Apple's 10-K Filing

[jamilecrire]

Duh, still OVERPRICED.

Why am I paying $2999 for a 1GHz Laptop? I bought a PC Laptop for $1500 a year ago with a 1.13GHz processor.

If Apple would A) release faster processors or B) would lower prices they would sell more.

When my company needs to generate more revenue we don't release an inferior product and then charge double our competitors! We do our best to match the competition and we lower our price (through temporary sales). You make make a lower ROI but your overall gain is more. Sometimes MORE IS MORE. If Apple wanted more than a 3% share of the market they need to price themselves so the other 97% can buy one.

Most people I know would try an Apple but when you can get a Dell for $1000 less that may not be as elegant but performs just as well (remember most people are used to the ****ty PC environment). No one is going to "switch". The only reason I use Mac's is I prefer them (and I can afford them).

$1000~1500 more for a TiBook is okay by me but for most people it's a second computer for their wife/kid or more $$$ in the bank.

 

[lmalave]

Re: Duh, still OVERPRICED.

Originally posted by jamilecrire
Why am I paying $2999 for a 1GHz Laptop? I bought a PC Laptop for $1500 a year ago with a 1.13GHz processor.

If Apple would A) release faster processors or B) would lower prices they would sell more.

When my company needs to generate more revenue we don't release an inferior product and then charge double our competitors! We do our best to match the competition and we lower our price (through temporary sales). You make make a lower ROI but your overall gain is more. Sometimes MORE IS MORE. If Apple wanted more than a 3% share of the market they need to price themselves so the other 97% can buy one.

Most people I know would try an Apple but when you can get a Dell for $1000 less that may not be as elegant but performs just as well (remember most people are used to the ****ty PC environment). No one is going to "switch". The only reason I use Mac's is I prefer them (and I can afford them).

$1000~1500 more for a TiBook is okay by me but for most people it's a second computer for their wife/kid or more $$$ in the bank.

Dude, you're comparing Apples and Oranges (pun intended). Did your $1500 laptop have a DVD Burner? Built-in Wi-Fi? ATI Radeon 9000 with 64MB VRAM? (all of which the high-end PowerBook which costs $2999 has). It's not just about "elegance" - these Apple laptops are packed with features!!

And keep in mind Apple's heaviest laptop is 5.9 lbs. (the 14" iBook). I don't consider low weight and portability "elegance", but a core feature that must be considered when buying a laptop. I hated lugging around my 10+ lb. Dell brick (with case, power adapter etc.), and I swore that my next computer purchase was going to be an ultraportable laptop. You mentioned that a lot of laptop purchasers are buying a second computer for their wife/kid. Do you really want to burden your poor wife or kid with a 10 lb. laptop (again, with case and all)? 10 lbs. may not sound like much when you just read it, but, believe me, in real life your shoulders feel it!! Or would you rather buy something that's easy on wife or kid's shoulders? And something that's rugged enough that they can just toss in a backpack (if kid) or handbag (if wife).

When the time finally came to buy a new laptop, I looked at my options in the market and the $1300 12.1" iBook with combo drive, 30GB HD, 384 MB of RAM, and ATI Radeon 7500 32MB ended up being the best value I could find. Similarly configured ultraportables from Dell, Sony, or Fujitsu cost at least $200 more. Look it up yourself! I hereby challenge you to find me a better value on an ultraportable.

Now with my rugged iBook I can just toss it in my backpack (the better with which to be discreet...), and the iBook power adapter weighs next to nothing. So I'm basically carrying 1/2 the weight I was before, and my shoulders thank me profusely for it.

So check your facts again when you compare laptop values. I think the PowerMacs are clearly overpriced, but the iBooks and PowerBooks I think stack up quite Well, and the iMacs are not that overpriced when you consider the features (DVI LCD screen, DVD burner, etc).

 

[gbojim]

Originally posted by mrpepsi


I agree completely. I'm not sure how much Apple is paying Motorola for it's G4's, but if it really wants to step out of the cult following and appeal to everyday people, they have to advertise for the shopper not willing to pay a premium for the "Apple Experience". If they could offer an eMac for the price of the G3 iMac, or a low-end PowerMac for the price of an eMac, and advertise it effectively...sales would have to go up.

The main thing to realize is that Apple has chosen to not try to appeal to "everyday people" based on price. Many people may not like it or agree with their decisions, but that's the way it is.

Apple's cost on the $1700 PowerMac is somewhere between $600 and $700. If they drop the retail price to <$1000, they loose money on every sale. First lesson of business 101: you cannot trade margin for volume and stay profitiable, and Apple knows this.

Apple compares itself to BMW, Mercedes and Sony for a reason. That is the business model they have chosen. Period. Would Apple like their market share to rise to around 10% quickly? You bet. Would they like it to rise to around 25% quickly? I seriously doubt it. They would most likely go under trying to respond to the demand.

 

[backdraft]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
the ppc 970 is not going to solve perception with it does debut at the 1.8ghz we have heard. its hz are lower and although it kicks ass against the p4 1.8ghz it does not stand up against the p4 3ghz.

I don't see how the 3.0ghz P4 is faster than the 970, the spec tests done oon the 970 where estimated, not to mention that a 64bit chip can handle more data per cycle versus a 32bit chip and thats without factoring in Altivec and a 900mhz bus versus intels 533mhz bus (which is really a 133mhz bus itsa just that the data gets past through it 4x; 4 X 133 = 533 just marketing).

Lets wait a see...

 

[lmalave]

Originally posted by gbojim


The main thing to realize is that Apple has chosen to not try to appeal to "everyday people" based on price. Many people may not like it or agree with their decisions, but that's the way it is.

Apple's cost on the $1700 PowerMac is somewhere between $600 and $700. If they drop the retail price to <$1000, they loose money on every sale. First lesson of business 101: you cannot trade margin for volume and stay profitiable, and Apple knows this.

Apple compares itself to BMW, Mercedes and Sony for a reason. That is the business model they have chosen. Period. Would Apple like their market share to rise to around 10% quickly? You bet. Would they like it to rise to around 25% quickly? I seriously doubt it. They would most likely go under trying to respond to the demand.

Exactly!!! Apple cannot and will not compete on price with Dell. That would be their downfall. Apple has to compete on features because it is a niche player and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Instead, Apple needs to get those damn 970's in their computers so that they can once again make an undisputed claim to having the "premium" computers. Apple will never win by competing on price, and frankly, in the long run, neither will Dell. Competing on features and innovation is almost ALWAYS a better long-term strategy than competing on price. Dell may be riding high now, but I fully expect that they will be getting their asses thouroughly kicked by a Chinese computer maker within just a few years. Even if Dell moves all its manufacturing and assembly to China, the local Chinese companies will have all the local connections (keep in mind every single computer components will be manufactured in China by that point) to outflank Dell.

And when Dell starts to bleed money profusely as it gets into price wars with Chinese companies, Apple will still be profitable with its (hopefully) 10% market share!

 

[arogge]

Re: This is SUCH A no brainer

Originally posted by richlen
If I'm a PC shopper, no matter how many switch ads I watch I'm going to walk into an Apple Store and see that I can get a machine running at half the speed for twice the price. At face value I'd stop right there and not ask any further questions.

And walk they do. Many people bring newspaper advertisements with them to the stores and try to compare the WinTel world to Apple. They have difficultly recognizing the difference between Intel Pentium 4, Intel Celeron, and AMD Athlon. All they see is the MHz or GHz number. Some people even get that mixed up - for example, they see a 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 as being slower than a 2000 MHz Pentium 4. Selling to the Induhvidual is all in the marketing trickery.

 

[mrpepsi]

Originally posted by gbojim
Apple compares itself to BMW, Mercedes and Sony for a reason. That is the business model they have chosen. Period. Would Apple like their market share to rise to around 10% quickly? You bet. Would they like it to rise to around 25% quickly? I seriously doubt it. They would most likely go under trying to respond to the demand.

I guess I never really thought about it that way. With a BMW or Mercedes you get a faster, more comfortable, safer vehicle. With a Mac you get style and stability.

What I'm afraid will happen is that Microsoft will one day wake up and say, "Hey we can make an OS based on Linux too!" and with thier programming might, and linux's stability, have an OS comperable to OSX and the speed of the latest Hammer and P4 CPU's. If a company would then think of innovative enclosure designs, that would, in my mind, be the death of Apple.

 

[jrv3034]

Originally posted by mrpepsi
What I'm afraid will happen is that Microsoft will one day wake up and say, "Hey we can make an OS based on Linux too!" and with thier programming might, and linux's stability, have an OS comperable to OSX and the speed of the latest Hammer and P4 CPU's. If a company would then think of innovative enclosure designs, that would, in my mind, be the death of Apple.

I seriously doubt MS will move to Unix/Linux. And even if they do, their GUI and case design wouldn't even come close to Apple's sense of style and grace. Just look at the color scheme of WinXP.

Apple's gonna have a great year in 2003. Just you wait...

 

[Frobozz]

Very good point

Originally posted by backdraft


I don't see how the 3.0ghz P4 is faster than the 970, the spec tests done oon the 970 where estimated, not to mention that a 64bit chip can handle more data per cycle versus a 32bit chip and thats without factoring in Altivec and a 900mhz bus versus intels 533mhz bus (which is really a 133mhz bus itsa just that the data gets past through it 4x; 4 X 133 = 533 just marketing).

Lets wait a see...

That's a very good point. The processors will be about equal power. The key difference in was speed will end up being in the supporting hardware, it's through-put, and the ability of the software to utilize these features.

 

[mrpepsi]

Originally posted by jrv3034


I seriously doubt MS will move to Unix/Linux. And even if they do, their GUI and case design wouldn't even come close to Apple's sense of style and grace. Just look at the color scheme of WinXP.

Apple's gonna have a great year in 2003. Just you wait...

If they were smart and thinking ahead they would... Linux is obviously the future. Imagine one day all os's based on a gnu Linux kernal....nifty.

Lets face it, Microsoft could buy all the style they need... They have enough money to throw around to get talented GUI designers and have iApp clones to go with it.

I hope 2003 is a good year for Apple. I'd love to see them go toe to toe performance wise.

As it is...I've had to trade my iBook back in for my old Dell 1GHz P3. I have to reboot occasionally, but at least I'm not having to wait for the page to scroll. Maybe the 970 will give OSX the Oomph it needs to be the stellar OS we know it to be.

Edit: I kant spel

 

[pmcaleer]

MHz, GHz won't matter

By far, the biggest mindshift that the computer industry has yet to face is that speed will not matter.

In a few years, computers will be "fast enough". In fact, they already are. The iBook and iMac - heck, all of Apple's machines - may not be the kings and queens when it comes to pure, raw power. But do they do everything they're supposed to do? Yes. Do they do it with elegance? Of course - they're well-designed.

This is the shift for the consumer, then. Instead of, "It has 1.0GB of memory, 120GB of hard drive space, and a 3.0GHz processor," the questions will become, "Can I store all my photos on it? What about my music? Does it have the Internet?"

And we're starting to see this happen, slowly. Apple has been put in this position of mediocre processor speed, but I think they've done the best they can. Consumers are just now starting to come around to the idea of speed not being the most important thing about a computer. When that mindset really sinks in, Apple will be in a fantastic position.

I hope that comes sooner than later. Given the wackiness of hard drive sizes and the like, it seems imminent.

- Paul

 

[Chad4Mac]

I can't believe all this talk about Ghz and Mhz -- speed talk. It's like this is going to be the only selling point in years to come. NOT TRUE.

It is just a little piece in the puzzle.

All it will take to inform people that speed is not a issue (were talking 3+ Ghz) is a couple articles or TV programs that inform people -- 60 minutes, Nightline, etc. Then people will look at a trend of what they get for their money (beneifts the Apple side) instead of how fast their machines are. They'll do a report on what computer users actually use (program wise) and see the non-benefit of a 3+ processor. It's bound to happen.

On a PC based system: How much faster does Outlook and Explorer launch with a 3+ processor. That is not going to be a selling point to the consumer and business company in the future. News groups and consumer reports should see this soon. "How much better is your computing experience with 3+ Ghz: What are you really getting for your money, 60 minutes tonight."

There will be a adaptation from, "how fast is your system" to "what did you get for your money system" in the future.

Obviously on the consumer side...

Intel's and Microsoft's business model can not last for ever...

All it will take is information to the general public.

Any CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX reports here?

Chad4Mac

 

[Moonlight]

Re: In a mild mannered voice ...

Originally posted by Tue12
Okay, I give up folks. I'm gonna share with you THE 95% TRUTH ... it applies to the 95% of the world which are NON-GEEKS.

#1 A vast majority of the population could give a rats ass about computers. They don't own them and they don't plan to. A lot of it is because of demographics (older adults) or because the minimum need they have for a computer is satisfied by the computer at work.

#2 Those who are interested have a very low budget threshold for them which is in the $800 ballpark.

#3 The vast majority of people simply buy what they are familiar with, which is Windows. The very few that even know that Mac exists and is an option are afraid of trying 'something new'.

That's it people. Those are Apple's problems in a nutshell.

#4 Even the much vaunted 'graphics pros' that support Apple actually know very little about Macs - I speak from experience. The only reason they don't switch is because they're terrified of the notion that A) it might risk their employment B) see reason #3 only it's Mac not Windows.

And that's THE 95% TRUTH. Your welcome ... your welcome too, and you too ... yes, I know I'm brilliant... any time, your welcome...

Atleast you are humble..... and I think maybe a few more people than you think own a computer.

 

[Hawthorne]

Originally posted by mrpepsi


Lets face it, Microsoft could buy all the style they need... They have enough money to throw around to get talented GUI designers and have iApp clones to go with it.

Microsoft will never, ever embrace open source. From the days of his letter to the Homebrew Computer Club to Longhorn and Palladium, Bill Gates, and the corporate culture he fostered has always been about control.

And despite all their GUI designers, they managed to come up with a look and feel for XP that borrows more from Fisher-Price than Xerox-PARC.

 

[ldkaplan]

What most people want

Screw the numbers. My little 15" flat screen imac runs Oracle 9i much better that my 1.5 ghz pentium. I've never noticed a problem running Photoshop along side with Word and iTunes (with Oracle and Apache running in the background).

And I imagine most of you have noticed, stores like Best Buy and CompUSA now have certified Apple sales folk that do a much better job at selling than the store employed sales person. They are trained and can easily teach the uneducated user why a 1ghz mac is a stronger machine than a 1.8 ghz pentium.

 

[Mblazened]

Re: MHz, GHz won't matter

Originally posted by pmcaleer
By far, the biggest mindshift that the computer industry has yet to face is that speed will not matter.

In a few years, computers will be "fast enough". In fact, they already are.

I agree completely. Those who are lucky enough to own today's high-end macs have no doubt begun to realize the enivitable: Computers are catching up to the speed of the human workflow. Not to brag, but i have a DP 1Ghz g4 Quicksilver'02 with 1.5 GB RAM and 200+ GB storage AND Superdrive, and frankly, I'm completely satisfied with the speed. How can I complain when I can click every icon in my dock, watch them jump up and down like an aerobics class, run perfectly and show no signs of slowing? I can download stolen music, render FCP files, burn DVDs, and run VPC all at once.

The urge to upgrade will dissipate when customers become satisfied with the performance they get from their machines. When Newer stops being Better, what will happen to the Computer industry?

The answer, of course, is that the industry must develop OSes and Applications that are more immersive (graphics-wise) to justify applicable speed bumps.

Enter Virtual Reality, the new Operations Staple. And that's just the beginning. . .

-M

 

[solvs]

We all know about the MHz Myth. Sometimes the P4 is faster, sometimes the G4, sometimes the Athlon. Some consumers don't care about speed, and numbers, and upgrading. Some don't want to be "weird". Some want to be "different". Some are fed up with M$, some love Apple. None of this is the point.

The consumer products are selling. People see an iBook, eMac, iPod, whatever and want it. It does what they want it to do, and it does it fast enough. When going from a 200 MHz P1 with Windows 9x to a 600 - 800 MHz G3/4 with OS X.2, speed is not an issue. You'd be surprised by people who still have these machines.

The Pro products, with the exception of the TiBook and to a lesser extent the xServe (which both are pretty good in their class), are not selling well. Why? Duh. They aren't enough for some people. You can quote Benchmarks, talk about how much M$ sucks, whatever. Businesses tend to buy what they think has the best Price/Performance ratio. Some people need Macs for a certain reason, some need PCs.

Do-it-yourselfers just build a PC for couple of hundred bucks. They don't want the e/iMacs. I for one would love a sub ~ $1000 Tower, and I know a lot of people who would agree. You can go to Smalldog or PowerMax or eBay, but I don't want to buy a used old Mac. The Cube didn't do so well, because it was the right concept, wrong way to implement it. It was cool, but expensive and not very easy to expand.

Apple needs an expandable Prosumer computer.

*Just a note. Intel has a consumer 64-Bit CPU in the works, but it sacrifices MHz for performance. Sound familiar? Their Mobile CPU does the same thing. There's an article in Maximum PC about it (I love how they make fun of Intel). But lets not fool ourselves. Power and heat be darned, the 3.06 GHz is FAST. You won't see me buying a $700 processor, but I know some who would.

BTW. Some of us do need the speed, but don't have a lot to spend. I like having fast renders on a budget, with the possiblity of cheap and easy upgrades later. But I hate Windows.

 

[DharvaBinky]

MHz won't matter eventually...

I think Apple is going in the right direction with their systems and specs. Yes, there seems to be a rut or a gap right now between the Mac and PC world in spec terms, but... as more and more work of games and other "taxing" applications are off-loaded to the graphics card (and more and more work *will* be as hardware becomes better), the speed of the CPU matters less. For example... What's the single most expensive component of a modern computer?

Well... a few years ago, it was the CPU. Buy the fastest and the best and you'd have to put out a few hundred dollars for the single item. These days, if you're building a game rig, your money is much better off spent on a fancy GPU. If you built an AMD box to play games, you'd spend *way* less on the CPU and the motherboard than on the Radeon 9700 PRO you put in there to whoop up some RTCW!

I think that a lot of this faw-faw mines faster crap about CPU speeds is going to become pointless in the next few years. How much faster than "instantaneous" does something have to be?

No, I think the next items that "drive" pc competitive sales will be other features like connectivity, bandwidth, video, storage, etc... And I think Apple sees that, since they're choosing to concentrate on smooth integration of those features into OS X. Windows is much more of a "strap-on" kind of mentality. You can get Windows XP, but you have to get the USB2.0 driver pack to extend it. You can get Winxp, but you have to get the blueTooth pack to get it to work in a separate app. really un-elegant.

Just my gazillion cents worth?

Binky

 

[jamilecrire]

Re: Duh, still OVERPRICED.

First off the ONLY difference is the DVDR at an amazing 1X and the worthless AirPort. How about the fact I don't want them. Oh wait you can get it without from Apple and it saves a whole $200 so I guess 2799 (dont forget tax since they have a presence in EVERY STATE).

That comes to 3022.92.

So to save the point i'll get the one with the DVDR from ClubMac for 2899
and $42 for shipping.

I guess I could get the 867 but that doesn't have a 64MB video option (and I want the faster processor).

It's pointless to argue that it's Apples to Oranges when it's 3GHz to 1GHz. It's more like arguing 68k versus G4 at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan. I just think the situation could be improved.

Also before you question Dell's business sense, they have been around 1/2 the time Apple has and have a market cap (value) of 70 billion to Apple's 5 billion. That should say something to backup my contention that Apple could do it better. Remeber they had 1st mover and great hardware up until about 5 years ago.

In the end revenue is based off sales. If apple took less profit the would undoubtedly have more sales (for example you may have skipped the pathetic iBook and purchased a TiBook).

Originally posted by lmalave


Dude, you're comparing Apples and Oranges (pun intended). Did your $1500 laptop have a DVD Burner? Built-in Wi-Fi? ATI Radeon 9000 with 64MB VRAM? (all of which the high-end PowerBook which costs $2999 has). It's not just about "elegance" - these Apple laptops are packed with features!!

And keep in mind Apple's heaviest laptop is 5.9 lbs. (the 14" iBook). I don't consider low weight and portability "elegance", but a core feature that must be considered when buying a laptop. I hated lugging around my 10+ lb. Dell brick (with case, power adapter etc.), and I swore that my next computer purchase was going to be an ultraportable laptop. You mentioned that a lot of laptop purchasers are buying a second computer for their wife/kid. Do you really want to burden your poor wife or kid with a 10 lb. laptop (again, with case and all)? 10 lbs. may not sound like much when you just read it, but, believe me, in real life your shoulders feel it!! Or would you rather buy something that's easy on wife or kid's shoulders? And something that's rugged enough that they can just toss in a backpack (if kid) or handbag (if wife).

When the time finally came to buy a new laptop, I looked at my options in the market and the $1300 12.1" iBook with combo drive, 30GB HD, 384 MB of RAM, and ATI Radeon 7500 32MB ended up being the best value I could find. Similarly configured ultraportables from Dell, Sony, or Fujitsu cost at least $200 more. Look it up yourself! I hereby challenge you to find me a better value on an ultraportable.

Now with my rugged iBook I can just toss it in my backpack (the better with which to be discreet...), and the iBook power adapter weighs next to nothing. So I'm basically carrying 1/2 the weight I was before, and my shoulders thank me profusely for it.

So check your facts again when you compare laptop values. I think the PowerMacs are clearly overpriced, but the iBooks and PowerBooks I think stack up quite Well, and the iMacs are not that overpriced when you consider the features (DVI LCD screen, DVD burner, etc).

 

[bbyrdhouse]

Re: This is SUCH A no brainer

Originally posted by richlen
If I'm a PC shopper, no matter how many switch ads I watch I'm going to walk into an Apple Store and see that I can get a machine running at half the speed for twice the price. At face value I'd stop right there and not ask any further questions. This is definitly an issue Apple needs to commit itself too in order to get people to truly switch in any numbers.

I have to agree.

People "in the know" might know that Macs are superior to PC's but to people who don't know they look at 2 things
1. Price
2. Speed

 

[pretentious]

Couple points I'd like to say;
1st: I hate it when I hear "but our Computers are fast enough" esp. fellow Mac users, as justification for the lag in speed compared to a PC at the moment. Computers will never be fast enough until someone can do everything they would like to do w/o any kind of lag time, until then Mac/PCs need to get faster, I should never have to see a progress bar go my screen to do any thing I do, it should wait for me not me waiting for it, until then it feels like we are just giving excuses for our computer/OS of choice, and I wouldn't want it to come back bite our asses if the 970 turns out to be a killer chip and beating the hell out of the Hammer or P4. We wouldn't be able to gloat properly now would we?
2nd: Apple has gone with cheap desktop computers before, can we not forget the Performas and LCs? I doubt anyone would like to see the same mistakes that they did on those computers again, all in the name of price? You should go to Low End Mac, over the pass week or two they have been having a great discussion on the possibility of a low price headless Macs, mostly for education but also for the rest of us, they make some great points and its a great read. I also have some ideas on this too but I think I'm going to add it to another thread.
3rd: Apple needs to be entering in to the "Media Center PC" market like what HP has been advertising, and merge the TiVo experience w/ the Mac (buy out? they do use PPCs), from what I have seen of it seems too cool to miss out, and too unlike Apple not to get involved; PS I do know that there was once a MacTV, but this just seems like a better way to do it.

 

[Hawthorne]

Re: Re: Duh, still OVERPRICED.

Oh boy, where to start....

Originally posted by jamilecrire
First off the ONLY difference is the DVDR at an amazing 1X and the worthless AirPort. How about the fact I don't want them. Oh wait you can get it without from Apple and it saves a whole $200 so I guess 2799 (dont forget tax since they have a presence in EVERY STATE).

That comes to 3022.92.

So to save the point i'll get the one with the DVDR from ClubMac for 2899
and $42 for shipping.

I guess I could get the 867 but that doesn't have a 64MB video option (and I want the faster processor).

Find a PC laptop with the all the features of a powerbook at a price comparable to $3000. Compare everything, screen size, battery life, weight, video card, the whole enchilada.

It's pointless to argue that it's Apples to Oranges when it's 3GHz to 1GHz. It's more like arguing 68k versus G4 at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan. I just think the situation could be improved.

Find a laptop with 3 ghz that's out today in the PC world. Don't compare what's available now vs. what might be.

Also before you question Dell's business sense, they have been around 1/2 the time Apple has and have a market cap (value) of 70 billion to Apple's 5 billion. That should say something to backup my contention that Apple could do it better. Remember they had 1st mover and great hardware up until about 5 years ago.

Dell is a model of infrastructure, not innovation. Their business plan is to repackage whatever Microsoft and Intel ship, and do it for less. Apple made some of the worst business decisions in IT from 1990-1996. Doesn't mean they're not coming back, in the same way Dell's current model doesn't mean it's immortal.

In the end revenue is based off sales. If Apple took less profit the would undoubtedly have more sales (for example you may have skipped the pathetic iBook and purchased a TiBook).

Pathetic? Sorry, son, I'll be working happily on my 700 mhz g3 iBook while while 1.2 mhz mobile P3 in a comparable PC laptop slows to a crawl as the battery life disappears faster than beer at a frat party.

edited to correct typos. Sorry, rented fingers.

 

[lmalave]

Re: Re: Duh, still OVERPRICED.

Originally posted by jamilecrire
First off the ONLY difference is the DVDR at an amazing 1X and the worthless AirPort. How about the fact I don't want them. Oh wait you can get it without from Apple and it saves a whole $200 so I guess 2799 (dont forget tax since they have a presence in EVERY STATE).

That comes to 3022.92.

So to save the point i'll get the one with the DVDR from ClubMac for 2899
and $42 for shipping.

I guess I could get the 867 but that doesn't have a 64MB video option (and I want the faster processor).

It's pointless to argue that it's Apples to Oranges when it's 3GHz to 1GHz. It's more like arguing 68k versus G4 at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan. I just think the situation could be improved.

Also before you question Dell's business sense, they have been around 1/2 the time Apple has and have a market cap (value) of 70 billion to Apple's 5 billion. That should say something to backup my contention that Apple could do it better. Remeber they had 1st mover and great hardware up until about 5 years ago.

In the end revenue is based off sales. If apple took less profit the would undoubtedly have more sales (for example you may have skipped the pathetic iBook and purchased a TiBook).

Dude, you do know the tech boom is over, right? And that profitability actually matters, not just revenue? Apple is pursuing a profitable niche strategy, because they know they can't compete on price. The fact is most PC makers (Dell being the notable exception) are losing money from their PC business (IBM and HP are profitable, but not their PC divisions). If Apple tries to compete with Dell, they'll just be another money-losing Gateway-type company.

And I'm not actually questioning Dell's business sense - they're definitely doing what's most profitable for them at this moment. But that doesn't change the fact that their current strategy is not maintainable, and they will in fact have to adapt. Think about it. They're competing in a commodity business, and not only that, but all they're actually doing is assembling together components. Which basically means that they're just ripe for getting thrashed by a foreign competitors. Let's not forget the other previously glorious American industries (steel, automobile, memory chips) that met the same fate. In economics this is called "comparative advantage". In the future, China will have a significant comparative advantage that Dell won't be able to match. I hope the tech boom and bust cycle has taught us that tech companies are by no means immune to the fundamental laws of economics.

Will Dell adapt? Absolutely, they're a very smart company. But the distance between Dell and Apple or Sony (in the PC market) will blur, and Dell's market share will fall, as they retreat in the face of a flood of low-priced Chinese computers.

And your are entitled to your opinion but I love my iBook and its Airport card. I like being able to use my iBook from anywhere in my apartment (desk, couch, bed) without having to drag around a 30 ft. ethernet cable, as I've been known to do in the past. And at school (I'm a part-time MBA student) the Airport worked flawlessly - it automatically detected the network, and all I had to do was put in the WEP key for my school's network.

Pathetic iBook? I hereby challenge you to find me a better value on an ultraportable laptop with the specs on my iBook as I described before. Keep in mind, the Dell and Sony ultraportables use PIII's (from 800MHz to 1.2GHz) and NOT P4's. And the Fujitsu uses a Transmeta Crusoe 933MHz. Why do they use these chips? Because they double the battery life as compared to the P4. And laptop users aren't going to be power users anyway - gamers are going to go for a desktop anyway.

Let me ask you this: why do you need more power than the iBook has? (or the abovementioned ultraportable PCs). I not only use my iBook for standard stuff: web browsing, document editing, MP3 listening, DVD viewing. But I also use it for development. Granted, I am a database developer so the code is actually executing on a high-powered Sun server. But still, I have BBEdit, CVS, Ant, all the various Unix and open source tools. Which means I am more of a "power user" than at leat 90% of consumers. The few reasons that I can think of for having a more powerful computer would be that either: a) you're a gamer, or b) your need it for work (graphic/video work, scientific computation, CPU-intensive programming and compilation, etc.). And like I said, if you really need that power for gaming or work, you probably need to get a high-end desktop machine anyway.

I too am a huge fan and would like to see Apple start competing on CPU. But not because I need more CPU myself, but rather because I recognize that it is sevely impacting Apple's perception in the market place (as Apple itself noted in its 10-K). And I want Apple to do well: I enjoy my iBook and its OS X operating system, and I want Apple to be successful so that it can continue to make investments in OS X and continue to get more 3rd party support from software and hardware makers.

 

[minux]

What everyone here is failing to realize is it does not matter if Apple gains another customer or not. It does not matter if they increase their revenue or not. And, it does not matter if their stock drop another 5 points or not. It really doesn't, because unlike HP, Compaq, ect Apple has a excellent installed user base, second to none in the hardware market. Apple does not need to increase it sales, it is making money, and is producing the finest hardware in the world at affordable prices. Remember the Amerlio days? Things were a lot worse, and they were still making money! Jobs has turned Apple around to where it was in the 1980s. Apple is not in dire conditions, and for once in history more people are switching to Macs then leaving Mac. People please analyze their cash on hand and their business strategies, apple is doing very well!

Remember the banter on Mhz does not matter? Well guess what it still does not matter. We are users of a Personal Computer, are computers are not rocket ships, and no we can not render the fifth dimension in a nanosecond, but guess what? It still serves us. If you want to do rendering, ect and get turned on by benchmarks, why in the hell are you using a PC? Go out and get an SGI box.

Do you know why the “artistic” people use Macs? No, it is not about the speed. And, no it is not about the Hardware profiles, it is about the software implantation, and because it satisfies are need beyond any incarnation on the Intel side.

I would be willing to bet that half the people here, whom are talking about speed have never owned a Mac. My iBook 700mhz w/ 128mb running Mac OS 10.2.3 is faster then my PIV 1.8ghz w/ 512mb ram running XP. Plain and simple. Do I care about running PS, B5, or other? No! Why? Because who the hell uses that! I am a writer, a coder, and a computer fan. My iBook, is what it advertises my life to go. I do not need the power of a G4, I prefer G3s, call me crazy but I love G3s...

People please grow up and think about what you are saying.

Mike

Sorry for the rant, but people annoy me. Remeber when Jobs said that MSOFT is not the enemy? Well guess what it still isnt. Choose a machine that satisfys your needs, and stop worrying about the specs. I still use FrameMaker on NeXT boxes, and guess what? It only has a 25mhz CPU! Why do I use it? Because it does what I need it to do.

 

[banjoboy1979]

i only have one thing to say to that last post.

amen, brother. amen.