Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Should be Embarrassed About Mac Pricing

Having jumped into this discussion late, I had the misfortune of reading all 4 pages.

Basically these are the points I would like to make:

  • The thread starter is correct in his opinion.
  • Apple needs to update the Mac Mini at least.
  • Apple is only price competitive at the high end with the MacPro.
  • If Apple were serious about gaining more market share they would make more of an effort to get more games on their machines along with a wider range of graphics cards.
 
iW00t said:
How convenient, you are neglecting the fact that Vista has way more features than Tiger can ever dream of (read: Blu-ray/HD-DVD/HDMI support). Oh, and the 20" monitor is comparable to the "monitor" that comes with a Mac Mini.

You are getting more with the Dell, a lot more, I don't see why paying a little more is such a nasty thing.
Click to expand...
And on what machine in that price range can you configure it with a video card that supports HDMI/HDCP?
 
Eidorian said:
The HP Pavilion Slimline s3000y series now has a desktop processor shoved into it now.
Click to expand...
I know you were just stating that there is a smaller model out there, but for anyone interested in how it prices out, ....

Code: 
price  	$739.99  	*
instant savings 	− $50.00
price after rebate 	$689.99

Genuine Windows Vista(TM) Home Basic  	
Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6300 (1.86GHz) 	
160GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive 	
512MB DDR2-533MHz dual channel SDRAM (2x256) 	
LightScribe 16X DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive 	
15-in-1 memory card reader, USB, headphone port 	
802.11 b/g USB Wireless LAN card 	
Integrated Intel(R) 950 	
Integrated 7.1 channel sound w/front audio ports 	
HP keyboard and HP scroller mouse 	
Microsoft(R) Works 8.0

"Super Compact"
s3000chassis_400.jpg
 
aristobrat said:
I know you were just stating that there is a smaller model out there, but for anyone interested in how it prices out, ....

Code: 
price  	$739.99  	*
instant savings 	− $50.00
price after rebate 	$689.99

Genuine Windows Vista(TM) Home Basic  	
Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6300 (1.86GHz) 	
160GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive 	
512MB DDR2-533MHz dual channel SDRAM (2x256) 	
LightScribe 16X DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive 	
15-in-1 memory card reader, USB, headphone port 	
802.11 b/g USB Wireless LAN card 	
Integrated Intel(R) 950 	
Integrated 7.1 channel sound w/front audio ports 	
HP keyboard and HP scroller mouse 	
Microsoft(R) Works 8.0

"Super Compact"
s3000chassis_400.jpg
Click to expand...
The optical drive alone is bigger then a Mac mini (in length and almost in width) but there are very few SFF computers in the "PC" world other then the Mac mini. The E4300 would have been more then enough as well.
 
Sure, apple's machines may be more expensive than others, but what you're getting is better value for money anyway (OS X on very reliable hardware). I don't see the point of the post regarding the need to have the latest and greatest at any given time.

Personally speaking, my imac G5 is a fine machine, and I mean this in three ways
-It looked to me fine for what I thought I wanted to do with it at the time I bought it
-It proved to be fine for what I actually wanted to do with it after I bought it,
-It will probably be fine for anything I can imagine wanting to do with it in the foreseeable future.

This means that over the past two years my needs as a user have not changed substantially. Given that experience, they are also not likely to change much in the future. So apple was offering a machine that suited my needs back then, it's still performing very very well today, and it's likely to do so in the future (until the machine inevitably ages).

I don't see why my case is likely to differ from any other.

So if you really want to get a mac, what you need to do is stop whining about what processors and other stuff apple puts into their machines and how they price them, think seriously about your needs and choose carefully between what apple has to offer at any given point. The chances are you going to be very happy for quite a long time with the machine you will get.
 
Another late comer here, so bear with me...

Why is anyone still buying into the myth that Dells are always cheaper than Macs? They're not. Yes, you can always find a Dell that's cheaper than a Mac, but there's alwaysa trade-off (computer and monitor are separate, casing is a little cheaper, no spyware/adware removal tools, compromise on the OS, blah blah blah).

But ultimately, who f***ing cares? If you want something that's cheap, go buy a Dell. If you want an Apple, buy an Apple. No one will fault you either way.

And, on a sidenote, why is no one talking about how much more trouble it is to configure a Dell? Took me 10 minutes just to get through the customization "wizard" to get a Dell that's even moderately close to what comes with an iMac. Surely that counts for something :)
 
iW00t said:
What about you? What data do you have?



Bravo, a honest opinion.



Or perhaps they are just smart enough to know they are being fleeced. Please explain to me why the price on a computer, any computer, should stay the same for 8 months.

It was already outdated when it first came out, now with Core 2 Duos being so common it is ridiculously outdated.
Click to expand...

ridiculously by what standard of determination, performance? Sorry, you need to do some more research into benchmarks for those minor differences in speed increases btw the 2 CD & C2D, it has been hashed out on MR forums in countless threads already.

What makes more sense is for Apple to update the Mac Mini with the Santa Rosa chipset & C2D, because of the significant (morese than CPU speed bump) performance increase with the new integrated GPU with that chipset. Sure is would be nice to have lots of GPU options and HD & SSD options, and multiple res. choices on the Apple laptops, but Apple doesn't work that way at present. They probably maximize profits by purchasing in bulk (not that they get the huge discounts that someone like Dell does from Intel) and not giving you lots of choices.

Yes, Apple tries to operate on higher profit margins, being a niche player; nothing new about that....move along, by the cheaper PC that uses mostly the same parts at the Apple does, is manufacturered mostly be the same Chinese companies, stop your bitchin; it's all about marketing CD vs. C2D, not a huge difference except that CD's are priced lower than C2D's (more profit margins for Apple...Apple stock is at what price right now :D, same with that integrated GPU vs. separate from Nvidia or ATI ;) ). Everyone seems to bitch about how the iPod is too expensive compared to similar MP3 players, and I'm sure we'll hear the same about the silly iPhone...but then Apple will sell alot of them, and make more money(profits), and the stock price will go up :). Yeah, you know those expensive basketball shoes just aren't worth it, neither is Gucchi---stop bying all those fashionable consumer products. Victoria's Secret doesn't make any better panties & bras, but they sure do have hot looking supermodels in their adverts...must buy them, because?
 
iW00t said:
Or perhaps they are just smart enough to know they are being fleeced. Please explain to me why the price on a computer, any computer, should stay the same for 8 months.

It was already outdated when it first came out, now with Core 2 Duos being so common it is ridiculously outdated.
Click to expand...
Where is it written that Apple should lower their prices? That is like saying Mercedes-Benz or BMW or Lexus should lower their prices each new model. I could care less about the price, as long as it does what it is supposed to do. I think people are forgetting that there are many things PCs lack when bought, mainly a decent OS and easy to use software. Apple runs a business to make a profit, that is goal number one in any business.
 
Rather than read four pages, I'll pick on you a bit. Don't take it personal. ;)

CrackedButter said:
Having jumped into this discussion late, I had the misfortune of reading all 4 pages.

Basically these are the points I would like to make:

  • The thread starter is correct in his opinion.
  • Apple needs to update the Mac Mini at least.
  • Apple is only price competitive at the high end with the MacPro.
  • If Apple were serious about gaining more market share they would make more of an effort to get more games on their machines along with a wider range of graphics cards.
Click to expand...

The OP was correct that Apple's upgrade cycle is not the same as the rest of the PC industry, who are all slaves to the smallest upgrade urge. Apple could be a little faster to adopt new hardware, but they've only just started. Maybe in a year we'll be in a better position to judge how Apple has adjusted to the Intel world in terms of upgrade cycles.

I want to see more video cards myself, but in reality the GPU market is awash with useless models, many of which are only very very slightly different from one another. Apple should offer more video cards, but they do not need to match the PC industry by offering 100 different "models".

Pricewise most Macs are still competitive IMHO - remember also that they come with and iLife.
 
You guys seem to forget that mobile processors are not costing the same as their equivalent desktop processors.

You also pay for form factor.
 
CrackedButter said:
Having jumped into this discussion late, I had the misfortune of reading all 4 pages.

Basically these are the points I would like to make:

  • The thread starter is correct in his opinion.
  • Apple needs to update the Mac Mini at least.
  • Apple is only price competitive at the high end with the MacPro.
  • If Apple were serious about gaining more market share they would make more of an effort to get more games on their machines along with a wider range of graphics cards.
Click to expand...

While apple may be price competitive at the mac pro, i still believe it is an insane amount of money for someone that wants a true desktop compuuter.

1. where is apples desktop mac.. like the mac pro, only alot cheaper in the 1300-1500$$ area.

2. where is apples consumer notebook with a 15-inch screen.

it doesnt make sense to force people to

1. pay more for a 15 inc MBP, when they dont need the powere but want the screen.

2. pay more for a mac pro when they dont need the power but like being able to expand their system more freely.
 
Pressure said:
You guys seem to forget that mobile processors are not costing the same as their equivalent desktop processors.

You also pay for form factor.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Every Mac other than the Mac Pros use Intel's "mobile" cpus (Socket M), which can mean a considerable difference in price.

Socket M, e.g., "mobile" cpus: current street price for a Intel Core 2 Duo T7400 Merom 2.16GHz w/4MB L2 cache = ~$450.

Socket T (LGA 775), e.g., "desktop" cpus: current street price for Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 Conroe 2.13GHz w/4MB L2 cache = ~$200.

WannaGoMac said:
Here is the Dell desktop specials link I used. Select 9200 and customize.

http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/hot_offers_dt?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
Click to expand...

That Dell isn't bad (for a Dell), but it's configuration isn't truly "up to date." So, anyone could bash this Dell's configuration, as easily as they could a given Mac.

For example: This particular Dell doesn't offer Intel's E4400, E6420, E6320 cpus as a choice; cpus just released by Intel that are just now becoming available @ NewEgg and other online vendors. These processors offer more bang for the buck, with greater clock speeds and L2 cache sizes, etc.

The moral? Virtually no PC manufacturer is able to offer "the latest and greatest" simply because of the manufacturing process.
 
Its been said already, but I'll chime in too.

Sometimes I think to myself, why doesnt Apple go for all the same day to day upgrades that others do?

When you think about it though, they are the ONLY computer manufacturer that subscribes to a completely different model than the others.

Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer etc.... they all have the EXACT same competition model: they sell computers that differ only by UPC number on the box. They all run the same OS. There is nothing by which the consumer has to differentiate each model, other than by obscure components here and there:

dell 1243453 has C2D with XYZ components

Toshiba xclvdfj has CDuo with ZXV components....


Apple on the other hand, markets its computers categorically because they largely compete with each other! Each model of Apple computer is competing with marketshare from the other, rather than against the offerings of another manufacturer.

That being said, you can really break it down to a couple of reasons why Apple doesnt upgrade components daily:

1- because they compete only with each other, they don't have the same cutthroat environment (some might say they are allowed to be more lazy with their upgrade cycles)

2- They only have to upgrade when technology makes significant leaps. Apple tends to jump right on board when a new technology becomes VIABLE in their opinion. Notable examples?

Apple was very much the first mainstream company to eliminate floppy drives and jump for an entirely optical/flash based lineup. Sometimes they have misjudged the market also. Anyone remember how long it took apple to start releasing cd burners in their consumer lineup?

So if anyones wondering why Apple doesnt offer HD DVD or Blu Ray drives in their Mac Pro's, let alone in the Mini or iMac - its all very simple! Neither format is viable yet. If anyone so truly needs, they can purchase an aftermarket drive for their mac pro, then they absorb the risk of the format crashing.

Back to upgrades, like another poster said earlier Apple is an experience. They make their computers and OS integrated very very tightly unlike Dell HP or Toshiba. So when the iMac is designed as an emailing, web surfing, iLifing machine, Apple is not inclined to "upgrade" the technology in it until something comes along to challenge the overall experience. 98% of mac mini buyers arn't going to benefit from the 2% increase in video coding efficiency that stuffing a C2D in it would offer.

They do, however, run the risk of cannibalizing iMac sales, or vice versa.

its a long read, but its a big subject area...
 
ericsthename said:
98% of mac mini buyers arn't going to benefit from the 2% increase in video coding efficiency that stuffing a C2D in it would offer.
Click to expand...

First, wonderful response. I really enjoyed reading it! Thanks for contributing to the thread! :)

Agreed, then Apple should have configured the Mac Mini with 1gb of ram by now to offset the price decrease. Also, it makes the Mini MUCH nicer to use. I read a few reviews at Amazon about how the Mini was slow. The reason, the reviewers were using the stock 512mb of ram!

YoYoMa said:
I love this line. It is exactly the point.
Click to expand...

Me too! That's exactly the point!!
 
Dane D. said:
Where is it written that Apple should lower their prices? That is like saying Mercedes-Benz or BMW or Lexus should lower their prices each new model. I could care less about the price, as long as it does what it is supposed to do. I think people are forgetting that there are many things PCs lack when bought, mainly a decent OS and easy to use software. Apple runs a business to make a profit, that is goal number one in any business.
Click to expand...

Yo, that's, "couldn't care less". Learn to speak properly.

direzz said:
While apple may be price competitive at the mac pro, i still believe it is an insane amount of money for someone that wants a true desktop compuuter.

1. where is apples desktop mac.. like the mac pro, only alot cheaper in the 1300-1500$$ area.

2. where is apples consumer notebook with a 15-inch screen.

it doesnt make sense to force people to

1. pay more for a 15 inc MBP, when they dont need the powere but want the screen.

2. pay more for a mac pro when they dont need the power but like being able to expand their system more freely.
Click to expand...

Some of those points I hadn't realised, there are holes in the product matrix, this is even worse, kinda. Apple don't seem to mind for the moment.
 
Say hello to Capitalism. Apple has a fiduciary duty to its stock holders to maximize profits. The components Apple uses and the prices they charge are secondary to the main goal which is to make as much money as possible. If they didn't do this, they would be sued into bankruptcy.

On the other hand, Apple has no responsibility to you, the stand-alone would-be buyer. They have no obligation to lower the price of their 9 month old product when one of their suppliers reduces the cost of a component. As long as sales are holding, why would they? Now if there were enough of you of like-mind who disagreed enough to actually buy a Dell instead of paying the Apple-tax, then they would have to reevaluate.
 
Abstract said:
I'm going to give the OP a break and agree with him about the Mini. Before the update 8 months ago, it was in dire need of an update. After the update, it was still behind the competition because everything was moving to C2D. The Mini has always been the ONE machine that I felt was lagging behind ---- ever since the move from Intel. Anyone remember the Core Solo it first used?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Just wanted to point out, does anyone remember when the mini first came out, it was a G4? and then it was momentarily caught up, but now it's back to being one gen behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back