Apple's Retail Strategy

[MacRumors]

Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc2004047_5468_tc056.htm) provides an analysis of Apple's retail presence in the wake of recent Gateway store closings and reseller lawsuits.

While Apple's stores appear to be a financial success at this point, the author questions the results on Apple's marketshare, which hasn't increased substantially since the launch of Apple's retail initiative.

Related: Gateway to shutter stores, cut staff (http://news.com.com/2100-1041-5183545.html).

[BornAgainMac]

When they had the big long lines for Panther, I noticed a lot of people in the mall curious and even came up to the line to find out what the fuss was about. At least people are curious about the products with these stores.

[Grimace]

Even if this increases access for longtime Apple users - I say it's a success. You don't need to convert the world. Some are happy living in darkness.

[AirUncleP]

How does the general public know Apple Stores even exist?
TV ads?....NO
Radio?.....NO
Paper?.....NO
Mac nuts dragging them to the store to check out what a real computer can do?......Bingo.

[DeusOmnis]

I think Apple needs to do more TV ads in general, they've put no money into it. It's already the general consensus around here that macs are better than PC's, a little bit of advertisement about it and i think things could start to pick up.

[MacsRgr8]

How does the general public know Apple Stores even exist?
TV ads?....NO
Radio?.....NO
Paper?.....NO
Mac nuts dragging them to the store to check out what a real computer can do?......Bingo.

Exactly.

[mgargan1]

the apple stores may be a success numbers wise, but think of it in this regard. While apple may charge $60 for an ipod warranty, it costs apple absolutly nothing, well except for the box which may be $2... so they charge the apple store $5, and the rest is pure profit. So they play with the numbers so investors think the stores are a good thing. They also don't pay their help commission so they have fixed expenses. So the success you may see the apple stores having, may not be too too true. I do believe the stores are a good thing, but to what extent?...

[mgargan1]

oh yea, by the way... i did work at the gateway store in Gaithersburg, MD... and now that they closed all the stores I found a new job working for an apple reseller. They pay much better than the apple stores...

so go me!

[brhmac]

How does the general public know Apple Stores even exist?
TV ads?....NO
Radio?.....NO
Paper?.....NO
Mac nuts dragging them to the store to check out what a real computer can do?......Bingo.

The problem isn't with the general public. The problem is with Apple. iPod aside, the company does not do a compelling job of creating consumer interest in its products or articulating the value of its offerings.

Windows XP, as much as it pains me to admit, is a fine OS. It's clean, simple and does what people need it to do -- plus they can play all the new games.

Not important for me, but it's part of the perception people have about Macs. Great machines but no -- or very limited -- software.

Apple needs to get its advertising act together -- more functionality and less image -- and its pricing in line with the industry.

Dell offers a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine for $500 -- and that price includes a 17-inch monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Does Apple have anything close?

[wdlove]

When they had the big long lines for Panther, I noticed a lot of people in the mall curious and even came up to the line to find out what the fuss was about. At least people are curious about the products with these stores.

My wife and I had the same experience at our local Apple Store. We happened to be number one and two in line. :) A lot of people would look at us. We also had several ask us what the line what about. There were a couple that were familar with Apple. One of them had a daughter with a Mac, he was going to check with her about the update.

At my local store, there always seem to be alot in the store. Not really sure about the sales. I do notice customers at the registers.

[wrldwzrd89]

Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc2004047_5468_tc056.htm) provides an analysis of Apple's retail presence in the wake of recent Gateway store closings and reseller lawsuits.

While Apple's stores appear to be a financial success at this point, the author questions the results on Apple's marketshare, which hasn't increased substantially since the launch of Apple's retail initiative.

Related: Gateway to shutter stores, cut staff (http://news.com.com/2100-1041-5183545.html).
Apple certainly has done a good job with their retail stores; I just don't see why Apple doesn't advertise their retail presence in their own stores (and in other retailers too) more. If Apple did that, they would surely get more business and more Mac users to boot. Why, Apple? WHY???

[nsb3000]

As much as I would love for apple to have 20-30% market share, I recognize that that is not going to happen...so as long as Apple is still selling enough computers to keep OS X a viable operating system (And that means they have to make profits too) I am happy. It looks like from this article that this is happening. Apple is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future, so I am content.

[cxny]

My office is right by the Apple store in Soho, so I'm in there quite a bit. Of the 60 or so computers on display almost all of them are occupied all day long by people checking their hotmail accounts. If you want to actually check out a machine, good luck! So the lesson here? You give free, unlimited, high speed internet access to people in a really nice setting and
they will come in to your store! But will they buy anything??

[Grimace]

Dell offers a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine for $500 -- and that price includes a 17-inch monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Does Apple have anything close?

No, and for good reason.

1. I don't want a huge CRT monitor (viewable screen size 16 inches).
2. I want at minimum a CD/RW drive. Dell is offering a CD-ROM drive
3. You need more 128MB of RAM to run XP Home.

One shouldn't have to upgrade the computer as soon as you buy it.

I can't even find that deal on Dell's website. They have a $499 POS available. {edit} maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Dell. Mac users want the best from their computers, a lot of PC users just want to write papers, memos and check email. Dell knows that, and gives it to them. Outside of those bounds, their computers are crap. Inside that confined area, I'm sure they are fine.

[stoid]

Dell offers a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine for $500 -- and that price includes a 17-inch monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Does Apple have anything close?

Please. Not the price argument again.

Yes, if you want a poorly constructed computer made out of cheap plastic parts that's likely to break inside of 2 years, buy a bargain Dell or HP or Gateway or whatever. If you want a quality machine that will easily run for 4+ years and still have a decent resale value after that, buy a Mac.

[spinko]

JUST GIVE ME A POWERBOOK REVISION !!!!!!

[crees!]

I have a friend that works at a Gateway retail store in the service department. They were only given a 1 week notice they were closing. Actually one week till the store closed to customers. They have another week once the store is closed to customers to finalize everything.

[Frisco]

What happened to Apple's advertising? It has almost become non-existent. The last Mac commercial I remember was for the G5 last Summer. In the Fall there were plenty of iPod commercials, but I don't even see those anymore, besides that's not Mac advertising.

I don't understand why they don't have a Mac marketing blitz. When Apple does come out with a commercial they are great! The problem is we have very few. I hope Apple has a new advertising campaign in the works for the Macintosh platform, but I have a feeling the only new commercials we will see are for the iPod.

I think Apple has to make some dramatic changes/moves to start to increase marketshare or companies will stop making accessories and software for my BMW ;)

[Stella]

I'm sorry, but you have to upgrade a mac when you buy it - iBooks come with 128Mb, which isn't enough.. PBs 256Mb, which still isn't enough... When I bought my iBook, I had to instantly upgrade it - the memory.. so how is this different to Dell?


No, and for good reason.

1. I don't want a huge CRT monitor (viewable screen size 16 inches).
2. I want at minimum a CD/RW drive. Dell is offering a CD-ROM drive
3. You need more 128MB of RAM to run XP Home.

One shouldn't have to upgrade the computer as soon as you buy it.

I can't even find that deal on Dell's website. They have a $499 POS available. {edit} maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Dell. Mac users want the best from their computers, a lot of PC users just want to write papers, memos and check email. Dell knows that, and gives it to them. Outside of those bounds, their computers are crap. Inside that confined area, I'm sure they are fine.

[brhmac]

Please. Not the price argument again.

Yes, if you want a poorly constructed computer made out of cheap plastic parts that's likely to break inside of 2 years, buy a bargain Dell or HP or Gateway or whatever. If you want a quality machine that will easily run for 4+ years and still have a decent resale value after that, buy a Mac.

I am on a Dell right now. It is a fine machine, runs perfectly, does what I want it to.

I love Macs. I've been using Macs since 1989. My most recent Mac -- the 3rd I've owned since 1996 -- had to be repaired because of a faulty inverter: It was 6 weeks old at the time. The two prior Macs had major system failures that lost ALL of my data. I've never had that happen with any Dell or Gateway PC that I've used.

Apple is not perfect. Its computers are not perfect. Dell's market share is what it is because it builds a good-quality PC, hits the price point consumers want and offers the functionality they need.

[AirUncleP]

I'd like to see an ad. explaining the use of iLife suite components.
Scenario:
1. Above ad. plays during Survivor.
2. Wife says, " That was neat honey, can our computer do that?"
3. Husband response #1 " Not exactly."
3. Husband response #2 " Well if I go out and spend $500 on upgrades we could do it....just not as easily."
3. Husband response #3 " Of Course! We own a Mac.!"

Note to Apple: Show the consumer what you can do.....Not a guy breakdancing!

[gbojim]

While Apple's stores appear to be a financial success at this point, the author questions the results on Apple's marketshare, which hasn't increased substantially since the launch of Apple's retail initiative.



This guy must have had a hard time finding something to write in his column this week because that is a terrible analysis. His implication is that sales from the Apple stores were supposed to increase market share by attracting Windows users. What a pile of crap. The stores do not have the capacity to sell enough units to increase market share.

Apple's clearly stated goal in opening the stores was to attract Windows users by providing an attractive presence where their target demographic shops. If half of store sales are to Windows users and they are actually making money, it's no wonder Apple is so happy with their retail effort.

BTW, I took a client to an Apple seminar the other week and I had an interesting chat with an Apple marketing manager. She was telling me that Apple was trying to put together a national TV/print campaign to get folks to visit Apple retailers - both Apple stores as well as resellers. She said they wanted to run some special promotions and such. According to her, Apple could not get enough of the resellers to participate to make it work. Apparently, the stumbling block was Apple wanted the retailers to use some specific demos to show ease of use and convenience over Windows, but a lot of the resellers balked at Apple trying to control the sales process.

[jxyama]

Please. Not the price argument again.

100% agree. price argument is stupid. someone looking for a $400 computer won't care what it runs - XP or Mac.

i think with retail stores, apple is doing what it needs to do: word of mouth.

changing an OS is a big deal for most people. if you only want to check emails and surf the web, there's no compelling reason to shell out more money to get a computer that's "different" from everyone else's.

something like an iPod will benefit more from instant return that is mass market advertising - because it's a self-contained device. it takes no more effort (if not less) to learn to use iPod than any other MP3 players out there. consumers wanting a portable digital music player have already made a committment to learn how to use a MP3 player. same cannot be said for consumers wanting to buy a new computer about learning the OS.

it'll take slow and patient effort to get the word out - that Macs can help people edit/manage photos better, that Macs can help people turn home videos into a DVD with beautiful menus, etc. most average consumers do not need to do these things - they have to becoming wanting to do these things. when they become wanting to do things, they will be able to justify paying more money and may start considering Macs.

having retail stores around to let people experience those will be far more beneficial than TV ads. afterall, it's hard to convince people how Macs can better edit movies than windows equivalents in 20 second spots.

[brhmac]

No, and for good reason.

1. I don't want a huge CRT monitor (viewable screen size 16 inches).
2. I want at minimum a CD/RW drive. Dell is offering a CD-ROM drive
3. You need more 128MB of RAM to run XP Home.

One shouldn't have to upgrade the computer as soon as you buy it.

I can't even find that deal on Dell's website. They have a $499 POS available. {edit} maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Dell. Mac users want the best from their computers, a lot of PC users just want to write papers, memos and check email. Dell knows that, and gives it to them. Outside of those bounds, their computers are crap. Inside that confined area, I'm sure they are fine.

What arrogance! Mac users do the same things as Dell users. Dell users do the same things as Mac users -- only for a lot less money.

Dell gives consumers what they want and has the marketshare to prove it. By virtue of your own logic, Apple is giving only a limited number of consumers what they want and has the marketshare to prove it.

Finally, what Mac doesn't need to be upgraded? Every line item on the order form after the specific model itself is an upgrade. A mouse is optional with Mac laptops -- and I think both the mouse and keyboard are optional with the desktops. You also have to buy a monitor with the Powermacs. Again, more options, and the cheapest Apple monitor is $700.

Cha-ching!

[Grimace]

I'm sorry, but you have to upgrade a mac when you buy it - iBooks come with 128Mb, which isn't enough.. PBs 256Mb, which still isn't enough... When I bought my iBook, I had to instantly upgrade it - the memory.. so how is this different to Dell?

You're definitely right on the RAM issue, but otherwise, the internal components of a BOTTOM line Dell are dismal.

[dukemeiser]

Macs last longer than PCs. Therefore Macs don't get replaced as much and market share will never be as high as PCs.

[GFLPraxis]

No, and for good reason.

1. I don't want a huge CRT monitor (viewable screen size 16 inches).
2. I want at minimum a CD/RW drive. Dell is offering a CD-ROM drive
3. You need more 128MB of RAM to run XP Home.

One shouldn't have to upgrade the computer as soon as you buy it.

I can't even find that deal on Dell's website. They have a $499 POS available. {edit} maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Dell. Mac users want the best from their computers, a lot of PC users just want to write papers, memos and check email. Dell knows that, and gives it to them. Outside of those bounds, their computers are crap. Inside that confined area, I'm sure they are fine.

$499 with Mail-in Rebate, and Dell is well known for trying their best to weasel out of Mail-in Rebates.

Additionally that $499 Dell (which is actually $599) doesn't even HAVE a graphics card.

Dell desktops are horrible. HORRIBLE. Only the high end ones even have graphics cards, and they usually cost more than competitors.

I went on comgeeks.com, and using mostly new (maybe one or two refurbished) parts, I could buy the parts and built me an Athlon 2500+ (equivilant to a 2.5 ghz P4) with a Radeon 9200 64 MB + TV Out, 512 MB of RAM, built in ethernet, a large expandible case, a CD-ROM AND DVD/CD-RW combo drive (put a CD in one, burn in the other), and a whopping 80 gig hard drive.

How much, you ask? $350. It whoops the pants off the Dell with 128 MB RAM (below the recommended amount of 256...and most PC magazines recommend at least 512 with a P4), no graphics card, a slightly slower processor that takes more power (Pentium 4's are famous for that), a mere CD-ROM, a 40 gig hard drive, etc etc...

No, the reason other companies seem cheaper is that Apple doesn't offer low end stuff once they're through with it. I'd bet Apple could easily start offering a $500 eMac without a graphics card and an 800 mhz G4 processor and 128 MB of RAM if they felt like it. But with the massive performance boost of Quartz Extreme, they need the graphics card (raising the price by at least 50 to 100 $$$), they don't like using older processors (G4's range from 400 mhz to 1.33 ghz, and yet you will never find a Mac with less than 1 GHz new on the market except the iBook G4), and they give you extra RAM built in because they realize 128 MB is not enough.

Dell is content to rip off customers who say, "Wow, a $499 computer? What a good deal! I don't realize that it will have no ability to play games without a graphics card and will be much slower than it is capable of without the RAM!"

[brhmac]

100% agree. price argument is stupid. someone looking for a $400 computer won't care what it runs - XP or Mac.

i think with retail stores, apple is doing what it needs to do: word of mouth.

changing an OS is a big deal for most people. if you only want to check emails and surf the web, there's no compelling reason to shell out more money to get a computer that's "different" from everyone else's.

something like an iPod will benefit more from instant return that is mass market advertising - because it's a self-contained device. it takes no more effort (if not less) to learn to use iPod than any other MP3 players out there. consumers wanting a portable digital music player have already made a committment to learn how to use a MP3 player. same cannot be said for consumers wanting to buy a new computer about learning the OS.

it'll take slow and patient effort to get the word out - that Macs can help people edit/manage photos better, that Macs can help people turn home videos into a DVD with beautiful menus, etc. most average consumers do not need to do these things - they have to becoming wanting to do these things. when they become wanting to do things, they will be able to justify paying more money and may start considering Macs.

having retail stores around to let people experience those will be far more beneficial than TV ads. afterall, it's hard to convince people how Macs can better edit movies than windows equivalents in 20 second spots.

Price is not stupid. And Apple has had 20 years to get the word out.

The fact is, Apple is overpriced for the market. Why should someone switch and pay more for the "privilege" of owning a Mac when Windows is evolving to an acceptable OS and ALL of the hardware/software is written for Windows and not the Mac? Total cost of ownership is far lower for Windows machines vs. Mac.

If you make the emotional decision to buy a Mac, fine. I've done the same thing myself. But this board's tendency to label Dell users as somehow unsophisticated computer users or dupes who do nothing other than check e-mail is as mean-spirited as it is unfounded.

[Grimace]

Dell gives consumers what they want and has the marketshare to prove it. By virtue of your own logic, Apple is giving only a limited number of consumers what they want and has the marketshare to prove it. Exactly. I may get flamed for saying so, but I don't think Apple will ever get passed a 10% marketshare because of the consumer/pro users they want to please. (along with the higher price associated with that market.)

Finally, what Mac doesn't need to be upgraded? Every line item on the order form after the specific model itself is an upgrade. A mouse is optional with Mac laptops -- and I think both the mouse and keyboard are optional with the desktops.

No, all powermacs come with mice and keyboard.

[jwhitnah]

The problem isn't with the general public. The problem is with Apple. iPod aside, the company does not do a compelling job of creating consumer interest in its products or articulating the value of its offerings.

Windows XP, as much as it pains me to admit, is a fine OS. It's clean, simple and does what people need it to do -- plus they can play all the new games.

Not important for me, but it's part of the perception people have about Macs. Great machines but no -- or very limited -- software.

Apple needs to get its advertising act together -- more functionality and less image -- and its pricing in line with the industry.

Dell offers a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine for $500 -- and that price includes a 17-inch monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Does Apple have anything close?

True. There are many reasons not to buy an Apple right now. Outdated machines (last significant update like 6/03), not enough gaming software, safari still limiting online bank access. ipods are awesome though.

[GFLPraxis]

Additionally, market share doesn't mean as much. If someone new to computers goes to buy one, they look out and see everyone else using Windows so they march over to Dell which everyone else is using and buy one. They don't realize Mac is better. Eventually someone with a Mac reaches them and teaches them the error of their ways.

Right now a lot of people are starting to use computers who could never use them before. I saw a 70 year old woman in a keyboarding class the other day. With all these people new to computers, the first thing they look at is PC.

So the PC manufacturer's maket share will increase faster. This does not mean that Apple is losing anything.

If Apple gains 500,000 new users, and Dell gains 1,000,000, Apple's market share will appear to drop. They still made a large gain, just not quite as much as the others.

Additionally, most people compare Apple to Microsoft. That is silly. Linux should be compared to Microsoft marketshare wise.

Apple is a HARDWARE company, not software company. If Apple started licensing their OS and IBM selling their G5's to other manufacturers like Dell, then Apple could be compared to Microsoft. Since Apple is the HARDWARE company, Apple is directly competing with Dell and Gateway and the likes, NOT with Microsoft.

Dell has what, 15% marketshare? THAT is what Apple is targetting. Once Apple hits 15% marketshare, they will be the biggest hardware company. It might be a waaaaaaays off though :(

Most people look at Microsoft's 95% or so of the market and think "Apple is really losing bad". But Apple is a hardware company, and if you look at the other market shares, Apple is whupping the rear off Alienware and Sony and others. They are the FIFTH LARGEST in Marketshare for hardware companies. They are #1 for technical support. They are FOURTH in earnings. They are doing quite well :)

[atomwork]

How does the general public know Apple Stores even exist?
TV ads?....NO
Radio?.....NO
Paper?.....NO
Mac nuts dragging them to the store to check out what a real computer can do?......Bingo.

My guess is that they do the advertising thru the iPod. People need to find out anyway where to buy them, right?

Dave

[jxyama]

The fact is, Apple is overpriced for the market. Why should someone switch and pay more for the "privilege" of owning a Mac when Windows is evolving to an acceptable OS and ALL of the hardware/software is written for Windows and not the Mac? Total cost of ownership is far lower for Windows machines vs. Mac.

If you make the emotional decision to buy a Mac, fine. I've done the same thing myself. But this board's tendency to label Dell users as somehow unsophisticated computer users or dupes who do nothing other than check e-mail is as mean-spirited as it is unfounded.

Macs are better suited for people who wants to do things more than average person wants to, like editing home movies. that was the point i made. this is not meant to say dell owners won't do those things. but i firmly believe iApps will allow Mac users to do a lot more than anything bundled with dells.

so, i completely agree that it's not for everyone, it's overpriced if you don't want to do those things and windows machines will be cheaper if you don't want to do those things.

i argue that there will always be a small subset of computer users who want to do creative things like i mentioned before and they will strongly consider Macs. whether or not apple had intended to become a niche market product or not, i believe it has become one. and i don't think that market will go away as long as more and more people start using creative digital hardware like cameras and camcorders.

edit: when i bought my PB, i did so because i just had enough with windows. i didn't know about iApps. i didn't know about Mac's capabilities. i just wanted a laptop that didn't run windows and came from a well known vendor.

it was a pleasant surprise to learn about iPhoto and iMovie. but i believe a case like mine is an exception. as digital devices become more common, apple really needs to push the digital hub aspect of Macs and sell on those merits. but it's a hard sell because most people don't even realize why they'd want to even bother editting their home videos or burn DVDs. it's a slow process.

if you made "an emotional" decision to get a Mac, i guess all i can say is i hope you don't regret it. you are right that there are some posters here who generalize dell users as computer idiots. but i'd guess to say it's partially true - there are more computer idiot people who use dells than Macs, just because of the number of computers out there. ;)

[3-22]

The problem isn't with the general public. The problem is with Apple. iPod aside, the company does not do a compelling job of creating consumer interest in its products or articulating the value of its offerings.

Windows XP, as much as it pains me to admit, is a fine OS. It's clean, simple and does what people need it to do -- plus they can play all the new games.

Not important for me, but it's part of the perception people have about Macs. Great machines but no -- or very limited -- software.

Apple needs to get its advertising act together -- more functionality and less image -- and its pricing in line with the industry.

Dell offers a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine for $500 -- and that price includes a 17-inch monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Does Apple have anything close?

I agree with you on that one. Apple's advertising while sometimes very revolutionary in an "artsy" way does little for Joe Public. Silhouettes dancing, people getting blown out of a house, what the heck?! Most people don't have a clue on Apple when I mention them in a sentence. I usually get...

- Are they still around?

- They aren't compatible with anything and have proprietary hardware. (then I must explain they use USB, standard memory, TCP/IP, etc. now and have for many years)

- Many judge a computer by it's ability to use Office, said but true. Many people I talk to don't even realize Office exists for the Mac.

I don't know why Apple is not grabbing on to the interest in the iPod and including them in commercials for the PowerMac. Maybe even show a PowerMac doing something! As for price I don't see that changing anytime soon unfortunately, they like the high margins and see themselves as the luxury car of computers. But Joe Public also wants a $299 computer so maybe it would be wasted effort anyway for the masses....

[wrldwzrd89]

$499 with Mail-in Rebate, and Dell is well known for trying their best to weasel out of Mail-in Rebates.
I hate mail-in rebates; my policy on mail-in rebates is to just ignore them because it's not worth the hassle for me. If I were to buy a PC from Dell (or any other PC manufacturer) that offered a mail-in rebate, I would buy based on the price without the rebate. Right now, I don't need a Windows PC, but if I do need one later, I'll use this guideline when buying.

[jxyama]

I hate mail-in rebates; my policy on mail-in rebates is to just ignore them because it's not worth the hassle for me. If I were to buy a PC from Dell (or any other PC manufacturer) that offered a mail-in rebate, I would buy based on the price without the rebate. Right now, I don't need a Windows PC, but if I do need one later, I'll use this guideline when buying.

it's not worth the hassle? geez, it's "free" money. i don't see why it's such a big deal - fill out the form, retain a copy and mail it in. you get a check later.

no, you shouldn't budget $400 to get $500 computer with $100 rebate, because you won't be able to buy it. and you are right it's not the "real" price of the computer.

but that doesn't mean you should not bother with rebates! (send the forms and receipts to me, i'll sent them in for you for a cut of the check. :D)

[wrldwzrd89]

it's not worth the hassle? geez, it's "free" money. i don't see why it's such a big deal - fill out the form, retain a copy and mail it in. you get a check later.

yes, you shouldn't budget $400 to get $500 computer with $100 rebate, because you won't be able to buy it. and you are right it's not the "real" price of the computer.

but that doesn't mean you should not bother with rebates! (send the forms and receipts to me, i'll sent them in for you for a cut of the check. :D)
Yes, it's "free" money, but I always forget to use it and the rebate takes so long to process that I don't remember when I sent it in :o (if it's an Apple mail-in rebate, this policy does not apply).

[SiliconAddict]

How does the general public know Apple Stores even exist?
TV ads?....NO
Radio?.....NO
Paper?.....NO
Mac nuts dragging them to the store to check out what a real computer can do?......Bingo.

And this is why Apple will never increase market share without a partner and multiple sources of parts. The occasional recommendation that causes a person to go into an Apple store, and the general wandering of a person in a mall that happens to make their way into an attractive store will never compete with the output of Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, Alienware, etc. The collective PC world probably puts out, conservatively, 1,000 PC's for every one Mac sold. Unless Apple teams up with an OEM to manufacture a low end Mac Apple's market share has nowhere to go but down. And before someone gives me the speech about how market share doesn't matter tell that to Palm. Their reasoning is the poster child for why market share IS important. The platforms are different enough that parallel software development is expensive. So lets see. If I had to make a choice would I go with a platform that has a market and mind share of 95% or a market share and mind share of 5%. Even if you are looking purly at the numbers the PC platform represents a better chance of selling a copy of your software then on a Mac or even Linux for that matter.

And please. Get off your high horse. Real computer my butt. I guess the entire business world that has standardized on the PC aren't using real computer but fisher price toys. :rolleyes:

[AirUncleP]

I hate mail-in rebates; my policy on mail-in rebates is to just ignore them because it's not worth the hassle for me.

Mr. Gates could you please send me any money you don't want.
Thank for your time.

[jxyama]

The collective PC world probably puts out, conservatively, 1,000 PC's for every one Mac sold.

um, sorry, that figure is precisely called the "market share." at 3%, apple ships 1 Mac for every 33 computers shipped. apple market share is not 0.1%, not even "conservatively."

also, businesses will use whatever gets the job done and what they use does not say anything about quality. (why do you think many businesses are still using win 98? because it still gets the job done for them.) if fisher price toy could get the job done and was cheaper, then businesses will use that. business use just means it's competent for the price, that's all.

[coolsoldier]

I think on the advertising issue, the way to get people to look at the Mac is not to advertise the mac itself, but the software that runs on the Mac. I think Apple should team up with software developers and run ads for the Mac version of office, Mac games, etc. It doesn't directly promote the Mac, but dislodges all of the popular myths about what Macs can't do.

[wrldwzrd89]

Mr. Gates could you please send me any money you don't want.
Thank for your time.
Huh??? :confused: What does your post have to do with my post that you quoted? I don't understand. (I'm not Bill Gates, and I doubt Bill is registered in these forums anyway.)

[praetorian_x]

I am on a Dell right now. It is a fine machine, runs perfectly, does what I want it to.

I love Macs. I've been using Macs since 1989. My most recent Mac -- the 3rd I've owned since 1996 -- had to be repaired because of a faulty inverter: It was 6 weeks old at the time. The two prior Macs had major system failures that lost ALL of my data. I've never had that happen with any Dell or Gateway PC that I've used.

Apple is not perfect. Its computers are not perfect. Dell's market share is what it is because it builds a good-quality PC, hits the price point consumers want and offers the functionality they need.

*Far* too many fanboys on this site have no experience outside of there mac boxen. I have:

-A Dell Latitude LS Ultralight laptop (which, size-wise, crushes anything apple offers)
-An old (4 years!) Dell desktop running Debian as a server
-A Dell Workstation running XP Pro for development
-A 15-inch AlPowerbook

So Dell has been pretty good to me. The desktops, while not as high quality as a powermac, have held up well physically. The Latitude LS was probably the best tech purchase I have ever made. (Unfortunately, lately it seems like Dell has been cutting corners on their laptops.) And the cost of the three dell machines together was around the same as the cost of the powerbook.

I love my powerbook, but, if you want to know why apples market share is so low, there's your reason.

Anyway, interoperation between windows and osx is so good now and x86 hardware is so inexpensive that I think it is worth it for any technically curious person to have both. And if windows give you the creeps, just throw linux or *BSD on it. Free your minds, fanboys.

Cheers,
prat

[3-22]

Macs last longer than PCs. Therefore Macs don't get replaced as much and market share will never be as high as PCs.

They also have better resale value. Check on eBay, you still see Mac's 2-3 years old getting a good bit of money. Try that with a PC 2-3 years and it's a door-stop.

[jxyama]

*Far* too many fanboys on this site have no experience outside of there mac boxen. I have:

...


plural of "anecdote" is not data.

and this goes to both sides.

[Wonder Boy]

One of them had a daughter with a Mac...

she got pregnant from a computer?!!? wow, what a sex machine!

[dguisinger]

True. There are many reasons not to buy an Apple right now. Outdated machines (last significant update like 6/03), not enough gaming software, safari still limiting online bank access. ipods are awesome though.

And thats what really pisses me off. Apple is horrible at respecting consumers money. Lets take a look at Dell.

Dell releases a computer at say $1500. 2 months alter its at $1400, another 2 months later its at $1100. Every 2-3 months Dell introduces a better machine at the same price point....either faster CPU, better memory, GPU, etc.

Apple on the other hand:
Releases a new computer at $2500. 2 months later....$2500.....6 months later $2500. It stays the exact same price until its replaced, and it takes 6 months or LONGER for apple to update their line. Not only does Apple update their line every 6 months, they typically replace the entireline....making a $2500 investment a month earlier completely worthless.

Sure, most consumers don't know about this business practice, but unless you buy it the day Apple announces it (and they actually ship on time) I have considered them during these Jobsonian years to have horrible business practices because they really do not respect the consumer.

[copperpipe]

The problem isn't with the general public. The problem is with Apple. iPod aside, the company does not do a compelling job of creating consumer interest in its products or articulating the value of its offerings.

Windows XP, as much as it pains me to admit, is a fine OS. It's clean, simple and does what people need it to do -- plus they can play all the new games.

Not important for me, but it's part of the perception people have about Macs. Great machines but no -- or very limited -- software.

Apple needs to get its advertising act together -- more functionality and less image -- and its pricing in line with the industry.

Dell offers a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine for $500 -- and that price includes a 17-inch monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Does Apple have anything close?

Here here. The truth hurts for Apple fans (and that includes me, Big Time) on this one. I've been able to convince maybe 4 or 5 friends to switch to the Mac (and they always thank me), but Apple does not make it easy. The only way people are gonna switch is from people like me, who take the hour or so to explain why an Apple computer is actually a good value/investment. Does Apple really think that people are just gonna "get it" all by themselves? They need a machine that comes close to what Dell and the like are offering, and then people may begin to even consider it as an alternative. The original iMac did just that, but they have forsaken the role of the original iMac. And I don't care how you spin it, Apple does not come even close to the specs on the Dell for speed and price...

[3-22]

I'm not going to say Apple wins company of the year with consumers, but.... What the heck are you talking about here? Why does it become completly worthless? It's still usable, and probably could be sold used for a decent price. For whatever reason Mac's hold there value check out eBay. I could sell my dual G5 right now on Ebay for like $100 less then I bought it from Apple months ago. (I did get ADC discount on the original purchase)


Apple on the other hand:
Releases a new computer at $2500. 2 months later....$2500.....6 months later $2500. It stays the exact same price until its replaced, and it takes 6 months or LONGER for apple to update their line. Not only does Apple update their line every 6 months, they typically replace the entireline....making a $2500 investment a month earlier completely worthless.

Actually I stand corrected browsing around eBay i could sell it and make $200+. Hmmm....

[rjwill246]

Apple apparently shot the lot when they made their 1984 ad. Since then, their advertising has been dismal to mediocre at best. Even the iPod ads are just amusing little things and convey very little information- veritable cream puffs. It is baffling that OS X has not been mass marketed: the security features alone, forget ease of use, are simply too compelling to ignore, yet that is exactly what Apple has done. Their whole advertising program, if you could call it that, is off-center and has given them a very poor return on their investment. One wonders where Apple really does want to go in the future. They are certainly keeping Apple computers a secret. The success of the iPod aside, that in and of itself, is absolutely NO reflection of the capabilities of the company. I can only wonder, what the hell are they thinking when they produce extraordinarily expensive product, albeit of the highest caliber, then fail miserably in telling the world about it? I think Apple shareholders should demand an explanation from Apple for failing to barely ever approach Dell's advertising 'prowess,' which as we all know, is in your face, all the time.

[jxyama]

The original iMac did just that, but they have forsaken the role of the original iMac.

unless i'm mistaken, the original iMac was not the cheapest computer on the market. it was priced $1300 back in 1998. cheap, but not the cheapest. i believe eMac fills the similar role right now.

[jxyama]

And thats what really pisses me off. Apple is horrible at respecting consumers money. Lets take a look at Dell.

Dell releases a computer at say $1500. 2 months alter its at $1400, another 2 months later its at $1100. Every 2-3 months Dell introduces a better machine at the same price point....either faster CPU, better memory, GPU, etc.

Apple on the other hand:
Releases a new computer at $2500. 2 months later....$2500.....6 months later $2500. It stays the exact same price until its replaced, and it takes 6 months or LONGER for apple to update their line. Not only does Apple update their line every 6 months, they typically replace the entireline....making a $2500 investment a month earlier completely worthless.


apple drops prices. not as often as dell, but usually after 6 months, apple usually have faster machines for the same price, or the same machines for lower price.

powerbooks dropped price once and got an update once in 2003. iMac got two updates in 2003. etc.

[Haberdasher]

Additionally, market share doesn't mean as much. If someone new to computers goes to buy one, they look out and see everyone else using Windows so they march over to Dell which everyone else is using and buy one. They don't realize Mac is better. Eventually someone with a Mac reaches them and teaches them the error of their ways.

Right now a lot of people are starting to use computers who could never use them before. I saw a 70 year old woman in a keyboarding class the other day. With all these people new to computers, the first thing they look at is PC.

So the PC manufacturer's maket share will increase faster. This does not mean that Apple is losing anything.

If Apple gains 500,000 new users, and Dell gains 1,000,000, Apple's market share will appear to drop. They still made a large gain, just not quite as much as the others.

Additionally, most people compare Apple to Microsoft. That is silly. Linux should be compared to Microsoft marketshare wise.

Apple is a HARDWARE company, not software company. If Apple started licensing their OS and IBM selling their G5's to other manufacturers like Dell, then Apple could be compared to Microsoft. Since Apple is the HARDWARE company, Apple is directly competing with Dell and Gateway and the likes, NOT with Microsoft.

Dell has what, 15% marketshare? THAT is what Apple is targetting. Once Apple hits 15% marketshare, they will be the biggest hardware company. It might be a waaaaaaays off though :(

Most people look at Microsoft's 95% or so of the market and think "Apple is really losing bad". But Apple is a hardware company, and if you look at the other market shares, Apple is whupping the rear off Alienware and Sony and others. They are the FIFTH LARGEST in Marketshare for hardware companies. They are #1 for technical support. They are FOURTH in earnings. They are doing quite well :)

Yay. :D

I agree completely with your last part...though I must say, for some people that just want e-mail and such, a PC is not an error in the least. I wouldn't want my grandparents to shell out 1200 bucks for something they barely use. It's hard enough to convince them that CD's are a good idea...

But again. Yay for Apple. :D

[SiliconAddict]

They also have better resale value. Check on eBay, you still see Mac's 2-3 years old getting a good bit of money. Try that with a PC 2-3 years and it's a door-stop.


Is that suppose to be a bad thing :p That basically means if I'm looking for a relatively fast system that is 2 years old I can get one cheaply on e-bay. Why? Because they are a dime a dozen.

[flahiker]

First, Cost IS an issue. PCs work great for most people. In fact the majority don't know how to use photoshop or some of the more creative things macs do well. The Dell may not have a video card but it will have on board video. It will play some games. It will ballance checkbooks, run office, Mozilla, IE, Roxio, etc.

But if they can get a $500 machine that only lasts 2 years, thats $250 a year. Well within most budgets. Far cheaper than a cable bill. If they have to replace it in 2 years, then fine. They get the newer technology!

And although Apple is a hardware company, very few people but it for the hardware. They buy it for OSX.

[jxyama]

Is that suppose to be a bad thing :p That basically means if I'm looking for a relatively fast system that is 2 years old I can get one cheaply on e-bay. Why? Because they are a dime a dozen.

ahh, but the problem is, older PCs (generally) have more difficult time running newest windows/software. whereas Mac OS updates seem to bring new life to even older computers, windows OS updates practically require you to get a new hardware to handle the new load. (and often times, it's cheaper that way too...)

of course, getting 2 year old systems goes directly counter to one of the points many PC users rave about PCs: gaming. yeah, sure, you are gonna run latest games on those 2 year old PCs. :D

even Macs can run games better than 2 year old PCs! (if the games get ported at all, that is. :p ;) :D )

[Awimoway]

A few points...

You can't tell how long a computer will last when you walk in off the street and look at it. The notion that a Mac lasts a lot longer is a highly abstract, unprovable consideration.

You can tell that HP or Dell all-in-one package costs a lot less.

And finally, I wish people would quit pointing to the eMac as Apple's answer to the budget-conscious customer. Apple almost goes out of its way to hide it. A lot of people aren't aware it exists. The iMac is highly visible. The eMac is the spurned step-sister they keep hidden in the basement. Trsut me, no one in the real world (not you Apple fanboys) knows it exists.


A lot of people do care about price. They are thrifty people. There is no shame in this. They will never touch a Mac unless they have had firsthand or reliable secondhand experience with one and know for certain that the Mac will last that much longer than the Dell.

[jade]

What arrogance! Mac users do the same things as Dell users. Dell users do the same things as Mac users -- only for a lot less money.

Dell gives consumers what they want and has the marketshare to prove it. By virtue of your own logic, Apple is giving only a limited number of consumers what they want and has the marketshare to prove it.

Finally, what Mac doesn't need to be upgraded? Every line item on the order form after the specific model itself is an upgrade. A mouse is optional with Mac laptops -- and I think both the mouse and keyboard are optional with the desktops. You also have to buy a monitor with the Powermacs. Again, more options, and the cheapest Apple monitor is $700.

Cha-ching!

You are a little mistaken. All Apple desktops come with the mouse and keyboard, just like PCs. Apple monitors are a little expensive, but are in the price range of other DVI (digital) LCDs.

I have never seen a laptop that truly comes with a mouse...Dell is pretty good at hiding options so they appear to be stadard equipment (which is why it is so hard to find those advertised deals)

But on the other hand...most people can do everything they want fairly painlessly on a PC and it is significantly cheaper. Many people say they will pay the extra cash for the elegance of Apple hardware and software, and it is worth the premium, that is for each customer to decide.

Sakever's criticism is valid, because as computers get cheaper, and Apple retains its severe pricing premium, it become less and less viable to the average computer user. Apple makes great software and hardware, but it is getting to the point where you need to be a musician, video editor or drive a Rolls Royce to justify getting one. Windows gets the job done in an acceptable manner, and you have a lot more hardware options and price ranges. Apple hardware at the loend is underpowered and overpriced. Apple's current rate of growth is not keeping up with growth of the industry. Although Apple is making money, marketshare will determine if mac users get online banking, tax software, internet services and printer drivers. All of that is pretty necessary for me.

[sushi]

safari still limiting online bank access.
Oh give me a break!

Safari can access online banking. There is a simple solution for those sites that require IE to access.

Sushi

[corvus]

While Apple's stores appear to be a financial success at this point, the author questions the results on Apple's marketshare, which hasn't increased substantially since the launch of Apple's retail initiative.


Yawn! :eek: Apple's share of the installed market is 8-12 percent, depending on who you believe. Sales are 1-2% because you don't need to replace your Mac every two years. We have a beige G3, two tangerine iBooks and two white iBooks, all running OS X. Apple also has 30% of the scientific market, up from 10% a few years back. Maybe bizweek was having a slow day. :rolleyes:

[aftk2]

Apple apparently shot the lot when they made their 1984 ad. Since then, their advertising has been dismal to mediocre at best.Apparently you weren't paying attention while the Switch ads were running. After they got rolling, I seem to recall many, many confessional ads with goofy, non-intrusive music and white backgrounds. Whether or not you think they accurately portray OS X or Apple computers is really beside the point. That's not what ads are supposed to do.

Take, for example, those shampoo commercials in which the women who use the shampoo get, ahem...somewhat excited. Those commercials don't talk at length about the type of chemicals used in the shampoo, or how it's 35% more effective than competing shampoos...or any of that nonsense. But I imagine the commercials themselves are pretty darn effective.

Hey, speaking of which - why'd the better business bureau go after Apple's ad claim? I use shampoo every morning but I never react that way. ;)

[corvus]

You can't tell how long a computer will last when you walk in off the street and look at it. The notion that a Mac lasts a lot longer is a highly abstract, unprovable consideration.

In August 1999 I installed iMacs in a Dallas-area law office. They are still running, no problems. They had formerly been on a Windows network. My support billings dropping from $600/month to $600/year.

A year or so later, some families in the law office bought Dell Dimension 4100's for home use. All of them them are broken. They also bought a Dell notebook. It is broken. They paid me half the cost of the machines to try and keep them running. They are switching to iMacs this August. It's in my best financial interest to keep them in Dell's, but I have good ethics, so I'm switching them to iMacs at home.

Call it highly abstract if you want, but that is pretty material to my customer.

A lot of people do care about price. They are thrifty people. There is no shame in this. They will never touch a Mac unless they have had firsthand or reliable secondhand experience with one and know for certain that the Mac will last that much longer than the Dell.

For cost/performance, the Mac has been less expensive than PC's since 1984. Total cost of ownership includes price, replacement frequency, software and support. The Mac is clearly clearly clearly less expensive when it comes to total costs of ownership. That's why us thrifty people use them. It can also be argued that the Mac is less expensive for hardware alone, when it comes to cost/performance, but that is more subjective than the total cost of ownership.

If you want mediocrity at a high price of long-term ownership go with a Windows machine. :cool:

[mjtomlin]

I mean honestly, as long as Apple stays profitable, has money in the bank and year-over-year sells more computers, who really cares ... People seem to be so damned interested in making these comparisons. What's the point?

Apple sells milloins of computers and makes billions of dollars. I don't see the problem?

[spinko]

Apple apparently shot the lot when they made their 1984 ad. Since then, their advertising has been dismal to mediocre at best. Even the iPod ads are just amusing little things and convey very little information- veritable cream puffs. It is baffling that OS X has not been mass marketed: the security features alone, forget ease of use, are simply too compelling to ignore, yet that is exactly what Apple has done. Their whole advertising program, if you could call it that, is off-center and has given them a very poor return on their investment. One wonders where Apple really does want to go in the future. They are certainly keeping Apple computers a secret. The success of the iPod aside, that in and of itself, is absolutely NO reflection of the capabilities of the company. I can only wonder, what the hell are they thinking when they produce extraordinarily expensive product, albeit of the highest caliber, then fail miserably in telling the world about it? I think Apple shareholders should demand an explanation from Apple for failing to barely ever approach Dell's advertising 'prowess,' which as we all know, is in your face, all the time.

thank's, you talk right out of my heart... it couldn't be more true ! Most people don't even know that Mircro$oft Office runs on Macs {nervous laugh} HAAAAAHAAAAAA:eek:

[Awimoway]

...
Call it highly abstract if you want, but that is pretty material to my customer.

For cost/performance, the Mac has been less expensive than PC's since 1984. Total cost of ownership includes price, replacement frequency, software and support. The Mac is clearly clearly clearly less expensive when it comes to total costs of ownership. That's why us thrifty people use them. It can also be argued that the Mac is less expensive for hardware alone, when it comes to cost/performance, but that is more subjective than the total cost of ownership.

If you want mediocrity at a high price of long-term ownership go with a Windows machine. :cool:
Right, but my point is that since there are so few of us (10% or less, depending on which estimate you believe) who use Macs (and I think there is an embarrassingly high number of Mac users who still cling to OS 9 or earlier) that there isn't enough word-of-mouth endorsement of Macs' reliability.

I may have just convinced my father-in-law to get a Mac. The only PC-maker he trusts (some local outfit) told him that a quality home video-editing Windows system would run him $1500. I told him about the Macs' ease of use, its lack of viruses and major security vulnerabilities, and it's incredible longevity. We priced Macs, and he's thinking seriously about getting the Superdrive eMac for a lot less than the PC system.

But my point is that that kind of thing doesn't happen often enough. What if I hadn't been there to talk it over with him? And what if I hadn't convinced him. A lot of my friends are not so easily convinced. My dad (not that he ever listens to me :rolleyes: ) looked at the eMac price and then went and priced HP's. He didn't need a new monitor and got an HP for about $500. Is he an idiot, subverting momentary savings for long term woe? Yeah. Well he ever learn? Probably not. $500 was in his budget. $850 wasn't. Some people, my dad included, are convinced that the best way to do things is to buy cheap and replace often.

I just think that Apple's marketing strategy seems to be relying on word of mouth almost exclusively. And that's a poor way to do things. Because there's not enough of us, and we don't always succeed at convincing people. And most people are not going to convince themselves.

I, myself, switched two years ago because of word of mouth convincing. If that Mac user hadn't spoken up, I would still be in PC hell.

[dontmatter]

Additionally, market share doesn't mean as much. If someone new to computers goes to buy one, they look out and see everyone else using Windows so they march over to Dell which everyone else is using and buy one. They don't realize Mac is better. Eventually someone with a Mac reaches them and teaches them the error of their ways.

Right now a lot of people are starting to use computers who could never use them before. I saw a 70 year old woman in a keyboarding class the other day. With all these people new to computers, the first thing they look at is PC.

So the PC manufacturer's maket share will increase faster. This does not mean that Apple is losing anything.

If Apple gains 500,000 new users, and Dell gains 1,000,000, Apple's market share will appear to drop. They still made a large gain, just not quite as much as the others.

Additionally, most people compare Apple to Microsoft. That is silly. Linux should be compared to Microsoft marketshare wise.

Apple is a HARDWARE company, not software company. If Apple started licensing their OS and IBM selling their G5's to other manufacturers like Dell, then Apple could be compared to Microsoft. Since Apple is the HARDWARE company, Apple is directly competing with Dell and Gateway and the likes, NOT with Microsoft.

Dell has what, 15% marketshare? THAT is what Apple is targetting. Once Apple hits 15% marketshare, they will be the biggest hardware company. It might be a waaaaaaays off though :(

Most people look at Microsoft's 95% or so of the market and think "Apple is really losing bad". But Apple is a hardware company, and if you look at the other market shares, Apple is whupping the rear off Alienware and Sony and others. They are the FIFTH LARGEST in Marketshare for hardware companies. They are #1 for technical support. They are FOURTH in earnings. They are doing quite well :)

Yes, the 95% vs 2% of windows versus apples is misleading, because apple does hardware....but they also do software. And the software side is important. It's the software that make macs truely exceptional computers. Sure, the hardware tends to be better, but it's also more expensive, and I doubt that's why many of us are on macs. Apple's only selling point besides style is their rock solid, kickass, secure, easy to use OS, and the software that comes with.

Further, it is the platform that matters as far as marketshare. It makes an emormous difference for anybody wanting to write software for a mac, and you cannot argue that software is not important. And, how does hardware marketshare matter, as to the viability of the computer and the company? The graphics cards, etc. are not (I don't believe) mac specific, so they will be there, same quality, similar price, no matter what apple's market share. Not true of software.

So, I agree, while making a direct comparison between apple and microsoft is not appropritate, it is not appropriate either to compare apple directly with other hardware companies. Apple does both.

[digitalbiker]

Yes, it's "free" money, but I always forget to use it and the rebate takes so long to process that I don't remember when I sent it in :o (if it's an Apple mail-in rebate, this policy does not apply).

OH YEAH!
I have been ripped-off by Apple twice on mail in rebates. I don't even like to get started on the subject but I think mail in rebates are pretty close to fraud.

My first bad experience with mail-in rebates was with a ZIP drive purchase where I was cheated out of 50 bucks.

Apple got me twice on iPod discounts with purchase of PowerBooks. In both Apple cases they convienently lost my original receipt and even though it was purchased thru the online Apple store they would not honor the rebate. By the time I had got the Apple store to reissue a receipt and get it sent to Apple rebate the rebate period was over and Apple wouldn't honor it!

[dontmatter]

...
$500 was in his budget. $850 wasn't. Some people, my dad included, are convinced that the best way to do things is to buy cheap and replace often.



take a look at walmart. That's the attitude of the country.

But here's the thing. That's stupid with most things, because, well, you don't end up saving money, and just go to the store more often. But, can you really say that's a bad strategy for computers, that get cheaper and faster at exponential rates? If you buy a really good mac every four years, or a pc that costs half as much, but then you update it 2 years later, with which do you on average have a more powerful (and up to date as far as things like USB/firewire ports where the standards change) computer? It's hard to tell. The main benefit with computers of buying quality instead of replacing is just that you don't have to replace and move all of your info from one to the other, etc.

It's a small market share that wants to pay the money up front and have the computer last, instead of just replacing a cheap windows box all the time.

(but then, of course, we get mac OS :))

[dontmatter]

apple drops prices. not as often as dell, but usually after 6 months, apple usually have faster machines for the same price, or the same machines for lower price.

powerbooks dropped price once and got an update once in 2003. iMac got two updates in 2003. etc.

True, but then dell users don't need to check sites like these to know when the price drop/new updates are coming, so they get a decent deal ;)

They just say, hey, I want a computer, lets get one, and do.

[spinko]

Yes, the 95% vs 2% of windows versus apples is misleading, because apple does hardware....but they also do software. And the software side is important. It's the software that make macs truely exceptional computers. ...etc., etc. .

Macs exeptional computers ? What is so exeptional ? The price maybe ? Surely not the renewal cycle ! HAAAAAAHAAHAHAHA

[crees!]

Mr. Gates could you please send me any money you don't want.

I don't know if he can give away any more money since he's not the richest person in the world anymore.

[Parikh1234]

Before you read this post and start bitching let me say im a big mac nut and i love apple products.....

But at this point, it seems like apple has no strategy at all. All of their products are so outdated. The Powermac is outdated by almost a year. Powerbooks are outdated by almost 6 months. Other than looking nice cause of the alumnium or the white plastic apple products have nothing going for them. Its actually good that they have no retail strategy right now, because people going into the stores are gonna be like what the hell am I gonna pay 500000000 dollars for a product that hasnt been updated for a year. Who cares if the computer's OS is a million times better than its competition if its running on an outdated computer. That would be like installing OS X on an apple IIe. Basically, apple needs to get their **** in gear and start banging out products every 4 or 5 months or else even hard core mac nuts are going to be turned away.

[dontmatter]

Macs exeptional computers ? What is so exeptional ? The price maybe ? Surely not the renewal cycle ! HAAAAAAHAAHAHAHA

The software, as I said.

And to play defense in advance, no, not games and other third party software, but the OS, etc.

And, still, you can't call (although the price is exceptional) say, the 17 inch PB plain, now can you?

[Flowbee]

And finally, I wish people would quit pointing to the eMac as Apple's answer to the budget-conscious customer. Apple almost goes out of its way to hide it. A lot of people aren't aware it exists. The iMac is highly visible.

Huh? The eMac is right on the front page of the Apple online store, very prominently displayed (just below the powerbooks, right next to the iMacs). They are also prominently displayed in every Apple retail store I've been to. They are not hidden. They are usually on the counter right next to the iMacs. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[Lancetx]

Well, I'll throw in my two cents here. I was a dyed in the wool Windows user from 1992-2003. I had several PCs over the years and used every version of Windows from 3.0 all the way up to XP. I've both built my own systems as well as purchased them at retail. Steadily over the years I had grown more and more frustrated with PCs, and after Windows ME, I was about ready to throw my PC over the balcony. Shortly after that time, I had a friend that introduced me to the Mac, but didn't push me at all into buying one. After almost a year of seeing how well hers worked and being intrigued with OS X, I decided to take the plunge. The bottom line is, as a Windows user, I just flat out "didn't get it" about Macs until I actually bought one.

Now that I have had one for about a year, I'd never go back to a Windows PC at any price. Call Macs overpriced or underpowered all you want, but they simply work. Another thing I have found amazing is that they have incredible resale value. You absolutely never see that with a used Windows PC. And after doing a little research on eBay, I see that I could still get close to within $100 of what I paid for the Mac I bought almost a year ago.

But above all, I love OS X and to me the price premium for the Mac hardware is not an issue considering you get an equally awesome OS to run on that hardware. And since no other manufacturer out there other than Apple can offer that combination, I don't see a time in the near future that I'll be buying from anyone other than Apple.

The retail stores are a great idea because they expose more people to both Macs and OS X than would ever see them otherwise. Once they go into an Apple Store and demo it on one of the many machines in there, (assuming they have an open mind like I did) they'll see what all the fuss is about and that Macs are definitely worth the money if you want the best and are tired of fooling around with the "just good enough" PCs out there.

[Awimoway]

Huh? The eMac is right on the front page of the Apple online store, very prominently displayed (just below the powerbooks, right next to the iMacs). They are also prominently displayed in every Apple retail store I've been to. They are not hidden. They are usually on the counter right next to the iMacs. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

We are obviously going to very different stores. Every Apple Store I've been to, they are not on display in the front. The only place you'll see them is at the kiddie table. In every CompUSA, they aren't on display and you'll be lucky if you even see a box of one.

And most people who do not use Macs but are familiar with them think only of the funky swivel lcd one (iMac, of course) and the notebooks.

[NinjaMonkey]

All three Apple Stores in my area have eMacs on display in the same section as the iMacs and iBooks as well as the kids table. The two CompUSA's near me both have eMacs on display and have boxs sitting out.

[Flowbee]

We are obviously going to very different stores. Every Apple Store I've been to, they are not on display in the front. The only place you'll see them is at the kiddie table. In every CompUSA, they aren't on display and you'll be lucky if you even see a box of one.

And most people who do not use Macs but are familiar with them think only of the funky swivel lcd one (iMac, of course) and the notebooks.

I think you should go check again.

I've been to every Apple store in the SF Bay Area, as well as stores in Las Vegas, Atlanta, and NYC. The layouts may be different, but they all feature the eMac in the front of the store near the iMacs. CompUSA is not an Apple Store, but at the one in downtown San Francisco there is one counter of Mac desktops and the eMac is there right along side of the other models. Same goes for the Emeryville CompUSA.

[Abstract]

No, and for good reason.

1. I don't want a huge CRT monitor (viewable screen size 16 inches).
2. I want at minimum a CD/RW drive. Dell is offering a CD-ROM drive
3. You need more 128MB of RAM to run XP Home.

One shouldn't have to upgrade the computer as soon as you buy it.

.....

Please. Not the price argument again.

Yes, if you want a poorly constructed computer made out of cheap plastic parts that's likely to break inside of 2 years, buy a bargain Dell or HP or Gateway or whatever. If you want a quality machine that will easily run for 4+ years and still have a decent resale value after that, buy a Mac.

I am on a Dell right now. It is a fine machine, runs perfectly, does what I want it to.

...... The two prior Macs had major system failures that lost ALL of my data. I've never had that happen with any Dell or Gateway PC that I've used.

Apple is not perfect. Its computers are not perfect. Dell's market share is what it is because it builds a good-quality PC, hits the price point consumers want and offers the functionality they need.

This truly was the crappiest argument Mac zealots ever put up. brhmac has the right idea.

Dell sells plastic computers, yes, but they aren't crap. They won't break within 2 years because a desktop for $500 isn't likely to be moved more often than a Mac, so there's really not much of a risk in a Dell breaking for no reason. If it breaks, its the users fault. I don't own a Dell, but my friends have never had a problem with any of their Dell desktops or laptops with the exception of some Windows trouble. However, that is also becoming less of an issue as Windows is obviously getting much better.

Also, there's no Mac that doesn't have to be upgraded as soon as you buy it. Think of the RAM. Think of that one button mouse that most people dislike. Yes, Dell may provide a CRT and CD-ROM drive, but for $499 you're not getting a POS computer. You're just getting a computer with less of the features YOU need. Its not inherently worse because of the price or lack of things YOU happen to need. Plus, Mac users are paying out of their ass for the additional Combo Drive, Superdrive, and flat panel. The Dell may cost $499, but for a small price hike, they can get all of that and a 2 week trip to Europe or 4 high-end iPods.

I'd say that Dell consumers aren't necessarily dumber for buying an "inferior" computer. They're just not dumb enough to pay an extra $2000 for a slightly better (although much better looking) OS and a Combo drive/Superdrive. In other words, they're probably financially smarter than us Mac users. ;) Macs are better, no doubt, but you're paying 4 times more for a computer that isn't necessarily 4 times better.

- Abstract

PS: I love my Mac. :D

[mullmann]

And thats what really pisses me off. Apple is horrible at respecting consumers money. Lets take a look at Dell.

Dell releases a computer at say $1500. 2 months alter its at $1400, another 2 months later its at $1100. Every 2-3 months Dell introduces a better machine at the same price point....either faster CPU, better memory, GPU, etc.

Apple on the other hand:
Releases a new computer at $2500. 2 months later....$2500.....6 months later $2500. It stays the exact same price until its replaced, and it takes 6 months or LONGER for apple to update their line. Not only does Apple update their line every 6 months, they typically replace the entireline....making a $2500 investment a month earlier completely worthless.

Sure, most consumers don't know about this business practice, but unless you buy it the day Apple announces it (and they actually ship on time) I have considered them during these Jobsonian years to have horrible business practices because they really do not respect the consumer.

Respect is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. In your argument, it is respectful for your brand-new computer to start being devalued almost immediately after you buy it, and to be replaced with something better a short time after that. As opposed to the "Jobsonian" way where it holds its value for an extended period. Incidentally, Apple does cut its prices routinely, generally about halfway through any given model's life.

[Mr_Ed]

...
Also, there's no Mac that doesn't have to be upgraded as soon as you buy it. Think of the RAM. Think of that one button mouse that most people dislike. Yes, Dell may provide a CRT and CD-ROM drive, but for $499 you're not getting a POS computer. You're just getting a computer with less of the features YOU need. Its not inherently worse because of the price or lack of things YOU happen to need. Plus, Mac users are paying out of their ass for the additional Combo Drive, Superdrive, and flat panel. The Dell may cost $499, but for a small price hike, they can get all of that and a 2 week trip to Europe or 4 high-end iPods.

I'd say that Dell consumers aren't necessarily dumber for buying an "inferior" computer. They're just not dumb enough to pay an extra $2000 for a slightly better (although much better looking) OS and a Combo drive/Superdrive. In other words, they're probably financially smarter than us Mac users. ;) Macs are better, no doubt, but you're paying 4 times more for a computer that isn't necessarily 4 times better.

- Abstract

PS: I love my Mac. :D

In my experience, the things I want the computer to be able to do well are the same things anyone else would want. I have observed that many PC buyers simply do not know all the things they should be able to do with a computer. These are the ones that initially buy the $500 systems because if you have a limited view of what you might want to do with the computer, any old system will do and "the cheaper, the better."

I always look to my mother as an example. She does things with digital photography, music, and art work on her iMac that she never even thought about doing on her PC. If you had any idea what a huge "technophobe" my mom was a few years ago, you would understand what an incredible accomplishment it is that she is able to do what she does now. :)

The point is that many of those who go for the $500 system because they don't know better, later have their eyes opened to other possibilities, and only then figure out their system is not adequate. By then, they feel the have an "investment" (time/money) in Windows and they usually continue the Wintel buying trend inspite of whatever technical difficulties they experience along the way.

One more comment on the importance of "price". I have had a hand in "converting" at least 8 people (relatives, friends, colleagues) to the Mac platform over the last few years. Not one of them would ever go back to a Windows machine at any price. I'm sure there are a few who simply "don't get it and never will", and they are clamoring to go back to the PC, but those are very few and far between.

[mullmann]

Before you read this post and start bitching let me say im a big mac nut and i love apple products.....

But at this point, it seems like apple has no strategy at all. All of their products are so outdated. The Powermac is outdated by almost a year. Powerbooks are outdated by almost 6 months. Other than looking nice cause of the alumnium or the white plastic apple products have nothing going for them. Its actually good that they have no retail strategy right now, because people going into the stores are gonna be like what the hell am I gonna pay 500000000 dollars for a product that hasnt been updated for a year. Who cares if the computer's OS is a million times better than its competition if its running on an outdated computer. That would be like installing OS X on an apple IIe. Basically, apple needs to get their **** in gear and start banging out products every 4 or 5 months or else even hard core mac nuts are going to be turned away.

The notion of hardware being "outdated" is really subjective, and all you've done is claim (very broadly) that Apple hardware is outdated without explaining why you think so, and giving a good metric for your judgment. A lot of the hysteria about keeping hardware "current" is perpetuated by the manufacturers themselves, who know that pumping out a continuing stream of "improvements" helps to shorten consumers' replacement cycle, which is great for the manufacturers but less certainly so for the consumers, who probably wouldn't be able to tell any differences among using the various P4 flavors out there (for example) if they had the chance to compare them side-by-side. Your assertion that you might as well run OS X on a IIe as on Apple's current offerings is just silly, and how is the PowerMac outdated by a year? The G5 hasn't even been out that long!

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Hey,

Can you provide links to the info you're quoting? Would love to see the hard numbers.

Thanx.


Yawn! :eek: Apple's share of the installed market is 8-12 percent, depending on who you believe. Sales are 1-2% because you don't need to replace your Mac every two years. We have a beige G3, two tangerine iBooks and two white iBooks, all running OS X. Apple also has 30% of the scientific market, up from 10% a few years back. Maybe bizweek was having a slow day. :rolleyes:

[mullmann]

We are obviously going to very different stores. Every Apple Store I've been to, they are not on display in the front. The only place you'll see them is at the kiddie table. In every CompUSA, they aren't on display and you'll be lucky if you even see a box of one.

And most people who do not use Macs but are familiar with them think only of the funky swivel lcd one (iMac, of course) and the notebooks.

Agreed on the eMacs in my local Apple store, but for comparison, all of my local CompUSAs have several eMacs on display. Dangers of painting with a broad brush.

[BoRegardless]

I quote:
"Windows XP, as much as it pains me to admit, is a fine OS. It's clean, simple and does what people need it to do -- plus they can play all the new games."

And Note: So get those danged G5 laptops & desktops out with the new Virtual PC so we Apple users can "have it all".

I use the Mac whenever possible, & XP because I must.

Better on a Mac.

How about that for an Apple slogan!

BoRegardless

[brhmac]

Apple G5 @ 1.6 GHz w/ 17-inch flatscreen = $2,498

Dell Dimension 8300 @ 3.4 GHz w/ 17-inch flat-screen = $1,787

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I agree. So split to company in 2, and let me run OSX on whatever I please.

*preparing for newbie/kiddie freakout*

Yes, the 95% vs 2% of windows versus apples is misleading, because apple does hardware....but they also do software. And the software side is important. It's the software that make macs truely exceptional computers.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Facts have no place here. After the newbs clean up the puddles you just made them create, they'll turn on the flame throwers.

Welcome to the dollhouse.



Apple G5 @ 1.6 GHz w/ 17-inch flatscreen = $2,498

Dell Dimension 8300 @ 3.4 GHz w/ 17-inch flat-screen = $1,787

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I've been to 32 Apple Stores across the country, and world (tokyo), and each one has the eMacs at the kiddie table, and none mixed in with the other puters.

Overhead a few people saying that "they must be for kids to use when the parents are shopping at the store".. i.e. folks don't know they're for sale.

Just relaying my experience.


Agreed on the eMacs in my local Apple store, but for comparison, all of my local CompUSAs have several eMacs on display. Dangers of painting with a broad brush.

[Wash!!]

Facts have no place here. After the newbs clean up the puddles you just made them create, they'll turn on the flame throwers.

Welcome to the dollhouse.

There is no way to build a Dell machine that is comparable to the imac 17" with superdrive the dell web site.

1. Apple imac LCD (DVI)-DELL-analog
2. If you want to be able to do music,movies, etc.. you have to upgrade $300 more
3. If you want to burn DVD's another "upgrade"

the list goes on...

[MacFan782040]

I once heard that Apple destroys all of their unsold products so they can claim a tax-refund. Is this true?? I would hate to see unsold Apple products crushed to death just so they can get Tax dollars. This world has a problem. I reciently found out that Dunkin Donuts throws away all the uneaten donughts at the end of each day. Same with every other resturant out there probably. And there are starving families all over the world. Heck, there are starving people right here in my town but they can't give the food away because if a speck of dirt gets on it and they get sick, some moron can sue them. How rediculous.

[brhmac]

There is no way to build a Dell machine that is comparable to the imac 17" with superdrive the dell web site.

1. Apple imac LCD (DVI)-DELL-analog
2. If you want to be able to do music,movies, etc.. you have to upgrade $300 more
3. If you want to burn DVD's another "upgrade"

the list goes on...
The comparison I made was with the G5 1.6 Ghz and the Dimension 8300 @ 3.4 Ghz. Both have cd and dvd drives based on the way I configured them and each has 256 mb ram.

Trying to do as objective a comparison as possible on "professional grade" machines. (BTW, no mention in my post of the iMac). Even with the $300 additional for video editing software, the Dimension is hundreds less and delivers twice the clock speed.

[Rower_CPU]

Facts have no place here. After the newbs clean up the puddles you just made them create, they'll turn on the flame throwers.

Welcome to the dollhouse.

Neither do arrogant attitudes and name calling - on either side of the issue.

Play nice, gang. :)

[SiliconAddict]

um, sorry, that figure is precisely called the "market share." at 3%, apple ships 1 Mac for every 33 computers shipped. apple market share is not 0.1%, not even "conservatively."



You can't get your numbers from market share numbers. Simply a 95% market share is made up of god knows how many already established (Read: older) systems. Esp considering there are no firm number on Apple market share. Apple users keep their systems for an extraordinarily long amount of time compared to the average PC user. The only good market share numbers are good for is to state static figures such as there are 33 PC's for every 1 Mac.

And I'm sorry but I have a VERY hard time believing that the daily average is 1 Mac for every 33 PC's. I won't dismiss it but the distribution and sale methods are pathetically small in comparison to combined top PC manufacturers. 33 to 1 sounds off.

[=pa=]

I just received an email from Salkever, the guy who wrote the piece in Business Week. I told him that in the May MacWorld, Jason Snell makes the point that roughtly 50% of the Mac buyers are first-time buyers, which kind of scotches his argument that the Apple stores aren't helping Apple's "Switch" campaign. Here's what he replied:

"Kinda not. What if an equal number are switching to PCs? Then what's the net-net? No one ever talks about that possibility. Just a thought. I would hope not as I love Macs and have owned them for over 20 years but better to be paranoid."

[Azoblue]

I'm sorry, but you have to upgrade a mac when you buy it - iBooks come with 128Mb, which isn't enough...

wrong. all iBooks come with 256 MB of RAM. try again.

[painandgreed]

I mean honestly, as long as Apple stays profitable, has money in the bank and year-over-year sells more computers, who really cares ... People seem to be so damned interested in making these comparisons. What's the point?

Apple sells milloins of computers and makes billions of dollars. I don't see the problem?

*DING* We have a winner!

Apple is a hardware company, but hardware doesn't seel itself. Hardware sales are still determined by the "killer app". The trouble of late has been that any potential "killer app" has been avaiable for both platforms and the cheaper one often won reguardless of performance. If you look at Apple's directin in the last few years, you see them increasingly putting out their own software to act as the killer app on their hardware. when Adobe canceled Premiere for the mac, nobody cared because everybody was already using Apple's Final Cut Pro. In the last few years they have been concentrating on the video and music industries. If they can hold onto being the standard in those industries alone, it will probably be enough to keep Apple afloat.

The "killer app" is different for different people. For the general consumer, it probably isn't iLife, .Mac, any other iApp or a stylish case, it would be games or cheap price. Both are hard markets to get into. Games compete with consoles and would mean lots of hardware integration. Windows has the lead and it would be hard to take away. If Apple had bought Bungie before MS, they might have worked towards that goal, but it would still be a hard uphill battle. While cheap price means cheap profits and they can probably do better business by concentrating on the profesional market than by trying to increase market share with cheap machines.

In the future, I expect we'll see Apple slowly buying new companies or putting out new software to slowly creep into various markets one niche at a time. today, video and music, tomorrow maybe academic level math and statistical programs. Slowly creeping department by department rather than the entire company at a time. Once the art or video department absolutly has to run Macs, then the companies network and internal operations have to accomodate them and resistance to other departments switching lessens. There's no economic incentive to fight for market share and the low end cheap machine market rather than the various high end niche markets.

[Sedulous]

Apple apparently shot the lot when they made their 1984 ad. Since then, their advertising has been dismal to mediocre at best. Even the iPod ads are just amusing little things and convey very little information- veritable cream puffs. It is baffling that OS X has not been mass marketed: the security features alone, forget ease of use, are simply too compelling to ignore, yet that is exactly what Apple has done. Their whole advertising program, if you could call it that, is off-center and has given them a very poor return on their investment. One wonders where Apple really does want to go in the future. They are certainly keeping Apple computers a secret. The success of the iPod aside, that in and of itself, is absolutely NO reflection of the capabilities of the company. I can only wonder, what the hell are they thinking when they produce extraordinarily expensive product, albeit of the highest caliber, then fail miserably in telling the world about it? I think Apple shareholders should demand an explanation from Apple for failing to barely ever approach Dell's advertising 'prowess,' which as we all know, is in your face, all the time.

What are you talking about? Extraordinarily expensive? Dell advertising is even more uncommon than Apple's.

[Flowbee]

I've been to 32 Apple Stores across the country, and world (tokyo), and each one has the eMacs at the kiddie table, and none mixed in with the other puters.

None mixed in with the other computers? You are mistaken. I think since you may not be interested in the eMacs, you probably didn't notice them. Here's a photo from the Apple Store Ginza (since you said you've been there). It looks like the eMac is in the 'home' computing section, next to the iMac.

I'm not saying that Apple couldn't market the eMac more agressively, but they are certainly not hiding them.

[brhmac]

Dell advertising is even more uncommon than Apple's.

Dell's advertising, even with the "Dude, I'm a dufus." campaign, is classic advertising. The commercials emphasize the product, the value of the brand and the values of the company.

Going to college? Buy a Dell.

Want a computer designed for how YOU use it? Buy a Dell.

Have a question about the computer you bought? Buy a Dell. Our support people are on staff 24x7.

Worried about buying a computer? Don't. Our product testing is rock-solid.

Apple's approach?

Some guy on a chair blown through the walls of his house while the wife and their Jack Russell Terrier look on in shock.

Message: ?

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Deaf ears.

Dell's advertising, even with the "Dude, I'm a dufus." campaign, is classic advertising. The commercials emphasize the product, the value of the brand and the values of the company.

Going to college? Buy a Dell.

Want a computer designed for how YOU use it? Buy a Dell.

Have a question about the computer you bought? Buy a Dell. Our support people are on staff 24x7.

Worried about buying a computer? Don't. Our product testing is rock-solid.

Apple's approach?

Some guy on a chair blown through the walls of his house while the wife and their Jack Russell Terrier look on in shock.

Message: ?

[slavey]

Here's a plan that I am going to use at my local, soon to be closed Gateway store:

1) Create a sign with the following text:

"For world-class quality personal computers, visit your local Apple Computer store at: [Insert address of the nearest Apple store]"

2) Print three or four copies

3) Go to your local Gateway store and tape the signs to the front windows and doors!

For the really ambitious or those with a lot of free time, stand at the front of the Gateway store and hand these to people that come up to the store and wonder why it is closed!

[dcranston]

Deaf ears.

I notice you casually ignored the photo from Ginza... :p

Visit the photo galleries at www.ifoapplestore.com and you'll see an eMac at every store he's been to in his photo galleries. The eMac clearly isn't your desired computer, and, as such, haven't noticed them in the stores you've been to.

Apple Advertising
At any rate, Apple's advertising is not horrible. In fact, their iPod advertising is incredible for the product. Look at the hype surrounding the iPod, the ridiculous number of iPods Apple sells, and the VAST demand for non-existant iPod minis. It works for the iPod because they're selling an image, a lifestyle; it's how brands like Nike work.

You may say that people ask "is Apple still around?" or things like that, but the Apple brand is one of the most recognized in the world. It's not that most people have never heard of Apple, they just have a preconceived notion of the company. Apple's re-establishing themselves as a stylish, hip company right now, and I think that's a great thing for the long-term prospects.

Apple Quality Remains Strong
Yes! Apple products are expensive. And unfortunately the US culture dictates that we live in a disposable society where it's better to buy cheap, crappier products that will likely fail on us, rather than to buy a product that costs more but will keep on ticking. I still have every Mac I've bought since the 80s, and all of them still work. One had a monitor turn yellow, but the computer is fine. They're slow, yes, so I don't use the old ones much, but they're a testament to the quality. And when you look at every little tiny detail on a mac -- the placement of a screw (or lack thereof!), the center-alignment of ports on your iBook, they all add cost to the product, but also value. It's one of those things where even 5 years later you can look and see the time that was put into the design of each product.

Apple on Pricing
Apple doesn't sell a $500 computer because they're not willing to compromise on quality in order to get a computer at that price. If you went out and bought a $500 Mac that was nothing but problems, had a loud fan, was made from cheap plastic, made weird noises, had a tendency to kind of fall apart, crashed a decent amount... your impression of Apple would be low, and it could be the last Apple product you ever bought. See why Apple wouldn't do that? They've managed to get a 17" CRT eMac with 1Ghz G4 down to $799 without sacrificing much as far as quality, and I think that's darn impressive.

Think about it: why do you feel so passionately about your Macs? Because of the way Apple makes all of its products. And if Apple made cheap computers, they wouldn't be the Apple that you like.

I don't know. It just seems like common sense to me. I know how much you guys want Apple to do everything for you or your specific situation, but it seems to me that Apple more than meets my needs, and I love my Macs. I'll do my part to keep that enthusiasm and spread it to others.

[gorkonapple]

I agree. SOME Macs are priced higher then the equivalent model of PC. But back in January when I purchased my 12 inch Powerbook, here's what I was looking for (and f the PC had what I wanted, I would have bought it instead):

SMALL form factor
a DVD-R drive
40 GB or better HD
Firewire
GOOD video editing software
UNIX Command line

Those were the basics. The 12 inch Powerbook, even before my discount as a Employee of a School was much less then the equivalent PC laptop with Firewire and a DVD burner. Mine was 1899 (1799 after my discount) and it came with the iApps that make the Mac so great. I did not need Adobe Primere to make movies of my son. iMovie and iDVD do just fine there. The cheap video/dvd creation software on the PC just sucks. It's terrible and I have never gotten it to work.

The command line thing wasn't a deal breaker, but I am SOOOO glad I have it. I can test some scripting for work on it and I can also load Fink and Darwinports. For graphics, there's the Gimp. Oh sure, the Gimp does not bury Photoshop, but it does a good enough job for me.

All in all, Apple's marketshare doesn't mean diddly so long as they keep making a profit. This is why the Apple store works. Now all they need for me to linger (and spend money) there is a good espresso machine! :D

[Nny]

I just received an email from Salkever, the guy who wrote the piece in Business Week. I told him that in the May MacWorld, Jason Snell makes the point that roughtly 50% of the Mac buyers are first-time buyers, which kind of scotches his argument that the Apple stores aren't helping Apple's "Switch" campaign. Here's what he replied:

"Kinda not. What if an equal number are switching to PCs? Then what's the net-net? No one ever talks about that possibility. Just a thought. I would hope not as I love Macs and have owned them for over 20 years but better to be paranoid."

I am having a crisis of faith of sorts. I switched to Mac when the OS X Public Beta came out. I loved the promise behind it. I love the Apple OS, but I am thinking that I might switch back now. I play with XP every time I am in a CompUSA or Best Buy. Been reading the forums at XvsXp.com more too. My view is changing to an OS is an OS. Does it have the software I need to get done what I want? Is it reliable? Firefox and Thunderbird are impressive and help me avoid IE and OE (they also help me avoid Safari and Mail). Winamp is awesome and if you don't like it then there is always iTunes for Windows. Don't know about Adobe Photoshop Album 2.0, but it looks like it could give iPhoto a run for it's money (iPhoto 04's bluriness is still a sore point with me).

Anyone here ever switch back? Or flip-flopped back-and-forth? Just curious.

[avkills]

Anybody who thinks the G5 is outdated hardware needs to be smacked.

G5 FSB = 1Ghz per processor (double pumped)
Intel FSB = 800Mhz (probably quad-pumped as well)
AMD FSB = I believe they use Hypertransport, since the memory controller is built into their new chips.

G5 = 64bit with 32bit compatibility
Intel = Go buy an Itanium for major $$$
AMD = 64bit with 32bit compatibility. Every new Wintel bought should have a AMD chip in it.

G5 Interconnects = Hypertransport
Intel Interconnects = some proprietary ************
AMD Interconnects = Hypertransport

All of them use DDR PC-3200 dual channel 400Mhz memory.

It looks to me like Apple is right in line with the technology AND embracing open standards as well.

All I can end with is yes, I shelled out $3000 for a Dual 2ghz G5 and yes, it is faster than ****. It even holds its own against a dual 2.4 Ghz Xeon. And the simple fact is that if I had the money back, I'd still buy the G5. It is one kick ass machine, and nothing you say can change that. Some of you wintel freaks should actually take the time to look at the specs, instead of just dissing it because it has an Apple logo on the side.

I've done the comparison and buying a dual Xeon from Dell would have actually cost me more money, and certainly more headaches.

-mark

[praetorian_x]

Anyone here ever switch back? Or flip-flopped back-and-forth? Just curious.

Have both. There is no reason to be mutually exclusive. And then you can't gain the fundamental insight that so many miss: all OS's suck in their own special way.

Cheers,
Prat

[AidenShaw]

G5 FSB = 1Ghz per processor (double pumped)
Intel FSB = 800Mhz (probably quad-pumped as well)
AMD FSB = I believe they use Hypertransport, since the memory controller is built into their new chips.

AMD: 1 to 1 ( up to 2.2 GHz) (Opteron/Athlon64 only)

AMD has the FSB inside the chip, running at the clock frequency.

HyperTransport (HT) is an I/O connector bus, not the memory bus (just like Apple). HT is also used as the MP glue bus in the Opteron (unlike Apple).


G5 = 64bit with 32bit compatibility
Intel = Go buy an Itanium for major $$$
AMD = 64bit with 32bit compatibility.

No, it's:

Intel = 64-bit with 32-bit at full performance (Prescott/Nocoma)
Intel = Higher performance 64-bit with 32-bit at lower performance (Itanium).

And:

Apple = 32-bit O/S, no 64-bit addressing
Intel = 64-bit Windows (Itanium), 64-bit Windows Public Preview (Prescott/Nocoma), 64-bit Linux
AMD = 64-bit Windows Public Preview, 64-bit Linux

So, if you actually want to use your 64-bit chip, you'd better go with an Intel or compatible!


G5 Interconnects = Hypertransport
Intel Interconnects = some proprietary ************
AMD Interconnects = Hypertransport

G5 I/O support - PCI-X
Intel I/O support - PCI-X (and soon PCI Express)
AMD I/O support - PCI-X

HT is the bridge between the chips on the mobo. You can't buy an "HT Card".

It's really not relevant (other than for willy-waving) what technology is used between the chips on the motherboard - what's more important is the feature set, the price, and the set of user accessible I/O ports.

HT is good, in that it can offer high performance at a lower price point than some other technologies - but one would be a fool to choose a system based on the presence of HT rather than the feature set, price and ports.


I shelled out $3000 for a Dual 2ghz G5 and yes, it is faster than ****. It even holds its own against a dual 2.4 Ghz Xeon.

That's nice, but the current top Xeon is 3.2 GHz with a 2 MB L2 cache. And what about those HT-equiped Opterons?

[dcranston]

Apple = 32-bit O/S, no 64-bit addressing
Intel = 64-bit Windows (Itanium), 64-bit Windows Public Preview (Prescott/Nocoma), 64-bit Linux
AMD = 64-bit Windows Public Preview, 64-bit Linux

So, if you actually want to use your 64-bit chip, you'd better go with an Intel or compatible!


Bull -- you're talking about a public preview of an OS that won't ship until '07. They might add 64-bit support earlier than longhorn, but don't think for a second Apple has no plans to add 64-bit...


That's nice, but the current top Xeon is 3.2 GHz with a 2 MB L2 cache. And what about those HT-equiped Opterons?

What about the 1GHz front-side bus of the G5? The G5 has a lot of power, and it only stands to get much stronger. The point is basically this: with the G4 you could argue, and mac folks would, that the G4 still could keep its own, but that was definitely in question.

With the G5, that question is gone. We can only argue tiny differences in architecture / speed, but the fact is, the G5 can definitely hold its own against AMD, and most certainly against Intel. Now we argue which is the *fastest*. :)

[AidenShaw]

Bull -- you're talking about a public preview of an OS that won't ship until '07. They might add 64-bit support earlier than longhorn...

Sorry, but you're the one speaking bull. 64-bit Windows is already here!

The release version of Windows XP 64-bit has been shipping for over a year for IA64 processors. (Windows Server 64-bit is also shipping.) The IA32e preview (for 32/64 bit chips) is the currently shipping Windows XP 64-bit recompiled for the extended IA32 instruction set.

It is scheduled to go to final release this summer (NH). For more info, and to download the Windows 64-bit preview, go to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp . Don't confuse this with the Longhorn preview.

Other Windows 64-bit links:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/techinfo/planning/techoverview/default.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.mspx


but don't think for a second Apple has no plans to add 64-bit...

Maybe it's time for Apple to disclose those plans to its developers, I'll be watching for announcements from WWDC.




What about the 1GHz front-side bus of the G5?

What about the fact that the 1 GHz bus is 32-bits wide for reading memory, and is connected to the same 400 MHz dual channel DIMMs that the P4 800MHz bus is connected to? Doesn't seem to be much of a real advantage, now does it?

What about the 2 MiB on-chip cache on the Xeons and P4EE, compared to the 0.5 MiB cache on the PPC970?

But you're right, the systems are more-or-less in the same ballpark. Though it's far from being a "Pentium killer", the PPC970 has put Apple back in the game.

[avkills]

Yes the FSB is 32bit on the PowerPC 970 but it is bi-directional. It can read and write both directions at the same time if I am not mistaken. Apple uses what it calls something gay like Apple Processor Interconnect, which is probably some form of HyperTransport. ? Needless to say, each processor can read and write from memory independently full speed, which in my opinion, kicks ass.

Is Intel's FSB still quad-pumped like the early 533 FSB? Does a dual Xeon system have a dedicated FSB for each processor like the G5? I tried finding out on Intel's site, but did not find anything.

From a technical standpoint, I personally feel the G5 is ahead of what Intel has from a pure "whole picture" point of view. AMD, on the other hand, I feel is the clear leader as far as CPUs are concerned. It is unfortunate that more people do not support AMDs efforts. If I ever need to buy a Wintel box, there is a 99% chance it will have a AMD chip inside. :D

As far as Level 2 and 3 cache is concerned, is that not what Apple was doing with the G4 to make it compete. ;) I really do not think level 3 cache is needed for the PowerPC 970 because the memory subsystem is already fast enough.

Interconnects are not the same as I/O! What I meant is the bus bridging the I/O ports to the System controller is HyperTransport.

Off Apple's site:

The HyperTransport protocol integrates the Power Mac G5’s I/O subsystems and connects them to the system controller. Serial ATA, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, USB 2.0 and optical digital and analog audio are all integrated through two bidirectional 16-bit, 800MHz HyperTransport interconnects for a maximum throughput of 3.2GB per second.

-mark

[jxyama]

You can't get your numbers from market share numbers. Simply a 95% market share is made up of god knows how many already established (Read: older) systems. Esp considering there are no firm number on Apple market share. Apple users keep their systems for an extraordinarily long amount of time compared to the average PC user. The only good market share numbers are good for is to state static figures such as there are 33 PC's for every 1 Mac.

And I'm sorry but I have a VERY hard time believing that the daily average is 1 Mac for every 33 PC's. I won't dismiss it but the distribution and sale methods are pathetically small in comparison to combined top PC manufacturers. 33 to 1 sounds off.

it doesn't matter what you believe or think is "off." market research companies measure marketshare as a job. and marketshare is defined as the percentage of sale relative to the entire market for a given period. and numbers quoted are usually from recent periods, it's not "old system" number. i'd be inclined to believe a number from research companies than just your "gut" feeling.

according to the article cited in the original post of this thread, apple's marketshare is around 3% - meaning for every 100 computers sold, 3 of them are Macs. and as far as i can tell, the error bar on the marketshare is not as large as +/- 3% such that apple's actual marketshare could be 0.1% as you seem to think.

it might be hard for you to believe, but it's a very commonly accepted number. many people go nuts over apple's miniscule marketshare at 3% but when put into context, people don't even believe that number. if you are curious, gateway and emachines combined is 7%. this was also another number cited when gateway acquired emachines. (Reuters (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/01/technology/gateway.reut/index.htm) )

the static number you are talking about is installed base - how many Macs are there relative to all the computers being used. (not sold) installed base for Macs is generally higher than the marketshare - partially because Macs tend to last longer.

believe what you want, but these are about as factual as we can get.

edit: here's one thing we need to remember: when apple's marketshare declines, it does NOT mean people switched from using Macs to Windows.

[AidenShaw]

Yes the FSB is 32bit on the PowerPC 970 but it is bi-directional. It can read and write both directions at the same time if I am not mistaken.

Actually, there are two 32-bit busses, one for reading and one for writing. It can read and write simultaneously.

This is good if the read/write ratio is 50%. If the read/write ratio is far from that, the 64-bit 800MHz bus on the Pentium can dedicate the full bandwidth to the needs of the processor - the PPC970 will have one bus busy and the other less so.

Obviously IBM must have decided that lop-sided read/write ratios aren't common.


Apple uses what it calls something gay like Apple Processor Interconnect, which is probably some form of HyperTransport. ?

HT connects the system/memory controller to the I/O busses. Memory is not on HT. (Memory is not on HT on the Opteron, either.)

I couldn't find any references to the gay "Apple Processor Interconnect" on the Apple website....



Is Intel's FSB still quad-pumped like the early 533 FSB? Does a dual Xeon system have a dedicated FSB for each processor like the G5?

Intel is quad-pumped, yes. The PPC970 is double-pumped.

Intel has a shared FSB, but remember that the real bottleneck is the 400MHz memory that both systems use. It doesn't matter as much how many lanes the two freeways have, because they both have the same two-lane exit ramps.


"I really do not think level 3 cache is needed for the PowerPC 970 because the memory subsystem is already fast enough.

Would you rather have 512 KiB or 2048 KiB of cache in front of your 400MHz DIMMs ???


"Interconnects are not the same as I/O! What I meant is the bus bridging the I/O ports to the System controller is HyperTransport.

I understand, and I like HT. My point, however, is that as a practical matter it is not relevant.

What is relevant is the I/O ports. Do I care if the embedded GigE is on PCI-X or HT or directly on the north bridge? No, I care that it runs at a full Gigabit and that the system has plenty of bandwidth.

I care about having four 133 MHz PCI-X slots on four PCI-X busses - I don't care what glue logic is on the motherboard. I care if the 4 busses don't have enough bandwidth to run simultaneously, but if they have enough bandwidth I don't care if HT or smoke signals connect the busses to the northbridge.

So, HT is good, but it's invisible. Buy a system for its usable I/O capabilities, not because of the glue logic used to provide those capabilities.

[avkills]

Thanks for the info on Intel's current 800Mhz Bus. Yes I see your point about using the full bandwidth for either reading or writing, but I seriously doubt that would be the case in the real world. I imagine the processor is getting data and feeding data back constantly, so I agree with IBMs design choice. Although I would have made them 64bit+ with error correction. ;) Oh well, maybe the 980. :rolleyes:

From eWeek (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1148525,00.asp):

Apple and IBM are also tailoring the chip for a new high-frequency, point-to-point Mac bus dubbed ApplePI, short for Apple Processor Interconnect. According to sources, the companies describe ApplePI as "a replacement for the MaxBus used on current Apple systems. ApplePI is used to connect high-performance PowerPC processors to memory and high-speed I/O devices."

I did some more checking and basically the ApplePI is the FSB, whatever. They still should have made it 64bit. Maybe they held back because OS X is only 32bit? Who knows. Hopefully the 980 will have a 64bit wide bus.

Regardless, the G5s are fast machines and quite nice.

-mark

[AidenShaw]

From eWeek (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1148525,00.asp):

That article (and the other ApplePI references I checked) talk about the "future" GPUL or 970. They were written before the G5 announcement....

Wonder if it's a reference to the FSB on the G5 ????

[cyclonus5150]

I'm a recent Mac purchaser. I've always used Dell. I have to say that I'm impressed with the fact that all apps load in 1/20th of the time it took my P4 2.4GHz 512MB RAM Dell. The standard video is leaps and bounds better in the Mac than what came with my Dell. Even AOL loads and runs faster on my Mac. Logging into Windows XP would take upwards of 3 minutes while the system tray filled up. Putting a Windows machine to sleep is like playing Russian roulette with cheap heroin at bedtime. Will it wake to see the next day? My mac goes to sleep and wakes up right where I left it every single time. Everything in XP took so much longer than in OS-X. Application crashes - ie in particular were very common on my Dell. I've only ever had one app crash since I've had my Mac - AOL got hung up and it may not have even crashed. I may have just lost patience with it but the Force Quit option is quick, clean and painless. I also like the fact that uninstalling apps is as simple as dragging them to the trash can. Windows XP doesn't have anything nearly as cool as Expose'.

I could go on and on and on but I'm sure that's all been done already. The fact of the matter is I wanted a machine that just worked for me without all of the clunkiness and convelution that has become Windows. I'm a musician and very much into all things A/V. The Mac is built for this...I'm making music right out of the box and I can instantly meld that music with my photos or my home movies if I so choose. While I'll definitely never be an Apple apologist, as I'm sure that there are going to be issue with it at some point, I will say that I wish I had purchased this machine a long time ago. For what I spent on my last Dell, with my upgrades being RAM, CD/RW and speakers, I have an eMac with a superdrive (my Dell only had a CD/RW), a nice USB music keyboard, very cool "Creature" speakers, 1GB of RAM, a Monster cable for direct instrument recording and every app I need for working with music, photos and movies. Even the keyboard and mouse are way nicer than what came with my DELL and I SPENT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY!

I bought everything from an Apple store and was very happy with my experience. I could try it all out and leave the store completely satisfied. My Dell purchases have always been by phone or online and I hated waiting for my order to arrive only to find something missing. I like the fact that if something breaks I can just drive out to the Apple store and get it fixed. I really am shocked that Apple hasn't made any effort to market this. People are stunned when I tell them that I bought a mac until I show them what I can do right out of the box. Why isn't Apple making an effort to make iLife a household word?

[Awimoway]

People are stunned when I tell them that I bought a mac until I show them what I can do right out of the box. Why isn't Apple making an effort to make iLife a household word?

Whitey's keepin' 'em down?

I share your bafflement. Maybe they've just grown skeptical that advertising the Mac ever works. Their marketshare has not improved despite aggressive advertising in past years (certainly not in the last 9 months or so).

As a switcher, I can honestly say that the only ads that ever influenced me—and were in the back of my mind when I switched—were the ones maybe 2 or 3 (4? could it be that long?) years ago that showed what you could actually do with a Mac. I think I remember Jeff Goldblum was in some of them. And I remember one of those photo albums printed from iPhoto. Anyway, it showed iLife apps in action. It showed the results. I was impressed, and my interest began developing.

[AppleJustWorks]

Take a second and look at the upper-left corner of this Internet Window.....It reads "Apple's Retail Strategy".....A bit off topic, would you say? :p

[jade]

Take a second and look at the upper-left corner of this Internet Window.....It reads "Apple's Retail Strategy".....A bit off topic, would you say? :p

Pretty related to me, Apple's retail strategy is a big part of the marketing strategy.

Have you guys seen the print ilife ads? They look like an electronics catalog...it isn't clear what apple is selling in the ads. It has pictures of people with cameras, ipods, and isights...and a mini blurb of each ilife application. Not to helpful.

I wish Apple would use more of the approach in the sony DVD video camera...You know the family, shooting the video of the son on his first date or something, and them popping it in the VCR in a few minutes.

That got all of the arm chair home movie makers talking (even those cameras suck) And that is the kind of advertising Apple needs. Clear concise messaging the relays the benefits of ilife.

[avkills]

Take a second and look at the upper-left corner of this Internet Window.....It reads "Apple's Retail Strategy".....A bit off topic, would you say? :p

Yeah we hijacked it for a minute... :D

Back on topic. I think what Apple needs to do is what most people have been saying, and that is actually show what the products are capable of doing. They need to ditch the artsy ************ adds they usually make.

-mark

[~Shard~]

You know, I never get tired of reading posts involving speed debates - they always make me shake my head and chuckle. There are so many people who all they care about is speed, and if someone's system isn't the fastest, it's crap. "Oooh, my 'AMD FX whatever' benchmarked faster than your G5 on a Photoshop test - take that!" :rolleyes: Listen, if you're a pro user and speed is what you make your living on, I completely appreciate that. But if you're not a pro user, and either want to play your precious little UT2004 faster, or if you simply want to have bragging rights by having the fastest machine, have fun with that.

But please, carry on debating your 2 GHz G5s, your AMD Opterons, your Xeon and Prescott chips - if you play the speed game, you'll never be happy, and processor speed is only one small part of what makes an excellent system. When the 14 GHz G7s come out in a few years won't you be the ones feeling silly and stupid? Or are you the same people who were saying 5 years ago, "My Pentium 450 MHz kicks the crap out of your Pentium 400 MHz!" :cool:

I am all for intelligent technological debates, which I see a lot of in this thread - don't misunderstand me. But there always seems to be the people who narrowly focus on speed and nothing else...

[schatten]

The problem with Apple's retail strategy is this:

Almost every Apple Store is located within reasonable distance to an Authorized Apple Reseller (Like Micro Center)

So Apple is selling a product to the reseller to sell to customers, and just down the street, selling it straight to the customers!

What's wrong with this? Well, they control the pricing, so the resellers can't compete on price. For example, Apple's educational discounts aren't available to resellers, but are available at the Apple Store.

The Apple Stores will ALWAYS get stock first, if there's a shortage of product (eg: iPod Minis) the resellers will lose customers to the Apple stores, who will have the product in stock.

Warranty repairs: The Apple Store is allowed to stock service replacement parts (Main boards, RAM, etc) while the resellers aren't authorized or set up to do so. Would you prefer your iMac fixed same day, or within a week?

So why isn't Apple's market share going up? Because they're competing with themselves & their loyal resellers! They're not gaining new customers, just taking their customers away from the stores who have been selling their product for years.

Not good business practice. A pretty dangerous game.

[AidenShaw]

Retail strategy? (That's to pretend that this post is firmly on-topic ;-) )

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/markets/earningsmatter/?cnn=yes

"shares of the iPod maker are up 27 percent so far in 2004."

"Investors clearly have fallen in love with Steve Jobs and Apple once again thanks to the success of the iPod and its younger sibling, the iPod mini."

"Apple's iTunes online music store remains the top source for downloads"


Hmmmm. Apple computers don't even get a mention on the plus side....


Apple's now "the iPod maker"....

[rdowns]

The problem with Apple's retail strategy is this:

Almost every Apple Store is located within reasonable distance to an Authorized Apple Reseller (Like Micro Center)

So Apple is selling a product to the reseller to sell to customers, and just down the street, selling it straight to the customers!

What's wrong with this? Well, they control the pricing, so the resellers can't compete on price. For example, Apple's educational discounts aren't available to resellers, but are available at the Apple Store.

The Apple Stores will ALWAYS get stock first, if there's a shortage of product (eg: iPod Minis) the resellers will lose customers to the Apple stores, who will have the product in stock.

Warranty repairs: The Apple Store is allowed to stock service replacement parts (Main boards, RAM, etc) while the resellers aren't authorized or set up to do so. Would you prefer your iMac fixed same day, or within a week?

So why isn't Apple's market share going up? Because they're competing with themselves & their loyal resellers! They're not gaining new customers, just taking their customers away from the stores who have been selling their product for years.

Not good business practice. A pretty dangerous game.

You make some excellent points but Apple's retail problem is the fact that they are not in places where people buy computers. If a user wanted to consider a Mac, where would they go to see one, try one and speak to someone about it? Apple has only 75 stores and CompUSA and MicroCenter are the only other options. (maybe a few other smaller chains and resellers) Far too narrow distribution.

Not seeing a Mac in popular shopping places like Circuit City, Best Buy or the big regional electronics chains furthers the myths about Macs.

I'd like to see Apple take the CompUSA store within a store concept to other big retailers. The concept obviously works or CompUSA would have booted them out long ago and free up the space to sell other products. It would augment their retail stores and give them shelf space in markets that they are not present in and would not likely open an Apple Store. Lease the damn space in these stores and stock them with Apple employees and product.

The only way for Apple to grow their business (above their loyal base) is to let potential buyers see Macs, OS X, iLife, Office etc. in action. I'd also take it a step further and create a nice database of available Apple software and accessories for people to browse through on the display units. Have software demo versions where available. Stock popular, high volume titles and make it easy and fast to get other software.

People can't buy what they don't see on the shelves.

[wdlove]

But please, carry on debating your 2 GHz G5s, your AMD Opterons, your Xeon and Prescott chips - if you play the speed game, you'll never be happy, and processor speed is only one small part of what makes an excellent system. When the 14 GHz G7s come out in a few years won't you be the ones feeling silly and stupid? Or are you the same people who were saying 5 years ago, "My Pentium 450 MHz kicks the crap out of your Pentium 400 MHz!" :cool:

I am all for intelligent technological debates, which I see a lot of in this thread - don't misunderstand me. But there always seems to be the people who narrowly focus on speed and nothing else...

That will be amazing to quadruple speed in 3 "few years" and 2nd upgrade processor.

My main interest is to have a Rev. B PM without all the defects previously mentioned. I do look forward to a speed boost from my dual 450.

[jade]

Apple's Best Buy experiment did not work out. Many reasons could be tied to the stubborness of both companies. (poor inventory allotment, and little supprot from BBY management also did the program in) It seems like apple wants to rely less on resellers and more on Apple...but it's a shame apple isn't sold where people buy computers.

[avkills]

My main interest is to have a Rev. B PM without all the defects previously mentioned.

There are no defects, everything mentioned above are design choices made by Apple/IBM. The only thing bothersome with my G5 is the analog sound output is not exactly clean. Of course what do you expect doing D->A conversion inside a Aluminum Box full of EM hell. :confused:

It is not enough of a big deal for me to warrant bitching about it to Apple. Anything and everything critical I do with sound, will not be using the Analog output built in to the machine, so I really don't care.

-mark