Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
apple computers and their cost...
- Thread starter atacinus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks... this is a more complete view of it: guitar collectionMav451 said:groove, that is a real nice guitar collection you got there
I am not just a collector, I was a pro and I am still playing regularly. Just last weekend I had a studio job.
It was just that music couldn't feed a whole family and so I concentrated on my second "set of skills"... fiddling with computers in "different ways"... groovebuster
Do PC's or Mac's last longer? All the personal testimony you can make doesn't quite add up to anything, as far as a reflection of the truth-anybody who's ever taken a statistics class should know that. Either could be true, and any one person could still have experiences vastly leaning towards one conclusion or another. And, it's REALLY not going to mean anyhing here, as this crowd does not constitute a SRS.
So, anybody seen any study on it?
The one thing I will permit is that apple software is on the whole more reliable, and it had better be, given how much more closed the apple system is than the PC world. The OS, of course, is the prime example.
So, anybody seen any study on it?
The one thing I will permit is that apple software is on the whole more reliable, and it had better be, given how much more closed the apple system is than the PC world. The OS, of course, is the prime example.
dontmatter said:
Back about 5 years ago the Gartner group did a study about total cost of ownership that involved statistics on average length of computer rebuying. PC's had a 2-3 year average age. Mac's were 4-5. I don't know if thats still true, but at the very least it used to be.
Krizoitz said:
Its a bit dated to be considered relevant these days. I suggest that its likely that both systems have a bit more time on them these days, and the gartner study was pre OSX if you say 1999, so Macs are pretty different these days.
atacinus said:
First, and no offense, but selling a computer does not indicate that you understand any of the economics that goes into developing, manufacturing, and selling a computer. This may not be the best preliminary statement for this discussion, Best Buy is a totally different story than a Mom-n-Pop store as well.
But, I digress, Apple must make a larger markup because it sells fewer computers and cannot spread the costs of manufacturing and R&D across a wider breadth of systems.
Furthemore, Dell is a terrible model to use for computer manufacturing, much less the total system development or 'whole widget' that Apple does. Dell has special deals with Microsoft and Intel, therefore it pays less for those two components than HP/Compaq, Acer, Toshiba, etc. Secondly, Dell has been known to squeeze out componant manufacturers by refusing what would be considered fair prices, they buy chips, Mobos, heat-sinks, etc. at well below what others pay and they are able to do this only because of the shear numbers that they buy.
Dell is playing a dangerous game because either a revolt in manufacturers, or a change in the market will break this special hold and then their profit marginnarrow as it is, will be toast.
Dell does buy good components, but they also buy very cheap ones as well as they are never quite clear about what goes in what. Some Inspirons are known to have very cheap and poorly made heatsinks, some are excellent. Furthemore, Dell's R&D department in almost entirely devoted to making the distribution of machines cheaper and more efficient, but very little of this energy is made to improve the lot of the technology or the consumer.
But, the software included in every Macintosh, iLife, Safari, Mail, iCal, iSync, etc. is far better than the stuff typically included in the average Dell.
Finally, there is the issue of quality, and you can argue this forever, but ultimately if any computer is a tool, the more useful it is, the longer it lasts, the more helpful the customer services are, the more the tool is worth.
A Dell (or any PC) can be a quality machine, but not the bottom-basement prices that Dell advertises, their quality machines cost approximately as muchwithin 200-300.00or even more than equivalent Apple machines. Go price an Xserve versus Dell's servers, or a Powerbook versus the Inspiron (and an 8-pound 2-inch thick laptop is not equivalent to a 5-pound 1-inch thick one, that's just ridiculous.)
Plus, almost all PCs have the same achillies heel, they use Windows. And Windows sucks. Hard. Actually, Windows isn't that bad, and PC hardware can be pretty good, but I much prefer my Powerbook to the Dell I have at work. I was part of the decision to buy Dell because they gave us the best deal for our money, including a server, but we were very close to buying an Xserve.
The average consumer, the hobbyist and pro video/photo guys, and lots of others would benefit, in my opinion from buying a Mac regardless of the costs. A 'snobbish' view that Dells are such pieces of junk is wrongheaded, no matter how true it can be sometimes.
there's truth on both sides of the Apple cost issue
As I see it, you're right. R&D, fine engineering, attention to detail, software development and support, os development, retail store construction and operation, iTunes music store... all play into the cost of a computer company who's main function is to sell great computers. I don't disagree with this. BUT, I also think the original poster had a very valid point. The cost of Apple's computer aren't "directly" related to the factors mentioned above. Let me explain with a real life example directly from Apple themselves.
If you've been buying macs for longer than 4-5 years you'll surely remember this. Apple moved into the G4 and dropped production on many PPC models to help streamline their marketing efforts and cut down on the confusion of choosing a mac. They basically started their "good, better, best" pricing structure they still use today.
About 3 years back they came out with a dual G4 desktop if I remember correctly. They advertised it as their "best" machine for (I think) around $2500. Their previous "best" machine became their new "better" model ($2000) and their old "better" became their new "good" ($1500). This was common for Apple to "bump" the line each time a new "best" machine came along. Of course I don't remember all the pricing and models, but here's my main point.
After advertising the dual G4 in magazines and on their web store, and taking orders, they discovered that motorola couldn't deliver the cpu chips on time. Thus they had to postpone the launch of the "best" machine. But by then people had already order the "good, better, best" machines at the new prices.
Apple decided to "bump" the line back up to where it was BEFORE it had announced the the dual machine, AND BOOST ALL THE PRICING BACK UP for the "better and good" machines like nothing had ever happened. The mac community went crazy and complained like never before. And Apple decided to honor the pricing on the machines that had been ordered, but all new orders would be at the renewed pricing.
My point is, it was PURE MARKETING that dictated the pricing. What went in the machines was the same. The parts didn't change. The R&D didn't change. The quality or software didn't change. The only thing that changed was motorola's caused them to not have a "best" machine to fill the high end price slot, so Apple stuck their old previous "best" machine back in. It was very, very, very (did I say very?) clear to everyone that the pricing of macs WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO WHAT WAS IN THE BOX. It's related to marketing the machine within their "good, better, best" paradigm.
So you're BOTH correct. Apple CAN charge less or more at will with little bearing on the actual "direct" cost to develop/manufacturer the machine (once a threshold is passed) AND all of their other costs of doing business do in some way "indirectly" impact on mac pricing.
My 2.51 cents.
3rdKidney
As I see it, you're right. R&D, fine engineering, attention to detail, software development and support, os development, retail store construction and operation, iTunes music store... all play into the cost of a computer company who's main function is to sell great computers. I don't disagree with this. BUT, I also think the original poster had a very valid point. The cost of Apple's computer aren't "directly" related to the factors mentioned above. Let me explain with a real life example directly from Apple themselves.
If you've been buying macs for longer than 4-5 years you'll surely remember this. Apple moved into the G4 and dropped production on many PPC models to help streamline their marketing efforts and cut down on the confusion of choosing a mac. They basically started their "good, better, best" pricing structure they still use today.
About 3 years back they came out with a dual G4 desktop if I remember correctly. They advertised it as their "best" machine for (I think) around $2500. Their previous "best" machine became their new "better" model ($2000) and their old "better" became their new "good" ($1500). This was common for Apple to "bump" the line each time a new "best" machine came along. Of course I don't remember all the pricing and models, but here's my main point.
After advertising the dual G4 in magazines and on their web store, and taking orders, they discovered that motorola couldn't deliver the cpu chips on time. Thus they had to postpone the launch of the "best" machine. But by then people had already order the "good, better, best" machines at the new prices.
Apple decided to "bump" the line back up to where it was BEFORE it had announced the the dual machine, AND BOOST ALL THE PRICING BACK UP for the "better and good" machines like nothing had ever happened. The mac community went crazy and complained like never before. And Apple decided to honor the pricing on the machines that had been ordered, but all new orders would be at the renewed pricing.
My point is, it was PURE MARKETING that dictated the pricing. What went in the machines was the same. The parts didn't change. The R&D didn't change. The quality or software didn't change. The only thing that changed was motorola's caused them to not have a "best" machine to fill the high end price slot, so Apple stuck their old previous "best" machine back in. It was very, very, very (did I say very?) clear to everyone that the pricing of macs WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO WHAT WAS IN THE BOX. It's related to marketing the machine within their "good, better, best" paradigm.
So you're BOTH correct. Apple CAN charge less or more at will with little bearing on the actual "direct" cost to develop/manufacturer the machine (once a threshold is passed) AND all of their other costs of doing business do in some way "indirectly" impact on mac pricing.
My 2.51 cents.
3rdKidney
3rdKidney said:
I don't think anyone will argue with that Apple makes more profit per machine, than let say Dell, but that is because they sell significantly fewer computers than Dell. It's not because they are trying to rape their customers or anything. And in the situation you mentioned I could see Apple doing that "shuffle" in order to meet projected earnings. If Apple projects it's earnings based on selling x number of "good" machines, y number of "better" machines, and z number of "best" machines and all of a sudden they are not able to sell the "best" machines their projected earnings just blew up and they are f**ked if they don't do something (such as shuffle the product lines around). Apple has a lot of costs to cover (such as R&D) so they need to sell machines at specific price points to make sure they generate enought income to cover those costs. Dell, for example, has a lot more flexibility because they just assemble parts. Speaking in very simple terms, when you buy a Dell you are basically paying for the cost of the compents of the computer. When you buy a Mac you are paying for the cost of the compents of the computer + the cost case R&D + the cost of software R&D. A top end G5 isn't $3k because it has $3k worth of hardware. It's $3k because Apple needs to sell a computer at that price point in order to cover the R&D costs of both the hardware and the software.
I really hope that made at least some sense 'cause it's 1am here and I just got home from the bars...
Lethal
LethalWolfe said:
This is true. Me being a broke consumer and not a corporate financial analysis forget this "bottom line" thing. The truth is, we may all complain, but we all prefer to see Apple do well financially. I lived through years of every media reporter writing about how "Apple is going to die, real soon". They sang that song so much (even though Apple wasn't that bad off) that everyone believed them. Only a handful of people in Apple's camp and a smathering of consumers knew that this wasn't the case. As a matter of fact, Apple had plenty of money in the bank. Especially considering many PC manufacturers went belley up during that same period of time.
I remember back in 1998 (??) when MS forked over $1M to Apple for a "deal" they arranged. All the PC people were saying "MS is bailing out Apple. Bill Gates will save their butts." Of course this was the furthest thing from the truth. This $1M wasn't even sales tax on Apples inventory and assets. It was for a deal involving bringing MS software to the mac.
As a matter of fact, a few months after that Apple announced that they were building their own Apple Retail Stores. AND, they were FUNDING their design, construction, stocking, rental space, maintenance and operations out of their own pocket! They weren't seeking venture capitalist. They weren't taking out business loans. They were cracking open their "broke and dieing" piggy bank to self fund these $million+ EACH stores.
Point is, finally the media began to get it straight and reported based on Apple's actual value instead of simply repeating what everyone else was saying because it sold magazines and newspapers. Now we all get to feel a little bit of pride when Apple shows amazing growth and earnings. And of course they do this by keeping that bottom line (via system costs) up.
3rdKidney