I want to know what do you think about Apple pricing. Anyone thinks they are right on or way over board?
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.
Are Apple products too eXpensive?
- Thread starter elensil
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This has been done before... I don't have the inclination to search and put up a link to one of those threads... You can do a search and find out how we feel by yourself...
newbies... sheeeeesh
newbies... sheeeeesh
I think Apple is crazy for charging that much. Now, I know they want to put the best hardware in a Mac but I'm pretty sure it doesn't cost THAT much more.... what we need is a good explaination on why their products cost so much
The prices are slightly higher than what is comfortable for most people, even taking into account the entire cost of ownership.
Still, I always say "you get what you pay for" and if you want the BEST, you pay a premium.
That's just the way it is. I'm not complaining.
Quark
Still, I always say "you get what you pay for" and if you want the BEST, you pay a premium.
That's just the way it is. I'm not complaining.
Quark
Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap!
Bingo.
I hate pricing of Apple stuff, it is awful. Who the hell is going to pay $3500 for a TiBook? Thats just grr o man, Apple I hate to say is only from the rich in my book.
Explanation:
Dell does not have to support the iApps.
Compaq didn't develop OSX.
Gateway doesn't have an Ive.
Sony didn't do the R & D on Airport.
HP didn't develop a cantilevered display support arm.
Toshiba doesn't have a team of people who sit around everyday trying to make things one step easier.
IBM never put 2000 songs in your pocket.
Apple products are priced based on the research, engineering, design, and quality. The hardware itself has very parallel component costs.
Look at some small examples of what you're paying for:
The Apple Pro Mouse has adjustment built in so that you can be comfortable with it. (Didn't know that? Flip it over and turn the wheel)
When you buy a Mac you get some best of breed freeware...on top of a stellar OS...ever hear anyone get excited about Windows Media Player?
The el Capitan case is so much more friendly than anything in the PC world. Most off the shelf cases require 4 screws be removed to install RAM. While this sound simple, how many of you keep a screwdriver in your desk drawer?
The MBTF of Apple hardware is incredible...I have a working 128, a working Plus, etc. My 18 year old Mac still works!
The price disparity is further inflated by the fact that Apple doesn't make any bargain basement machines. They have midrange and high end machines only.
Time and again, people have configured a machine at a PC vendors site to match the specs of an Apple, and found the price difference eroded dramatically.
So, if $200 if going to cramp your lifestyle, you don't have one!
As Forrest Gump sort of said:
"Hookers are like a box of chocolates, the good ones cost more!"
Originally posted by AlphaTech
This has been done before... I don't have the inclination to search and put up a link to one of those threads... You can do a search and find out how we feel by yourself...
newbies... sheeeeesh
Alpha, with all due respect for you encyclopaedic knowledge of all things Mac, and acknowledging my own almost total lack of tech savvy outside of the recording studio, would it hurt to be a LITTLE less short with those of us who are here because we love Macs, but don't necessarily know them inside-out like you?
Likewise the rest of you big hitters. This is the best of all the Mac-centric web sites IMVHO, but in this respect, the pants are hanging low and the b*tt-cheeks are on display to all of us new- and nearly-newbies.
We all (I think) have a sense of humor here........wouldn't be a Mac person otherwise. It's the best experience in what will, in the not-so-distant future, look like the digital Jurassic era.So a few more hugs and a few less kicks would do ,if it's not too much to ask. I think that KC, who is probably the youngest of the Establishment, has more idea sometimes, than some of his elders. Eye is the best. He's a fine example. At your best, you're all fine examples.
But all too often, It's like watching a troop of baboons and the parade of brightly-colored b*tts is getting a bit much. And don't go pleading that it's all a bit of fun. The "humorous" put-down is a little too regular to make that anything more than a fig-leaf.
If you think prices are high in hell...I mean in the US, try buying apple products in heaven...I mean Australia.
The sums just don't add up, and they are made closer by.
but we still get them. Why? because we are suckers? perhaps. Because we want the best? more likely.
The sums just don't add up, and they are made closer by.
but we still get them. Why? because we are suckers? perhaps. Because we want the best? more likely.
If you look at todays Apple prices they are really cheap compared to what it was years ago, Spartacus cost over $10000, the average powermac was $3500, its almost 1000 cheaper today. Sure you pay a few extra $, but you get the best hardware and software and it works... well!
You don't see alot of PC users with old comps because they broke down but with an Apple owner they've got every single mac they've ever used,
You pay for quality with an Apple.
My $0.02
apple = cheap
this is a question that comes up a lot, and is mostly the result of two things. one; higher prices of apple computers in the past and 2; ignorance of consumers who do not know what they are buying. im not going to play the whole "mac are great so they cost more bit" we have all heard it and true or not it isnt a necessary component of the argument. quite simply macs are typically priced equally to peecees. discounting all of the advantages of a mac (the design, os, software, etc) the mac costs the same as a similiarly configured pc, and if you look at some fo the older threads on the subject you will see many people have gone to dell and gateway and other pc manufacturers and priced machines with similiar specs to the apple models and found typically that apples are within 10% of the peecee "competition" (often the apple is cheaper). take a look at laptops and you will find apples are wonderfully priced. apples might seem more expensive to the average consumer because they do not realize that they get so much more when they buy the mac. apple advertises its top end not its low end, while dell will often advertise peecees for sub $1000 (often not mentioning any of the specs). it is not that the peecee is cheaper but that the peecee taht is being advertised is a low end model. apple has very cheap computers, they just dont advertise that low end (that g3 imac is still available and selling quite well). unless you build the pc yourself, you will not find a pc priced significantly better than a similiarly spec'ed mac.
this is a question that comes up a lot, and is mostly the result of two things. one; higher prices of apple computers in the past and 2; ignorance of consumers who do not know what they are buying. im not going to play the whole "mac are great so they cost more bit" we have all heard it and true or not it isnt a necessary component of the argument. quite simply macs are typically priced equally to peecees. discounting all of the advantages of a mac (the design, os, software, etc) the mac costs the same as a similiarly configured pc, and if you look at some fo the older threads on the subject you will see many people have gone to dell and gateway and other pc manufacturers and priced machines with similiar specs to the apple models and found typically that apples are within 10% of the peecee "competition" (often the apple is cheaper). take a look at laptops and you will find apples are wonderfully priced. apples might seem more expensive to the average consumer because they do not realize that they get so much more when they buy the mac. apple advertises its top end not its low end, while dell will often advertise peecees for sub $1000 (often not mentioning any of the specs). it is not that the peecee is cheaper but that the peecee taht is being advertised is a low end model. apple has very cheap computers, they just dont advertise that low end (that g3 imac is still available and selling quite well). unless you build the pc yourself, you will not find a pc priced significantly better than a similiarly spec'ed mac.
Amazing how many people go on and on about the cost of Apple product before ever looking at the cost of a PC these days and their cries are justified by others as "you get what you pay for". Go to Dells site or IBM sites and configure a machine to match an Apple machine and then try and cry.
The only way you are going to get a PC that is far cheaper than a Mac is if you go somewhere and get it built for you. All computer corporations charge for their machines. There are many reasons for this but to say that Apple charges more than their competition is just rediculous.
The only way you are going to get a PC that is far cheaper than a Mac is if you go somewhere and get it built for you. All computer corporations charge for their machines. There are many reasons for this but to say that Apple charges more than their competition is just rediculous.
hold onto your hats kiddies
This is one of the rare times that I agree with AL... A Quality system, from a reputable maker (like Alienware) costs in the $3000-$5000 range. That is with a ~2GHz chip (the ~equal of the dual GHz from Apple) from either AMD or intel. That is without any extra frills, but with a dvd-rw (superdrive), Gb ethernet, 80GB hard drive (WD), and 512MB of RAM. More memory will cost you more (duhh).
Of course, with all of those systems, you have no choice, but to suffer with windblows heXPee. IF you want to go with something else, you have to purchase it yourself and install it. Be careful of doing that, if you have to send it out for service, you very well could get the system back with the shipped OS installed on it again (and all your files gone).
For many people it boils down to taste... Mac users have it, most peecee owners don't.
This is one of the rare times that I agree with AL... A Quality system, from a reputable maker (like Alienware) costs in the $3000-$5000 range. That is with a ~2GHz chip (the ~equal of the dual GHz from Apple) from either AMD or intel. That is without any extra frills, but with a dvd-rw (superdrive), Gb ethernet, 80GB hard drive (WD), and 512MB of RAM. More memory will cost you more (duhh).
Of course, with all of those systems, you have no choice, but to suffer with windblows heXPee. IF you want to go with something else, you have to purchase it yourself and install it. Be careful of doing that, if you have to send it out for service, you very well could get the system back with the shipped OS installed on it again (and all your files gone).
For many people it boils down to taste... Mac users have it, most peecee owners don't.
Apple machines are much cheaper in the long run
Look at these studies:
http://138.202.192.14/~trembath/smon/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/Intro.html
And faster:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop
look at the RC5 numbers.
http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html
http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html
And easier to setup...
Easier to maintain.
and longer lasting.
More compatible thanks to VirtualPC supporting
MS-DOS through Windows XP,
when PC Mac emulators can only support up to Mac OS 8.1.
Seriously, anyone who wants to get a machine today should get a Mac. You get what you pay for. Macs offer a lot more value for the same money you would pay a PC for.
And if you don't believe me, read what
http://www.apple.com/switch people have to say about it. I rest my case.
Look at these studies:
http://138.202.192.14/~trembath/smon/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/Intro.html
And faster:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop
look at the RC5 numbers.
http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html
http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html
And easier to setup...
Easier to maintain.
and longer lasting.
More compatible thanks to VirtualPC supporting
MS-DOS through Windows XP,
when PC Mac emulators can only support up to Mac OS 8.1.
Seriously, anyone who wants to get a machine today should get a Mac. You get what you pay for. Macs offer a lot more value for the same money you would pay a PC for.
And if you don't believe me, read what
http://www.apple.com/switch people have to say about it. I rest my case.
I'd have to agree with the previous posts
Go to Dell or AlienWare (not Gateway) and configure. Pretty close. Sure you could do what Maximum PC Magazine did and build a kick-a** PC that beats the pants off of the iMac. But before you complain about stuff like drive upgrades and memory prices, it seems everyone in the (reputable) PC world charges twice as much.
You can always get really good deals on the net for cheaper stuff. I can go to www.pricewatch.com and buy a 120 GB IBM hard drive from someone for ~$150, but would I want to?
No really, I'm asking. I've been screwed before, but I've gotten some good deals, and my 40 GB Seagate is getting a little full, but I'm waiting for the 200 GB Western Digital hard drive. Need an ATA/133 PCI Card or Firewire Pro case to see over ATA/66s 128-137 GB limits, though.
Anyway, to Apple - I don't mind paying for for state-of-the-art. C'Mon... Where's my 166 MHz FSB, 333 MHz DDR-Ram, ATA/133. I ain't buyin' if the new towers come out with ATA/66 and PC133 SDRam.
If that's the case, you're right. Apple would be too expensive, using years old technology.
End Rant (until someone else starts a similar thread).
Edited to add that I'll pay more to use OS X, if I can afford it, over XP any day.
Go to Dell or AlienWare (not Gateway) and configure. Pretty close. Sure you could do what Maximum PC Magazine did and build a kick-a** PC that beats the pants off of the iMac. But before you complain about stuff like drive upgrades and memory prices, it seems everyone in the (reputable) PC world charges twice as much.
You can always get really good deals on the net for cheaper stuff. I can go to www.pricewatch.com and buy a 120 GB IBM hard drive from someone for ~$150, but would I want to?
No really, I'm asking. I've been screwed before, but I've gotten some good deals, and my 40 GB Seagate is getting a little full, but I'm waiting for the 200 GB Western Digital hard drive. Need an ATA/133 PCI Card or Firewire Pro case to see over ATA/66s 128-137 GB limits, though.
Anyway, to Apple - I don't mind paying for for state-of-the-art. C'Mon... Where's my 166 MHz FSB, 333 MHz DDR-Ram, ATA/133. I ain't buyin' if the new towers come out with ATA/66 and PC133 SDRam.
If that's the case, you're right. Apple would be too expensive, using years old technology.
End Rant (until someone else starts a similar thread).
Edited to add that I'll pay more to use OS X, if I can afford it, over XP any day.
such a deal....
since the majority of my work is created using a mac, i'd say they are a sweet deal.
it runs like a top, is incredibly reliable and supports software that makes the use of a computer a transparent part of the creative process. i'll gladly pay a premium for those attributes.
and 3 grand is chicken feed for a piece of equipment that does what it does.
part of my opinion is obviously career specific.
but i'm also old enough to remember the time before personal computers... and pocket calculators...
and digital watches...
and what they cost when introduced...
when evaluating technology and affordability...these are the best of times.
and macs are a bargain.
since the majority of my work is created using a mac, i'd say they are a sweet deal.
it runs like a top, is incredibly reliable and supports software that makes the use of a computer a transparent part of the creative process. i'll gladly pay a premium for those attributes.
and 3 grand is chicken feed for a piece of equipment that does what it does.
part of my opinion is obviously career specific.
but i'm also old enough to remember the time before personal computers... and pocket calculators...
and digital watches...
and what they cost when introduced...
when evaluating technology and affordability...these are the best of times.
and macs are a bargain.
I like all the new blood coming in, I see people with 2, 5 or 8 posts. Very nice, and they are all starting there own threads.
sometimes its good to revisit a thread by starting a new one like it, then you don't have to read through a million posts.
next, is it possible for ambitiouslemon to try paragraphs?
and well, you pay for more upfront with apple, though you get alot more. really a better product, I will not repeat it, though "you get what you...."
sometimes its good to revisit a thread by starting a new one like it, then you don't have to read through a million posts.
next, is it possible for ambitiouslemon to try paragraphs?
and well, you pay for more upfront with apple, though you get alot more. really a better product, I will not repeat it, though "you get what you...."
But ...
... outside the US it is something totally different.
Here in Europe we pay about 20% more for a similar Mac compared to US prizes (yes, the sales tax is already subtracted on this comparison), since the Euro is about 0,99 US$ at the moment. Even a few months ago, when the US$ was stronger it was still about 10-12% more. Considering that Apple has one of the biggest margins in their products of the whole industry that appears somehow rediculous.
As an example (Apple store): The Xserve starts in Germany at 3,590.- $ in the US at 2,999.- $
Any questions? Same product, just a different power cable... A difference of 600.- $ is a sh*t-load of money! And for the other products it's similar.
Dell prizes in Europe are only slightly higher than the US prizes. Considering that you will have a hard time to find any PC from a major PC-Maker being equally equipped and not a few hundred bucks cheaper. The Apple prizes just kill any competition here.
I feel milked by Apple and I know a lot of other users here feel the same.
If the prizes at least would be the same as in the US I would be almost all satisfied.
Apple is focussing too much on the US market at the moment and that is a big mistake. They should consider to develope special products for the european and asian market since it makes 40% of their sales overall. The original iMac for example was a nice machine for the US market, but didn't work a lot for Europe, since the mentality here about computers is a little bit different.
Apple is global but plays local at the moment. That won't work for long anymore. The market-share in Germany e.g. is continously going done and is hovering at about 1,8% at the moment. It is hard meanwhile to find an Apple dealer here near where you live. You find some in the big cities, but a lot of them went bancrupt. Here in Berlin we have still 4 (real) Apple dealers (and they are really small). And that in a city with more than 3.000.000 people. Since a lot of folks don't have an Apple dealer near to them anymore, they have to order the stuff online.
Yes, I think the Apple prizes are way too high! At least here in Europe. If Apple won't change that they will never gain a bigger market-share here and also the faithful Apple fans won't spend money on a new machine too often.
It doesn't help them at all, if they only raise the market-share in the US and the rest of the world is diaspora. We already have to face the problem here in Germany, that some software won't be localized anymore, because it would be too expensive or that the localized versions cost a lot more than the original versions (Exception is software that is developed in Germany, eg. Logic, Cubase, Cumulus, etc...). As a result the people are willing even less to work with the Mac, when part of the software is only available in English, plus the high prizes for Macs here. If the Apple marketing here in Germany wouldn't have been extraordinarily stupid through all the years (until now), the market-share could be remarkably higher. But like this they won't win a medal in the race.
Don't get me wrong, I am still an Apple fan, but it gets on my nerves to pay 20% more for a Mac, just because I am located in Germany, when other manufacturers don't charge you for your passport!
groovebuster
... outside the US it is something totally different.
Here in Europe we pay about 20% more for a similar Mac compared to US prizes (yes, the sales tax is already subtracted on this comparison), since the Euro is about 0,99 US$ at the moment. Even a few months ago, when the US$ was stronger it was still about 10-12% more. Considering that Apple has one of the biggest margins in their products of the whole industry that appears somehow rediculous.
As an example (Apple store): The Xserve starts in Germany at 3,590.- $ in the US at 2,999.- $
Any questions? Same product, just a different power cable... A difference of 600.- $ is a sh*t-load of money! And for the other products it's similar.
Dell prizes in Europe are only slightly higher than the US prizes. Considering that you will have a hard time to find any PC from a major PC-Maker being equally equipped and not a few hundred bucks cheaper. The Apple prizes just kill any competition here.
I feel milked by Apple and I know a lot of other users here feel the same.
If the prizes at least would be the same as in the US I would be almost all satisfied.
Apple is focussing too much on the US market at the moment and that is a big mistake. They should consider to develope special products for the european and asian market since it makes 40% of their sales overall. The original iMac for example was a nice machine for the US market, but didn't work a lot for Europe, since the mentality here about computers is a little bit different.
Apple is global but plays local at the moment. That won't work for long anymore. The market-share in Germany e.g. is continously going done and is hovering at about 1,8% at the moment. It is hard meanwhile to find an Apple dealer here near where you live. You find some in the big cities, but a lot of them went bancrupt. Here in Berlin we have still 4 (real) Apple dealers (and they are really small). And that in a city with more than 3.000.000 people. Since a lot of folks don't have an Apple dealer near to them anymore, they have to order the stuff online.
Yes, I think the Apple prizes are way too high! At least here in Europe. If Apple won't change that they will never gain a bigger market-share here and also the faithful Apple fans won't spend money on a new machine too often.
It doesn't help them at all, if they only raise the market-share in the US and the rest of the world is diaspora. We already have to face the problem here in Germany, that some software won't be localized anymore, because it would be too expensive or that the localized versions cost a lot more than the original versions (Exception is software that is developed in Germany, eg. Logic, Cubase, Cumulus, etc...). As a result the people are willing even less to work with the Mac, when part of the software is only available in English, plus the high prizes for Macs here. If the Apple marketing here in Germany wouldn't have been extraordinarily stupid through all the years (until now), the market-share could be remarkably higher. But like this they won't win a medal in the race.
Don't get me wrong, I am still an Apple fan, but it gets on my nerves to pay 20% more for a Mac, just because I am located in Germany, when other manufacturers don't charge you for your passport!
groovebuster
Re: I'd have to agree with the previous posts
State of the art is in Altivec, RISC, level 2 and level 3 cache. All of which Macs have. PCs need a higher bus to overcome the limits of the Pentium and high number of stages on its processor. And still they end up slower than Macs where it counts. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that Macs are not state of the art. RISC is faster, no matter how you slice it. Until PCs start coming out with full RISC and vector processing Macs will always be faster at the tasks that count.
Oh and you can plug a ATA 133 card into the PCI slots of the PowerMac towers if that's what you really want. Speed of drives aren't only the ATA speed, it is also the RPM speed. Or you can plug in wide SCSI. So that leaves with the question of why not faster RAM? Again, you are mistaking bus for a requirement to have higher speeds. Macs are already faster where it counts, see my former post.
Oh and Mac's Firewire supports up to 65 devices per port. Imagine 65 120 GB hard drives all chained together. You can do that with a Mac.
State of the art is in Altivec, RISC, level 2 and level 3 cache. All of which Macs have. PCs need a higher bus to overcome the limits of the Pentium and high number of stages on its processor. And still they end up slower than Macs where it counts. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that Macs are not state of the art. RISC is faster, no matter how you slice it. Until PCs start coming out with full RISC and vector processing Macs will always be faster at the tasks that count.
Oh and you can plug a ATA 133 card into the PCI slots of the PowerMac towers if that's what you really want. Speed of drives aren't only the ATA speed, it is also the RPM speed. Or you can plug in wide SCSI. So that leaves with the question of why not faster RAM? Again, you are mistaking bus for a requirement to have higher speeds. Macs are already faster where it counts, see my former post.
Oh and Mac's Firewire supports up to 65 devices per port. Imagine 65 120 GB hard drives all chained together. You can do that with a Mac.
Re: Re: I'd have to agree with the previous posts
Are they? I don't think so! The Macs are not faster anymore, stop those ferry-tales. On some highly specialized Altivec routines they are still competetive, but the overall system performance sucks!
If you know anybody who has a 1GHz DP Powermac and a state of the art DP Windows-Box, do the comparison and you will never make a statement like that again. The Windows-Box smokes the Mac really badly!
Don't get me wrong, we are talking about system perfomance and not about usability and ergonomical issues. On some tasks I only care for the raw power and not if the OS has a nice Aqua GUI. Performance is not always about Altivec, it is also about Integer and FP operations, which are the most used in the average application, if you don't do just number-crunching with an Altivec-optimized piece of software. The G4 sucks on integer and FP operations, that's just fact.
And what's the point to chain 63(!!!!!) external HDs to your Mac, not to mention the heat and noise it would cause?!?!?
I want some fast drives IN my Mac with state of the art storage capacity. Like doing a little raid with two 160GB or even 200GB HDs. External devices are always just for temporary usage to keep your internal drives clean and to store data for a while before it is needed again (for not to burry a server with data or no so server is available) or to transport big amounts of data to another place.
63 devices is a theoretical number, because thats how many addresses are provided by firewire for the connected devices. But you will hardly find any machine with more than 3 or 4 devices hooked up at once on one Firewire-Bus and people are only switching them on, when they need them.
Oh, and by the way... 63 external FireWire HDs would cost you probably a little fortune (let's say about 25,000 $). The storage capacity would be impressive (7.5 TB), but what would you do with that much storage capacity hooked up to a little Mac over one Firewire cable with 400MBit/s bandwidth??? Just to fill all the drives with data would take you at least 3 days (24/7)... in case you would have that much data and would have fast enough access to it to keep the Firewire bus 100% busy all the time.
Sorry, but I don't like statements that are totally out of real world usage of technology to make the Mac look better hardware wise than it is.
The Mac is a nice piece of technology, especially since MacOS X and with Jaguar to come, but that doesn't change the fact that the Mac isn't competetive at the moment regarding overall system perfomance.
groovebuster
Are they? I don't think so! The Macs are not faster anymore, stop those ferry-tales. On some highly specialized Altivec routines they are still competetive, but the overall system performance sucks!
If you know anybody who has a 1GHz DP Powermac and a state of the art DP Windows-Box, do the comparison and you will never make a statement like that again. The Windows-Box smokes the Mac really badly!
Don't get me wrong, we are talking about system perfomance and not about usability and ergonomical issues. On some tasks I only care for the raw power and not if the OS has a nice Aqua GUI. Performance is not always about Altivec, it is also about Integer and FP operations, which are the most used in the average application, if you don't do just number-crunching with an Altivec-optimized piece of software. The G4 sucks on integer and FP operations, that's just fact.
And what's the point to chain 63(!!!!!) external HDs to your Mac, not to mention the heat and noise it would cause?!?!?
I want some fast drives IN my Mac with state of the art storage capacity. Like doing a little raid with two 160GB or even 200GB HDs. External devices are always just for temporary usage to keep your internal drives clean and to store data for a while before it is needed again (for not to burry a server with data or no so server is available) or to transport big amounts of data to another place.
63 devices is a theoretical number, because thats how many addresses are provided by firewire for the connected devices. But you will hardly find any machine with more than 3 or 4 devices hooked up at once on one Firewire-Bus and people are only switching them on, when they need them.
Oh, and by the way... 63 external FireWire HDs would cost you probably a little fortune (let's say about 25,000 $). The storage capacity would be impressive (7.5 TB), but what would you do with that much storage capacity hooked up to a little Mac over one Firewire cable with 400MBit/s bandwidth??? Just to fill all the drives with data would take you at least 3 days (24/7)... in case you would have that much data and would have fast enough access to it to keep the Firewire bus 100% busy all the time.
Sorry, but I don't like statements that are totally out of real world usage of technology to make the Mac look better hardware wise than it is.
The Mac is a nice piece of technology, especially since MacOS X and with Jaguar to come, but that doesn't change the fact that the Mac isn't competetive at the moment regarding overall system perfomance.
groovebuster