that well, or are discounted iMacs included there as well?

I think you'll find that many purchase sub 1K computers including a display.

That 14% figure is for *all* computers sold in retail chains, not the sub $1000 market.

elgruga

May 20, 2008, 06:02 AM

The most surprising thing about this survey is that anyone is buying a PC that costs more than $1000. Are those people on crack?

Oh, gamers. Right.

So the answer is yes.

Ah, the funniest post by far!
LOL!

n8mac

May 20, 2008, 06:45 AM

...and besides, now I can use that money to bet on the Penguins to win the Stanley Cup!

You get the NHL in France? Nice. It's gonna be a brawl. Redwings all the way!

BenRoethig

May 20, 2008, 07:32 AM

So would the online and institutional sales help or hurt these numbers?

Hurt big time if you're talking total marketshare. These are only for brick and mortar retail stores. Any computer bought directly from the manufacturer is not included.

BenRoethig

May 20, 2008, 07:42 AM

Seems fairly obvious to me, if you want to spend >$1000 for a PC, you'd rather build one from scratch. There is a HUGE industry selling PC parts, that doesn't exist with Apple.

If you want a bad-ass PC, you buy parts. If you want a bad-ass Mac, you buy a Mac.

That and those who spend over $1000 on a computer usually don't go for a fixed retail configuration. Also, this counts the computer only, not any display you buy with it.

BenRoethig

May 20, 2008, 07:44 AM

Comparing apples to pears.

Apple's 1000$+ desktop is iMac which includes a display. A comparable PC setup will contain a sub-1000$ PC and a display.

What's amazing is that Apple's share in the lower segment is 14%. Does the Mini sell that well, or are discounted iMacs included there as well?

That's not in the sub $1000 segment, that's all retail computers combined.

iTattoo

May 20, 2008, 07:52 AM

ditzy

May 20, 2008, 07:57 AM

The most surprising thing about this survey is that anyone is buying a PC that costs more than $1000. Are those people on crack?

Oh, gamers. Right.

So the answer is yes.

I'm not a gamer (unless you include sims 2 which I wouldn't) But you make gamers sound like a sub-species. You know there isn't anything wrong with being a gamer.
Also when I used pc's all of a week ago I always bought higher speced ones which tended to cost round £800 just for the desktop.

Bubba Satori

May 20, 2008, 08:13 AM

Second, everyone has another choice -- they don't have to buy a Mac.

Is that an attitude a company wants to foster when things are going well. These thing run in cycles, you know.

iTattoo

May 20, 2008, 08:14 AM

I am not TOO surprised by this.

After all, this doesn't include any online sales. I'd imagine, Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. sell the vast majority of their computers online and thus wouldn't be included in these statistics. Apple's retail presence is clearly superior to any of the other companies so obviously their marketshare would be superior to any other company.

Actually, Dell, Gateway and HP are well represented in places like Costco, BestBuy, and a number of other big box players here. Looking at the numbers posted by Apple for the last quarter, and only 20% of their sales (in dollars) come from the retail channel. The rest would be either online, phone, 3rd party resellers, and any direct selling such as the educational market.

You'll find the information here: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/04/23/notes_of_interest_from_apples_q208_quarterly_conference_call.html

Apple does have a fantastic retail presence in the most populated parts of the United States, but that's about it ... the rest of the world is slowly getting exposed to the B&M Apple presence, and I suspect that Apple has a long way to go yet in the premium market space.

Bubba Satori

May 20, 2008, 08:23 AM

kjs862

May 20, 2008, 08:41 AM

I would like to see Apple come out with a machine, something along the lines of a Mac Mini Pro with a price of $799-$1099. I would think it would sell rather nicely.

i.maverick

May 20, 2008, 08:59 AM

tpk2002

May 20, 2008, 09:04 AM

Play Ultimate

May 20, 2008, 09:07 AM

Useless statistics because of the sales that were excluded.

Agreed. Outside of Apple, I'm not even sure there are that many $1000+ systems in retail outlets . The Office Depot & Best Buy don't sell them in any volume. Those that need a good system or in volume go through direct purchasing or build your own.

xnu

May 20, 2008, 09:15 AM

I think the under $1000 market will be addressed by Apple soon (maybe by this time next year). People buying cheap computers are only surfing the web, getting email, maybe a few pictures... not really utilizing everything a computer is capable of doing. So that is where the larger iPhone comes in, surf, email... $750.00-$950.00. Accessories galore... keyboard, monitor stand... a host of great new applications with the new SDK, boom the consumer will be converted to OSX and not even know it, half appliance, half computer, all Apple.

trrosen

May 20, 2008, 09:17 AM

But i still want my megamini.

oh and a mega Apple TV too one with a tuner and DVD drive....maybe with a nice Atom processor.

Shasterball

May 20, 2008, 09:17 AM

One long term question becomes whether or not the saturation of their target market ($1,000+ computers) will limit Apple's future growth. If more customers aren't attracted to this high-end market over time, Apple's Mac sales growth will necessarily stall.

Well, I think more institutional/enterprise consumers will be, slowly but surely, going to Apple computers -- with the transition maybe catalyzed by enterprise iPhones? Then we will need a survey that takes into account online sales.

stiles

May 20, 2008, 09:33 AM

But really, let's be honest. If apple had a mid range upgradable tower, who would buy the mac pro?

sushi

May 20, 2008, 09:34 AM

Huge growth rate in the most profitable segment of the market.
This is definitely good for Apple -- stating the obvious! :)

Obviously, Apple has figured out how to sell computers into the $1,000+ market in a way the rest of the industry has not, and it wasn't about not giving them a choice. It was about giving them a choice they wanted to make.
Spot on.

I don't think Apple wants to capture the sub-$1,000 market. There is very little money to be made in that market. The margins are very poor.
Agree. Everyone seems to be going after that market and margins are very thin there.

Apple has demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in a market of 6% profit margins. Nothing below 28% makes Apple Happy. It is rather obvious that there is a market for a well designed system that just works and works for years.
Seems to be true for the most part.

What strikes me most interesting about this data is that the number of PC's on the market at a retail price point of + 1000 has diminished.
It seems many are looking for a cheap solution when it comes to computer needs. Most use a computer for e-mail, chat, surfing, and simple word processing. A cheap computer can handle these tasks easily. Why pay for computing power you don't need?

You make it sound like sub-$1,00 computers are a bad thing. :confused:
Well, for a hundred bucks you still won't get much these days! :p

Just teasing a little. I know you meant sub 1,000 dollar computers.

The freedom to address a market in the way which preserves their margins is one that is unique to Apple. They are not going to trade away this advantage just because some people would like them to sell budget boxes that complete with the likes of HP and Dell.
So true.

I think what this shows is that if Apple wants to ever get to above 10-15% marketshare, they are going to have to compete in the sub $1,000 price range.
One thing that I've never understood with Apple, is why they don't make a business model or version of the iMac.

Something like this:
- 17 inch widescreen display (like the original Intel one).
- 2.0GHz Intel C2D processor
- On board video
- Combo drive
- 1GB RAM
- 80GB SATA HD
- WiFi and BT (Maybe not needed. Most typical Windows office environments have hardwired LAN with a wired keyboard and mouse. So maybe this could be eliminated to save costs.)

This version would come in under 1,000 dollars and would be great for the typical administrative office, and for many who have limited computer needs. With bootcamp, IT folks could install them as regular PCs running Windows XP and Microsoft Office 2007 which would make a wonderful solution for many office environments.

Of course it would work fine in offices that use the Mac OS side as well.

True, but that share was only 18% in 2006. and is 66% now.
Nice growth! :)

kornyboy

May 20, 2008, 09:38 AM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Wow those are pretty amazing numbers. Way to go Apple. I would like for Apple to attempt to break into the sub $1000 market a little more though.

chr1s60

May 20, 2008, 09:50 AM

If Apple developed a $700-$800 computer, it would sell like crazy. A lot of the people I know like Apple and really like my Apple computers, but when it comes time for them to buy one they can't afford the extra money to get the Mac. I think the overall marketshare would make a big jump if Apple had a low end computer that held the same appeal as their current models. It is the one dimension I feel Apple is really missing out on.

mambodancer

May 20, 2008, 10:04 AM

guzhogi

May 20, 2008, 10:08 AM

Honestly, I thought that remark was fairly clueless. First, Apple does offer a choice under $1,000. Second, everyone has another choice -- they don't have to buy a Mac. Third, if making money in the PC market was as easy as "don't give people a choice," then everybody would be doing it. Obviously, Apple has figured out how to sell computers into the $1,000+ market in a way the rest of the industry has not, and it wasn't about not giving them a choice. It was about giving them a choice they wanted to make.

Sure we have a choice, but is it worth choosing? I feel that just b/c everyone's doing the same thing means they SHOULD be doing that thing.

I don't think Apple wants to capture the sub-$1,000 market. There is very little money to be made in that market. The margins are very poor.

Some money, but not healthy margins. Apple's margins are the envy of the industry because they are not trying to sell in the parts of the market where the margins are poor, which is the bottom end. The margins in the Windows PC business stink, and they pretty much alway have. What we are seeing now is a manifestation of a characteristic which has always separated Apple's business from the Windows OEMs. The PC makers are selling a virtual commodity product. They all function the way Microsoft dictates, which forces the OEMs to distinguish their products mainly on price, resulting in a race to the bottom. They have few opportunities for creating a value-added product, which is what Apple does so well.

Apple has demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in a market of 6% profit margins. Nothing below 28% makes Apple Happy. It is rather obvious that there is a market for a well designed system that just works and works for years.

That's one thing I hate about capitalism: people try to get more money instead of trying to help people. What does Apple need 28% profit margins for? I don't mind Apple being successful, but I feel that they don't need that much profit. They should lower prices, pay their sweat shop workers more, or both. I remember hearing that an iPhone costs about 3 month's pay for the average Chinese person. If that's true, there's a lot of people unable to afford an iPhone. I know, I know, they don't NEED an iPhone, but it would be nice if they were at least able to afford one if they wanted it. I don't see why Apple & other companies can't make it up on volume rather than margins. It's time for Apple to decide what they want more: profits or marketshare.

a456

May 20, 2008, 10:34 AM

Nice to see the old adage, a fool and his money are soon parted, disproved. Looks like people who are willing to spend real amounts of money on computers have the intelligence to buy an Apple not waste it on a windoze box.

Qunchuy

May 20, 2008, 10:35 AM

guzhogi

May 20, 2008, 10:46 AM

One word: refurbished.

I paid much less than $500 for an iBook G4 a few months ago. Refurbished MacBooks direct from Apple are in the sub-$1000 category.

But that's for yesterday's technology. I think we mean when Apple announces a new/updated computer, it should be under $1000 the day it 1st comes out, not a few months/years later. Sure, some refurbs are good for some stuff, but won't last as long as the new ones.

csimmons

May 20, 2008, 10:57 AM

Possibly.

I think what this shows is that if Apple wants to ever get to above 10-15% marketshare, they are going to have to compete in the sub $1,000 price range.

Either that, or somehow convince people who are buying the sub $1000 computers to buy $1000+ computers.

If Apple keeps doing well, they will have to compete in the $500-$700 market, because that will be where the rest of the customers are. Let's say Apple takes 100% of the above $1000 market. That still means Apple only has like 15% (a guess) of total PC marketshare. It's not like they can just say year after year, oh we're happy with 100% of the above $1000 market, and not go after the rest of the market.

arn

Define "compete", in this case.

I think Apple has clearly shown that, at least on the PC front, they're competing very well with other PC hardware and software makers, in that they're making serious money with much less risk. I mean, they earn half of MS's revenues DESPITE having less than 10% of the PC market share.

They've shown quite definitively that they don't need to dominate the PC market in order to be successful or competitive, therefore I doubt very seriously that they will even want to get above, say, 20% of the total PC market, especially since mobile computing is the future anyway, and they're well on their way to leading in that segment already.

csimmons

May 20, 2008, 11:04 AM

It's time for Apple to decide what they want more: profits or marketshare.

Umm, Apple already made that decision quite a while ago, thus the high margins on their products. I personally am perfectly fine with Apple's focus being on profits instead of market share, as long as they keep putting out quality products. The often (over) used car analogy really does apply here.

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 11:11 AM

Is that an attitude a company wants to foster when things are going well. These thing run in cycles, you know.

This isn't an attitude Apple is trying to foster. My remark was in response to the quote in the article that Apple was growing its market share above $1,000 because they "don't give people a choice." I pointed out three ways that people do have a choice. The comment missed the fundamental reason why Apple is thriving in the higher-priced market, which, since that was what the article was about, was a fairly big omission.

aliasfox

May 20, 2008, 11:15 AM

One thing that I've never understood with Apple, is why they don't make a business model or version of the iMac.

Something like this:
- 17 inch widescreen display (like the original Intel one).
- 2.0GHz Intel C2D processor
- On board video
- Combo drive
- 1GB RAM
- 80GB SATA HD
- WiFi and BT (Maybe not needed. Most typical Windows office environments have hardwired LAN with a wired keyboard and mouse. So maybe this could be eliminated to save costs.)

This version would come in under 1,000 dollars and would be great for the typical administrative office, and for many who have limited computer needs. With bootcamp, IT folks could install them as regular PCs running Windows XP and Microsoft Office 2007 which would make a wonderful solution for many office environments.

Of course it would work fine in offices that use the Mac OS side as well.

Nice growth! :)

Apple sold a machine like this up through last year, but as far as I know, only through the EDU channel. In fact, IIRC, at different points there was an on-board GPU/Combo version, as well as an on-board GPU/no Optical/no iSight version as well.

Much as I'd like a mid-range tower to replace my aging Quicksilver (which in some ways is still far more powerful than a mini), it doesn't fit with Apple's philosophy. Think about computers the same way most people think about jeans or cell phones, and you'll understand why Apple sells iMacs instead of midrange towers, practically sealed Mac Minis instead of big boxes.

I think Apple could toy with the idea of small volume licensing - for example, working with the Psystar folks, with the firm understanding that they only have a license to sell x number of units or y million in revenue per year. It would allow Mac OS to be exposed to certain demographics that Apple doesn't cater to, as well as fill niches that simply aren't being met right now, all without heavy impact to Apple's bottom line.

csimmons

May 20, 2008, 11:22 AM

"Consumers don't care about features"

Really? To get a "great experience" I think that requires at least a minimal amount of features. To just say consumers don't care about features, imo, is a bit irresponsible. Especially if I'm paying over $1000 for something I am going to use for hours a day, I better be getting something that is more than just "experience."

If customers really cared about features, then Archos would have the dominant media player on the market, not Apple.

I think many geeks who post here still suffer from "More Stuff = Better" Syndrome; there is a huge difference between having lots of features that few people actually use and that are not well implemented, and fewer features that are practical, useful and well implemented.

Kan-O-Z

May 20, 2008, 11:28 AM

I think the reason Apple doesn't want to get into the sub $1000 market (besides mini) is because they want to sell a quality computer. Dell uses all sorts of tactics to get their computer so cheap. They use specifically made cheap Dell OEM hardware (not the decent retail hardware). Then they get Windows for free if they agree to package in tons and tons of trail software. In the end you get a Dell that is slow, bloated, cheap with a bad OS. You get what you pay for.

Case in point. Dell's Linux machines are not ANY cheaper than a Vista one. Linux is a free OS, Vista is $199-$399.

Another case in point. Let's compare Apples to Apples ;) Dell All-In-Ones. When Dell actually TRIES to make a quality computer using good hardware, good form factor, and having comparable features to an iMac, they can't seem to compete very well. Their prices are actually a tad HIGHER than Apple! On top of that, Dell doesn't have anything that compares with the iLife suite! If you really want to compare, add some more for the Dell for software that will do what iLife does. So in the end, comparing Apples to Apples, Macs are a good deal!

In order for Apple to compete with the really cheap PCs, they would have to really start cutting corners. This in turn will bring the quality and image of Apple down. This is not what they want. They want their computers to be viewed like a Toyota. A little expensive but darn solid, reliable, luxurious, hassle-free and a good experience.

One thing I don't understand about people is they are so crazy about not spending an extra $100 for a computer. I know of a buddy of mine, making a very good salary....and bought a PC in the end because he felt that dishing out an extra $200 for the Apple was useless. He felt that Apple is just over priced and over rated. This kind of mentality amazes me. A computer is an investment (not financially but more for your life). People usually buy a computer and try to keep them for at least 4-5 years. Don't you think it's well worth the extra $100-$200 if every day of your life on the computer is just a little easier and hassle free and more enjoyable for 5 years! I sure would dish out the extra $100-$200!

These same people that are so crazy about not spending the extra $100-$200 will turn around and go out to dinner and blow $100-$200 in one sitting! Amazing! People are truly idiots!

I think once people realize this the choice is clear. They used to sell a Yugo for under $5000. Now do you feel a company like Toyota would want to compete in a sub $5000 car market. Heck no! They have minimum requirements and a sub $5000 car will not meet them! Same with Apple!

Kan-O-Z

CalfCanuck

May 20, 2008, 11:35 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
If Apple's success continues, however, there will be no where else to look but to the sub $1000 market for additional customers.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/19/mac-marketshare-growth-in-high-end-retail-market/)
We went over this before with an article in October 2007 about Apple's excessive sales in the high end notebook market, and the lack of futurue growth possibilities - and debunked the ideas from that "business analyst".

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4312295&postcount=28

To paraphrase what I said in that thread, even if Apple had 100% of the "over $1,000 market" it could still grow much faster than the overall market without selling ANY cheap computers. It is just that it would "grow down" into controlling more of the sub-$1.000 share (i.e. as more people bought computers that cost over $1,000).

MikeTheC

May 20, 2008, 11:37 AM

This thread really makes me laugh, and mostly at the stupidity and arrogance of people who keep screaming that Apple is poised -- perpetually -- on the brink of failure, and oh! how it's all going to come crashing down for Apple if they don't do this or that or the other. Well guess what, folks, Apple's a bit smarter than many of you give them credit for.

Most people out there, so-called "modern society" notwithstanding, neither need nor deserve to have a computer. In fact, most shouldn't be allowed near a computer. And a whopping HUGE percentage of that crowd are not just the sub-$1000 people, but the sub-$500 folks. So many business out there, and this is especially true of the WinTel market, want to suck up every single last person as their customer. Look at the price they're paying for it.

There are plenty of people out there who are, frankly, undesirable to have as a customer, and I don't care if we're talking computer electronics or regular, straight-up retail.

Personally, I think that Apple's name-branded computers should probably start in the $750-$800 range (this would give plenty of margin for Apple to make the no-frills headless system people here crave) and everything else should then be somewhere above $1000.

Of course, I also happen to think Apple should sell unrestricted copies of Leopard and future Mac OS X releases so that intelligent and savvy people can build their own custom spec'd -- and not supported by Apple -- systems which will address whatever wet-dream notions of computer excellence they feel need to be addressed.

I'm not a gamer (unless you include sims 2 which I wouldn't) But you make gamers sound like a sub-species. You know there isn't anything wrong with being a gamer.
Also when I used pc's all of a week ago I always bought higher speced ones which tended to cost round £800 just for the desktop.
Why you... you gamer lover! :p

Eidorian

May 20, 2008, 11:37 AM

I think the reason Apple doesn't want to get into the sub $1000 market (besides mini) is because they want to sell a quality computer. Dell uses all sorts of tactics to get their computer so cheap. They use specifically made cheap Dell OEM hardware (not the decent retail hardware). Then they get Windows for free if they agree to package in tons and tons of trail software. In the end you get a Dell that is slow, bloated, cheap with a bad OS. You get what you pay for.Dell is one of the few manufacturers that barely gives you bloatware on their home computers. Unless you consider Adobe Acrobat bloatware. :rolleyes:

How is Windows a bad operating system in the hands of a knowledgeable user? How about any operating system?

Case in point. Dell's Linux machines are not ANY cheaper than a Vista one. Linux is a free OS, Vista is $199-$399.It depends on the model but you can usually save $50 getting an Ubuntu machine. Not to mention OEM Windows isn't $199-399. Which version of Windows is $399? Even at retail prices. :confused:

In order for Apple to compete with the really cheap PCs, they would have to really start cutting corners. This in turn will bring the quality and image of Apple down. This is not what they want. They want their computers to be viewed like a Toyota. A little expensive but darn solid, reliable, luxurious, hassle-free and a good experience.I'd try not to ignore all the nasty threads about bad Apple hardware on MacRumors. Apple does have a lot riding on perceived quality and value just like other manufacturers.

One thing I don't understand about people is they are so crazy about not spending an extra $100 for a computer. I know of a buddy of mine, making a very good salary....and bought a PC in the end because he felt that dishing out an extra $200 for the Apple was useless. He felt that Apple is just over priced and over rated. This kind of mentality amazes me. A computer is an investment (not financially but more for your life). People usually buy a computer and try to keep them for at least 4-5 years. Don't you think it's well worth the extra $100-$200 if every day of your life on the computer is just a little easier and hassle free and more enjoyable for 5 years! I sure would dish out the extra $100-$200!Know anyone that still uses a Windows 98 machine?

These same people that are so crazy about not spending the extra $100-$200 will turn around and go out to dinner and blow $100-$200 in one sitting! Amazing! People are truly idiots!It depends on how they value a computer. A meal might be worth more then spending more on computer hardware. I wouldn't try eating your computer.

I'm sure I'm suffering on my cheap beige box computers. I just want to spend more then $1,000 for them! I love OS X but I don't understand the need for an elitist view (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5309061&postcount=208).

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 11:41 AM

Another case in point. Let's compare Apples to Apples ;) Dell All-In-Ones. When Dell actually TRIES to make a quality computer using good hardware, good form factor, and having comparable features to an iMac, they can't seem to compete very well. Their prices are actually a tad HIGHER than Apple! On top of that, Dell doesn't have anything that compares with the iLife suite! If you really want to compare, add some more for the Dell for software that will do what iLife does. So in the end, comparing Apples to Apples, Macs are a good deal!

This relates to what I said near the beginning of this thread about the value-added proposition. The Windows PC-makers have a very difficult time selling value-added (either through hardware or software features) because they are in a virtually commoditized market for hardware, and also because they have essentially no control over how their products actually work. This is why they are forced to compete almost entirely on price. Apple is uniquely positioned to sell something other than bare boxes at the lowest possible price, which is why we get nicely designed hardware and useful bundled software with a Mac. Apple can capture back these costs, whereas a Dell or an HP is hard pressed to do so.

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 11:43 AM

Know anyone that still uses a Windows 98 machine?

My Dad did, until about two weeks ago, when I gave him the PC I built three years ago.

djcap

May 20, 2008, 11:45 AM

I disagree with the notion that Apple must eventually turn to the low-end market to be successful. I think that part of the company's success hinges on being a smaller percentage of the market, and a company that caters to high-end consumers. I don't really think Apple wants to compete in the same space as Lenovo, Dell or HP.

err404

May 20, 2008, 12:25 PM

Apple only sells one machine under $1000 and that it the Mini. If the current Mini really accounts for a full 1/3 of Apples B&M sales, than I doubt they see a need to change it.

inkswamp

May 20, 2008, 12:33 PM

Every time we have a section of people clamouring for some cheap 'headless mac' for $499 - Yawn.

Yeah... give that strawman a good uppercut. Nice! Knock 'im down!

People asking for a headless Mac aren't looking for a cheap machine. I don't see people asking for that. We want a headless machine that isn't underpowered like the Mini. I'll pay $1000+ for it, but I'd like a damn Mac that isn't underpowered, allows me to pick a decent display and won't put me into debt. Currently, no Mac exists that meets that very reasonable criteria. Not everybody looking for a headless Mac needs a Mac Pro.

Jobs will NOT make a cheap machine - even the mini isnt cheap.

I look forward to adding that one to my list of things Apple would never do.

"Apple would never kill off Classic completely."

"Apple will never open brick-and-mortar stores. It would be a disaster."

"Apple will never make the eMac available to non-educational buyers."

"Apple would never get into the music business. They can't legally do it."

"Apple would never offer iPods for Windows users."

"Apple would never discontinue the iPod Mini. It's way too popular."

"Apple would never create their own browser. They need Internet Explorer on the Mac."

"Apple would never offer iTunes for Windows."

"Apple would never create a 24" iMac. It would be too top-heavy."

"Apple would never create their own office suite. It would make Microsoft angry."

"Apple would never offer a headless Mac."

"Apple would never switch to Intel chips."

"Apple will never get into the cell phone market. It's way too competitive."

"Apple will never create another handheld platform. The Newton was a disaster."

"Apple will never let people run Windows on a Mac."

"Apple will never make Safari for Windows."

"Apple will never let developers into the iPhone. It's a security problem."

"Apple would never call something the Macbook Air. That's horrible sounding."

"Apple will never release a 3G iPhone. It's too power-hungry."

nick9191

May 20, 2008, 12:37 PM

Wow, 66% of all computers over a thousand dollars are macs.

Is that just US I'm guessing.

freediverdude

May 20, 2008, 12:46 PM

Are these numbers Clinton numbers or Obama numbers? I'm so confused, lol.

I think this has to do with 2 things:

1.) that more pc's have come down in price for decent specs the past couple of years, so that a decently specced pc, the kind people consider an investment for a few years, is probably less than $1000 now.

2.) that Apple has raised it's presence in the retail sector in recent years. No longer forlorn displays only at CompUSA, but all their own stores and now Best Buy.

So I think it's a combination of both of these factors.

BRLawyer

May 20, 2008, 12:53 PM

erm, isn't that what they're doing with the mini already?

its nice to see apple grow like this, and quite impressive.

it's indeed impressive, and SHOWS that Apple has got its strategy right all along, instead of fighting for crappy and unprofitable market segments.

They dominate the cream of the crop, and leave the crumbs to the poor PC makers everywhere. This is even more so when we see today's numbers on growth of Mac sales, showing that Apple has grown 50%, whereas the increasingly irrelevant PC industry ONLY 16%.

The question that remains is: where are Apple doomsayers now? Where are the PC-fanboys in this forum?

GO APPLE!

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 12:54 PM

I look forward to adding that one to my list of things Apple would never do.

Talk about strawman arguments. What is this, about 20 of them?

sushi

May 20, 2008, 12:57 PM

I look forward to adding that one to my list of things Apple would never do.

"Apple would never kill off Classic completely."

"Apple will never open brick-and-mortar stores. It would be a disaster."

"Apple will never make the eMac available to non-educational buyers."

"Apple would never get into the music business. They can't legally do it."

"Apple would never offer iPods for Windows users."

"Apple would never discontinue the iPod Mini. It's way too popular."

"Apple would never create their own browser. They need Internet Explorer on the Mac."

"Apple would never offer iTunes for Windows."

"Apple would never create a 24" iMac. It would be too top-heavy."

"Apple would never create their own office suite. It would make Microsoft angry."

"Apple would never offer a headless Mac."

"Apple would never switch to Intel chips."

"Apple will never get into the cell phone market. It's way too competitive."

"Apple will never create another handheld platform. The Newton was a disaster."

"Apple will never let people run Windows on a Mac."

"Apple will never make Safari for Windows."

"Apple will never let developers into the iPhone. It's a security problem."

"Apple would never call something the Macbook Air. That's horrible sounding."

"Apple will never release a 3G iPhone. It's too power-hungry."
Nice list! :)

The rule is never believe that Apple will not do something. That much is for sure. Apple can and does change it's directions from time to time.

137489

May 20, 2008, 01:06 PM

What if their sub $1000 PC's used the same GUI as the iPhone/iPod Touch?

Jobs: We discovered that the average user only uses one or two programs at once, so we've made it dead simple for even the oldest grandparent to experience a computer.

Touch screen iMac with 8 pre-loaded programs:
Dictionary
iCal
iChat
iTunes
Maps
Mail
Safari
Word (like app)

Yep - pretty much got an ipod touch with a larger screen and hard-drive space here. Would suit my mother fine.

Hey, just thought of something, with a setup like that, then Apple could tap into the POS kiosk/resturant market, where Micros and other touch screen devices are used.

Sounds like a winner to me.

seashellz

May 20, 2008, 01:10 PM

no money to be made in the low end market?-lets say APPLE makes just $50 profit on a low-end model-when they start exponentially multiplying sales, pretty soon youre talking big money.

Grocery chain stores get by with 2% profit margins-its just that they sell LOTS of 2% stuff to get rich.

APPLE could do the same thing and knock that Dell and HP crap outta the park

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 01:15 PM

So now Apple should model themselves after the grocery business? That's probably the strangest suggestion yet!

137489

May 20, 2008, 01:20 PM

So, all this talk about a sub $1000 computer. well, here is my problem with that.

1. All the sub-$1000 computers I seen are relatively low-grade, another words: lower processors, Cd/DVD combo, small hard drive, not much ram, etc.
(especailly if we are talking about a laptop). Or that have all that stuff, but they are still almost $800, so why not just spend the $200 more and get a better system.

that would be great as an entry level computer, but one starts to realize quickly that need more.

2. Yes sub-$1000 computers are already out there (not Apple), but once you add in all you need/like the price jumps up to $1000 or more quickly.

3. Small parts cost more until the demand & technology increases. So if you want it smaller, it will cost more to make initially. You can't have small and inexpensive without cutting features.

4. Now, I would agree that we need a sub-$1000 laptop or desktop that meets the majority of the home users (something slightly more advanced/capable than the mini). I always wondered why Apple just does not include the keyboard and mouse with the mini. All desktops on the PC side of the world come with one.

It used to be that Apple only appealed to the Elite video types, but since more and more are seeing the value of having a mac, and more and more "regular users" are switching to mac everyday - then I can see where this could be a market to enter into. the problem then becomes, if apple was to start offering this - where to cut features to make the $1000+ ones desireable, and if you cut features you make people mad. So where do you win. I only bought one computer in my life that was less than $1000, and I was not happy with its performance.

inkswamp

May 20, 2008, 01:25 PM

it's indeed impressive, and SHOWS that Apple has got its strategy right all along, instead of fighting for crappy and unprofitable market segments.

Right! And good thing they stuck to that strategy with the iPod... er... oh, wait a minute.

They dominate the cream of the crop, and leave the crumbs to the poor PC makers everywhere. This is even more so when we see today's numbers on growth of Mac sales, showing that Apple has grown 50%, whereas the increasingly irrelevant PC industry ONLY 16%.

Look, I understand these are good numbers for Apple and goodness knows I don't want to relieve myself on your one-man parade and all, but come on. You do realize that the numbers cited in this are extraordinarily skewed, right?

Talk about strawman arguments. What is this, about 20 of them?

None of those statements on my list are strawman arguments. I've been on these forums for 5 years now, and every single thing on my list was proclaimed authoritatively by many people here (me included, in some cases.) Do an archive search, if you don't believe it. Those arguments sometimes raged on for many months. I think if I've learned anything in that time it's that nobody on these forums--nobody--can say with any authority what Apple will or will not do.

liven2

May 20, 2008, 01:25 PM

I was a Grocery manager for 15 years and the margins are higher than that as whole. Produce is around 30 to 45 margins, Meat around the same, Bakery is around 20 to 30. Grocery can be around 5 to 15 depending on the store. In over all dollar sales a store averages around 10 to 25 margins from the low to the high end. Grocery itself is low but it is the the associated departments that pushes up the numbers. These are where the profits are made.

The Primary reason people come back to a store is the quality and presentation of Meat, Produce and Bakery along with service. People will tend to pay more if these things look good and they will also be willing to come back. :)

liven2

May 20, 2008, 01:26 PM

psychofreak

May 20, 2008, 01:29 PM

"Apple will never release a 3G iPhone. It's too power-hungry."
Who said that? SJ let it be known that EDGE was being used currently because 3G chips at the time took too much power.

inkswamp

May 20, 2008, 01:35 PM

Who said that? SJ let it be known that EDGE was being used currently because 3G chips at the time took too much power.

And they're just about to reverse themselves on that, aren't they? In spite of that, many people here and elsewhere would take up Jobs' argument and run with it when it was likely Jobs was simply throwing out whatever defense he could come up with to stave off criticism until they could fix it.

You can nitpick my list all you want but the fact is that a lot of people come here and authoritatively declare what Apple will or won't do and they often turn out to be wrong.

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 01:39 PM

None of those statements on my list are strawman arguments. I've been on these forums for 5 years now, and every single thing on my list was proclaimed authoritatively by many people here (me included, in some cases.) Do an archive search, if you don't believe it. Those arguments sometimes raged on for many months. I think if I've learned anything in that time it's that nobody on these forums--nobody--can say with any authority what Apple will or will not do.

Just because somebody somewhere says some peculiar and unfounded thing does not make it a legitimate argument, which is the point of a strawman -- essentially phony arguments which can be easily refuted.

grannyjones

May 20, 2008, 01:42 PM

It's a basic principle of grocery stores and web 2.0 that volume brings profits. Huge volume with small margins equals decent profits. The hook is always that if you gain the volume, a tiny margin adjustment can reap huge rewards. 1 cent on 10 million units? 1 dollar on 10 million units? Some seem to find that less noble than overcharging for far fewer units to bring up the bottom line.

Here's my flamebait:

The reason Apple wins in the +1000 bracket is that people can get perfectly decent and usable PCs for less than 1000. No need to spend more for most. With the current Mac line, you can buy components from 2006 as brand new in 2008 for that price, or spend more.

Kan-O-Z

May 20, 2008, 01:43 PM

[QUOTE=Eidorian;5461742]
Know anyone that still uses a Windows 98 machine?
QUOTE]

Ummm, I said most people use their computers for 4-5 years, not 10 years. This is year 2008. So no I don't know anyone that uses 1998. What point are you trying to make?

Kan-O-Z

Kan-O-Z

May 20, 2008, 02:00 PM

Dell is one of the few manufacturers that barely gives you bloatware on their home computers. Unless you consider Adobe Acrobat bloatware. :rolleyes:

Have you bought a dell lately? Are you telling me you got nothing except Adobe as trial. Seriously take another look. The list is long. It's another way to reduce the price of the machine. They get discounts for bundling in trial software!

How is Windows a bad operating system in the hands of a knowledgeable user? How about any operating system?

Yes you make a good point. Maybe you are knowledgeable and have time on your hands. 95% of the population doesn't. They neither know how to really support an OS nor do they have time to maintain it. Perhaps you are a true unix shell command line user. Good for you. I personally don't have time for that. I want a machine that works as quickly as possible, is intuitive to use and learn on and is fairly maintenance free. Windows tries to do this but you truly need to be an IT guy to really know how to maintian it and keep it running well.

It depends on the model but you can usually save $50 getting an Ubuntu machine. Not to mention OEM Windows isn't $199-399. Which version of Windows is $399? Even at retail prices. :confused:

Microsoft Vista Ultimate is $399

I'd try not to ignore all the nasty threads about bad Apple hardware on MacRumors. Apple does have a lot riding on perceived quality and value just like other manufacturers.

All I am trying to say is that if Dell makes a computer with the EXACT same hardware that Apple uses, it's price will be very close to Apple's. I'm not saying what Apple uses is the best....but it's def better than most sub $1000 computers.

It depends on how they value a computer. A meal might be worth more then spending more on computer hardware. I wouldn't try eating your computer.

Sure I understand. I guess sometimes logic sinks in for me. If you are going to be cheap on a computer, please be consistent and be cheap all the way. Don't go try to save $100-$200 on a computer that will impact your life for several years and then turn around and spend it on one meal that will impact one dinner! That's just me though. If you think one dinner is more valuable than 4 years on a nice computer, then go for it.

thibaulthalpern

May 20, 2008, 02:12 PM

From Fortune (http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/19/report-apples-market-share-of-pcs-over-1000-hits-66/?).

ERm....is this "of all retail sales" worldwide or just in the U.S. Let's be a little more specific :-)

Roderick Usher

May 20, 2008, 02:13 PM

Just because somebody somewhere says some peculiar and unfounded thing does not make it a legitimate argument, which is the point of a strawman -- essentially phony arguments which can be easily refuted.

You're more than welcome to show how each and every one of the statements in that list was phony and illegitimate, and exactly how this new one is not.

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 02:14 PM

ERm....is this "of all retail sales" worldwide or just in the U.S. Let's be a little more specific :-)

The article is specific, and the portion of the article I quoted answers your question.

Dmac77

May 20, 2008, 02:15 PM

But really, let's be honest. If apple had a mid range upgradable tower, who would buy the mac pro?

Those who are not technically inclined like my parents would continue to buy the mac pro. My mother, a pro photographer, and mac pro user barely knows the difference between RAM and the Hard Drive. but she knows how to work pro apps from apple better than the people at the apple stores. many people have know idea how to upgrade their hard drive much less a graphics card, does that mean that they should not be allowed to have a powerful computer. I think not.

MikeTheC

May 20, 2008, 02:17 PM

*nudges Eidorian and Kan-O-Z*

Um, guys... go here (http://armageddontheseries.dyndns.org/)... That's an 11 year old server.

So yes, I use 10+ year old hardware. However, it's Apple hardware and not some WinTel piece of garbage from that era. Oh, and it's running Debian Etch, thank you very much.

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 02:19 PM

You're more than welcome to show how each and every one of the statements in that list was phony and illegitimate, and exactly how this new one is not.

How much of a waste of effort would that be? Entirely. How much would it miss the point? Entirely.

inkswamp

May 20, 2008, 02:20 PM

Just because somebody somewhere says some peculiar and unfounded thing does not make it a legitimate argument

Riiiight. That's one of the points I'm getting at with such a list.

which is the point of a strawman -- essentially phony arguments which can be easily refuted.

Phony arguments can be easily refuted in retrospect. When people come here and announce that Apple would never do XYZ in a million years and cite whatever they feel to be the reason (and often those reasons sound pretty rational) it's hard to argue against that. My list just shows that no matter how good an argument is against Apple doing something in particular, there's a long history showing otherwise.

For me, the quintessential example was the rumored switch to Intel. I can't recall many people believing that one (including me) and the arguments against it sounded solid at the time (especially the one line of thinking that said there's no way Apple could port the entirety of OS X over to another processor.) But it happened anyway, much to everyone's amazement. Even after it was official, people argued here about what a bad move it was--something I view as a saving-face move.

So when I see people rattling off a list of rational sounding reasons why Apple would never ever ever ever ever produce a mid-cost, mid-range headless Mac, I just laugh at that. Apple has shown at this point that they will elude our best guesses every damn time. Nobody can say authoritatively that such a box will never happen, but it doesn't stop people from doing so.

And you know, the day Apple releases it, those same folks will be all over these forums talking about how brilliant it was that Apple did it. :rolleyes:

Dmac77

May 20, 2008, 02:32 PM

It depends on the model but you can usually save $50 getting an Ubuntu machine. Not to mention OEM Windows isn't $199-399. Which version of Windows is $399? Even at retail prices. :confused:

Um, Vista Ultimate costs $399 unless you buy the upgrade which is only $299.

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 02:35 PM

Riiiight. That's one of the points I'm getting at with such a list.

I see. I didn't read it that way, but if that's what you intended, then I agree.

Apple does have the capacity to surprise even the most astute observer. I'd never bet against them doing anything, at least not absolutely. But I think we can know why they are not pursuing certain markets. Some people seem to think that Apple doesn't understand the computer business, and this belief appears to inform their opinions about which products Apple can sell profitably. I believe the clear and abundant evidence is that Apple understands this market very well, a lot better than the random poster arguing that Apple is making a big mistake if they aren't selling whatever product they'd like to buy at any particular moment.

Dmac77

May 20, 2008, 02:52 PM

Dell is one of the few manufacturers that barely gives you bloatware on their home computers. Unless you consider Adobe Acrobat bloatware. :rolleyes:

You have to be kidding me, My POS dell that i got 5 years ago was loaded with bloatware when I got the piece of crap. I had to do a HDD wipe and had to install my own copy of winsh*t on it. First time I started it Norton antivirus, dell's version of photoshop, rhapsody, some music store thing, and last but not least some survey program asking me to rate my experience with dell popped up. Don't give me that crap that dell's don't have bloatware.

Know anyone that still uses a Windows 98 machine?

What is your point Win 98 was launched almost 11 years ago not 5 years ago.

Roderick Usher

May 20, 2008, 02:54 PM

How much of a waste of effort would that be? Entirely. How much would it miss the point? Entirely.
How invalid is your point until you actually back up your assertion regarding those items? Entirely.

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 03:00 PM

How invalid is your point until you actually back up your assertion regarding those items? Entirely.

We have moved beyond this issue, which is a cul-de-sac anyway. Please read above.

Roderick Usher

May 20, 2008, 03:08 PM

We have moved beyond this issue, which is a cul-de-sac anyway. Please read above.
Nice cop-out. You made a sweeping dismissal of several past predictions about Apple's decisions, placing them in a different category from the one presently made, and then failed to illustrate why they deserved to be labeled as such; it's entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

But then it's far easier to sidestep an issue than to actually support one's side of it.

BRLawyer

May 20, 2008, 03:16 PM

Right! And good thing they stuck to that strategy with the iPod... er... oh, wait a minute.

The low-end cutthroat PC market has been there for ages, and barriers to entry are huge in comparison with the ROI. Therefore, it makes little sense for Apple to fight for every inferior Acer out there.

As for the iPod, Apple CREATED a whole new market and a whole new demand. Therefore, it was in a position to address every corner of it as a de facto firstcomer in a successful way.

And even then, I hope you are not as naive as to believe that Apple's bottom line comes from 1Gb Shuffles, right? :rolleyes:

Look, I understand these are good numbers for Apple and goodness knows I don't want to relieve myself on your one-man parade and all, but come on. You do realize that the numbers cited in this are extraordinarily skewed, right?

Skewed in what sense, would you care to explain? You mean Y-o-Y sales versus absolute marketshare?

JoeDMD

May 20, 2008, 03:19 PM

But really, let's be honest. If apple had a mid range upgradable tower, who would buy the mac pro?

Whoever needs one.
I don't, but I don't have a choice.

I don't need a new monitor.
I don't need 8 Cores.
I don't need fancy-pants ram.
I do need/want a machine that is about as powerful as the 24" imac, with the possiblity of upgrading to a quad (or in the future if I want). I want N and Bluetooth as options. I want the ability to change or add a HD or 2 or set up RAID without buying a special controller.

If you can build a decent homemade quad PC for $400, then apple can sell me one for $999 and still make a killing on it.

I think I paid ~1299 for my G4 933 in 2001, which was just a little more than my PC the year before. Why is there no comparable mac now?

I can't really justify buying a MacPro right now and I don't really want an iMac.

I want my mid range tower!
(or any other form factor with user accessible parts and room for upgrade)

So, i'm holding off and not making any purchase at all, and still using my G4, which runs pretty darn well. Not buying 10.5 becuase it will be on the new machine (whenver I get it) and not buying iLife 08 for the same reason.

I'm just one person who isn't forking over the cash (yet) for a machine he doesn't really need.

Eidorian

May 20, 2008, 03:20 PM

I'm not terribly surprised at the exaggerations of the state of Windows hardware and software while placing Apple on a pedestal. I love Apple but I'm not going to blindly defend it without at least having tried the rest. I've learned to like Vista over the past few weeks even if it isn't OS X. I have no idea what you're going to draw from my change in being a hard line XP user when not using OS X.

I have purchased several Dells among other vendors in the past few years under Medical/Government, Higher Education, and a Home stores. At worst Dell had preinstalled Adobe Acrobat Reader and Google Desktop beyond the stock Windows XP image. I still direct users to continue purchasing XP since their software situation is a little more shaky then my cutting edge.

I'm not suggesting that Apple needs to hit the cutthroat market of the $499 Windows PC. $999 would make me more then happy. ;)

I miss the $1,499 Power Mac era myself.

SodiumBenzoate

May 20, 2008, 03:21 PM

Electrolytic

May 20, 2008, 03:58 PM

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 03:59 PM

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 04:02 PM

Your reasons may be true for Apple not selling a cheap 500 dollar pc, but I don't see a reason why not to sell a tower with the same hardware as a high end imac & sell it for over $1000.00. I would buy one...

Probably because it would cannibalize another part of their market. Again, I don't understand why so many people seem so certain that Apple is completely stupid about this stuff.

BRLawyer

May 20, 2008, 04:06 PM

Probably because it would cannibalize another part of their market. Again, I don't understand why so many people seem so certain that Apple is completely stupid about this stuff.

Ditto...as if Apple didn't have A SINGLE PERSON studying the market and reaching the obvious conclusion that a low-cost midtower makes no sense in Apple's strategy, given the UNBELIEVABLE success of iMacs and MBs/MBPs (unless we consider the opinion of a few of our fellow MR members, of course)... :rolleyes:

Electrolytic

May 20, 2008, 04:26 PM

Probably because it would cannibalize another part of their market. Again, I don't understand why so many people seem so certain that Apple is completely stupid about this stuff.

I understand why you say that but I don't think that's it.

Look at the ipod line up, most all of the ipods fill a need for what the customer wants & each ipod cannibalizes on another...

boss1

May 20, 2008, 04:28 PM

Why is this limited to retail sales? You can't really draw any solid conclusions without knowing the data for total sales. We haven't bought a computer in an actual store in more than a decade, and we've easily purchased 7 or 8 computers (Macs and PCs), mostly $1000+, over that time.

I would agree that it's difficult to draw solid conclusions from any partial data. and this data doesn't claim to be impartial, it's almost practically labeled partial data and makes no excuses.

your post however hinted me toward another aspect surrounding this subject we really haven't addressed. It concerns consumer behavior and the PC as a product.

Why don't we see PC's in retail much anymore? and PC's priced over 1k even less? (apple aside) . value is correct but there are more specific and varying values.

It's because your average PC manufacture has failed or stopped trying to captivate the interest of the consumer to come into a store and "touch" and "feel" and "see" the product in person.

Consumer behavior in this regard applies well to food retailers and clothing retailers. they sell less online because they create products who's value is in the "touch, feel, and see in person"

PC manufactures used to have this advantage (moderately at best) . "have u seen the new slim PC Win Book?!" .. "have u seen the new Alien Gamebox PC?!" . Well that's old news, and there's no or little new news.

Apple has managed to continue to add value in this department of consumer features. thats the point.

So yes the data is partial and Apple's share probably grew less than others' market share decreased! true . But people seem to forget that it's the comparison between the state of market 5 years ago to today that is significant.

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 05:06 PM

I understand why you say that but I don't think that's it.

I don't claim to know for certain; this is just my best guess. The point being that if Apple could make good money doing something then I think it's fair to assume that they'd be doing it. I've honestly never understood why anyone would argue otherwise, but this reasoning does seem to be at the heart of every suggestion that Apple should be selling a (fill in the blank) product that they don't now. Put it this way: If you've thought about a product Apple could be selling, you can be pretty certain that Apple has thought it about it too. And if they aren't selling it, you can also be pretty certain that there's a damned good reason why.

AidenShaw

May 20, 2008, 05:39 PM

Um, Vista Ultimate costs $399 unless you buy the upgrade which is only $299.

If you're going to make claims on price, at least check that you're in the same ballpark. (And obviously, a big computer vender isn't going to be paying the $180/unit street price for Vista).

Vista Home is $89.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116490

JoeDMD

May 20, 2008, 05:40 PM

The point being that if Apple could make good money doing something then I think it's fair to assume that they'd be doing it... And if they aren't selling it, you can also be pretty certain that there's a damned good reason why.

The issue may not be the product itself selling or not selling, but rather Apple's "image."

Apple may believe that it can only sell computers if they are pretty, (imac), cool/cute (mini, iphone), or niche (mac pro). (feel free to switch up the categories)

So, while a mid-tower may be desired by current mac users, it doesn't have the pull that the mini or imac have. It may not catch your eye and pull you away from that $399 Dell.

However, as more and more consumers appreciate mac for what it is, ie. an easy to use, stable computer rather than what it looks like (don't get me wrong, they are pretty), perhaps apple will consider a product that doesn't have the bling, but gives users what they want.

I think that while many or most of the readers of this forum love their macs, they would like a mid-tower, or at least something that you can add more internal drives to. It is easier to change a laptop HD than an iMac HD, and the iMac has more internal case room.

LCPGUY

May 20, 2008, 05:52 PM

My opinion is that a low cost Tower with upgradable components like CPU and Video card, and maybe PCI and eSATA slots, would drastically hurt the Mac Pro's sales. Maybe? :confused:

Dmac77

May 20, 2008, 05:54 PM

If you're going to make claims on price, at least check that you're in the same ballpark. (And obviously, a big computer vender isn't going to be paying the $180/unit street price for Vista).

Vista Home is $89.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116490
Yes, you maybe able to find vista ultimate for 180 on newegg, and i admit I was wrong, but microsoft's suggested retail price for vista utimate full version is 319.99, not 180.00. I was referring to the price that a consumer would pay, not the prices that the manufactures pay.

JoeDMD

May 20, 2008, 05:59 PM

My opinion is that a low cost Tower with upgradable components like CPU and Video card, and maybe PCI and eSATA slots, would drastically hurt the Mac Pro's sales. Maybe? :confused:

Maybe, but if I needed a Mac Pro I would get one.
For me, the cost is not really justifyable.

It may sound whiney, but why is apple forcing me to get a Mac Pro if I want upgradability?

How many people out there need 8 cores? How much software even knows what to do with 8 cores? Why buy what I don't need? And why the $$$ for RAID? Why no eSATA?

IJ Reilly

May 20, 2008, 06:04 PM

The issue may not be the product itself selling or not selling, but rather Apple's "image."

Apple may believe that it can only sell computers if they are pretty, (imac), cool/cute (mini, iphone), or niche (mac pro). (feel free to switch up the categories)

There's nothing inherently "ugly" about a mid-tower computer. If anyone could do it right aesthetically, it would be Apple. I would be surprised if they haven't mocked up mid-tower designs already.

chewietobbacca

May 20, 2008, 06:05 PM

Sorry but a lot of this stuff is misleading.

First, without actual figures on what % of the market is > $1000 versus the rest of the market, or figures on what % of retail market is of the entire computer-buying market, we have no actual figures of how much growth there is.

For example, HP Dell Lenovo etc. make the majority of their money off enterprise sales. Considering that Apple barely makes a dent in the business sector of PC hardware and software, and that almost the entire world's business is run off that stuff, I'd say its a pretty sizable market that is ignored. As someone stated earlier in this thread, with business contracts, a $2000 notebook might be < $1000 since they're being bought in volume.

Yes profit margins might be lower at < $1000, but you're kidding yourself if you don't believe companies can't be profitable with volume sales. For instance, whenever Intel rolls out a new chip, that first wafer may cost millions to make, but each chip afterwards will cost only hundreds of dollars. Its also why the Intel Extreme processors cost $1000+ while the regular Core 2 Quad processors cost hundreds, but I don't see Intel losing profits off that.

Also, one big factor to count into all this data is the fact that hardware prices have dropped while Macs have not, despite using similar hardware. You're kidding yourself if you think that Apple is getting hardware that is that much better - they're all manufactured by the same companies in factories in China. Quality might differ a bit, but if you look into PC hardware, getting a high quality reliable motherboard vs. a budget one of the same chipset rarely varies by more than $100. And that's retail pricing.

Also, hardware prices have dropped big if you think about it. Back 3 years ago, getting a premium notebook could cost you $2000+. Now? You'll get a great performing one (non-gaming etc.) for < $1000 easily. Heck, $400-600 notebooks can be found regularly now.

Also, look at PC's - you can get a Q6600 quad cored PC from Dell etc. for $600 now. If you build your own, you can build a mean rig for $600. For that same performance even a year ago (and trust me, I know cause I built one then), it would've cost you $1300+. Look at DDR2 RAM prices to just know how much they dropped as well (from $150 for 2GB 1 year ago this time to practically free). Think about a Q6600 1 year ago this date - it was $530. Today? $200.

Finally, look at market trends. First, PC gaming has been agonizing because PC game developers are moving to consoles. Part of this is because consoles have become more powerful, and the other part is because most people are tech illiterate. Thus those who are likely to buy a premium PC for home use (usually gaming) is decreasing. Workstations are another story.

Next, those who do game these days tend to build their own PC's, because for $800 you can get a better PC than a pre-built one for $1200 easily. This isn't about manufacturers captivating users or not - people who aren't sure about building their own computer will still go to manufacturers. If you look at big parts sellers like Newegg, revenue has been huge from the large # of people learning to build PC's. Really, build one once and you won't forget how to do it.

And with market trends, if the majority of the market buys computers for casual home use, then the fact that you can build a budget PC for $400 these days (even thats too much, I just built one for $300 and its dual core and all that jazz) will not help the cause for > $1000 computers.

Thus, without any reliable information on what percentage of each market belongs to the rest of the market, all this stuff doesn't prove anything in terms of how much stuff is actually being sold and how many people are using it.

AidenShaw

May 20, 2008, 06:06 PM

Yes, you maybe able to find vista ultimate for 180 on newegg,... I was referring to the price that a consumer would pay, not the prices that the manufactures pay.

Newegg is a place where consumers are welcome - $180 is the retail street price for Vista OEM version.

but microsoft's suggested retail price for vista utimate full version is 319.99

Two things:

Nobody pays Microsoft list price
If you're building or upgrading a system, you don't need the "full version" - you can get the OEM version legitimately

I just don't like to see arguments that are based on wildly inflated prices. A claim that a product is $400 when it is widely available for under $200 is at best careless writing.

killerrobot

May 20, 2008, 06:31 PM

While there's no doubt in my mind that Mac's market share has risen, these stats- by excluding all the corporate/online sales - seem quite polished and favored.

It reminds me of the DirectTV commercial (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GBCcJSTH538) about cable companies:

-"90% of stats can be made to say anything."
--"90%?"
-"50% of the time."
:)

jbernie

May 20, 2008, 06:37 PM

Btw, if you want to see Microsoft disappear then Apple needs to sell cheaper computers. If other companies can sell PCs for $400 all inclusive then you can bet Apple can build something pretty similar and sell it for $600 and make more profit or less of a loss.

Then again, I think some of this comes back to Apple being as much of a "look at me" brand as it is a brand selling functional devices. Refer to people who buy BMWs, Mercedes etc, many buy the product because it really can be a quality offering, but too many buy it because they want to be seen in a brand name vehicle, even though "lesser" companies like Hyundi can now out rank Mercedes on quality.

Many people by the iPhone because of the features it provides, many just buy it because OMG its trendy and I HAVE to be seen holding it, I must hold it and show the world as opposed to carrying it in your purse or jacket pocket etc. And of course you can get a Blackberry for much less than an iPhone etc etc, but it is viewed as a workers tool not a fashion accessory.

If I do get around to buying a Mac it will either be a mini which can be used to play around with and maybe be a media store, or a minitower version where I can upgrade it when I choose, no need for a closed system where the only upgrade is replacement or buy an extremely expensive MacPro which is way more than I will ever need.

Apple is a business and can choose to go for whatever markets it wants, but given the way things are now, I can't see how they can't produce a stylish mini tower version and sell it at a decent profit whilst keeping the cost under $750. They won't need to advertise the product because every media outlet i the country will do it for them for free.

leekohler

May 20, 2008, 06:41 PM

k2k koos

May 20, 2008, 06:45 PM

From what I can gather, Apple has two ways of growinG:

Continue the +$1000,- offerings, the market isn't saturated yet, there are yet more customers, and earlier adopters(long term mac users) may need to or want to upgrade their current machines,

Second: Grow by adopting the low end market, be it the higher end of the low end market, as Apple's engineering and design investments need to be paid for, but a new generation of Mac mini's and derivatives is not unlikely.:apple:

MacFly123

May 20, 2008, 07:15 PM

The low-end cutthroat PC market has been there for ages, and barriers to entry are huge in comparison with the ROI. Therefore, it makes little sense for Apple to fight for every inferior Acer out there.

I agree with you, but I also think that Apple should try a little harder to keep the Mini up to date and offer at least SOMETHING decent in the sub $1,000.00 range so that more people can join the Mac family. Not too much to ask I think!

Those Mini purchasers would probably buy a more expensive Mac the next time around and it would allow a lot more people to become switchers as another form of easy transition halo effect.

jbernie

May 20, 2008, 08:29 PM

Creating desire for a product is just as important as it's function. All the reasons you listed for why Apple products are popular are valid. That said, they can charge whatever the market allows. It's been working for an awfully long time.

Yup, and just wandering through this thread and many others there would appear to be a definate desire amongst the crowd for a non MacPro mini tower product which can be upgraded over time. They don't need to compete at the $400 level, but they sure need more at below the current $1200 starting point of an iMac.

Take an average person, no Apple or Windows fanboi's! Just someone who wants to get a computer at home. I present to you lots of cheap Windows all in one options around the $400-500 or we can start at $600 for just the MacMini, must buy keyboard, mouse & screen extra, or $1100 for a MacBook or $1200 for a iMac.

Yes you might be buying the Apple "experience" that makes it all warm and fuzzy, but lets be honest people, you can't sell alot of people a computer with 90% of the warm and fuzzies available and get them to spend 2-3 times the amount of money compared to the Windows box.

Dmac77

May 20, 2008, 08:50 PM

Newegg is a place where consumers are welcome - $180 is the retail street price for Vista OEM version.

Two things:

Nobody pays Microsoft list price
If you're building or upgrading a system, you don't need the "full version" - you can get the OEM version legitimately

I just don't like to see arguments that are based on wildly inflated prices. A claim that a product is $400 when it is widely available for under $200 is at best careless writing.

I realize that consumers are welcome at newegg. but for a consumer to use the OEM version violates microsoft's EULA. And I paid the suggested price. So if you want to use something legally then you pay the consumer price.

inkswamp

May 20, 2008, 09:23 PM

My opinion is that a low cost Tower with upgradable components like CPU and Video card, and maybe PCI and eSATA slots, would drastically hurt the Mac Pro's sales. Maybe? :confused:

Of course a mid-range tower will hurt Mac Pro sales, but only inasmuch as it will give buyers who don't need that much power a reasonable headless alternative. There will still be big corporate and government buyers who think nothing of grabbing tons of the high-end models. There will still be power users who need multiple upgrade slots and as much as RAM as possible. The Mac Pros won't die.

The thing that would offset the lost Mac Pro sales is the enormous number of new switchers, Windows users who won't buy a Mac because Apple offers nothing they can really relate to. I suspect there's a huge pent-up demand for it but Apple doesn't hear it because their customers (a self-selecting group who have decided they don't need a mid-range tower) aren't asking for it. I see it all over the place, online and in real life. I just wish Apple would cater to those potential customers instead of presuming to dictate to them what they must buy because they are "consumer level."

SodiumBenzoate

May 20, 2008, 10:21 PM

My opinion is that a low cost Tower with upgradable components like CPU and Video card, and maybe PCI and eSATA slots, would drastically hurt the Mac Pro's sales. Maybe? :confused:

I don't know the exact business models, but a lot of computer companies - essentially everyone other than Apple - sell many overlapping products and do just fine. IIRC, Dell has three different 15" laptops. (Vostro, XPS, Latitude)

Apple almost certainly has higher margins with the Mac Pro than they would with a mid-range product. However, since they would attract new costumers, it's potentially still worth it. The main factor is how many Mac Pro buyers are buying more computer than they need. If a lot of Mac Pro buyers would rather buy a mid-range tower, then Mac Pro sales would suffer, obviously. However, is that the case? Are a lot of Mac Pro buyers buying more computer than they need?

DMann

May 21, 2008, 12:43 AM

That's pretty impressive...but the majority of the market (consumers) want a computer under $1k.

True, but if one wants to upgrade their computer, by the time one spends $600 for a bulky tower, $300 for a non HiDef monitor, and an additional $400 for add-ons like blue-tooth, wi-fi, optical drive, extra RAM, etc., one can instead have a slim, elegant, state-of-the-art iMac 24" with all of that included plus HiDef, all designed to work seamlessly together, not to mention the iLife suite, a solid and advanced OS, and an extraordinary user experience. By this jump in numbers, it seems that the masses are beginning to realize this and act on it.

MagnusVonMagnum

May 21, 2008, 12:52 AM

Given most Windows PCs sell for less than $1000 these days, the 66% doesn't mean much, IMO. 66% of <10% is only ~6% which is Apple's overall figure forever anyway. Nice way to spin the real facts, though....

AidenShaw

May 21, 2008, 01:07 AM

I realize that consumers are welcome at newegg. but for a consumer to use the OEM version violates microsoft's EULA. And I paid the suggested price. So if you want to use something legally then you pay the consumer price.

I suggest that you read the Microsoft licensing terms at http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/Public/sblicense/2007_SB_Licenses/FY07_SB_License_English.pdf ...

OEM licensing and EULA are opposing terms - one for the system builder (the Newegg customer) and one for the user of the system (the same individual, in the case of a DIY).

Do you really think that Microsoft would be shipping hundreds of thousands of copies of individually packaged OEM kits to Newegg, Fry's, Tiger and everyone else if they couldn't be legitimately sold?

DMann

May 21, 2008, 01:17 AM

Given most Windows PCs sell for less than $1000 these days, the 66% doesn't mean much.

Not true, these days, computer upgrades involve purchasing extras like RAM, Wi-Fi, Blue Tooth, Optical Super-Drives, Larger HDs, etc., taking the price above $1000. For the same price, you can have an all-in-one state-of-the-art iMac 24", and people are making this choice.

BongoBanger

May 21, 2008, 04:49 AM

AidenShaw

May 21, 2008, 09:27 AM

Not true, these days, computer upgrades involve purchasing extras like RAM, Wi-Fi, Blue Tooth, Optical Super-Drives, Larger HDs, etc., ...

See today's Fry's ad below. Quad core 2.4 GHz, 4 GiB DDR2, HDMI output, Optical Super-multi, wireless kbd mouse, 750 GB drive - most of the upgrades you mention are already there.

$700. Add a 24" LCD, you'll just break the $1000 line.

...taking the price above $1000. For the same price, you can have an all-in-one state-of-the-art iMac 24", and people are making this choice.

Oh really?

When I open the Apple store website, the cheapest 20" Imac is $1200. Add 4 GiB RAM and a 500 GB drive (750 not available), it's a nice $1600. And it's still dual core, not quad core.

For a 24", 4 GiB and 750 GB sets you back $2150. It's still dual core instead of quad, but it's a bit faster and has better graphics.

The Gateway *plus* the base 20" Imac is still less than the 24" Imac configured with 4 GiB/750GB :rolleyes:

http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668056.php

stiles

May 21, 2008, 10:15 AM

Whoever needs one.
I don't, but I don't have a choice.

I don't need a new monitor.
I don't need 8 Cores.
I don't need fancy-pants ram.
I do need/want a machine that is about as powerful as the 24" imac, with the possiblity of upgrading to a quad (or in the future if I want). I want N and Bluetooth as options. I want the ability to change or add a HD or 2 or set up RAID without buying a special controller.

If you can build a decent homemade quad PC for $400, then apple can sell me one for $999 and still make a killing on it.

I think I paid ~1299 for my G4 933 in 2001, which was just a little more than my PC the year before. Why is there no comparable mac now?

I can't really justify buying a MacPro right now and I don't really want an iMac.

I want my mid range tower!
(or any other form factor with user accessible parts and room for upgrade)

So, i'm holding off and not making any purchase at all, and still using my G4, which runs pretty darn well. Not buying 10.5 becuase it will be on the new machine (whenver I get it) and not buying iLife 08 for the same reason.

I'm just one person who isn't forking over the cash (yet) for a machine he doesn't really need.

I don't think everyone has the will power that you have. I know i'm in the same predicament as you. I'll probably end up giving in and getting a mac pro because i need more power than an imac, i want expandability, and i still want a mac. I guess apple figures if you want a midrange tower for a reasonable price, go buy an older mac pro or g5.

DMann

May 21, 2008, 11:35 AM

People aren't making the choice to spend more on an iMac, they're making the choice to spend less on a PC. If you buy a decent Apple machine it'll cost you more than $1,000. A decent Dell or HP will cost you about $700-900.

Which is not to say that Apple aren't making gains because they are, I just think statistics like this are a bit meaningless.

True, however, when those same people wander into an Apple store, and actually interact with the new iMacs, the response is often: "For the same price, or a little more, I can have this - a BMW instead of a Ford Escort - a machine which work's well, is designed to work well, includes great software and no bloatware, and has impeccable service if anything goes wrong. By comparison, a descent $700-900 Dell or HP running Windows seems much less enticing. Although the stats can be misleading, people might now be inclined to spend a little more for a superior user experience.

AidenShaw

May 21, 2008, 11:48 AM

True, however, when those same people wander into an Apple store, and actually interact with the new iMacs, the response is often: "For the same price, or a little more, I can have this - a BMW instead of a Ford Escort

I seriously doubt that many car shoppers have both BMW and Escort on their short lists ;) . (Especially considering that the Ford Focus (http://www.ford.com/vehicles/vehicle-showroom/vehicledetail/ford-focus-2008) is the name of Ford's current entry car - the Escort was last sold in the 2002 model year.)

Besides, you've now completely changed your argument.

I was replying to a statement that you made that "For the same price [after addons], you can have an all-in-one state-of-the-art iMac 24in" - which I showed is a steaming pile of BS.

Now you're playing the tired old "Apples are like BMWs - cost more but I'm worth it" song.

One argument, please ;) .

DMann

May 21, 2008, 12:32 PM

See today's Fry's ad below. Quad core 2.4 GHz, 4 GiB DDR2, HDMI output, Optical Super-multi, wireless kbd mouse, 750 GB drive - most of the upgrades you mention are already there.

$700. Add a 24" LCD, you'll just break the $1000 line.

True, add any descent monitor to this $849.99 (with temporary discount) Blue-Tooth, Wi-Fi, descent graphics card, and your looking at $1000+

If someone wants a cheaper machine, using an education or government discount, one can opt for a $1.149.00 iMac 20."

Seems a majority of consumers are opting for a hassle-free, superior user experience - I'm not speaking only of the stats, but of the quarterly earnings reports.

Eventually down the line, it would be great if a customizable, mid-sized tower were to be offered, but this will happen only after the used Intel and older used G5 towers sell off.

AidenShaw

May 21, 2008, 12:57 PM

$849.99 (with temporary discount)

Temporary discount?

Yes, today this particular model of Gateway is $150 off. Tomorrow, probably a quad core HP at Fry's for similar price, or a Dell special offer, or Acer, or....

The fact is that at any time you can find a quad core PC with good specs in the $600 to $750 range. While the price on this particular model is temporary, the price point is not.

True, add any descent monitor...

Why do you descend to this argument again? ;)

Name brand 19" to 20" LCDs can be found for about $200-$220 - that brings us to $920.

Lots of people already have monitors, or don't need a great monitor for email/surf/whatever. It's disingenuous to bump the price with a monitor that's more than a user might need.

Blue-Tooth, Wi-Fi, descent graphics card, and your looking at $1000+

If you want BlueTooth...that'll set you back $7-$10.
If you want WiFi on a desktop...that'll set you back $15.
If you want better graphics...you can, not like the Imac.

The key word is "IF" - people buy a Ford Focus because it has appropriate value for them. They don't worry that it doesn't have builtin XM and GPS like the BMW - those things don't have value to them.

If someone wants a cheaper machine, using an education or government discount, one can opt for a $1.149.00 iMac 20."

LOL - you say that the Gateway price is "temporary", then assume that everyone can get an education or government discount! :eek:

...consumers are opting for a hassle-free, superior user experience

Work on this argument - it might get you somewhere. But don't say "majority", NPD still says 16% on their narrow sample.

AtariKee

May 21, 2008, 01:30 PM

We can all argue the merits Apple's current line of computers, but it's painfully obvious at this point that Apple should just take the components of a couple of the iMacs and repackage them into headless machines for around $900-1400. I don't think that would so much cannibalize the existing line-up as it would attract a ton of new customers.

Not. Ever. Gonna. Happen. PERIOD.

Look at Dell and Gateway. Enough said.

Apple's business strategy is to build machines for specific markets and make a profit, not jump into the bottom-scraping morass of building cheapo boxes just because a couple thousand geeks are crying for one. And the strategy works (ahem... 11 billion in the bank with no debt). Apple's market isn't geeks who tinker and constantly upgrade their boxes. Build a PC if you want to do that. Apple definitely won't miss the vocal couple thousand or so who constantly whine about a "headless Mac".

Steve's been back at Apple for over 10 years now, and some people STILL don't get it.

DMann

May 21, 2008, 01:32 PM

Name brand 19" to 20" LCDs can be found for about $200-$220 - that brings us to $920.
Sure, if you want to nickel and dime - we're talking quality here - for those who don't care about resolution or brightness, or for those who already have a monitor, this route would be the more practical choice. I agree with you, a solution, other than the mini, would be ideal for consumers who only need a tower. Clearly, Apple is trying to push 'the package' to consumers, for the time being.

you say that the Gateway price is "temporary", then assume that everyone can get an education or government discount!

Perhaps not everyone, but for students, teachers, affiliates at educational institutions, government employees of all branches, at least this discount doesn't come and go. This lower price point is partly driven by the competitive pricing of Macs and other PCs, which all in all, is a good thing. But one can argue, why do I need a quad-core processor when a dual core would meet my needs? Let's drop the price down further, why don't we?

don't say "majority", NPD still says 16% on their narrow sample.

I did not say 'the' majority, I referred to 'a' majority of consumers who would prefer a hassle-free and great user experience over a system which requires
incessant tech support and trouble shooting a very unreliable OS. The 55% jump in quarterly sales for Macs supports a significant shift.

AtariKee

May 21, 2008, 01:36 PM

Eidorian

May 21, 2008, 01:37 PM

Perhaps not everyone, but for students, teachers, affiliates at educational institutions, government employees of all branches, at least this discount doesn't come and go.The quad cores have had the same $150 discount for months now. AidenShaw pointed this fact out as well. I could dig through every ad and find it for you but you can as well. ;) It's also available as an open retail discount.

This lower price point is partly driven by the competitive pricing of Macs and other PCs, which all in all, is a good thing. But one can argue, why do I need a quad-core processor when a dual core would meet my needs? Let's drop the price down further, why don't we?I can get a quad core elsewhere for less then a dual core from Apple and you want to drop down to a dual core which costs even less from other manufacturers?

Why even bring up cheaper dual cores?

IJ Reilly

May 21, 2008, 01:40 PM

Not. Ever. Gonna. Happen. PERIOD.

Look at Dell and Gateway. Enough said.

Apple's business strategy is to build machines for specific markets and make a profit, not jump into the bottom-scraping morass of building cheapo boxes just because a couple thousand geeks are crying for one. And the strategy works (ahem... 11 billion in the bank with no debt). Apple's market isn't geeks who tinker and constantly upgrade their boxes. Build a PC if you want to do that. Apple definitely won't miss the vocal couple thousand or so who constantly whine about a "headless Mac".

Steve's been back at Apple for over 10 years now, and some people STILL don't get it.

I would never say never, but in general I agree that Apple isn't building these boxes now because they don't see it as good business sense, and I don't seem much room to question Apple's business sense over the last several years, which appears to be almost flawless. The logic supporting a contrary opinion has never appeared in any of debates, strangely enough, but that doesn't keep them from going on and on and on.

BTW, Apple's cash hoard is now $19 billion.

Some money, but not healthy margins. Apple's margins are the envy of the industry because they are not trying to sell in the parts of the market where the margins are poor, which is the bottom end. The margins in the Windows PC business stink, and they pretty much alway have. What we are seeing now is a manifestation of a characteristic which has always separated Apple's business from the Windows OEMs. The PC makers are selling a virtual commodity product. They all function the way Microsoft dictates, which forces the OEMs to distinguish their products mainly on price, resulting in a race to the bottom. They have few opportunities for creating a value-added product, which is what Apple does so well.

Thank you. Someone who actually GETS IT.

Really.

AtariKee

May 21, 2008, 01:57 PM

<snip>

It's time for Apple to decide what they want more: profits or marketshare.

They already made that decision. Profits, by selling to profitable markets. The rest of your post is just drivel. Products do not make the world a better place. They make them more fun, sure, but I'm sure the Chinese will survive without an iPhone or other frivolous luxury products.

*nudges Eidorian and Kan-O-Z*

Um, guys... go here (http://armageddontheseries.dyndns.org/)... That's an 11 year old server.

So yes, I use 10+ year old hardware. However, it's Apple hardware and not some WinTel piece of garbage from that era. Oh, and it's running Debian Etch, thank you very much.

I still carry around my 10 year old Wallstreet. Maxed-out and running beautifully. Doesn't earn me any points in the "cool" department, but I don't lose sleep over that :)

DMann

May 21, 2008, 01:58 PM

The quad cores have had the same $150 discount for months now. AidenShaw pointed this fact out as well. I could dig through every ad and find it for you but you can as well. ;) It's also available as an open retail discount.

I can get a quad core elsewhere for less then a dual core from Apple and you want to drop down to a dual core which costs even less from other manufacturers?

Why even bring up cheaper dual cores?

Just making a point about nickel and dime-ing. If you can get a Quad-Core for less than Apple's, surely you can find a Dual-Core chip option for cheaper than the advertised Quad-Core deals mentioned above. If you really want to build your own box - you can do it for MUCH cheaper than what Dell, Gateway, and HP are offering.

As stated by macidiot and AtariKee, Apple doesn't need to compete for rock bottom prices at a near zero profit margin. It is noteworthy, however, that they make a descent profit selling quality products, and yet still remain competitive enough - much more now than 10 years ago.

Eidorian

May 21, 2008, 02:02 PM

Just making a point about nickel and dime-ing. If you can get a Quad-Core for less than Apple's, surely you can find a Dual-Core chip option for cheaper than the advertised Quad-Core deals mentioned above. If you really want to build your own box - you can do it for MUCH cheaper than what Dell, Gateway, and HP are offering.

As stated by macidiot and AtariKee, Apple doesn't need to compete for rock bottom prices at a near zero profit margin. It is noteworthy, however, that they make a descent profit selling quality products, and yet still remain competitive enough - much more now than 10 years ago.I'm going to let you slide but we wouldn't be complaining if Apple went with LGA775 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=eidorian+conroe+site%3Aforums.macrumors.com&meta=) in the iMac in the first place.

When did I say Apple needed to go rock bottom and cutthroat again? They'd be making even greater margins if they had just built the iMac around desktop processors like it did in the past.

AtariKee

May 21, 2008, 02:02 PM

So when I see people rattling off a list of rational sounding reasons why Apple would never ever ever ever ever produce a mid-cost, mid-range headless Mac, I just laugh at that. Apple has shown at this point that they will elude our best guesses every damn time. Nobody can say authoritatively that such a box will never happen, but it doesn't stop people from doing so.

And you know, the day Apple releases it, those same folks will be all over these forums talking about how brilliant it was that Apple did it. :rolleyes:

Looking at Apple's history of making products smaller, thinner, and more portable, one would see yet ANOTHER in the myriad of reasons why a headless Mac is not in their future...

IJ Reilly

May 21, 2008, 02:14 PM

When did I say Apple needed to go rock bottom and cutthroat again? They'd be making even greater margins if they had just built the iMac around desktop processors like it did in the past.

This assumes knowledge that you can't possibly possess. Only Apple knows how much they pay Intel for their processors, and the design issues involved.

Eidorian

May 21, 2008, 02:16 PM

This assumes knowledge that you can't possibly possess. Only Apple knows how much they pay Intel for their processors, and the design issues involved.If Apple is getting desktop prices for mobile processors then it's another story. There's a problem with the current processors reporting in as E8xxx series when Apple has stuck with mobile T5/7xxx processors. Intel could be making desktop processors for the GM/PM965 platform for all we know.

Let's not even try to wonder what Apple pays for the +$1,000 Extreme processors.

IJ Reilly

May 21, 2008, 02:19 PM

If Apple is getting desktop prices for mobile processors then it's another story.

It's already another story, because you are assuming that Apple would deliberately spend more than necessary for their processors for no reason.

Eidorian

May 21, 2008, 02:21 PM

It's already another story, because you are assuming that Apple would deliberately spend more than necessary for their processors for no reason.I fail to see your point. Desktop processors would still be much cheaper then their equivalents mobile variant.

DMann

May 21, 2008, 02:25 PM

we wouldn't be complaining if Apple went with LGA775 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=eidorian+conroe+site%3Aforums.macrumors.com&meta=) in the iMac in the first place.

When did I say Apple needed to go rock bottom and cutthroat again? They'd be making even greater margins if they had just built the iMac around desktop processors like it did in the past.

For one reason, a desktop processor would overheat in the iMac's thin enclosure. Until the 45nm Yorkfield and Wolfdale chips are available, it seems mobile processors will have to do.

javierbds

May 21, 2008, 02:26 PM

Apple selects (one can even argue 'creates') it's own markets with an ability unmatched by any other in the prosumer market. Others that try to do as Apple fail, the ones that get targeted by Apple's interest start to sell/try to pick up. So I would qualify Apple as a "sniper". I would argue that this study has selected a market Apple has targeted and shown that Apple owns that market now.

A sniper cannot target the general market, it would be swamped. As far as the sniper can differentiate among the market into groups with special needs it can deliver specific products. The market in general will always be better served by GNU/Linux (Ubuntu), Windows "Corporate" whatever or Windows/XBox "Gamer" whatnot. MS is bound to lose a lot of lower-end market (the biggest) to Ubuntu and the likes (it seems it cannot continue forcing the world to use its lower OS "offer").

It is to be seen if Apple wants to enter a mid-tower market (Mac Pro Mini): probably not; or an SFF market (Mac Mini Pro): right now Apple prefers appliances (Apple TV, ) for some of the possible uses. The mini 'created' its own market and its main deficiencies could possibly be removed in the next Intel arch upgrade: integrated gpu and memory controller.

Sadly, the *only* machine that Apple thinks users should service/upgrade themselves is a pro server grade one. On others, the freedom a consumer has to evolve is very limited.

It is as if Apple would want consumers to be frozen in carbonite, but consumers evolve and not necessarily into a pro shop. So part of Apple's "magic" is taking the general-purpose out of computing ... Which creates a nice market for 3rd parties to try to bring it back, which later Apple targets ... I have no doubt that only the high quality of what Apple produces allows it to play well this game repeatedly. When the quality suffers or the target market moves, the game breaks and Apple gets into trouble. I think this Apple (without computer) is quite different from the original one ... :apple:

IJ Reilly

May 21, 2008, 02:26 PM

I fail to see your point. Desktop processors would be much cheaper then their equivalents mobile variant.

The point is simple. Apple would not spend more for a processor if they could spend less. Either they aren't paying more, or the design issues of the iMac require that they use the mobile processors. If you've got a good alternative explanation, then I'm all ears.

BongoBanger

May 21, 2008, 02:36 PM

Apple's market isn't geeks who tinker and constantly upgrade their boxes.

Well, no. Apple's market is clearly people who are happy contributing to Apple's 25%+ profit margin on each unit.

Steve's been back at Apple for over 10 years now, and some people STILL don't get it.

Oh we do - sell expensive units to people willing to pay money for the perception of usability and reliability. Quite simple really.

IJ Reilly

May 21, 2008, 02:46 PM

Well, no. Apple's market is clearly people who are happy contributing to Apple's 25%+ profit margin on each unit.

Come on, who thinks about any company's profit margins when they buy a product?

DMann

May 21, 2008, 02:48 PM

Well, no. Apple's market is clearly people who are happy contributing to Apple's 25%+ profit margin on each unit.

And that 25% premium will more than pay for itself in hours of up-time and productivity.

Oh we do - sell expensive units to people willing to pay money for the perception of usability and reliability. Quite simple really.
This perception is very real. The reliability and usability, combined with the elegance and clutter free design make this choice a more sensible one.

diamond.g

May 21, 2008, 02:54 PM

nick9191

May 21, 2008, 02:58 PM

I fail to see your point. Desktop processors would still be much cheaper then their equivalents mobile variant.
The new iMac everybody!

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj27/niceveritt/imac.png

Eidorian

May 21, 2008, 03:08 PM

The point is simple. Apple would not spend more for a processor if they could spend less. Either they aren't paying more, or the design issues of the iMac require that they use the mobile processors. If you've got a good alternative explanation, then I'm all ears.Apple didn't want to wait for the Core 2 Duo to have Intel based desktop Macs. They settled for the Core Duo and with Intel's mobile platform. The rest is history! I'm sure AidenShaw is more then familiar with the Core Duo launch and Apple.
Intel could be giving Apple a great deal on chips like they do for everyone that stays Intel only. I would imagine Apple is paying far less than the per 1000 quantity price we see everyone else paying.

Is that what you are meaning?What about getting that cut on desktop processors instead? ;)
The new iMac everybody!

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj27/niceveritt/imac.pngI'm not sure what your point is. Do you have any experience with various Intel processors?

diamond.g

May 21, 2008, 03:27 PM

Apple didn't want to wait for the Core 2 Duo to have Intel based desktop Macs. They settled for the Core Duo and with Intel's mobile platform. The rest is history! I'm sure AidenShaw is more then familiar with the Core Duo launch and Apple.
What about getting that cut on desktop processors instead? ;)
I'm not sure what your point is. Do you have any experience with various Intel processors?

No arguments from me :)

I think the op doesn't realize that the mobile, and desktop dies are pulled off the same wafer (usually). The server dies are different due to the (insanely) larger cache.

BRLawyer

May 21, 2008, 03:29 PM

I agree with you, but I also think that Apple should try a little harder to keep the Mini up to date and offer at least SOMETHING decent in the sub $1,000.00 range so that more people can join the Mac family. Not too much to ask I think!

Those Mini purchasers would probably buy a more expensive Mac the next time around and it would allow a lot more people to become switchers as another form of easy transition halo effect.

I do not think that Apple has ruled the Mini out completely, and am pretty sure that something is gonna come soon.

In fact, ANY update to it means the existence of a very good entry-level Apple "headless" Mac, no matter how much rabid "xMac" fans try to deny it. The fact of the matter is: not even 5% of ordinary customers ever wish to install new GPUs, HDs or whatever in their machines. This is a silly habit from the PC side, which has grown accostumed to building ugly beige boxes with spare parts.

Again: almost NOBODY in the ordinary Apple market targets cares about upgradability (apart from MacPro customers). I have NEVER upgraded anything apart from RAM. HD: portable external. Sound system: external. Wireless keyboard/mouse: external. GPU? Never. Superdrive? Never. Airport? Never. Monitor? Never.

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user? Apple //e emulator card? x86 PC on a Mac card? Perhaps a home automation system? Yep, this is so early 90s and reaaaaaaaaaally relevant for Apple.

I have been an user in the Mac realm since 1994 . Only hobbyists and hardcore gamers would like an xMac...something that 99% of customers could not care less about.

inkswamp

May 21, 2008, 03:42 PM

Looking at Apple's history of making products smaller, thinner, and more portable, one would see yet ANOTHER in the myriad of reasons why a headless Mac is not in their future...

Really? The G5 case is smaller, thinner and more portable than the G4 before it? Did the Intel-based Mac Pro becomes smaller, thinner and more portable than the G5 PowerMacs? If so, I don't see it.

How about the iMac? That has progressively gotten bigger since the first iMac. It's gotten bigger since even the last version. It may be thinner, but it's bigger and no more portable.

The Mini has remained the same size since it's original release three years ago. No obvious movement toward smaller, thinner and more portable there.

I think you're selectively picking facts to support an already weak argument.

Again: almost NOBODY in the ordinary Apple market targets cares about upgradability (apart from MacPro customers). I have NEVER upgraded anything apart from RAM. HD: portable external. Sound system: external. Wireless keyboard/mouse: external. GPU? Never. Superdrive? Never. Airport? Never. Monitor? Never.

Wow, never worked with high-end users, I take it? Upgrading is always a concern for them. It's not always about being able to do something bigger and faster, but often about tailoring the hardware to work optimally for your own needs--and that's not just limited to high-end users. Home users need the same, just in smaller ways. Just because you've never done that, doesn't mean you should extrapolate your own experiences out to the rest of the world. Clearly, judging by Dell and HP's market share when compared to Apple, there are plenty of people out there who value being able to upgrade or customize their machine.

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user? Apple //e emulator card? x86 PC on a Mac card? Perhaps a home automation system? Yep, this is so early 90s and reaaaaaaaaaally relevant for Apple.

I had a fantastic PowerMac 7500 back in the late 90s. I loved it and it ran really well. It was a great machine, but I was using it during the big switchover from SCSI to USB and I found myself looking at an ever-increasing number of peripherals that I needed or wanted but couldn't use. A $35 PCI card added USB ports to the 7500 in about 15 minutes. If you think having expansion slots is all about being able to brag or being able to run some esoteric emulator (???), then I don't know what to say to you. It seems you're very entrenched in your views on this and want very much to pigeonhole anyone whose opinion runs counter to yours.

mjteix

May 21, 2008, 03:49 PM

Apple's business strategy is to build machines for specific markets and make a profit, not jump into the bottom-scraping morass of building cheapo boxes just because a couple thousand geeks are crying for one.

What bugs me in this thread is that most detractors assume that another headless Mac absolutly means "bottom-scraping morass of building cheapo boxes".

Desktop components are not scrap or junk, they are just cheaper than mobile parts. That makes building a computer with desktop parts less expensive than an equivalent one with mobile parts.

mobile DC 2.40GHz cpu =$241 / desktop DC 2.40GHz cpu = $113
mobile DC 2.50GHz cpu =$316 / desktop DC 2.53GHz cpu = $133
mobile DC 2.60GHz cpu =$530 / desktop DC 2.66GHz cpu = $163
mobile DC 2.80GHz cpu =$851 / desktop DC 2.83GHz cpu = $163 (same as above)
mobile QC 2.53GHz cpu = $1,038 / desktop QC 2.50GHz cpu = $266

Desktop chipsets are not worse than mobile chipsets.

The size isn't even a problem anymore, Intel has/will have G45-based mini-ITX motherboards (6.75"x6.75") just a little bigger than the Mac mini.

If Apple wanted to, they could build a desktop Mac mini a tad bigger using desktop components that would cost less to manufacture and, if priced the same as the current Mac mini, would generate more margins. It would not be a cheapo/junk Mac.

At one time, people could say that Apple was doing economy of scale in build most of its computers based on the same platform, but it is not the case anymore. Each line has it's own chipset and cpus:
Mac mini: Napa chipset (GM945) and 1.83/2.00GHz 667FSB C2D cpus
MacBook: Santa Rosa chipset (GM965) and 2.10/2.40 800FSB Penryn cpus
MacBook Pro: Santa Rosa chipset (PM965) and 2.40/2.50/2.60 800FSB Penryn cpus
iMac: Custom chipset (Montevina-like) and 2.40/2.66/2.80/3.06 1066FSB custom penryn cpus

I really don't see why another desktop Mac (replacing or not the Mac mini) couldn't have "quality and design" because it uses less expensive desktop parts or couldn't generate the same kind of margins.

DMann

May 21, 2008, 03:51 PM

The new iMac everybody!

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj27/niceveritt/imac.png

No joke - place in a few more fans, more vents, a larger power supply, and there you have it. Desktop processors simply put out more heat than mobile processors do.

IJ Reilly

May 21, 2008, 04:07 PM

Apple didn't want to wait for the Core 2 Duo to have Intel based desktop Macs. They settled for the Core Duo and with Intel's mobile platform. The rest is history!

Is it? They're using the C2D now, and they could have switched to the desktop processors at any time, if that was either feasible or more cost-effective. I still haven't heard a reasoned explanation for why Apple would choose to spend more on a component when the extra cost wasn't necessary.

AidenShaw

May 21, 2008, 04:23 PM

Is it? They're using the C2D now, and they could have switched to the desktop processors at any time, if that was either feasible or more cost-effective. I still haven't heard a reasoned explanation for why Apple would choose to spend more on a component when the extra cost wasn't necessary.

Expensive, mobile components are part of the compromise for the form factor of the Imac and Mini-mac.

A mini-tower, of course, has more flexibility for cooling options. A cheaper, faster desktop C2D or C2Q could easily be used in a stylish mini-tower.

diamond.g

May 21, 2008, 04:28 PM

Is it? They're using the C2D now, and they could have switched to the desktop processors at any time, if that was either feasible or more cost-effective. I still haven't heard a reasoned explanation for why Apple would choose to spend more on a component when the extra cost wasn't necessary.

For the iMac, I would assume heat and size are something of an issue. Using mobile parts mean less power drawn which means less power needed in the PSU, smaller (thickness) case, etc.

That would be my best guess. I mean they are using a desktop chip with a mobile package that has a TDP that is only 10W lower than the normal desktop part. I don't think 10W is that big of a deal, but people argue that it is.

Does Apple solder the cpus on the iMacs?

Eidorian

May 21, 2008, 04:34 PM

For the iMac, I would assume heat and size are something of an issue. Using mobile parts mean less power drawn which means less power needed in the PSU, smaller (thickness) case, etc.

That would be my best guess. I mean they are using a desktop chip with a mobile package that has a TDP that is only 10W lower than the normal desktop part. I don't think 10W is that big of a deal, but people argue that it is.

Does Apple solder the cpus on the iMacs?The iMac has socketed processors.

There's also one more thing that can't be gleaned off of Intel's TDP listing. Slower clocked processors at 65W TDP are cooler then their 65W TDP suggests. It's a little obvious but it requires some research outside Intel's specification lists or personal experience.

TDP isn't always the temperature the processor runs at. It's a suggestion for builders on the cooling requirements. It's easy to get overclocked desktop processors on air and stock heatsinks that are still running cooler then an iMac.

IJ Reilly

May 21, 2008, 05:13 PM

Expensive, mobile components are part of the compromise for the form factor of the Imac and Mini-mac.

For the iMac, I would assume heat and size are something of an issue. Using mobile parts mean less power drawn which means less power needed in the PSU, smaller (thickness) case, etc.

I would suspect so. What I would not suspect is some nefarious scheme by Apple to use more expensive components and charge more "just because they can."

BongoBanger

May 21, 2008, 05:17 PM

And that 25% premium will more than pay for itself in hours of up-time and productivity.

Well, no. Not really. My Macbook is no more stable or productive than my work's Lenovo T60 although, in fairness, Lenovo's ain't cheap.

This perception is very real. The reliability and usability, combined with the elegance and clutter free design make this choice a more sensible one.

It's not though. There is a misconception that PCs are cluttered unusable devices which are less efficient than Macs and that's exactly what it is - a misconception. In my experience they're no better nor any worse.

JoeDMD

May 21, 2008, 05:21 PM

Again: almost NOBODY in the ordinary Apple market targets cares about upgradability (apart from MacPro customers). I have NEVER upgraded anything apart from RAM. HD: portable external. Sound system: external. Wireless keyboard/mouse: external. GPU? Never. Superdrive? Never. Airport? Never. Monitor? Never.

So you take your beautiful "wire clutter free" iMac and you stick external drives into it?

Things I've added to my G4
1. Zip drive (ok, haven't used it in 4-5 years)
2. A 320GB HD - a 60 GB doesn't really cut it anymore

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user? Apple //e emulator card? x86 PC on a Mac card? Perhaps a home automation system? Yep, this is so early 90s and reaaaaaaaaaally relevant for Apple.

3. USB 2.0 card when I got my iPod

(and I did add a video card and extra hard drives on my 8500)

I must be a super techie tinkerer to do all those wacked out things.
Maybe people would even want to add eSATA.

I don't need 8 cores, particularly 8 slow cores. I don't want to pay a premium for things I don't need. I don't want a cheap machine for cheapness sake, I just don't want to buy something I don't need.

Also, my G4 was only slight more expensive than my PC. The current Mac Pro would be double or triple the price.

AidenShaw

May 21, 2008, 06:28 PM

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user?

Dual HDTV tuner for my Vista Media Center ...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/519568.jpg

That's a pretty "home"-y thing to use an expansion slot for ;)

MacFly123

May 21, 2008, 06:56 PM

I do not think that Apple has ruled the Mini out completely, and am pretty sure that something is gonna come soon.

In fact, ANY update to it means the existence of a very good entry-level Apple "headless" Mac, no matter how much rabid "xMac" fans try to deny it. The fact of the matter is: not even 5% of ordinary customers ever wish to install new GPUs, HDs or whatever in their machines. This is a silly habit from the PC side, which has grown accostumed to building ugly beige boxes with spare parts.

Again: almost NOBODY in the ordinary Apple market targets cares about upgradability (apart from MacPro customers). I have NEVER upgraded anything apart from RAM. HD: portable external. Sound system: external. Wireless keyboard/mouse: external. GPU? Never. Superdrive? Never. Airport? Never. Monitor? Never.

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user? Apple //e emulator card? x86 PC on a Mac card? Perhaps a home automation system? Yep, this is so early 90s and reaaaaaaaaaally relevant for Apple.

I have been an user in the Mac realm since 1994 . Only hobbyists and hardcore gamers would like an xMac...something that 99% of customers could not care less about.

I totally agree. I just hope they update the mini soon. I would love one in my car!

macidiot

May 21, 2008, 07:03 PM

Well, no. Not really. My Macbook is no more stable or productive than my work's Lenovo T60 although, in fairness, Lenovo's ain't cheap.

It's not though. There is a misconception that PCs are cluttered unusable devices which are less efficient than Macs and that's exactly what it is - a misconception. In my experience they're no better nor any worse.

Simply put, you get what you pay for. Yes you can find a cheap PC. You better hope it has some expansion because unless you want to replace it in 6 months, it's going to need upgrading. And frankly, you'll be lucky if something doesn't break on it.

As you said, your Lenovo isn't cheap. Which is one reason it will work better than a $600 off-brand laptop.

Think about this, in the low end pennies mean a lot. And if a maker has to have a feature rich product (which is all a lot of PC users seem to care about), they HAVE to cut costs somewhere. So it means using a slightly cheaper HD, or a slightly cheaper power supply, or a slightly cheaper i/o, or a slightly cheaper screen, or a slightly cheaper keyboard. Or maybe all of the above. And what you end up with is more parts of less quality. Creating more potential points of failure.

Dell cut costs through process refinement for years, without affecting general quality. But at some point, those savings stop, and yet they still have to cut costs. Which means the actual product suffers.

Yes Apple maintains a fairly high margin. But it also gives them the ability to spend an extra dollar or two on a power supply. Or spending an extra week on product testing. Or spending an extra couple of days refining something like how a folder opens or the speed of a scroll. Or having someone from the United States answer the phone when you call for help.

And I can't comment on your personal experience, other than to say that is is just that, the personal experience of one person. In MY personal experience, every PC I worked on had some sort of problem from minor (Windows doing its own ridiculous thing) to major (major hardware problems).

And if we're throwing around anecdotes, how about this one (true story):

A friend of mine bought a Macbook to go with his 2 PC's (one laptop, one desktop) about a year ago. Six months ago he bought another PC laptop. As of today, only the Macbook is running reliably. One laptop has software problems and the other computers have physical hardware problems. So in his experience, any "premium" he paid for the Macbook was obviously worth it.

MagnusVonMagnum

May 22, 2008, 12:27 AM

Not true, these days, computer upgrades involve purchasing extras like RAM, Wi-Fi, Blue Tooth, Optical Super-Drives, Larger HDs, etc., taking the price above $1000. For the same price, you can have an all-in-one state-of-the-art iMac 24", and people are making this choice.

Sorry, but you're not being truthful or do not know the facts, IMO. I own a Mac (I'm typing on it now; it's a souped up PowerMac that runs my whole house audio system based off two AppleTV units and an Airport Express) and I also own a PC. I got the PC last November. It cost all of $700, M$ Windows included. It has an AMD dual-core 2.8GHz CPU, 2 Gigs of 800MHz low-latency ram, an Nvidia 7900GS, a Lightscribe DVD/CD burner (what you know as a "SuperDrive"), 5.1 sound, a 320GB 7200RPM Sata hard drive, Gigabyte Ethernet, USB 2.0, etc. Unlike all but the made-to-order 24" Imac (which costs well over $2000!!!!) and the MacPro (which costs well over $2400!!!!), this machine can run all current games out there acceptably plus any productivity software I throw at it. I've since added a 2nd 7200RPM 500Gig drive for an extra $80 on-sale and installed Linux on a partition and use the rest for backup. So for under $1000 (with monitor), I've got a system that blows away ALL Macs under $2000 (save the Psystar clones).

If I need Firewire and/or Bluetooth, I can add it for another $100-150 or so. It's STILL a FRACTION of what your $2200 iMac costs. There is NO good justfication for Apple to sell their only 3D capable machines at $2000+ prices. They could include a DECENT 3D card in their $1200 laptops and/or the MacMini but they purposely choose NOT to in order to force those of you that WANT decent 3D graphics to buy a $2000+ machine. That is underhanded, IMO and it's why I fully support Psystar's efforts as if nothing else, it may force Apple to offer a reasonable mid-range machine in the future. Personally, I love MacOSX, but I do not love Apple's hardware options and prices compared to comparable PC equipment.

So again, I say that making bold claims that Apple own 67% or whatever of the $1000+ PC market is deceitful given that the majority of PCs being sold today are sub $1000 machines. You can get a reasonable $600 laptop running Windows or Linux even. There is no Apple equivalent in that price range. You're paying a premium for Apple hardware, YET there is nothing "special" about Apple hardware. It's the OPERATING SYSTEM that makes "Macs" special. But Psystar and DIY Hackintosh projects prove that a cheap PC can run the MacOS just fine and without real issues. Apple should reposition itself as an operating system and gadget maker and leave the PC hardware to the people that have been making it for years and years. There is no reason a person should have to pay a premium for generic PC hardware just because Apple says so (i.e. you can't run their OS unless you buy THEIR overpriced generic Intel hardware, which is illegal TYING of OS to hardware (proven in a past court case with another company) and thus nullifies their Eula).

BTW, your BMW analogy in another post is wrong. That implies the hardware (car) is different, but it's not. It's the same Intel PC hardware everyone else is using save the EFI instead of a bios (more like a different key/ignition system on the same car). The OS is artificially tied to that key system. Beyond that, it'll run on any hardware there's a driver for (quite a few).

MagnusVonMagnum

May 22, 2008, 12:48 AM

Simply put, you get what you pay for. Yes you can find a cheap PC. You better hope it has some expansion because unless you want to replace it in 6 months, it's going to need upgrading. And frankly, you'll be lucky if something doesn't break on it.

Your comments make no sense. You can build a high quality PC for under $1000 that will last as long as the equivalent Mac. The whole point is that the HARDWARE *IS THE SAME*. Only the OS makes a real difference.

And this idea someone said on here that Mac users don't want upgrades is cyclical in nature. You CAN'T upgrade all Macs except the MacPro so THEREFORE "Mac users EXCEPT MacPRo" ones "don't care about upgrades". Well, how can they care about upgrades if they CANNOT get them PERIOD anyway??? It's a ridiculous argument. Maybe IF Mac users COULD upgrade, they WOULD upgrade instead of buying ANOTHER $2000+ Mac every time they need slightly better 3D graphics.

G58

May 22, 2008, 01:45 AM

Nice point, well made. Or should that be: Good point, nicely made?

Either way, you're right. And although it's seen as arrogant these days to even try to be right, never mind point out when one is, the quality of making correct assessments of any given situation, especially a business situation, is what makes winners.

I like being on a winning team. But being on a smart winning team is even better.

What strikes me most interesting about this data is that the number of PC's on the market at a retail price point of + 1000 has diminished.

While there may be various reasons for this I can't help but draw my own conclusion that HP, Dell etc can't justify the cost of a + 1000 PC in quantity to the consumer (specialty consumers and hard core gamers aside ).

Because no matter how hard they try they have very little to offer / differentiate at those price points. Where as Apple has been able to do just that and keep that market segment.

The world has finally realized that there is little substance behind the short lived trendy marketed scheme of advertising a PC company with Cow patches and a "im getting a dell" kid. Underneath all the hoopla it's just a PC.

Naturally this is something most mac users have known for quite some time but it's nice to see it translate into actual market share as a result finally.

people are willing to pay premium if the product is right. Apple has demonstrated this fact.

G58

May 22, 2008, 02:04 AM

I keep repeating this and people still seem to be surprised that Apple is doing so well. So here is the very short version again:

iMac
Napster
Music industry law suit
iTunes
iPod
Increased Mac sales
Blackberry
iPhone
More Increased Mac sales

There are loads of other sub headings in there, but principally that's the chronology. Had Napster not been as popular as it was, had the music industry's short-sighted law suit not closed down free downloads, iTunes would never have been launched, iPod would never have become the best premium marketing tool of all time and we would not be having this discussion now.

Every morning, Steve Jobs jumps out of bed, gets down on bended knees and thanks whichever god he worships for all of the above. And it all began with a student from Northeastern University in Boston. If they don't teach this at Harvard... Hell, they don't need to, it's obvious!:rolleyes:

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

eWeek first reported (http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/channel/macs_defy_windows-gravity.html) on an interesting breakdown of Apple's retail marketshare. According to numbers from the NPD Group, Apple's Q1 2008 retail (brick and mortar) reached 14%. Note that by limiting it to retail, they've excluded online sales and institutional/enterprise sales.

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2008/05/19/234608-macq108_400.jpg
Chart from eWeek (http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/channel/macs_defy_windows-gravity.html)

More surprising, however, is if you limit the data to computers priced above $1,000, Apple represents 66% of all retail computer sales.As with all statistics, it's difficult to take these raw numbers at face value. Instead, the most revealing finding is how quickly this market share has been increasing. Fortune reports (http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/) that Apple's $1,000+ January 2006 marketshare was only 18%. Their share grew to 57% by September 2007 and finally to 66% in the 1st quarter of this year. These numbers confirm Apple's reporting (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/23/apple-2q-2008-results-conference-call-highlights-profit/) of large year-over-year growth of Mac sales during their financial results.

One long term question becomes whether or not the saturation of their target market ($1,000+ computers) will limit Apple's future growth. If more customers aren't attracted to this high-end market over time, Apple's Mac sales growth will necessarily stall. Meanwhile, up until now, Apple has been resistant to compete in the low margin market. Apple's only sub-$1,000 offering, the Mac mini, has been rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/21/mac-mini-not-dead-yet/) to be just hanging on to life.

This phenomenon could explain Apple's willingness to experiment in seemingly niche markets that were not previously satisfied by Apple's offerings. A product like the MacBook Air (http://www.apple.com/macbookair/) might be able to further expand their already-large marketshare amongst customers in the $1,000+ market. If Apple's success continues, however, there will be no where else to look but to the sub $1000 market for additional customers.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/19/mac-marketshare-growth-in-high-end-retail-market/)

kamm

May 22, 2008, 02:09 AM

From Fortune (http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/19/report-apples-market-share-of-pcs-over-1000-hits-66/?).

This is such a hilarious spin - since when people buy any other $1k+ machine than Apple in retail?

This is the lamest, cheapest, most pathetic spin I've seen in long time, seriously.

kamm

May 22, 2008, 02:13 AM

Simply put, you get what you pay for. Yes you can find a cheap PC. You better hope it has some expansion because unless you want to replace it in 6 months, it's going to need upgrading. And frankly, you'll be lucky if something doesn't break on it.

Jesus, it's 2008 and some people still citing the same-old, clueless MAc-mantra about 'special Mac hardware'?:eek:

I thought the complete switch to commodity PC hardware in Macs finally killed these idiotic legends (along with the stupidest-ever car analogies)...:rolleyes:

macidiot

May 22, 2008, 02:21 AM

Your comments make no sense. You can build a high quality PC for under $1000 that will last as long as the equivalent Mac. The whole point is that the HARDWARE *IS THE SAME*. Only the OS makes a real difference.

And this idea someone said on here that Mac users don't want upgrades is cyclical in nature. You CAN'T upgrade all Macs except the MacPro so THEREFORE "Mac users EXCEPT MacPRo" ones "don't care about upgrades". Well, how can they care about upgrades if they CANNOT get them PERIOD anyway??? It's a ridiculous argument. Maybe IF Mac users COULD upgrade, they WOULD upgrade instead of buying ANOTHER $2000+ Mac every time they need slightly better 3D graphics.

The old saw about building a PC is incredibly tiresome. Try building a laptop from scratch.

And your incredibly naive to think the hardware is the same. Yes, the mobo and cpu might be the same. But the case, screen, and testing to make sure it all works together are not. But whatever.

I could also build my own house and save a pile of money. Who the hell cares.

Guess what, my time is money. While I can easily build a PC and have done so in the past when I had more time, I could care less about building one today. You might save a couple of hundred dollars, AT BEST, on component costs. For me, those savings would be gone in about an hour and a half in time. Factor in build time (about 2 hours), shopping time (1-2 hours at least on the internet, longer going to a store). And hope that every piece works together the first time, with no driver issues, or else your looking at an even longer build time.

99% of people that have a computer did NOT build it themselves. So pointing out that you could build one for less is worthless.

As for upgrading a Mac being cyclical thinking, you are misusing the term. However, I understand what you are saying. But you are wrong.

For one thing, because a Mac Pro or any other tower Mac typically is a fairly powerful system when bought, it has less need for upgrades to stay current. A typical PC user that upgrades is cash poor and upgrading over time, typically because the PC is too slow at some task. Well guess what, as you point out, a Mac Pro is expensive. Someone that buys it isn't going to need to skimp and save to put in a new video card after 2-3 years. They are just going to buy a new Mac.

I've owned 4 tower Macs, all bought new. The ONLY things I worked on on any of them were RAM, and hard drives. One, I added a new video card and one I added a $20 USB 2.0 card. And when they got too slow, I just bought a new computer. I could have replaced the CPU. Why bother.

Again, what you seem to be missing is that, in reality, NO ONE really is interested in doing any hardware work more complicated than installing RAM. And many pay to have someone else do even that simple task. Mac users, and most computer users, just want a computer to work, much like a telephone or TV. They just want to turn it on, do their thing, and turn it off. When it becomes outdated, they just replace it. This isn't 1992, when most computer users were hobbyists and most tinkered with their PCs. It's 2008, where basically everyone has a computer. And many don't even know how to open one.

As for the hardcore, who build gaming rigs, constantly upgrading, they are a dying breed, just like PC gaming. And a Mac user is NOT interested in finding what video card will actually work with Crysis and installing it. They will just have a 360 or PS3.

macidiot

May 22, 2008, 02:25 AM

Jesus, it's 2008 and some people still citing the same-old, clueless MAc-mantra about 'special Mac hardware'?:eek:

I thought the complete switch to commodity PC hardware in Macs finally killed these idiotic legends (along with the stupidest-ever car analogies)...:rolleyes:

Oh really? Then why did the power jack break on my friend's HP laptop, making it essentially useless, and not on his Macbook?

OHHH, right, that super-NON-special commodity Mac hardware called MagSafe. :rolleyes:

DiamondMac

May 22, 2008, 02:32 AM

Maybe PC's are as stable as Mac OS.....Maybe people on here have had PC's for years with no problems

But, I could not keep my Gateway Laptop, Dell Laptop, nor other Dell Laptop healthy for longer than 3-4 months before I fell to either a viruses or boot-up problem with Windows. I also had terrible problems with adware and countless other things

I spent years battling those types of things weekly

Then I got a MacBookPro two years ago and shocker.....no boot-up problems, no virus problems, no adware problems......I mean, nothing. No hardware problems

I got a iMac a few months later (thus a year and a half ago) and....shocker....no problems either

So, maybe it was me....maybe I was the cause of all my Windows problems....but all I know is that since I have moved to Macs, I don't have to worry one bit about stability issues whatsoever NOR hardware issues.

If I have to pay more for these types of computers, that is 100% fine by me

DMann

May 22, 2008, 02:41 AM

I got the PC last November. It cost all of $700, M$ Windows included. It has an AMD dual-core 2.8GHz CPU, 2 Gigs of 800MHz low-latency ram, an Nvidia 7900GS, a Lightscribe DVD/CD burner (what you know as a "SuperDrive"), 5.1 sound, a 320GB 7200RPM Sata hard drive, Gigabyte Ethernet, USB 2.0, etc.

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap, cheap plastic dvd trays that snap easily, and flat screen monitors which suck in terms of clarity, depth, and color saturation. Windows cost me too much in terms of time re-starting and tweaking. If you prefer working with this utter crap, well then this is your choice. Build your own machine for $1200 with a dim lo/res monitor, mismatched parts, running a primitive BIOS Windows OS with bloatware included, which takes over 3 minutes to start up, that is until the malware brings it all down to a grinding halt; all for a fraction of what? $1200 vs $2000?

For an extra premium, you get ultra-fine design, an extraordinarily functional OS experience, better graphics, front side bus, and completely avoid the horrendous bulk and clutter. This works for many people who are willing to spend a little more to save much more in terms of time, hassle, and life span (relevance) of equipment. I have countless clients who recently took the "build your own" route and jumped ship two months later.

For a rock-solid and powerful workstation which will be relevant for 10+ years (MacPro), I'm more than willing to spend $2000+. If you want something cheaper, purchase parts, build it yourself, and be happy.

BTW, your BMW analogy in another post is wrong. That implies the hardware (car) is different, but it's not. It's the same Intel PC hardware everyone else is using save the EFI instead of a bios (more like a different key/ignition system on the same car). The OS is artificially tied to that key system. Beyond that, it'll run on any hardware there's a driver for (quite a few).

Is it? A BMW uses steel alloy just as a Ford Escort does, and uses rubber for the tires as well. It even uses glass for the windshield and plasic for the instrument panel. What you pay for when you purchase a BMW is design, style, and quality. The same is true of an iMac 24". (I've yet to see a PC built with the same solid and high quality aluminum structure and stellar design of an iMac)

AidenShaw

May 22, 2008, 09:59 AM

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap...

Dell is our standard corporate supplier, so we have hundreds of Dell desktops in our group.

We have very, very few problems with them - and most of the problems that we do see are the disk drive failures that you expect to see for a population that large.

Of course, these systems that we buy are like the OptiPlex 755 (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=MLB1231&s=biz), where our standard config lists for about $1400 with 19" flat panel.

Of course, NPD's data ignores systems like that, since they're not found in brick-and-mortar stores.

So yes, $1500 Apples and PCs are built better and are higher quality than $500 PCs is most likely a true statement. Are $1500 Apples and $1500 PCs the same quality? I'd say that's most likely another true statement.

gkarris

May 22, 2008, 10:57 AM

Dell is our standard corporate supplier, so we have hundreds of Dell desktops in our group.

We have very, very few problems with them - and most of the problems that we do see are the disk drive failures that you expect to see for a population that large.

Of course, these systems that we buy are like the OptiPlex 755 (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=MLB1231&s=biz), where our standard config lists for about $1400 with 19" flat panel.

Of course, NPD's data ignores systems like that, since they're not found in brick-and-mortar stores.

Here we go again. For our very large company, Dell is running at about 80% of the units have problems within the first month of purchase....

At least we can choose our desktops to be HP, and our servers are all HP. The purchase of new desktops for my area I go with HP....

AidenShaw

May 22, 2008, 11:06 AM

...Dell is running at about 80% of the units have problems within the first month of purchase....

I find that hard to believe - it's certainly not the typical experience. Dell would be out-of-business if it were.

How do you define "problem", and how are your statistics collected? Does a user calling the help desk about a software setup question with a new system count as a "Dell problem"?

Eidorian

May 22, 2008, 11:15 AM

Is something wrong with me if I've only had good experiences with large PC hardware vendors at several jobs and from personal purchases? Not to mention the excellent phone/e-mail support...

Is there really a reason for us Mac users to seem to just go out of our way to point out how bad PC hardware and Windows is? Is it really that bad?

IJ Reilly

May 22, 2008, 11:19 AM

The old saw about building a PC is incredibly tiresome. Try building a laptop from scratch.

And your incredibly naive to think the hardware is the same. Yes, the mobo and cpu might be the same. But the case, screen, and testing to make sure it all works together are not. But whatever.

I could also build my own house and save a pile of money. Who the hell cares.

No kidding. I got so weary of hearing about how home-building was so easy and cost-effective, I had to try it myself. In the end, I saved maybe $200 over an equivalent PC bought retail, and it took me most of a day to assemble and get up and running. And that doesn't even count the time I spent figuring out what I needed and shopping for the parts. The technical expertise required is substantially above the what general population has, or wants to have. And another thing the home-builders will never tell you: be prepared to be your own technical support.

My conclusion: if you enjoy home building, fine -- but stop telling me about how easy it is or how much money you can save. The fact that Apple doesn't allow OSX to be run on home-built generic PCs is not earth-shattering. In fact, it's effectively irrelevant.

JoeDMD

May 22, 2008, 12:11 PM

For one thing, because a Mac Pro or any other tower Mac typically is a fairly powerful system when bought, it has less need for upgrades to stay current. A typical PC user that upgrades is cash poor and upgrading over time, typically because the PC is too slow at some task. Well guess what, as you point out, a Mac Pro is expensive. Someone that buys it isn't going to need to skimp and save to put in a new video card after 2-3 years. They are just going to buy a new Mac.

So mac users have 2-3k they can burn every couple of years?
All mac buyers are that wealthy?
Who do you know buys a new monitor every 2-3 years?
With the iMac you are forced to.

I've owned 4 tower Macs, all bought new. The ONLY things I worked on on any of them were RAM, and hard drives. One, I added a new video card and one I added a $20 USB 2.0 card. And when they got too slow, I just bought a new computer. I could have replaced the CPU. Why bother.

Well you did add hard drives which you can't do to an iMac, you did add a video card, and you added a $20 USB card, which would now cost $2000 to upgrade, since you can't add a 20 usb card to an iMac.

Again, what you seem to be missing is that, in reality, NO ONE really is interested in doing any hardware work more complicated than installing RAM.

And that is your opinion, yet your own history proved you wrong.

According you your model, you have to buy more expensive external components, forgo new technology until you are ready to buy a new machine, or pay 2000+ for a new iMac whenever some new technology come out. (you could spend less, if you want to downgrade your screen from 24 to20.)

The iMac is the complete antithesis of the mini, yet both are produced by the same company.

The mini is relatively inexpensive, and BYODKM. If you buy a nice monitor, you get to keep it when you replace your mini. The iMac forces you buy the whole package. I would get the mini if it were more powerful.

G58

May 22, 2008, 12:29 PM

Some time ago, when my PowerBook G4 Ti 550 hard drive fell over, I was left with no Mac and no net access. I was in need of an new hard drive and some advice on how to fit it.

I got the hard drive from my local trade dealer for less than a third of what Apple wanted to charge me. Having never done it before, and without access to the net, I dug out three old G3s that were designated as US. Inside they were filthy and had various parts missing.

But after an hour I had one case and a working motherboard with PROAM battery cleaned and re-fitted. I dug out a virtually unused HDD from another old Mac [Performa], found and tested a bunch of cables until I found ones that worked. I did the same for the cards, found some more cables and hooked it up to an old Sony Triniron.

Then I dug out a Pace 56K Modem, power supply and a couple of phone cables and hooked it up to my phone socket. Next I booted my 'new' cobbled together G3 [which was too much of a miracle to call Frankenstein!], loaded OS 10.1 I think, and I was in business!

Hardware wise I was back in 1997. OS wise I was in 2002. Getting on the net was easy and surprisingly quick. [How nostalgic to hear those callout tones again!] I downloaded a browser version that worked [Opera?], found the ifixit web site, followed the step-by-step advice and installed my new hard drive in my PowerBook just as the birds started to sing and the Eastern sky started to pale.

My point? It makes a nice anecdote and it's great to be able to say "I did it!" As a hobby, it would even be fun to build an up-to-date Mac, right up to and including a case that did it justice. But as a time efficient exercise who's sum product of what would inevitably be many hours' research and work, is an unsupported computer. And am I really going to use this as my main machine with all my music and my photos and all my work on it?? I don't think so. I'm good, but I'm not stupid.

The G3 still works though. I fire it up now and then just to play with it. And it's always there should my PowerBook, MacBook Pro and soon to be delivered 24" iMac all fall over at once!:apple:

No kidding. I got so weary of hearing about how home-building was so easy and cost-effective, I had to try it myself. In the end, I saved maybe $200 over an equivalent PC bought retail, and it took me most of a day to assemble and get up and running. And that doesn't even count the time I spent figuring out what I needed and shopping for the parts. The technical expertise required is substantially above the what general population has, or wants to have. And another thing the home-builders will never tell you: be prepared to be your own technical support.

My conclusion: if you enjoy home building, fine -- but stop telling me about how easy it is or how much money you can save. The fact that Apple doesn't allow OSX to be run on home-built generic PCs is not earth-shattering. In fact, it's effectively irrelevant.

BongoBanger

May 22, 2008, 12:31 PM

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap, cheap plastic dvd trays that snap easily, and flat screen monitors which suck in terms of clarity, depth, and color saturation.

You get what you pay for - if you buy low end you get low end. Can you also advise when you bought these boxes because design features change from year to year. I'd agree that PCs were aesthetically unpleasing a few years ago but that simply isn't the case for a lot of the new ones.

Windows cost me too much in terms of time re-starting and tweaking.

I'm sorry this is your experience. For the vast majority of people it's not otherwise MS would have been out of business years ago.

If you prefer working with this utter crap, well then this is your choice.

I do actually because:

a) Windows isn't actually 'utter crap'. Leopard may be slightly beter than Vista (but see point b) but XP was for a long time better than the previous OSX 10 variants. Fashions in OSs change. Apple's current product is beter than Microsoft's. Who's to say Microsoft's next OS won't be better than Apple's?
b) Leopard, for all its good points, doesn't run the apps I most commonly use. Yes, I could use Parallels but why would I want to when I predominately use Windows based apps 90% of the time? It's just not cost effective to do so.

Build your own machine for $1200 with a dim lo/res monitor, mismatched parts, running a primitive BIOS Windows OS with bloatware included, which takes over 3 minutes to start up, that is until the malware brings it all down to a grinding halt; all for a fraction of what? $1200 vs $2000?

See, now you're just being silly because $1,200 will get you a good machine with an excellent monitor. In addition my Windows machines take less than a minute to boot up - about the same as the Macbook - and seconds from sleep mode. As for malware, anyone who allows their PC to get infested has really only themselves to blame. There is absolutely no excuse to allow malware on your PC with the likes of ZoneAlarm, Avast and AdAware available for no cost.

For an extra premium,

Actually it's an extra 66% of cost.

you get ultra-fine design,

Yup, it's nice but so are a lot of the new PCs.

an extraordinarily functional OS experience,

It's nice but extraordinary? No, not really and, like I say, has the problem that it doesn't run the apps I need it to.

better graphics,

Than a PC with a, say, 9800GT or 8800GTs running in SLI? I doubt it.

front side bus,

The iMac has a 1066MHz FSB. Most new PCs use 1333MHz or 1600MHz as standard. This statement is untrue unless you're talking about a Mac Pro...

and completely avoid the horrendous bulk and clutter.

...which you're obviously not as a Mac Pro has the same bulk and peripheral clutter as any high end PC.

This works for many people who are willing to spend a little more to save much more in terms of time, hassle, and life span (relevance) of equipment.

Perhaps. However Apple customers tend to upgrade at the same rate - if not faster - than PC customers.

I have countless clients who recently took the "build your own" route and jumped ship two months later.

Sorry but I simply don't believe this.

For a rock-solid and powerful workstation which will be relevant for 10+ years (MacPro), I'm more than willing to spend $2000+. If you want something cheaper, purchase parts, build it yourself, and be happy.

Good for you. I think the Mac Pro is an excellent choice for a workstation. I think anyone who buys one for personal, non business related use is crazy though because that's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

But we were comparing a PC to an iMac were we not?

Is it? A BMW uses steel alloy just as a Ford Escort does, and uses rubber for the tires as well. It even uses glass for the windshield and plasic for the instrument panel.

Yup.

What you pay for when you purchase a BMW is design, style, and quality.

I agree, but then I would consider high end PCs to be Audis or Mercedes to Apple's BMW.

The same is true of an iMac 24". (I've yet to see a PC built with the same solid and high quality aluminum structure and stellar design of an iMac)

The XPS One is nice but most PC builders don't build all in one units because of their limitations.

BenRoethig

May 22, 2008, 12:51 PM

So mac users have 2-3k they can burn every couple of years?
All mac buyers are that wealthy?
Who do you know buys a new monitor every 2-3 years?
With the iMac you are forced to.

They do seem to assume we have an unlimited budget, don't they?

Well you did add hard drives which you can't do to an iMac, you did add a video card, and you added a $20 USB card, which would now cost $2000 to upgrade, since you can't add a 20 usb card to an iMac.

You can add a HUB though. In fact, with the iMac you pretty have to buy a hub. Yeah, the hard drive thing is annoying, especially since it was accessible in the last generation. But this is an Ive designed machine. Who actually cares if the thing works if it looks good right?

According you your model, you have to buy more expensive external components, forgo new technology until you are ready to buy a new machine, or pay 2000+ for a new iMac whenever some new technology come out. (you could spend less, if you want to downgrade your screen from 24 to20.)

Works for Apple's bottom line and anyone who is using the Mac for purely social reasons. Not so much for everyone else.

The iMac is the complete antithesis of the mini, yet both are produced by the same company.

The mini is relatively inexpensive, and BYODKM. If you buy a nice monitor, you get to keep it when you replace your mini. The iMac forces you buy the whole package. I would get the mini if it were more powerful.

Not quite. Same song, different verse. Both an experiments in how to get a computer in the smallest space possible. The Mini is just taking that to the extreme. They assume just because someone doesn't want an iMac, it means they already have a display, keyboard, and mouse.

With the iMac Apple is either making a lot of assumptions or they just plain don't care if you have to throw away a perfectly good display as long they get paid. For a family user, who the iMac should be aimed at (but can't afford), the computer should last as long as the display. They just kinda assume you're either just reading emails or are George Lucas.

kcpenner

May 22, 2008, 01:03 PM

This article assumes the status quo will continue (Apple will only be able to find new customers for low-end Macs). I'm sure that Apple is working hard on The Next Big Thing, which I'm guessing will be what I call the EyePhone, an iPhone-type unit with retinal-scanning laser display, augmented reality, etc. With the continuing trends of miniaturization, increased wireless bandwidth, and location-aware mobile multimedia devices, whichever company can first introduce an EyePhone that "just works" will sell a billion of them. I would say that Apple is one of the few companies poised to make this kind of breakthrough. My prediction (since 2001 and still on target) is that this type of product goes mainstream in 2011 (using Microvision's Color Eyewear (http://www.microvision.com/wearable_displays/mobile.html), as an example). With increased processing power, it will have all the functions of a basic laptop (plus many new features, such as 3D graphics and augmented reality (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/augmented-reality.htm)), but cost well under a $1000.

BenRoethig

May 22, 2008, 01:13 PM

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap, cheap plastic dvd trays that snap easily, and flat screen monitors which suck in terms of clarity, depth, and color saturation. Windows cost me too much in terms of time re-starting and tweaking. If you prefer working with this utter crap, well then this is your choice. Build your own machine for $1200 with a dim lo/res monitor, mismatched parts, running a primitive BIOS Windows OS with bloatware included, which takes over 3 minutes to start up, that is until the malware brings it all down to a grinding halt; all for a fraction of what? $1200 vs $2000?

For an extra premium, you get ultra-fine design, an extraordinarily functional OS experience, better graphics, front side bus, and completely avoid the horrendous bulk and clutter. This works for many people who are willing to spend a little more to save much more in terms of time, hassle, and life span (relevance) of equipment. I have countless clients who recently took the "build your own" route and jumped ship two months later.

If you want to see bulk and clutter, you should see my iMac. I had to add the Card reader/3-port hub, 20x DVD-burner (that can read camcorder discs), and TV tuner externally. In a tower like the one Apple used to sell me all those things would be inside and tucked neatly under my desk.

As for life span. My Performa 5200 lasted be five years, and kept on going for another 5 after as a computer for my grand parents. My B&W G3 lasted me five before I sold it. I was able to extend the usefulness though upgrade to the optical drive, hard drive, video card, and RAM. After that I got a iBook for college. Its still around, but has averaged a new motherboard every 9 months or so. The new 2.4ghz iMac was bought within days of the launch in August and even with a RAM upgrade and external devices, it is already becoming long in the tooth. Like the iBook, it has had it share of little bugs and quite frankly I don't trust it much more than the POS HP I recommended by parents not buy. Then again I do now buy the Apple care I didn't think anyone would ever need back in my G3 days.

Is it? A BMW uses steel alloy just as a Ford Escort does, and uses rubber for the tires as well. It even uses glass for the windshield and plasic for the instrument panel. What you pay for when you purchase a BMW is design, style, and quality. The same is true of an iMac 24". (I've yet to see a PC built with the same solid and high quality aluminum structure and stellar design of an iMac)

You're not looking hard enough. You assume that Dell, Gateway, HP, Acer, and Lenovo are the only computer makers on the planet right? Look up Lian-Li or cooler master. They make cases for most of the top flight PC makers.

DMann

May 22, 2008, 01:16 PM

So yes, $1500 Apples and PCs are built better and are higher quality than $500 PCs is most likely a true statement. Are $1500 Apples and $1500 PCs the same quality? I'd say that's most likely another true statement.

Perhaps from an internal component point of view (chipset, motherboard, logic board, etc.) this is true. However, comparing the two in terms of grades of plastic used, casing structure, optical drives (slot vs plastic drawer), plugs and connectors, fans, and overall integrity, I couldn't disagree more.

CalfCanuck

May 22, 2008, 01:20 PM

I could also build my own house and save a pile of money. Who the hell cares.

What a great analogy - best I've ever seen. Had a laugh when I saw it!

This is the exact problem - people always use their special, discounted computer purchase as a "typical" price for PC's when comparing to Apple's standard, non-discounted, pricing. Used to be the same argument on these forums when using Dell systems as a pricing benchmark, before Dell stopped all their crazy discounting.

Posters here neglect the economic reasoning behind these deep discounts that they try to use as examples of normal pricing - they are aimed at people on the margin who will only buy if you give a heavy discount. The seller has already gotten the normal buyers who buy at full price, so to capture the last 10% of their customers they have to lower the prices - but ONLY for those last purchasers.

Hence all the "tricks" that seem to give low prices but impose a "cost" of time or energy that many people won't be bothered with. Examples: clip this coupon and bring it into the store, sale on Thursday from 6am to 10am, mail in rebate with 4 supporting documents needed before the deadline, drive to a big box warehouse like Fry's with minimal sales staff then wander around lost, etc.

BenRoethig

May 22, 2008, 01:24 PM

Oh really? Then why did the power jack break on my friend's HP laptop, making it essentially useless, and not on his Macbook?

OHHH, right, that super-NON-special commodity Mac hardware called MagSafe. :rolleyes:

I wish they would have come up with it sooner. Would have saved me a couple hundred bucks.

Roderick Usher

May 22, 2008, 01:32 PM

There is NO good justfication for Apple to sell their only 3D capable machines at $2000+ prices. They could include a DECENT 3D card in their $1200 laptops and/or the MacMini but they purposely choose NOT to in order to force those of you that WANT decent 3D graphics to buy a $2000+ machine.
Yep. This is the hard truth, folks, and I've yet to see a convincing argument against it.

Eidorian

May 22, 2008, 01:34 PM

Hence all the "tricks" that seem to give low prices but impose a "cost" of time or energy that many people won't be bothered with. Examples: clip this coupon and bring it into the store, sale on Thursday from 6am to 10am, mail in rebate with 4 supporting documents needed before the deadline, drive to a big box warehouse like Fry's with minimal sales staff then wander around lost, etc.Do you have any personal experience with Fry's? Not to mention their quad core discounts tend to be from their nearly constant ads and few mail in rebates. I've had 100% success with the deep discount Q6600 processors for US$179 in the past 6 weeks. I'm making a nice little profit buying them up and selling them on eBay or some of my MacRumors friends...

Perhaps from an internal component point of view (chipset, motherboard, logic board, etc.) this is true. However, comparing the two in terms of grades of plastic used, casing structure, disk drives, plugs and connectors, fans, and overall integrity, I couldn't disagree more.Same plant in south east Asia...

mjteix

May 22, 2008, 01:38 PM

Perhaps from an internal component point of view (chipset, motherboard, logic board, etc.) this is true. However, comparing the two in terms of grades of plastic used, casing structure, disk drives, plugs and connectors, fans, and overall integrity, I couldn't disagree more.

disk drives?
Apple uses the same as any other manufacturer and offer less choices in fact. I even remember that they used some crappy Seagates on some MacBooks...

BenRoethig

May 22, 2008, 01:46 PM

Well, they do use pioneer for the optical drives so that is a $5 premium over Lite-On and LG.

DMann

May 22, 2008, 02:02 PM

disk drives?
Apple uses the same as any other manufacturer and offer less choices in fact. I even remember that they used some crappy Seagates on some MacBooks...

sorry, my error, i was referring to optical drive (slot vs. plastic drawer)

Same plant in south east Asia...

Same plant, different grades used for more or less $$.

CalfCanuck

May 22, 2008, 02:04 PM

Do you have any personal experience with Fry's? Not to mention their quad core discounts tend to be from their nearly constant ads and few mail in rebates. I've had 100% success with the deep discount Q6600 processors for US$179 in the past 6 weeks. I'm making a nice little profit buying them up and selling them on eBay or some of my MacRumors friends...

Yes, I've lived in the bay area for decades, and often shop at the Fry's down in San Diego when I'm visiting my mom and need to get some tech gear for her. But I'd never send her in alone - she'd freak out. You have to admit that the experience from walking into a Mac store is quite different than that of walking into a Fry's!

The very fact that you can "arbitrage" your purchases from Fry's only proves that there IS an extra cost that has to be taken into account to get this low pricing (to anyone who doesn't understand this economic term, that means making a profit buying low from one location and sell at the going price in other locations). Do you think you could arbitrage a Mac?

I'm not saying Fry's is bad - for those of us who'd pop off the back of a computer in an instant and start monkeying around with the motherboard, places like Fry's are heaven. But first, we're the minority, and second, not everyone lives close enough to a Fry's to be able to drive there to buy the stuff.

Eidorian

May 22, 2008, 02:12 PM

The very fact that you can "arbitrage" your purchases from Fry's only proves that there IS an extra cost that has to be taken into account to get this low pricing (to anyone who doesn't understand this economic term, that means making a profit buying low from one location and sell at the going price in other locations). Do you think you could arbitrage a Mac?Actually I have. ;) I've always resold my discounted Apple hardware at a profit. I've never paid retail prices for Apple products.

There are some users that do want to build their own machine but there's nothing wrong with buying one.

To be honest I don't want anyone at an Apple Store to talk to me. It's difficult when you can take on the Geniuses head on with troubleshooting, repairs and administration. The floor staff is just pedestrian.

DMann

May 22, 2008, 02:20 PM

I'd agree that PCs were aesthetically unpleasing a few years ago but that simply isn't the case for a lot of the new ones.

Yes we do. It's nice to see how Apple has had such a profound influence on the PC market.

I'm sorry this is your experience. For the vast majority of people it's not otherwise MS would have been out of business years ago. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are not as computer savvy as you may be. Many have grown to accept the ritual of restarting and have become accustomed to calling in a specialist or an IT guy, which is good for the IT business, I suppose.

Windows isn't actually 'utter crap'. Leopard may be slightly beter than Vista (but see point b) but XP was for a long time better than the previous OSX 10 variants. Fashions in OSs change. Apple's current product is beter than Microsoft's. Who's to say Microsoft's next OS won't be better than Apple's?

Better in some ways perhaps, but the Windows OS is based on code layered upon code with a foundation of QDOS. It is both unstable, and vulnerable, due to MS's desire to link the OS to IE, making it easier for malware to get into the OS and propagate. Windows made a valiant endeavor to emulate the Mac OS over the years, (hence Windows) but the vast amounts of spaghetti code upon code make it vulnerable to failure.

Who's to say Microsoft's next OS won't be better than Apple's?

That's right, who's to say? We'll be sure to find out sometime in 2012.

$1,200 will get you a good machine with an excellent monitor. In addition my Windows machines take less than a minute to boot up - about the same as the Macbook - and seconds from sleep mode. As for malware, anyone who allows their PC to get infested has really only themselves to blame. There is absolutely no excuse to allow malware on your PC with the likes of ZoneAlarm, Avast and AdAware available for no cost.

Many would rather not have to go outside wearing a bullet proof vest under a UV reflective space suit. Hundreds of new viruses are being developed each day, faster than any Anti-Virus company can ever keep up with. Some people would rather not have to be concerned with blaming themselves.

Actually it's an extra 66% of cost.

Not if you opt for a mid-range iMac.

Yup, it's nice but so are a lot of the new PCs.

Thanks to Apple's profound influence on the PC market place.

has the problem that it doesn't run the apps I need it to.

Which apps are these? I'm aware of quite a few.

Sorry but I simply don't believe this.

I am not alone:

Here we go again. For our very large company, Dell is running at about 80% of the units have problems within the first month of purchase....

The XPS One is nice but most PC builders don't build all in one units because of their limitations.
It's nice, thanks to Apple's influence. Competition is good. Limitations or not, iMacs seem to sell better than the XPS.

JoeDMD

May 22, 2008, 02:27 PM

Apple seems to think that, despite its TV ads, noone really wants os X. Like the white haired guy in the yellow convertible, Apple has no confidence in its software unless it is packaaged in a glitzy cool piece of industrial art. The only ones who go gaga over this magnificent sculpture are of course going to be mindless fools who would never think of adding a hard drive or *gasp* some form of connectivity that may be introduced in the future.

On the other hand, the high end mac user really understands how super duper osx is and is always running 52 apps at the same time,so he really need 8 3.2Ghz cores and is willing to fork over more than 5 grand to get them (along with 4 GB ram and a 750GB HD). He also understands the beauty of the case deisgn, but is ok with sliding it under his desk.

If you are not a MF or a HEMU, Steve won't sell you a computer. But, Steve is a genius, or at least a god, so he must know what he is doing. It has worked so far.

javierbds

May 22, 2008, 02:38 PM

So you buy your iMac, (maybe with AppleCare), you know you cannot upgrade but who cares, it is what you need right now. Then after 3 years (or less if you did not get AppleCare, see Murphy) your Superdrive (search for Mat(su)shita "happy" users on Apple forums) says goodbye!. Then, you are faced with: a) Pay the market value of the machine to a tech guy just to replace the Superdrive with an "Apple approved" one probably of similar quality, knowing that anyway, the iMac case will not fit tight ever again; b) Buy some tools, some prozac, remember all of Ive´s ancestors, and DIY; c) Buy an external fw DVD and put some tape on that useless slot; d) Throw away your iMac and ... :rolleyes:

The G5 iMac was way more serviceable than the Intel iMacs, this obsession with just a quarter of an inch thinner on a desktop machine is :mad:. So Apple is more env-friendly because they use easier to recycle materials? The best recycling is made by end users. Apple was env-friendly because a PPC Mac lasted usable a lot more than a wintel. But Apple wants you to buy throw away machines ... or force you to get a pro machine. So, you'll pay upfront, pay in the end or even both: ... (parts cost more, sw costs more, repairs cost more): keeping an updated or even not partially broken machine costs way more than people realize initially ...

PS: I´m quite happy with my iMac (late 2006) and my external DVD recorder. No, I will not put tape in that useless slot ... Yes I know the desktop is no longer of interest to Apple.
Did I say (some) MatsuSHITa Superdrives are pure *****?

DMann

May 22, 2008, 02:57 PM

If you want to see bulk and clutter, you should see my iMac.

I would consider a used MacPro tower in your case.

As for life span. My Performa 5200 lasted be five years, and kept on going for another 5 after as a computer for my grand parents. My B&W G3 lasted me five before I sold it. I was able to extend the usefulness though upgrade to the optical drive, hard drive, video card, and RAM. After that I got a iBook for college. Its still around, but has averaged a new motherboard every 9 months or so. Then again I do now buy the Apple care I didn't think anyone would ever need back in my G3 days.

I agree, motherboard, power supply and overheating issues were frequent for a stretch between 2005-06. (Quality Control issue) This problem now seems to have been corrected. Unfortunately, however, in order to remain competitive within the PC market, Apple no longer charges $4000+ like they did for a prosumer Ci, or Si, and therefore doesn't build them to last for 50+ years as had been done in the past. If you want this kind of industrial-grade quality, you need to go the more expensive route of the workstation, the MacPro.

gkarris

May 22, 2008, 03:38 PM

JoeDMD

May 22, 2008, 03:47 PM

:D

At least I'm no longer "bending over" for Michael Dell. :eek:

What's a MF or a HEMU? :p

mf=mindless fool
hemu= high end mac user :)

SodiumBenzoate

May 22, 2008, 03:47 PM

sorry, my error, i was referring to optical drive (slot vs. plastic drawer)

I wouldn't call that a difference in quality, and some Windows notebooks do have slot-loading drives.

BenRoethig

May 22, 2008, 04:03 PM

BongoBanger

May 22, 2008, 04:49 PM

Yes we do. It's nice to see how Apple has had such a profound influence on the PC market.

Perhaps. It's nice to see whatever the reason.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are not as computer savvy as you may be. Many have grown to accept the ritual of restarting and have become accustomed to calling in a specialist or an IT guy, which is good for the IT business, I suppose.

My mum knows nothing about computers and has had no issues with XP.

Ever.

Better in some ways perhaps, but the Windows OS is based on code layered upon code with a foundation of QDOS.

I'm sorry but that's not true. QDOS led to IBMDOS which led to IBMDOS and Windows Me was the last to use it. XP and Vista come from the NT family which only run a DOS emulator and are not based upon it. This has been the case since XP came out in 2001.

It is both unstable, and vulnerable, due to MS's desire to link the OS to IE, making it easier for malware to get into the OS and propagate.

Sorry, neither XP nor Vista are unstable. As for vulnerability, it's true they are more susceptible to malware but there is simply no excuse for anyone getting malware now.

Windows made a valiant endeavor to emulate the Mac OS over the years, (hence Windows) but the vast amounts of spaghetti code upon code make it vulnerable to failure.

I find Vista to be overdone and hope MS learn from their errors when building W7. XP though is an excellent OS.

That's right, who's to say? We'll be sure to find out sometime in 2012.

2010 actually.

Many would rather not have to go outside wearing a bullet proof vest under a UV reflective space suit.

This is a gross exaggeration. A more relevant analogy would be to wear a jacket in case it might rain.

Hundreds of new viruses are being developed each day, faster than any Anti-Virus company can ever keep up with. Some people would rather not have to be concerned with blaming themselves.

This is again nonsense. Most of the virii are variants and easily dealt with. In addition virtually all virii can be used by exercising caution when browsing in much the same way as you wouldn't walk down a dark alleyway in a poor neighbourhood whilst wearing a lot of expensive jewellery.

In addition, as Windows has a lot of experience with virii threats are identified and closed very quickly. This does not always seem to be the case with Apple.

http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=spam__malware_and_vulnerabilities&articleId=9087898&taxonomyId=85

Not if you opt for a mid-range iMac.

That's not the comparison you made though which concerned the 24" iMac. That said, I guess the mid-range iMac would be the 20" 2.66GHz which comes in at $1,500 - a 25% mark up.

Of course you would then be comparing it to an equivalent PC with lower specs so the mark up would be considerably bigger.

Thanks to Apple's profound influence on the PC market place.

Perhaps. Like I said it's just nice.

Which apps are these? I'm aware of quite a few.

MS Access, Outlook, Visio, Picasa and most recent games.

I am not alone:

You really should check that source you know because he's completely wrong.

It's nice, thanks to Apple's influence. Competition is good. Limitations or not, iMacs seem to sell better than the XPS.

Undoubtedly. It's nice they've produced it but it's a niche market.

macidiot

May 22, 2008, 04:56 PM

What a great analogy - best I've ever seen. Had a laugh when I saw it!

This is the exact problem - people always use their special, discounted computer purchase as a "typical" price for PC's when comparing to Apple's standard, non-discounted, pricing. Used to be the same argument on these forums when using Dell systems as a pricing benchmark, before Dell stopped all their crazy discounting.

Posters here neglect the economic reasoning behind these deep discounts that they try to use as examples of normal pricing - they are aimed at people on the margin who will only buy if you give a heavy discount. The seller has already gotten the normal buyers who buy at full price, so to capture the last 10% of their customers they have to lower the prices - but ONLY for those last purchasers.

Hence all the "tricks" that seem to give low prices but impose a "cost" of time or energy that many people won't be bothered with. Examples: clip this coupon and bring it into the store, sale on Thursday from 6am to 10am, mail in rebate with 4 supporting documents needed before the deadline, drive to a big box warehouse like Fry's with minimal sales staff then wander around lost, etc.

Exactly. One time I went with a friend to Best Buy. I wanted to pick up a movie. He wanted a cable modem. He found some sort of coupon/trick online to get it for free. Basically, we spent something like 1.5 hours jumping through hoops so my friend could get his free modem. It was unbelievable. 20 minutes into it, I told him, just buy the damn thing, who the hell cares about $50? We spent hundreds in wasted time...

Eidorian

May 22, 2008, 06:36 PM

Exactly. One time I went with a friend to Best Buy. I wanted to pick up a movie. He wanted a cable modem. He found some sort of coupon/trick online to get it for free. Basically, we spent something like 1.5 hours jumping through hoops so my friend could get his free modem. It was unbelievable. 20 minutes into it, I told him, just buy the damn thing, who the hell cares about $50? We spent hundreds in wasted time...Time and money are very delicate things to talk about. I'm willing to go through a few hoops to save some money. I'm sure that you're willing to pay more to save your time but sadly I'm not that way.

I spent an hour troubleshooting Windows Vista 64-bit last night and you don't hear me complaining about it. Keep in mind it might have been OS X's fault to begin with.

I'm going to file myself under the utilitarian Mac user (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5372166&postcount=490). I love OS X but Apple's hardware is rather lacking in my personal opinion.

G58

May 22, 2008, 08:30 PM

They've all been Jonathan Ive designs since the first iMac in 1998. His design input personifies what Steve's philosophy for Apple is all about, and has been since he returned.

And if you want to crack a current iMac, all you have to do is Google it. It's a fairly simple thing to upgrade the HDD.

But Apple have recently radically revised their pricing policy by reducing the difference between the standard 320GB and 500GB option to just $50, 750GB to $150 and 1TB to $300 on the 2.8GHz 24" model, therefore reducing our need to perform DIY jobs for at least the life of the first HDD.

It's the same story with the memory. If you compared Apple's RAM prices with those of Orca and Crucial only a month ago, Apple looked like a robber baron. Now, when you consider questions of possible 3rd party issues, it's worth telling Apple to fit the max 4GB when ordering.

But these are all marketing decisions. They help to push up the unit spend and keep more business in-house. That money was already being spent, often before the Mac shipped, but with Crucial etc. Now Apple is getting it. And as Apple's market share increases, you can bet that's hurting some people.

...Yeah, the hard drive thing is annoying, especially since it was accessible in the last generation. But this is an Ive designed machine. Who actually cares if the thing works if it looks good right?

AidenShaw

May 22, 2008, 08:43 PM

They've all been Jonathan Ive designs since the first iMac in 1998. His design input personifies what Steve's philosophy for Apple is all about, and has been since he returned.

Scary, that idea is...

http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/imacs-700084.jpg http://www.visuallee.com/weblog/images/new_imacs.jpg

Why is it that a 10 year old PC looks old, but a 10 year old Apple looks ridiculous?

Design? Or confusing style for design?

G58

May 22, 2008, 08:47 PM

Wow!

I own a business that's giving EVERYONE a new iMac. And guess what? there's a suitable iMac for everyone, from secretary and receptionist to techie, sales and CEO. How democratic is that? And when we do press stuff, we don't hire some hotel function suite, we use the office - because it looks so good!:apple:

And here's another thing, all my employees friends want to work for us now! But of course, they're all mindless... what was the term?... oh yeah - mindless fools, just like us. But hey, do we make money and party? You bet.

Apple seems to think that, despite its TV ads, noone really wants os X. Like the white haired guy in the yellow convertible, Apple has no confidence in its software unless it is packaaged in a glitzy cool piece of industrial art. The only ones who go gaga over this magnificent sculpture are of course going to be mindless fools who would never think of adding a hard drive or *gasp* some form of connectivity that may be introduced in the future.

On the other hand, the high end mac user really understands how super duper osx is and is always running 52 apps at the same time,so he really need 8 3.2Ghz cores and is willing to fork over more than 5 grand to get them (along with 4 GB ram and a 750GB HD). He also understands the beauty of the case deisgn, but is ok with sliding it under his desk.

If you are not a MF or a HEMU, Steve won't sell you a computer. But, Steve is a genius, or at least a god, so he must know what he is doing. It has worked so far.

Eidorian

May 22, 2008, 08:52 PM

Wow!

When you failed psychology and started seeing the world in such narrow terms, did someone in a white coat hand you a small piece of paper that read: 'Prescription'? You should go find it. How can you make such ludicrously simplistic statements? :rolleyes:

I own a business that's giving EVERYONE a new iMac. And guess what? there's a suitable iMac for everyone, from secretary and receptionist to techie, sales and CEO. How democratic is that? And when we do press stuff, we don't hire some hotel function suite, we use the office - because it looks so good!:apple:

And here's another thing, all my employees friends want to work for us now! But of course, they're all mindless... what was the term?... oh yeah - mindless fools, just like us. But hey, do we make money and party? You bet.I wish we could order iMacs but the senior administration fears all-in-one computers when it comes to repairs.

We have quite a few Mac minis now with Dell LCDs...