Why not make a super cheap apple desktop

[Solafaa]

I know that there is the eMac but why dose apple not make super cheap compueter for school, people with low income and people who just want to surf the web and do a little word prossesing.

I went to Dells website and found desktops for as little as $499, do you think there is enough demand for low cost apple desktops?

When i was in high school the main reason why my school did not get mac which they wanted was because they costs more then others makers in the market.

[crazzyeddie]

The main reason is because you're paying for more than just hardware. You're paying for OS X, the most stable, full-featured OS in existence. You're also paying for the iLife suite, which sold alone by Dell costs at least $200 for inferior products. Also look at what those $500 machines have under the hood. Its all inferior hardware. If you want to buy yesterday's technology, buy a used Mac off of eBay.

[iJon]

apple does not cater to these low low end markets. and apple does mac a cheaper imac for the education market, i want to think it is in the range of 599. allthough the car examples get blown out of proportion alot, it could be similar. you have porsche who makes a boxster, but they aren't going to make it to compete with, lets say a Z3 or Miata.

iJon

[jimsowden]

apple does not cater to these low low end markets. and apple does mac a cheaper imac for the education market, i want to think it is in the range of 599. allthough the car examples get blown out of proportion alot, it could be similar. you have porsche who makes a boxster, but they aren't going to make it to compete with, lets say a Z3 or Miata.

iJon
The cheapest mac for education is the eMac with out any optical drive for a meer 599 when you buy 10. How bout some capitals there iJon?

[krimson]

This is such an old question.. (in a good way) which i myself have pondered on and off...

Back in the day, I could never afford on my own to get another Mac, but honestly, my parents (wit the downturn 80's) couldn't afford to get me a quadra or any of those 8XXX series towers.

it wasn't until the clones came out that I could seriously afford my own mac. I know so many that got clones, and that brought (overall) market share. I believe that a headless (ie. iMac, eMac) mid-tower/desktop option would serve the educational market much better. But that's just my opinion.

[iJon]

The cheapest mac for education is the eMac with out any optical drive for a meer 599 when you buy 10. How bout some capitals there iJon?
are you sure about the 10 rule, I have never heard that and had no problem going to the edu store and putting in a purchase for a 599 emac, granted i didn't enter my credit card, but i don't think i would have to get past that section for it to tell me that.

iJon

[JustinChaloner]

I recently hired an eMac so I could burn some DVDs for a friend, and coming from using a lowly 3yr old blue iMac I was majorly impressed. I think the eMac is a terrific low-budget Mac (about £700 in the UK) considering the software you get for it and the fact you can burn DVDs. I can't think of anything else in terms of day-to-day tasks that it would need to do. For the same money, you will get a higher spec PC, but you won't get the fantastic software that works together so seamlessly. That adds a couple of hundred to the price in my reckoning. I have a concern that Jo public will base their decision on just the raw facts (price, ram, hard drive etc.), rather than the overall experience. If only Apple could squeeze a little bit more power and capacity out of the machine then i think it would give the rest a run for their money. I mean, 32mb of video ram? that sucks!!!
I guess the one sobering thought is that ten years ago, £700 would probably just about get you a decent printer never mind a cpu. I personally dont agree that Apple should sell a cheap and nasty computer. In the long run, it would do more harm than good and would be like BMW building a budget three-wheeler! :D

[Horrortaxi]

Cheap isn't Apple's style and low income isn't Apple's demographic. Next question.

[webmatthijs]

i think apple should make a real cheap desktop! it doesnt have to be big, just one with a 15" screen G4 and osx, all that for around 600 dollars.

like a dream come true!

well thats not true, my dream is a Dual G5 3.0Ghz, with 2 30" screens
:D

[7on]

Apple does make cheap desktops. You can get them at ebay.com ;P. Prolly the specs those machines would have to be. Not many people would buy a $300 500Mhz G4 though. Another thing, Apple machines are cheap compared to other PPC hardware. Apple manages to sell it that low because they sell in large quantities.

[rueyeet]

why dose apple not make super cheap compueter for school, people with low income and people who just want to surf the web and do a little word prossesing.

I went to Dells website and found desktops for as little as $499, do you think there is enough demand for low cost apple desktops?Did that $499 include the monitor, and any rebates? I've heard people have trouble redeeming those sometimes, and a monitor will add at least something to the cost. I'd also doubt you're going to get many features or much power at that price.

Apple isn't going to beat Dell at its own game, which is to sell cheap and make up the difference in volume and in supply-chain tricks. Apple doesn't have the volume to succeed in such a strategy, and apparently neither do other computer makers: Witness the HP-Compaq merger and eMachines buying out Gateway.

Sure, we always wish everything could be better for cheaper, but them's the breaks.

[krimson]

my mum picked up 8 cheapo Dells a few months ago for $539 (total w/ tax, including 15" monitor, cheapo lexmark printer).

[superbovine]

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3921


Apple has been building up a very big reputation and a very strong brand, I suppose that Apple is within the most expensive brands on earth. Everybody associates automatically Apple with innovation, design, quality, being different, etc. Apple cannot deliver products that are not innovative, well designed or top-notch quality, they would only destroy their own brand and reduce sales figures dramatically. Innovation and quality are related with high price, the high price guarantees the customer that he is buying an excellent product, this is psychologically as well as from the business side, a typical business model. The human psychology says that the higher the price, the better the product and otherwise. Cheap Apple boxes would mean low quality and a desperate need for cash, which would hurt the Apple brand in good times and maybe in a long term, be more dangerous than just trying to survive the hard times. If your break the association of Apple and quality, which is been given by the price, you ruin your segment and deposition yourself, a catastrophic failure.

[JeDiBoYTJ]

im sure apple will make a really cheap computer once a really cheap brand new "Mercedes-Benz" is made :)

[quagmire]

Considering what the old Macs cost, Macs are cheap. The 20th anniversery mac vsPowermac G5 2.5 Ghz dual. $10,000 vs $3,000. Prices are dropping in the macs.

[Sun Baked]

im sure apple will make a really cheap computer once a really cheap brand new "Mercedes-Benz" is made :)On sale soon in the US for $9,000 to $15,000 US -- for a brand new Chinese Knockoff. ;)

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2004/06/01/china-cars-geely-solo.jpg

Thanks to David Shelburg and China Motors.

They're not just selling fake shoes, purses, wallets, watches, etc.

How about a MB front end for a car.

[yamabushi]

Why deny Macs to the poor?
Why eschew growth in market share?
Why does an inexpensive model have to be poor in quality?
Why make excuses for not having computers available for the average consumer?

Perhaps someday the people at Apple will be able to properly answer these questions.

[quagmire]

Why does an inexpensive model have to be poor in quality?
.

Cheap computers have to be poor quality is because the parts that make it cheap are piece of crap outdated parts.

[Abstract]

I know that there is the eMac but why dose apple not make super cheap compueter for school, people with low income and people who just want to surf the web and do a little word prossesing.


Well if you DON'T ignore the eMac, then Apple offers a cheap computer. But why would you ignore a computer model just to make your point?

i think apple should make a real cheap desktop! it doesnt have to be big, just one with a 15" screen G4 and osx, all that for around 600 dollars.

like a dream come true!

well thats not true, my dream is a Dual G5 3.0Ghz, with 2 30" screens
:D

They do. Its called the eMac.

I love how people start threads like this with "Ignoring the eMac, why doesn't Apple make a cheap desktop computer?" Here's a clue: If you stop ignoring the eMac from the lineup, then you'll see that Apple DOES offer a cheap desktop that works extremely well, even when compared to the iMacs and 1.6GHz G5's PowerMac's that people were buying.

These threads are retarded. :rolleyes: Apple won't make a $499 machine. They already offer a cheap machine, and it doesn't need to include the worst quality parts available.

[Solafaa]

I understand some of the things you posted guys. Yes there are some problems with Dell's mail in rebate, yes apple emacs are cheap but not that point. Why not dump iLife (iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD and iMovie) and just mac a plain mac that would cost something around $500, its possible. In my case my hight school did noy buy +200 desktop because the price was higher then other makers. That is only in my case i am sure apple would have made many more sales with cheaper desktops.

[superbovine]

Why deny Macs to the poor?
Why eschew growth in market share?
Why does an inexpensive model have to be poor in quality?
Why make excuses for not having computers available for the average consumer?

Perhaps someday the people at Apple will be able to properly answer these questions.

apple is it not denying macs to the poor, its about making money in the free market. apple has an fiduary duty to its stock holders to make money, not to give the poor a nice computer for a nice price. just like Ferrari isn't obligated to make cheap cars for the masses. if you look at my previous post in the his thread that article covers all your question quite well.

[BrianKonarsMac]

Considering what the old Macs cost, Macs are cheap. The 20th anniversery mac vsPowermac G5 2.5 Ghz dual. $10,000 vs $3,000. Prices are dropping in the macs. i don't even know what to say to this guy that won't get me kicked off the boards...hopefully he was at least being sarcastic...

[BrianKonarsMac]

Cheap computers have to be poor quality is because the parts that make it cheap are piece of crap outdated parts. i love it...and apple's use nothing but the BEST parts right? Like the modems without voice capability (I can use the phone on a 10 year old gateway, but not a 2 month old g4?) or their superior quality ram and hard drives (which are all 3rd party, typically Samsung does their ram) or amazingly fast 8x Super Drives? All of these components are dirty cheap, the only expensive piece of hardware is a G5 chip and motherboard. For a G4, it's once again, dirt cheap. You really know nothing about computers do you? You can knock together a decent PC with off the shelf components (the same you could install in a Mac) for under $500. The only thing keeping you from building a Mac for that cheap, is the availability of motherboards.

[Vlade]

Why does apple still use a 1 button mouse? The world may never know... its almost like apple is concerned about the short run profits and not the long run, because they won't cut margins to increase there dwindling market share.

Also, I build a PC for 250 dollars after rebates and its not a POS, the only problem was a power surge killed the modem, but that was like 5 bucks to fix. The problem with PCs is Microsoft, not the hardware, and despite what you all think PCs are still faster in most cases than the G5, but its within 10% so it doesn't matter.

/me dodges the flames!

[quagmire]

i love it...and apple's use nothing but the BEST parts right? Like the modems without voice capability (I can use the phone on a 10 year old gateway, but not a 2 month old g4?) or their superior quality ram and hard drives (which are all 3rd party, typically Samsung does their ram) or amazingly fast 8x Super Drives? All of these components are dirty cheap, the only expensive piece of hardware is a G5 chip and motherboard. For a G4, it's once again, dirt cheap. You really know nothing about computers do you? You can knock together a decent PC with off the shelf components (the same you could install in a Mac) for under $500. The only thing keeping you from building a Mac for that cheap, is the availability of motherboards.

I wasn't trying to say that apple uses up to date stuff. But, once you get in the $500 dell, there is alot of crap that is also more outdated then the stuff in the Pmacs. In your earlier post about me that I was being sarcastic, I was. But, the 20th anniversery mac was $10,000 then dropped to $1999

[slughead]

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3921

If your break the association of Apple and quality, which is been given by the price, you ruin your segment and deposition yourself, a catastrophic failure.

I'm about to talk about history here so let me insert my monocle... ah there is.

The first generation iMac was a gigantic steaming mountain of *****.

My friend got one right when they came out in August of 1998. One year later both of the internal drives failed. First the CD-ROM, then the hard drive (though TBH, it was clicking for months).

1998 was Apple's first profitable year since 1995--because of the iMac.

They have been profitable ever since.

The four word summary: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

So you see, Solafaa, Apple has already sunk to the level of eMachines.. In fact, I bet that's where that company's mission statement came from.

They got new computer users to get iMacs (like my friend), locked them in with software and hardware that was not cross-platform, and taught them to use an OS which was nothing like Windows so they could never switch.

Almost sounds like a M$ trick, doesn't it?

In all fairness they have never made such a pile of human and animal waste since. However, they are making more things in China now, and they're stuffing Maxtor HDs into their new G5s *shudder*.

[Krizoitz]

TROLL ALERT

The first generation iMac was a gigantic steaming mountain of *****.

My friend got one right when they came out in August of 1998. One year later both of the internal drives failed. First the CD-ROM, then the hard drive (though TBH, it was clicking for months).

....

So you see, Solafaa, Apple has already sunk to the level of eMachines.. In fact, I bet that's where that company's mission statement came from.

One problem with a computer does not make the whole line POS, it means that that computer failed. It happens, we are talking about mechanical parts, and while failure rates can be low, due to the laws of nature and physics things fail. Why do you think they tell you to back things up? Why do you think they have warrantees and extended warrantees?

Apple has continously been ranked highly in both customer service and satisfaction and has a reputation for making high quality products. If there were some sort of epidemic where Macs where failing by and large, don't you think we would hear about it? Can you provide me with evidence that such a thing is happening? Unless you can, go away.



They got new computer users to get iMacs (like my friend), locked them in with software and hardware that was not cross-platform, and taught them to use an OS which was nothing like Windows so they could never switch.

Given that the software that comes with an iMac is included in the cost, how exactly is that locking them in with software? And exactly what hardware is not cross platform? The iMac only had ethernet, modem and USB ports, all of which are completely compatible with PC products. In fact it was the iMac that started the trend of using industry standard and not Apple standard ports.

Oh and your claim that they OS is nothing like windows is crap. Windows COPIED Apple, so I'm guessing the OS's have enough basic similarities that if you can use one you can use the other just fine. While I find Windows, buggy, poorly designed, and ugly as sin, I can manage to do things just fine. But if you mean its nothing like Windows because its polished, well written, and secure, then yes you are right.

[superbovine]

I'm about to talk about history here so let me insert my monocle... ah there is.

The first generation iMac was a gigantic steaming mountain of *****.

My friend got one right when they came out in August of 1998. One year later both of the internal drives failed. First the CD-ROM, then the hard drive (though TBH, it was clicking for months).

1998 was Apple's first profitable year since 1995--because of the iMac.

They have been profitable ever since.

The four word summary: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

So you see, Solafaa, Apple has already sunk to the level of eMachines.. In fact, I bet that's where that company's mission statement came from.

They got new computer users to get iMacs (like my friend), locked them in with software and hardware that was not cross-platform, and taught them to use an OS which was nothing like Windows so they could never switch.

Almost sounds like a M$ trick, doesn't it?

In all fairness they have never made such a pile of human and animal waste since. However, they are making more things in China now, and they're stuffing Maxtor HDs into their new G5s *shudder*.

the previous poster is right, one problem does not make a history of problems for apple. there will problems with ever line of system they make.

however, from you post you prove the article right because the association of quality with apple is broken with you.

[jefhatfield]

I know that there is the eMac but why dose apple not make super cheap compueter for school, people with low income and people who just want to surf the web and do a little word prossesing.

I went to Dells website and found desktops for as little as $499, do you think there is enough demand for low cost apple desktops?

When i was in high school the main reason why my school did not get mac which they wanted was because they costs more then others makers in the market.

apple often uses better parts

they spend more money on research for industrial design

apple is a small company so they can't get the same bulk discounts as the pc giants in the field

in the end, the result is a higher priced computer...but you can't really knock the emac...it's the most affordable mac ever ...nice crt screen, and overall compact size

and the thing is built tough too and will likely outlast most pc boxes

one day emac will go to 699 then 599 and people won't complain as much on the price issue...apple inc is closing the gap

[Horrortaxi]

The four word summary: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Is there a farm near here? I smell something. Cows, bulls--yeah, mostly bulls. And they're going the the bathroom everywhere. That's what I smell.

I'd worry about that if I were the poster. I heard of the BS smell suffocating a bunch of trolls under their bridge in Sweden a few years ago. You wouldn't want it to happen to you. Be careful.

[ddtlm]

jefhatfield:

they spend more money on research for industrial design
Heh, this is like defending GM because they spend "more money" on the "industrial design" of a Hummer. ;) And on that subject, why is any of that considered "industrial"? Industry is about production, about cost vs benefit. The best "indistrial design" is to be found in ugly but functional beige PCs of yesteryear. Every time I hear someone talk about Apple's industrial design I mentally group them with idiots driving around psuedo-useful SUV's. End tangent.

[yamabushi]

apple is it not denying macs to the poor, its about making money in the free market. apple has an fiduary duty to its stock holders to make money, not to give the poor a nice computer for a nice price. just like Ferrari isn't obligated to make cheap cars for the masses. if you look at my previous post in the his thread that article covers all your question quite well.
Apple can make more money by selling more computers. Poor people would love to buy computers, but often can't afford it. This covers a huge chunk of the US population and a majority of the world population by US standards. Other computer manufacturers can and do profit by selling computers to these people. Apple is in competition with them whether or not they or you realize it. An inexpenive model is also a potentially powerful maketing tool if it is advertised effectively. Consumers are drawn in by the price and then buy a more expensive model.

Apple has a duty to their stockholders to grow as a company and therefore increase shareholder value. By ignoring market growth strategies Apple is acting against the best interest of its shareholders.

The most consistently profitable auto company is by far General Motors and a large portion of this profit comes form high volume cheap cars.

I read your previous post before posting but it only reiterates the tired brand protection argument. In response to this I would argue that the Apple and Macintosh brands have at least as many negative associations as positive in the minds of most consumers. These same people are happy to buy a cheap computer from whichever company appears to give them the best product. Unfortunately Apple has little to offer in their price range, and they probably aren't even aware that anything exists at all due to the associations they make with the Apple brand and lacking any advertisement to the contrary. Really this is a problem of perception as much as pricing and is a failure on the part of Apple's marketing to exploit a potential opportunity to increase market share and total revenues.

[blue&whiteman]

Why does apple still use a 1 button mouse? The world may never know... its almost like apple is concerned about the short run profits and not the long run, because they won't cut margins to increase there dwindling market share.

Also, I build a PC for 250 dollars after rebates and its not a POS, the only problem was a power surge killed the modem, but that was like 5 bucks to fix. The problem with PCs is Microsoft, not the hardware, and despite what you all think PCs are still faster in most cases than the G5, but its within 10% so it doesn't matter.

/me dodges the flames!

then stop using mac and use only pc. people like you have no clue what mac is all about and don't deserve to be a mac user.

[Vlade]

then stop using mac and use only pc. people like you have no clue what mac is all about and don't deserve to be a mac user.

Sorry about the flame, but its mac zealots like you I cannot stand, and I view this forum less and less because of it. Did I say anything bad about the mac, and if so what if I did? I stated that you can build a good PC for 250 dollars, when the cheapest mac costs like 900 bucks. I use a mac 80% of the time and I contribute by programming software for the mac (check my sig), so I think I deserve to be a mac user. Mac zealously like this is what gets people anti apple, its not there iMac or good OS that people hate, its the fact that apple users think they are better than PC users (it doesn't matter if its true or not)

[jefhatfield]

Sorry about the flame, but its mac zealots like you I cannot stand, and I view this forum less and less because of it. Did I say anything bad about the mac, and if so what if I did? I stated that you can build a good PC for 250 dollars, when the cheapest mac costs like 900 bucks. I use a mac 80% of the time and I contribute by programming software for the mac (check my sig), so I think I deserve to be a mac user. Mac zealously like this is what gets people anti apple, its not there iMac or good OS that people hate, its the fact that apple users think they are better than PC users (it doesn't matter if its true or not)

when i finished college many years ago in business school, i studied human relations...a combination of personnel management and psychology

while most went to business, some became psychologists, psychiatrists, and counselors in grad school and med school, and later in their own practices

i did consider being a cult buster and deprogammer of people who suffered cult tactics in abusive authoritatrian groups such as church of scientology, the moonies, the jehovah witnesses, the international church of christ, etc...a great definition of a cult, brainwashing, and non acceptance of opposing facts and figures are mac zealots ;)

macs are great and steve jobs is a good speaker, but some view him as their cult leader and apple hq in cupertino as some sort of cathederal/mecca...being that i live close to there and pass by, sometimes in, it does have a religious feel to it

i have seen mac freaks, dressed like disheveled cult members camping outside of apple inc just to see steve jobs and take a picture of him...it's really kind of scary...and if you say anything bad about steve or apple, they will hit the ceiling...every time

over the years i have met people and relatives of people who worked for apple under steve jobs...most considered him mentally off balance and required his employees to have total allegiance to him...when i went to an apple open house in cupertino, i met a few of the employees and most of them were extremely rude, suspicious, and obviously heavily indoctrinated into some set of belief system...strangely they all had the same personality and were mini-steve jobs

it struck me as kind of sad since i have used apple products since 1979, and while i like the product and consider it the best, i do my best to stay away from any apple employee...most will start a fight with you the first chance they get...it is too weird

[vga4life]

Apple should take the guts of the eMac, slap them in a pizza box (without the CRT), add a DVI port, and sell them for $649 (combo drive, 40GB HD) and $849 (superdrive, 80GB HD).

They'd sell a million. Apple needs a *cheap* non-AIO option (not another cube), and at those prices they should be able to make a few bucks on each. They still wouldn't be as cheap as the cheapest PC's, but they'd be in the ballpark.

-vga4life

[Brother Michael]

Apple should take the guts of the eMac, slap them in a pizza box (without the CRT), add a DVI port, and sell them for $649 (combo drive, 40GB HD) and $849 (superdrive, 80GB HD).

They'd sell a million. Apple needs a *cheap* non-AIO option (not another cube), and at those prices they should be able to make a few bucks on each. They still wouldn't be as cheap as the cheapest PC's, but they'd be in the ballpark.

-vga4life

I would probably buy that. I just need a tower. Something that I can put under my desk at school. I already have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, I just now need a Mac tower.

The only all in one unit I would consider is the iMac because it has a flat screen, but even then I would still rather have a Powermac.

Mike

[superbovine]

Apple can make more money by selling more computers. Poor people would love to buy computers, but often can't afford it. This covers a huge chunk of the US population and a majority of the world population by US standards. Other computer manufacturers can and do profit by selling computers to these people. Apple is in competition with them whether or not they or you realize it. An inexpenive model is also a potentially powerful maketing tool if it is advertised effectively. Consumers are drawn in by the price and then buy a more expensive model.

Apple has a duty to their stockholders to grow as a company and therefore increase shareholder value. By ignoring market growht strategies Apple is acting against the best interest of its shareholders.

By the way, Ferrari is owned by Ford which makes tons of cheap cars for the masses. The most consistently profitable auto company is by far General Motors and a large portion of this profit comes form high volume cheap cars.

I read your previous post before posting but it only reiterates the tired brand protection argument. In response to this I would argue that the Apple and Macintosh brands have at least as many negative associations as positive in the minds of most consumers. These same people are happy to buy a cheap computer from whichever company appears to give them the best product. Unfortunately Apple has little to offer in their price range, and they probably aren't even aware that anything exists at all due to the associations they make with the Apple brand and lacking any advertisement to the contrary. Really this is a problem of perception as much as pricing and is a failure on the part of Apple's marketing to exploit a potential opportunity to increase market share and total revenues.

you don't get it do you. the board or the ceo of a company has a fidiciary responsibility to make money for them and their share-holders. The board can force out the CEO, they believe his ideas for the company will not make money. In Apple's case, this is not true. No one buys Apple because its cheap. Apple is an image. Just walk into a retail store. its like walking into a fancy clothes store.

[mojohanna]

apple often uses better parts

they spend more money on research for industrial design

apple is a small company so they can't get the same bulk discounts as the pc giants in the field

in the end, the result is a higher priced computer...but you can't really knock the emac...it's the most affordable mac ever ...nice crt screen, and overall compact size

and the thing is built tough too and will likely outlast most pc boxes

one day emac will go to 699 then 599 and people won't complain as much on the price issue...apple inc is closing the gap

Since when is a $8 BILLION company a small company??!!??!??!? Holy s***. "Small" companies are $250 million give or take a few. C'mon, Apple's purchasing power may not be that of Dell's, but trust me, they make at 26-27% margin on everything they sell.

[mojohanna]

Apple can make more money by selling more computers. Poor people would love to buy computers, but often can't afford it. This covers a huge chunk of the US population and a majority of the world population by US standards. Other computer manufacturers can and do profit by selling computers to these people. Apple is in competition with them whether or not they or you realize it. An inexpenive model is also a potentially powerful maketing tool if it is advertised effectively. Consumers are drawn in by the price and then buy a more expensive model.

Apple has a duty to their stockholders to grow as a company and therefore increase shareholder value. By ignoring market growht strategies Apple is acting against the best interest of its shareholders.

By the way, Ferrari is owned by Ford which makes tons of cheap cars for the masses. The most consistently profitable auto company is by far General Motors and a large portion of this profit comes form high volume cheap cars.

I read your previous post before posting but it only reiterates the tired brand protection argument. In response to this I would argue that the Apple and Macintosh brands have at least as many negative associations as positive in the minds of most consumers. These same people are happy to buy a cheap computer from whichever company appears to give them the best product. Unfortunately Apple has little to offer in their price range, and they probably aren't even aware that anything exists at all due to the associations they make with the Apple brand and lacking any advertisement to the contrary. Really this is a problem of perception as much as pricing and is a failure on the part of Apple's marketing to exploit a potential opportunity to increase market share and total revenues.

WRONG, GM and Ford's biggest chuck of profits come from SUV's. Cars such as the Focus and Cavalier (new Cobalt) are loss leaders for these companies. GM's average profit per car is something like $150. That ain't much. Take away the SUV's. GM looses $$ BIG time. Why do you think they can offer 4-5K incentives on SUVs?
Also, I may be wrong here, but I don't belive Ford owns Ferrari. They own Volvo. Large difference between the two.
If Apple wants to go for market share, then by all means, they should market a sub $500 machine and take on Dell. Fortunately, the powers that be at Apple have realized that this is a game they cannot win. Apple has its target audience. Professional users and those of us (me included) who feel they need to have the biggest, baddest, machine that they can get their hands on.... sorry, one to many glasses of wine. I'll stop here.

Ford owns Astin Martin. On par with Ferrari

[jefhatfield]

Since when is a $8 BILLION company a small company??!!??!??!? Holy s***. "Small" companies are $250 million give or take a few. C'mon, Apple's purchasing power may not be that of Dell's, but trust me, they make at 26-27% margin on everything they sell.
actually if you come my way, i will show you around town

apple inc is basically a medium sized company or at the most a small "big" company

within earshot are ibm, microsoft, hp/compaq, intel, sony, and toshiba...and while not all those companies are based in san jose, they have satellites there...some larger than apple inc

apple inc is practically an island in the vast sea of pc companies and software companies that make product for windows...you almost have to drive from one end of silicon valley to the other...a two hour drive...to see the context of what i am saying

and yeah, apple inc is also not the size of dell, either ;)

one good thing is, besides mac users, there are a lot of pc users who are not too fond of bill gates...he went head to head with our regions oracle, netscape, and others and kicked their behinds...so there still is a residual bad feeling toward that eight hundred pound gorilla ;)

actually bill gates is no longer worth 90 billion, so i would demote him to a 550 pound gorilla...but still enough to kick all of our collective a**es

[mojohanna]

I am looking at company size in terms of other companies out there, not just those in the same industry. I work for a small company. $250 million. Thats small in comparison to Apple. The largest privately held company in Cleveland is 1/4 the size of Apple. Also, I am not measuring companies by the size of their offices. If you are going to do that, lets start talking about profitability. As far as I know, real estate in that area tends to be rather expensive. Again, publicly held company, needs to answer to the shareholders.

[yamabushi]

you don't get it do you. the board or the ceo of a company has a fidiciary responsibility to make money for them and their share-holders.

This is simply not true. It is a common misperception by the layman that the only point of holding stock is to receive dividends. This is only part of the value in stock. Most institutional shareholders are far more concerned about increasing the value of their stock on the secondary market. The value of the stock tends to show the most dramatic increases as the company grows. This is why growth is so important to shareholders and dividends are less important. In fact, many companies choose not to return the stockholders investments in the form of dividends at all in order to promote growth. The best way to "Make money for the shareholders" does not necessarily involve giving the money back as the company earns it.

Let me reiterate my previous point:

"Apple has a duty to their stockholders to grow as a company and therefore increase shareholder value. By ignoring market growth strategies Apple is acting against the best interest of its shareholders."

[slughead]

TROLL ALERT


One problem with a computer does not make the whole line POS, it means that that computer failed. It happens, we are talking about mechanical parts, and while failure rates can be low, due to the laws of nature and physics things fail. Why do you think they tell you to back things up? Why do you think they have warrantees and extended warrantees?

So, when failure rates are high for two crucial components in a computer, that does not constitute the machine being a POS? What more exactly would they have to screw up on for the original iMac to be considered a POS?

No, seriously, the original iMac was DESIGNED to be a POS--to be cheap. The iMacs since then were good, but the original was crap.

I don't blame them for it, I knew it was simply made to be hyped and sold, and without it Apple would not have had the money to make good products (like, for instance, the later revisions of the iMac).

So I think the original iMac was a pile of crap, does that make me a troll? Christ you guys are about as thick skinned as.. well.. nevermind.

Apple has continously been ranked highly in both customer service and satisfaction and has a reputation for making high quality products. If there were some sort of epidemic where Macs where failing by and large, don't you think we would hear about it? Can you provide me with evidence that such a thing is happening? Unless you can, go away.

Oh that's funny because as you might know, failure rates on hard drives are incredibly difficult to find. It was out of sheer luck that we found out about the largest HD failure in history (the IBM 75GB if I'm not mistaken). All their customers had to do was "observe the warranty" and get a free one, but don't you think a HARD DRIVE failure would piss someone off?

Apple's original iMac used a brand of hard drive called Quantum. I've handled at least 10 quantum drives in my career and they were all being replaced. My friends work ad a warehouse and can survey hundreds of thousands of hard drives, and the overwhelming majority of the quantum hard drives they get are dead (for the record, Seagates have had the least amount of failure rates).

Quantum = total crap, and everyone knows it.. well, everyone who's actually built computers before.

We can all just backup, I guess, right? Like the new computer users that were targeted by the original iMac should've known that they needed a $400 USB drive (this was '98, remember) to backup on, right? or maybe a $200 USB CD burner.

Given that the software that comes with an iMac is included in the cost, how exactly is that locking them in with software?

What software? office? Oh wait no, that's "after market." What about anti-virus software (OS 9 + new computer users = viruses)?

The point is, when you buy computers you end up at some point buying software. Every dollar spent on software for Mac (or windows for that matter) is a dollar lost if you ever wanted to switch.

It works both ways, wouldn't you say that a lot of the reason why Windows-using companies don't switch to Apple is the cost of new software?

And exactly what hardware is not cross platform? The iMac only had ethernet, modem and USB ports, all of which are completely compatible with PC products. In fact it was the iMac that started the trend of using industry standard and not Apple standard ports.

Have you ever tried to run windows on an iMac? That's what I meant by cross platform. Apple intentionally keeps their hardware and sofwtare non-x86.

I don't fault them for it, but they do. Makes it inconvenient to switch to Windows, doesn't it?

Oh and your claim that they OS is nothing like windows is crap. Windows COPIED Apple, so I'm guessing the OS's have enough basic similarities that if you can use one you can use the other just fine. While I find Windows, buggy, poorly designed, and ugly as sin, I can manage to do things just fine. But if you mean its nothing like Windows because its polished, well written, and secure, then yes you are right.

Having worked with new computer users for years (and recommending Macs I might add), I assure you the differences between Mac OS and Windows are quite extreme to a novice.

Windows sucks, Mac OS rules, however you want to put it, they're different.



The whole point of my post is that Apple has indeed made a low quality machine, and they sold it for cheap--refuting the point superbovine's quote made.

Moreover, they did this and it seems to not have changed people's perception of their quality, nor hurt their business in anyway. In fact, as I said earlier, it HELPED their finances--also refuting the quote.

I'd recommend mac over windows PC any day of the week. I'm no troll, I just think the original iMac sucked, and that Apple's not so high-and-mighty that they wouldn't make a cheap machine :)

[yamabushi]

The whole point of my post is that Apple has indeed made a low quality machine, and they sold it for cheap--refuting the point superbovine's quote made.

Moreover, they did this and it seems to not have changed people's perception of their quality, nor hurt their business in anyway. In fact, as I said earlier, it HELPED their finances--also refuting the quote.

I'd recommend mac over windows PC any day of the week. I'm no troll, I just think the original iMac sucked, and that Apple's not so high-and-mighty that they wouldn't make a cheap machine :)
I agree with you that Apple has used inferior components and accepted poor build quality in the past. It certainly helped them move inventory out the door in the short term. However, I don't think that an inexpensive computer must be total junk by definition. I also don't think the original iMac sucked. It had the usual teething problems with putting together a completely new model and ramping up production to meet demand.

[slughead]

Is there a farm near here? I smell something. Cows, bulls--yeah, mostly bulls. And they're going the the bathroom everywhere. That's what I smell.

"hey guys, maybe Apple did make a crappy product once.."

"TROLL!!!!"

Some of you are just as bad as 'they' say you are ;)

[yamabushi]

WRONG, GM and Ford's biggest chuck of profits come from SUV's. Cars such as the Focus and Cavalier (new Cobalt) are loss leaders for these companies.
Also, I may be wrong here, but I don't belive Ford owns Ferrari.
Ford owns Astin Martin. On par with Ferrari

I said a large portion, not the majority of profits. SUVs are attractive for them becuase the profit margins are very high on them, or at least used to be. The larger volume lower margin models are obvioiusly less attractive from this standpoint but have nevertheless added a significant amount to their revenues.

You are right about Ferrari. I remembered Ford having a minority interest in Fiat a few years ago but they appear to have divested this, so it was a mistake and exaggeration on my part. :o They do own Astin Martin and Jaguar.

Car company comparisons are overused in any case and it is probably better to stick to examples within the tech industry.

[win_convert]

Apple doesn't do cheap. Ask Versace to make a suit for the garbage collectors and janitors. Ask Mercedes to make a car for 16 year olds who work at McDollars. Ask Apple to make a computer for Joe Six pack.

I think not.

[jefhatfield]

Apple doesn't do cheap. Ask Versace to make a suit for the garbage collectors and janitors. Ask Mercedes to make a car for 16 year olds who work at McDollars. Ask Apple to make a computer for Joe Six pack.

I think not.

ask anyone to compare winbook to powerbook
emachines to emac
presario to powermac

apple right now, with steve jobs at helm, will never be called cheap...compared to the competition

for equal build and quality, one has to look to sony and alien...and then we are talking about the same price range, or more, than apple's machines...but if all pcs were priced like sony vaio and alien, then apple would not be accused of being expensive

it's all relative

the first job i had after school was at office depot and it was sad to see a customer coming in knowing nothing and seeing macs and pcs side by side...who doesn't want to save one hundred fifty or two hundred dollars?...so the pc always won out...office depot stopped carrying mac and circuit city had low sales with them and they, along with sears, ditched them..people go to those stores to look for cheap

however, there was this mom and pop store in town and they sold macs and custom built pcs...all very nice, but a couple hundred more than the chain in a box megastores...with the macs, you got a great machine

but with the pcs, if you wanted a different processor, hard drive, case, or video card, no problemo...in the end you get what you pay for...in everything that is sold as a product or service

[yamabushi]

the first job i had after school was at office depot and it was sad to see a customer coming in knowing nothing and seeing macs and pcs side by side...who doesn't want to save one hundred fifty or two hundred dollars?...so the pc always won out...office depot stopped carrying mac and circuit city had low sales with them and they, along with sears, ditched them..people go to those stores to look for cheap

however, there was this mom and pop store in town and they sold macs and custom built pcs...all very nice, but a couple hundred more than the chain in a box megastores...with the macs, you got a great machine

but with the pcs, if you wanted a different processor, hard drive, case, or video card, no problemo...in the end you get what you pay for...in everything that is sold as a product or service
This is the sort of situation that drives people away from Apple. There really is no Apple product or advertising to adequately address these common first impressions. There are always compromises to be made but I think it is a mistake to neglect to respond to the desires of the value minded consumer that typically knows little about computers.

[sigamy]

Why not just take the eMac remove the monitor, OS and bundled software?

It appears that the vast majority of the population is just concerned with a low price for the *computer*. How else did Dell become Dell (besides corporate sales, of course). Dell and Gateway and all those guys used to charge you for the OS. Not sure if they still do this.

People want to say that they paid $499 for their *computer*. They don't realize that after they add software and other accessories they are quickly up to the $800 price of a eMac.

eMac now $799
monitor - 75
Panther -129
iLife - 49
AppleWorks, Quicken, Tony Hawk, etc - 100 (at least)

new eMac: $446

Maybe this would lead to more piracy? Buy Panther with your new eMac for $50 to bring price to $500.

[jefhatfield]

This is the sort of situation that drives people away from Apple. There really is no Apple product or advertising to adequately address these common first impressions. There are always compromises to be made but I think it is a mistake to neglect to respond to the desires of the value minded consumer that typically knows little about computers.

a couple of interesting factors out there

after world war II, tons and tons of kids were born to put it simply...it's called the pig in the python phenomenon since that big lump (population demographic born 1946-1964) are the baby boomers and by far the biggest grouping in the united states...and they love computers even though they did not grow up with them

one third of these people will retire with no money, and many will retire with very little...and among the ones in the middle who have "assets", cash won't be among them (in other words, lots of property rich, cash poor folk out there)

i could assume that "price" will be a major factor in any good or service, especially on items costing hundreds

if apple is to "change" people's minds about spending 20-30% percent more, now won't be the easiest time for them to do it in a big way, demograpically speaking

my guess is as long as the pc competition is much cheaper, and that there are a lot of cash strapped baby boomers out there, apple inc will continue to yield a small percentage of all computers sold on any given year...the boomers are a touch and feel type of shopper and want to see the software in boxes on the shelves in a store nearby them if they are to spend additional money...the pc market is designed for this...with mac software, most of us have to order it from a catalog or online

i remember when virtually every computer i saw in homes and offices were an apple IIe or II+...but a couple of guys named steve were said to have dropped the ball somewhere along the line ;)

in football speak, it's 4th down with one yard to go, and to win the game which is tied 0-0, your running back (steve jobs) takes the handoff from the quarterback (steve wozniak) and drops the ball right before he crosses the goal line...some skinny 99 pound pass defender named bill gates picks it up and runs the ball 99 yards up the field to score the winning touchdown