You’re missing the point. It has nothing to do with over-designing, over-engineering, design costs, etc. Like I said, BOM cost is only a portion of the selling price. You can’t put together a parts list of $3,000 and say that’s would Apple should sell it for.
That makes as much sense as saying Kellogg’s only has 17¢ worth of rice and sugar in a box of Rice Krispies, so it should be selling for 17¢ on the grocery shelf instead of $3.99. You can’t ignore the costs of manufacturing, advertising, transportation, etc. That parts list that totals $3k is a $5,500 box if Apple sells it.
Apple is a huge company and it has huge expenses. It’s not going to make you a cut-down version of the $6k Mac Pro, sell it for $3k, and lose $2k+ on every box. That would be foolish.
Apple’s costs are what they are, and they don’t try to compete in markets where they can’t be competitive—whether that’s a $100 or $200 iPhone or a $3k Mac Pro mini. You just wanting one isn’t enough. It’s a loser product for Apple, and they’re not going to make it.
sir, it is you completely epicly missing the point.
it's like you've read 1 line from my post and decided to go spew out immediate "BUT YOUR WRONG APPLE IS ALWAYS RIGHT!"
i'm not discounting, or saying what you're saying is wrong. Only that from a price to performance perspective, you can absolutely get far better value than what Apple is able to offer because of the costs they have associated on paper to this device.
those costs being allocated as part of the pricing is IMHO a mistake. if Apple ended up having so much overhead to releasing this machine that the low end models require a $3000 premium on price. Than there is a fundamental problem in cost allocation.
I don't think a company like Apple is going to be the lowest price point. That would be unreasonable because yes there are other costs associated with any product release. you're not telling anything that anyone doesn't know.
What I'm saying is that if Apple here is barely breaking even on those costs which force them to have price points that are 2x that of retail price points of the parts themselves, than there's a serious problem in Apple's ability to deliver based on their overhead.
Ina ddition, if you think apple is breaking even on their costs than you're delusional. There is absolutely costs and profit margins associated in that pricing.
Especially when you can get custom built PC's already pre-built from a few manufacturers with the performance / parts I listed for 2-3k cheaper than the Mac Pro.
so again: the Reasons WHY Apple is charging 2x the price isn't the point I'm trying to make. I'm just trying to point out that regardless of those reasons, they're still coming in at a high premium that will be hard for those looking for that specific segment to stomach. Apple will have to justify to users why $2000-$3000 price premium offers them compelling value.
To me, as a consumer and not apple investor, or fanboy, is not sold on the excuses you are providing, because those excuses don't provide me, the consumer any value.
The Sum of the parts do not equal what they're selling. Essentially, by having such high engineering and BOM costs downloaded to the consumer, Apple may have priced themselves too high for that specific segment. This is what I mean by over-engineering. they've designed a solution for the highest end, that pushes the lowest end costs up higher than what would be generally considered reasonable for that performance segment.
[automerge]1576179932[/automerge]
Uh... and you have cleaned out those loops sometime in the past decade... r-right?
[automerge]1576179616[/automerge]
So the big thing for me is that you went with a Ryzen system. It's not Apple's fault they married Intel back when Intel was good and AMD not so much. 😉
To be clear I'm not disagreeing with your point. Just chiming in with the obligatory-for-2019 mocking of Intel's CPUs.
I have nothing wrong with Intel. they have some really good stuff.
But AMD with Ryzen 3 generation has absolutel leapfrogged Intel in just about all metrics. Part of their Zen2 architecture, and additional node process changes (on 7um I believe, with 5um coming soon). Where intell has been stuck on the larger process for a few years and haven't had any core design changes (they've essentially released the same chips for the last 3 gens)
by catching up on IPC with Intel, Zen2's lower cost. Lower TDP's, Higher core counts, unlocked CPUs, PCI-4.0 support. It's almost impossible to match their performance and features with intel in the time being. And where Intel does match in performance/ features, they come in at significantly higher prices.
One additional reason I did AMD in that comparison is for feature sets as well. unlike intel, ALL RyZen chips are Unlocked multiplier, and ECC compatible.
