Re: Re: i hate steve jobs
Originally posted by rjstanford
I look forward to the day when most Mac users can admit, "You know, Windows XP on modern hardware is a pretty nice OS, with some pretty impressive performance at a very competitive price," and can then add, honestly, "But OSX on a new Mac is nicer, faster, and smoother. Its a little more expensive, but TCO is lower because of A, B, and C. Check it out!"
That would be great if Windows XP actually was a pretty nice OS. it's better than Windows 98, but it's still, at least in terms of the user interface, a horrible, horrible OS, which is aesthetically and functionally crappy. So, no, don't look for me to "admit" that XP is a good operating system. For many applications, it is...sufficient. But hardly great.
Originally posted by soggywulf
Can you give me an example of this? I do not recall any time (other than Mac clones) when Macs were price/performance competitive with PCs. I'm not just talking about hi-margin PCs, but pre-built PCs in general.
The Power Mac G3 Blue and White started at $1599 and went from a 300 to 400 MHz G3, which outperformed anything in the Pentium market. The iMac was 233 MHz and $1299. The beige G3 before those was also relatively competitive. Apple did not compete on the ultra-low end, but where Apple did compete, the ratio of price to performance was better, simply because of Apple's superior performance.
Originally posted by soggywulf
I introduced the clone theme as an example of a time when Macs were price/performance competitve, and people I knew actually were getting interested in them. Then the clones died, and price/performance went up, and a lot of potential switcher interest was lost. The clones are not the point--the price/performance and the swichers are.
Licensing lasted from 1995 to 1997, a period of time in which Apple's market share and sales decreased and Apple almost went bankrupt as a company. They did not gain many switchers.
Originally posted by soggywulf
Yes I absolutely agree that they should go down, in fact that was my whole point in starting this line of discussion! Whether or not Apple actually does this is another matter. Releasing G4 Powerbooks at the same price points at this time would be an example of not following your sage advice.
With a ratio of price to overall system quality, Apple is very competitive. Raw performance, which is rarely important to most users, is lagging behind, but the transition to a G5-based line in the near future will eliminate that problem.
Originally posted by soggywulf
A cost premium whose worth most people won't find out about because they won't switch because of the high prices. A stagnant circle. There are two sources for higher Mac prices--single hardware vendor, and the added value of OSX (and aluminum cases and that kind of stuff). What I am saying is that Apple should cut down on the margins they get from the former for a while to get switchers, and then when marketshare is high enough and enough people see the worth of OSX and developers aren't scared of the Mac, they can raise prices again if they want. The G5 desktop is IMO a step in the right direction. Pretty decent price for the performance (although the actual performance is something we will have to see as more people get their machines. I don't trust the benchmarks).
The Power Mac G5 prices are even HIGHER than they otherwise would be to account for the R&D involved in developing the advanced architecture! If that's what you consider an example of good price-performance, just wait until the G5 goes across the entire product line!
In any case, Apple will gain switchers despite the price premium, because Apple is worth the price premium. Switchers will learn that, and will gladly pay that premium just like the rest of us do. Yes, it cuts down on the number of people who will switch, but probably not all that much, all things considered. Much as we would all like cheaper Macs, Apple really can't cut the prices that much, so they wouldn't gain very much by cutting prices.
Originally posted by soggywulf
This is true for things other than games. I will give you a small example. Behringer provides some really nice control software for their Audio DSPs. Wish I could use the iBook to configure these processors--but no dice. PC-only.
Again, there's no magic involved here. If some software takes a lot of resources to develop, or if a particular developer doesn't have nearly twice the resources to spend on a product, they will think twice about making the Mac version. And if the Mac version does come out, it will likely have a higher price to offset the low volume. This problem is a direct consequsence of low market share. And it is a problem that causes people to think twice about buying a Mac. A vicious cycle.
One that only exists in small and specific markets. There is no Mac version of AutoCAD either. But Apple can't go wildly after every single market. They are and have been for years a niche supplier, and that will undoubtedly continue.
