What about a $200-$300 computer?

[dr_lha]

You want a Mac? You have to pay for it. Its pretty f***ing simple. $600 for a Mac Mini gets you a kick arse computer*. $300 from Dell gets you a piece of s***.

If you want the piece of s***, then buy the Dell. Nobody is forcing people to buy Macs.



*Yes, the Mac Mini does kick arse, its a fantastic little computer for what 99% of what people need, i.e. not games.

 

[Peyton]

You want a Mac? You have to pay for it. Its pretty f***ing simple. $600 for a Mac Mini gets you a kick arse computer*. $300 from Dell gets you a piece of s***.

If you want the piece of s***, then buy the Dell. Nobody is forcing people to buy Macs.



*Yes, the Mac Mini does kick arse, its a fantastic little computer for what 99% of what people need, i.e. not games.

understood, but I don't think you understood.

 

[someguy]

God, I want a BMW M5 but I only want to pay the price of a Chevy Cavalier. Why, oh why, can't I have the best of both worlds?

BMW, you stupid company, don't you know if you built a stripped down version of one of your cars and offered it at Cavalier prices, you would sell more? I mean, who needs a high class market when it's so much fun to build cheap garbage!

 

[BurtonCCC]

God, I want a BMW M5 but I only want to pay the price of a Chevy Cavalier. Why, oh why, can't I have the best of both worlds?

BMW, you stupid company, don't you know if you built a stripped down version of one of your cars and offered it at Cavalier prices, you would sell more? I mean, who needs a high class market when it's so much fun to build cheap garbage!

Nobody can follow that. A perfect example.

Daniel.

 

[plinkoman]

you get what you pay for.

nuff said.

 

[balamw]

BMW, you stupid company, don't you know if you built a stripped down version of one of your cars and offered it at Cavalier prices, you would sell more? I mean, who needs a high class market when it's so much fun to build cheap garbage!

Nobody can follow that. A perfect example.

What do you think a Mini Cooper is?



B

 

[Peyton]

AHHH stop the madness! I know! I wouldn't buy a cheapo mac, and don't expect there to be, this idea came out after a friend needed a computer to *only* browse the web. I thought there might be a market for just this, (and a very cool mac design) that could come out of it. nothing more...

 

[plinkoman]

AHHH stop the madness! I know! I wouldn't buy a cheapo mac, and don't expect there to be, this idea came out after a friend needed a computer to *only* browse the web. I thought there might be a market for just this, (and a very cool mac design) that could come out of it. nothing more...

well, i guess it just goes back to the bmw analogy. if someone just need a car to get them around town, nothing more; should they really be buying a bmw?

it is true that if apple could put together some sort of $350 all-in-one package for someone who just wants to casually browse and do email, it probably would sell pretty well, but i think part of apple's strategy(aside from the getting you to give them more money part) is that you'll spend more for the mac, and realize how easy it is to do other things. you might start doing some digital photography and edit them with iPhoto, maybe make one of those book things; you might start playing around with iMovie and make a home movie, you might get iWeb and dotmac and put it all on a page for all to see, so that in the end, you do more on the mac then just casual browsing and email, and they couldn't put together a package like that for that price.

 

[Peyton]

well, i guess it just goes back to the bmw analogy. if someone just need a car to get them around town, nothing more; should they really be buying a bmw?

it is true that if apple could put together some sort of $350 all-in-one package for someone who just wants to casually browse and do email, it probably would sell pretty well, but i think part of apple's strategy(aside from the getting you to give them more money part) is that you'll spend more for the mac, and realize how easy it is to do other things. you might start doing some digital photography and edit them with iPhoto, maybe make one of those book things; you might start playing around with iMovie and make a home movie, you might get iWeb and dotmac and put it all on a page for all to see, so that in the end, you do more on the mac then just casual browsing and email, and they couldn't put together a package like that for that price.

good point, and well taken.

 

[balamw]

part of apple's strategy(aside from the getting you to give them more money part) is that you'll spend more for the mac, and realize how easy it is to do other things.

The only point where I disagree with you is that all of the tasks you describe are well within the reach of a current G4 or Celeron-M system. There is no non-game killer app that requires a G5 or Core Duo processor. Yes, video codecs are quite intensive, but can often be offloaded onto a decent GPU as is the case for MPEG-2 today. We're at a point in PC evolution where the machine's capabilities are beyond what most users require of them, and thus prices are coming down.

By switching to Intel, Apple assures itself that not only will it get the high-end processors it wants, but it can also tap into the last generation as it becomes "Celeronized" and drive the cost of the low end down over time.

B

 

[After G]

Not true. As an individual you can purchase computers through Dell Small Business and still get the same level of service as mentioned. Btw I do consider the pricing of Applecare to be "Through the nose".

Cost of MBP: A$3199
Cost of Applecare: AA$579.00

Almost $600 for a $3000 laptop? That's almost 20% on top of the price of an overpriced computer!

I will concede that $436 U.S. is a lot for Applecare.

However, I will show you that Applecare is a reasonable price, at least in the U.S.

In the U.S., Applecare is $349 for a Macbook Pro/Powerbook. The most expensive Applecare. Applecare is three years of repairs and three years of phone support.

Dell Business support is cheaper than Applecare, at least at a first glance, at $238 for 3 years. I looked at the cheapest P.O.S Dell laptop there is (the special).

Business support, however, does not include phone support, and when you include it you get past the Apple price. $238 for 3 yr Business support + $149 for 13 months phone support = $387. So Apple is still cheaper, and gives you more. I would look at Australian laws to see why there is such a price jump for Applecare, and Apple stuff in general.

For a fair analysis, I would like to know the specs of the MBP that you quoted to see why the price is so much higher in Australia (U.S. $2412). I am willing to do my homework to save money.

 

[someguy]

What do you think a Mini Cooper is?

Ugly.

 

[Rocksaurus]

I think a $200-$300 Mac is a fantastic idea. Comparing a car company to a computer company (BMW + Apple) is ridiculous. The OS industry is somewhat unique due to compatibility issues. As much as I love the idea of Apple being this prestigious brand that makes high quality computers, I think selling a cheap computer to increase market share would not only benefit the company but benefit us Mac users. The more people that switch, the more software is made for our platform. The more software that's compatible with Mac OS X and the more people using Mac OS X, the more switchers we will get. And so on. Compatibility/Network effects snowball. That's why M$ dominates the market. Most people (~90%?) would rather settle for a junky OS as long as it ensures them compatibility. Ironically, that's M$'s problem now with Vista - ensuring this massive amount of compatibility while making a new, more advanced, still stable OS.

 

[balamw]

The more people that switch, the more software is made for our platform. The more software that's compatible with Mac OS X and the more people using Mac OS X, the more switchers we will get.

I don't think the Apple/BMW analogy is that far off. Both companies are perceived as premium products, presenting good value yet at a premium price. Neither company seems out to dominate their principal market, but Apple has become the dominant player in iPods and BMW is reaching out to a wider audience with their Mini Coopers (regardless of how ugly someguy thinks they are.

Re: compatibility, Apple has taken a very dfferent tack than Microsoft in this area, in one part because they could, due to smaller market share. They have handled major transitions in the platform (68K->PPC, OS9->OSX, PPC->Intel) not afraid to break compatibility, but yet providing a backwards compatibility sandbox for users to keep using their last generation software. Microsoft seems hell bent on supporting as much as they can without sandboxes, which leads them to keep lots of old code around and drop substantial features from their latest OS releases.

B

 

[Rocksaurus]

I don't think the Apple/BMW analogy is that far off. Both companies are perceived as premium products, presenting good value yet at a premium price. Neither company seems out to dominate their principal market, but Apple has become the dominant player in iPods and BMW is reaching out to a wider audience with their Mini Coopers (regardless of how ugly someguy thinks they are.

Re: compatibility, Apple has taken a very dfferent tack than Microsoft in this area, in one part because they could, due to smaller market share. They have handled major transitions in the platform (68K->PPC, OS9->OSX, PPC->Intel) not afraid to break compatibility, but yet providing a backwards compatibility sandbox for users to keep using their last generation software. Microsoft seems hell bent on supporting as much as they can without sandboxes, which leads them to keep lots of old code around and drop substantial features from their latest OS releases.

B

All I was trying to say is that the market for cars and the market for personal computers is very different. With compatibility/network effects a company in the computer market can gain marketshare very fast, and marketshare begets marketshare due to compatibility effects. In the car market everyone's got a small market share, and thus pretty much every car company is in some way a niche company. If a lot of people start buying BMWs, their purchases will not compel more people to buy BMWs. There are a lot of similarities in how they do business, I'm not arguing with that, but my entire point is that since they're in completely different markets, it's kind of ridiculous to say that Apple should continue to behave like BMW because, "hey, it works for BMW!". Sure, it does work for Apple, too. They're rich as hell. But, they have a chance to be richer, and bigger. Lots of people are sick of Windows, and you can dual boot them now, so a lot of the risk of switching is gone. Why not cater to the low-end market more aggressively? The more market share you get now, the more you'll get later.

 

[matticus008]

I don't think the Apple/BMW analogy is that far off. Both companies are perceived as premium products, presenting good value yet at a premium price.

And to carry your explanation a bit further, they're both members of industries where there's more to consider than the raw hardware--and the car industry provides an opportunity for Apple.

Even relatively cheap, low end cars today come equipped with engines and drivetrains that work perfectly well for what everyone needs them to do. Toyota can manufacture a complete line of vehicles at reasonable prices, some with towing capabilities, some that struggle with steep hills, etc. Their Lexus vehicles don't necessarily have parts that are different than a similar Toyota's, but the car is more expensive. Better fit and finish, more creature comforts, little touches and niceties that aren't strictly required, and a higher investment in aesthetic design (though all car companies have to compete aesthetically in a way that computer companies do not) make it a Lexus.

Mercedes' recent quality control issues show that any mass produced upscale product can suffer, regardless of the price. To say that Lincoln, BMW, Audi, etc. don't ship lemons would also be a lie. The failure rate of Toyotas and Lexuses might be exactly the same--does that mean that a Lexus isn't of higher quality? It depends on your understanding of the word, I suppose.

Dell runs the line from Kia to Toyota. Apple builds in the Lexus line. I think that if people want affordable OS X computers that Apple should spin off a subsidiary and strip down the machines. No Jonathan Ive, no iLife included, no artful packaging. Just a lean, mean OS X machine, without an Apple logo on it, so as to avoid muddying the Apple image, but still controlled by Apple, to keep OS X from being licensed. They could never match Dell's prices (no one can, that's why Dell is so big), but they could unleash a headless box for $299 (Celeron, no display, no keyboard, no mouse, no wireless) that ran OS X Tiger (whereas Apple's computers would be running Leopard; this is to keep OS development costs in check).

People could upgrade the systems with the current version of OS X if they'd like ($129; like upgrading from Home to Pro in the PC market), add iLife ($79), add third-party interface items (like the Mac mini; variable pricing), and add USB, Firewire, and maybe even PCIe accessories that supported OS X. Those with a thirst for a cheap, Internet "Mac" would be met, but everything that distinguishes an Apple computer would be stripped away to maintain the differentiation. Once people did the upgrade math on these "Oranges" they'd see a comparable Apple machine would be only marginally more and have the nicer design and some special touches (Front Row, for example).

That's the best way I can see for Apple to meet this obvious demand while still saving face and not upsetting Mac traditionalists.

 

[matticus008]

Why not cater to the low-end market more aggressively? The more market share you get now, the more you'll get later.

No, because the "low end" customers will always follow the low end and have no loyalty to anything but the dollar, and pissing off your high end customers by muddying your brand and abandoning your core customers will ultimately leave you with no customers. If BMW tried to reach out the the low-end market (I'm talking the Honda Civic market here, not the mini S market), there would be a tremendous revolt and if it failed to hold onto those low-end customers, there'd be nothing to go back to--the company would fold.

 

[generik]

I will concede that $436 U.S. is a lot for Applecare.

However, I will show you that Applecare is a reasonable price, at least in the U.S.

In the U.S., Applecare is $349 for a Macbook Pro/Powerbook. The most expensive Applecare. Applecare is three years of repairs and three years of phone support.

Dell Business support is cheaper than Applecare, at least at a first glance, at $238 for 3 years. I looked at the cheapest P.O.S Dell laptop there is (the special).

Business support, however, does not include phone support, and when you include it you get past the Apple price. $238 for 3 yr Business support + $149 for 13 months phone support = $387. So Apple is still cheaper, and gives you more. I would look at Australian laws to see why there is such a price jump for Applecare, and Apple stuff in general.

For a fair analysis, I would like to know the specs of the MBP that you quoted to see why the price is so much higher in Australia (U.S. $2412). I am willing to do my homework to save money.

Seems like you Americans really have it good. Is it possible to buy the Applecare package from the US and use it in other countries?

 

[matticus008]

Seems like you Americans really have it good. Is it possible to buy the Applecare package from the US and use it in other countries?

There's a markup for the fact that you're an overseas customer (same as there's a markup when people in North America want to buy from Europe or Aus/NZ).

If you take a 10% international markup (typical for administrative/logistic/currency stabilization purposes) and a 15% VAT, that's a price increase of 25% over the US dollar American price, which is exactly what you see in the 436 quoted price. I thought Australia's VAT was 10%, though, so you're still seeing a 5% price difference if that's the case...

As far as I know, AppleCare on notebook computers is good internationally but desktop AppleCare is good only for the country where purchased.

 

[Rocksaurus]

No, because the "low end" customers will always follow the low end and have no loyalty to anything but the dollar, and pissing off your high end customers by muddying your brand and abandoning your core customers will ultimately leave you with no customers. If BMW tried to reach out the the low-end market (I'm talking the Honda Civic market here, not the mini S market), there would be a tremendous revolt and if it failed to hold onto those low-end customers, there'd be nothing to go back to--the company would fold.

Oh, I see. If you get a ton of low end switchers and increase your market share rapidly and attract a lot of Mac developers along the way, and these low end switchers purchase this Mac Software AND can run their Windows software, the cost to them of switching BACK to the Windows only machine is greater due to the software they own (for Mac) that they would either have to repurchase or just abandon (See: Compatibility effects - it's pretty much all I've been talking about), and thus Apple captures marketshare much like Microsoft does, through compatibility and options galore. I guess I'm totally wrong though.

Did I mention how hard it is to piss off Apple's core customers to the point that they abandon Apple? I mean, selling an ultra low-end model would piss me off a lot less than, oh, I don't know, putting integrated graphics in their other machines, which they have and may continue to do, and I haven't abandoned them Plus, if it increases marketshare and attracts developers, isn't that good for the incumbent users?

 

[mark!]

I think that those $200 are pieces of crap & take up my whole entire living room.

 

[dr_lha]

understood, but I don't think you understood.

I did fully understand.

I'm just sick of posts comparing prices/position of Apple computers to Dells. Its the most annoying thing about this Intel switch, that suddenly people think Apple should be selling $200 computers.

 

[notjustjay]

Did I mention how hard it is to piss off Apple's core customers to the point that they abandon Apple?

Gee, it seems like every day someone on these forums is abandoning Apple and switching back to Dell after Apple makes a marketing decision they didn't agree with...

 

[matticus008]

and these low end switchers purchase this Mac Software AND can run their Windows software, the cost to them of switching BACK to the Windows only machine is greater due to the software they own (for Mac) that they would either have to repurchase or just abandon (See: Compatibility effects - it's pretty much all I've been talking about)

You're assuming that they don't mind repurchasing all their Windows software to begin with. Assuming that they will buy software to switch TO Mac but won't switch BACK to Windows isn't a sound assumption (especially because they can go back to using their Windows software and either way, upgrading every few years is going to cost money). The "compatibility effects" you're talking about are a barrier to first time switchers, and not similarly a barrier to switching back to Windows.

and thus Apple captures marketshare much like Microsoft does, through compatibility and options galore. I guess I'm totally wrong though.

That's not how Microsoft captured market share. It's part of how they maintain it, nothing more. So yeah, pretty much totally wrong, not that there's anything wrong with being wrong.

Did I mention how hard it is to piss off Apple's core customers to the point that they abandon Apple?

As soon as quality is compromised for quantity, that's when a big chunk of customers jump ship. There's an expectation of longtime Mac users of being an elite niche group; even for those who don't care about the Apple image, the launch of low-price Macs means instant, momentous devaluing of all other Apple computers and blows the typical Mac user upgrade plan out of the water.

Plus, if it increases marketshare and attracts developers, isn't that good for the incumbent users?

How is greater market share good for users in general? Smaller share and a narrower focus is better than Apple trying to over-reach and start running into more intense QC and compatibility problems. Apple is a much smaller company than Microsoft, covering a much more diverse set of responsibilities. I'm also not sure how you're going to convince mid-level developers to switch. None of the major companies will likely budge if they're not already involved in OS X. The middle ones that have some sway over the platform don't have the resources to do things twice--not unless OS X can come close to 50% market share (it can't in any near future possible timeline). The small ones are already there and doing great work in their platform of choice.

There is a benefit to reaching more users and there is also a positive gain in developers, but the loss of old customers means that these gains are non-sustainable and are at best a horizontal shuffling and at worst a net LOSS of customers.

 

[nitynate]

You can do it eeeeeeeeeeebay.