milozauckerman said:
List price: $2,310.00.
You asked for a $2,000 Core Duo laptop and I found one. Easily.
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.
Is Apple playing the PC market right?
- Thread starter mini.boss
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
List price: $2,310.00.
You asked for a $2,000 Core Duo laptop and I found one. Easily.
And at no point a 'good value' - again, unless you consider OS X itself to be worthy of a 75%-100% markup.
Yes, the Core Duo and Core 2 Duos being used by Apple are laptop processors. They are 'Yonah' (Macbook, Macbook Pro, first iMacs) and 'Merom' (second iMac) chips - the desktop C2D chip was codenamed Conroe - it has higher clock speeds and higher frontside-buses. And is cheaper at comparable speeds.
Clearly you simply don't know what you're talking about in terms of specifications and comparisons.
I didn't say anything about average there - you claim that Apple is competitive, that's why I asked where the $2000-$2700 Core Duo laptops are outside of Apple's line. The Macbook Pro is the flagship Apple portable, and it simply isn't price- and spec-competitive with other PC-makers.
Every laptop in the XPS range - from $1200 on up, is currently using Core 2 Duo. Those coming in at the Macbook Pro range are using Core 2 Duo and vastly superior graphics cards.
The Macbook-priced XPS has Core 2 Duo and twice as much RAM stock.
The Apple's are not price and feature competitive. That's the point.
No, I gave an example: iMac Core Duos. Again, did you read? Can you?
Um, no, they're not. Why claim something that's just blatantly false?
Stock 20" iMacs are going for about $1100 on Ebay. Retail was $1700 or a touch over. That's 40% depreciation in less than a year - less than six months for the most part. And that's as Core 2 Duo machines have only started to hit the market - Core Duo iMac depreciation only speeds up from here on out. Meaning that they'll have lost, basically, 60% of their recoupable value in one year.
That's not the Apple used market of yore, bro. Apple depreciation is now little different from the Windows world.
(All of that is assuming you weren't dumb enough to pay for Apple's overpriced upgrades, in which case you've already lost 50-60% of your initial value.)
That's the PPC market, not the Intel world - and another out and out falsehood. The latest Ebay completed listings put $850 as the upper reaches of upgraded G4 towers. (And note, here, that G4 towers have lost about as much value, percentage-wise over three years as iMac Core Duos have in less than one. You were saying?)
But your comprehension is in question - you claimed that I said the iPod market is 'slowing down.' I didn't.
Your assessment of the markup is based on what?milozauckerman said:
No, the issue is that you are trying to force Apple products into situations where they can't compete based on a fact sheet rather than based on any real measure of capability or performance. You're using names and raw numbers to compare. How does the iMac perform in comparison to other $1600 computers (or $1300, if you want to ignore the built in display)? No, it's not upgradeable, but that's the tradeoff for the slim package.
And you got a list of models that point out that that isn't true. The MBP is not competitive with the $800 Core Duo notebooks you're using, but there are many $2000-2700 Core Duo notebooks on the PC side that you're also ignoring in order to claim that Apple isn't competitive. It is. Compare a Sony to an Apple at the same price points. Where's your competitive advantage?
Your example lacks factual support. See eBay. See Craigslist. See Froogle.
Completed auctions on eBay--the last 5 Intel iMacs all sold for at least $1200. Six month old midrange PCs on eBay: just poking around, none clearing about $700.
No they're not--the bids are in that range. You have to use completed auctions to see final prices. I see 20" iMacs in the 1300-1400 range in my search results. That's about a 20% loss in value. Compare to the PCs: 60-65% loss in value. Still think Apple depreciates at a PC rate?
No, not really.
$850 of the original retail price of $3200 (2002) is about 73% loss in almost four years. Meanwhile, a midrange PC drops 73% in a year. The Mac holds its value almost four times better.
My apologies. You said the iPod market will be slowing down, right around where you claimed that it could offset losses in the Mac unit. My head must have been spinning from the logic vacuum that formed in that paragraph.
I can't for the life of me figure out why a Porche costs so much more than a VW Beetle.
The VW has seating for 4 and it's much more efficient on gas.
It cost less to insure one, so gee why the price difference?
The VW has seating for 4 and it's much more efficient on gas.
It cost less to insure one, so gee why the price difference?
FFTT said:I can't for the life of me figure out why a Porche costs so much more than a VW Beetle.
The VW has seating for 4 and it's much more efficient on gas.
It cost less to insure one, so gee why the price difference?
Thank you.
This entire post reminds me of arguments that I used to havve with various friends who believed that Consumer Reports was the Bible. We would talk about Audis, BMWs, etc. and their continuous response was that Toyota was a "better" value due in part to what C.R. said.
People buy things for different reasons. Some are based on price (Wal-Mart), service (Nordstroms), status (Gucci), quality (Toyota) etc. This entire post is warped because the posters are arguing from different perspectives and everyone is probably partially correct.
Now my belief is that Apple has a very good marketing division and has done a good job of putting out a product that is desireable without becoming common place. (see http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0416/198_print.html on Brand Marketing)
Further, their engineers and procurement people know better than we do what Intel is putting out and when. Apple may have chosen to skip a chip interation to avoid the engineering expense to "keep up." Intel is already describing thier new chips in the next few months. Are the various posters suggesting that Apple should reengineer their computers every time a new chip is released? Apple, so far, has shown that they do not have to play that game in order to continue to sell computers.
BTW, despite various posters complaints about "lack of value/competitiveness" Apple is selling more and more computers. Somebody thinks they are still a good value.
If something never sells for list price, what good is citing it? Amazon says I'm saving $2900!!!! on a new Canon 5d body... but the reality is that it doesn't sell online for more than $2900 and Amazon's price is less than a hundred below that.
List price is meaningless.
Better question: why does a 911 cost so much more than a Cayman S, when the latter is a better performer at 65% of the price? Why does a 911 cost so much when a VW R32 (despite being FWD - or perhaps its AWD) performs nearly as well for 30% of the price?
Answer: irrational consumerism. If your argument is that you enjoy paying more for a computer because it strokes your ego, OK - but you ain't gonna win many people over with the analogies you're making.
To a broader question, why does More Expensive X cost more than Less Expensive Y - MEX performs a task (or tasks) better than LEY does. LEY can'd to what MEX does - if these tasks are important enough, then you've justified the added cost. If they don't, if you're willing to buy MEX because it's purty and makes you feel good about yourself for being so upmarket... well, you're a moron.
Which, again, makes the issue: "How much of a markup is OS X worth?"
Because nothing else can account for arguing that is Apple presents a better value than a Win/Linux machine.
Comparable hardware and usage.
You mean I'm using what they're designed for to categorize them? That's... odd.
But yeah, you claimed that the Core Duos and Core 2 Duos used by Apple were desktop parts. They simply aren't. You don't seem to know of what you speak.
No, I didn't, you don't seem to understand that Core Duo and Core 2 Duo aren't the same thing.
Again: the models you cited as price-equivalent to Macbooks and Macbook Pros are using superior hardware. The $1299+ XPS line are all running Core 2 Duo, and the MBP price-equivalents are using C2D and superior graphics.
Do you understand this now?
You're either lying (to yourself, but c'est la vie), incapable of using Ebay, or you don't comprehend the difference in Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.
No, you don't. You don't see stock 20" iMacs in the $1300-1400 range. Apple isn't even selling them for $1300-1400 in the refurb store.
Except that no Quicksilver model sold for $3200 retail.
But if we just make up numbers...
No, I didn't. Try again.
milozauckerman said:
Never, as in never?
You can buy a Mac at Amazon for less than list price, too. Does that mean Macs never sell for list price?
Your arguments are becoming steadily more desperate.
You're still not establishing any usable baseline. Comparable how?milozauckerman said:
No, you're choosing the cheapest PC you can find that fits the bill and neglecting all other machines at all other price levels, and then comparing them to the most expensive models in Apple's product lines. The specs of an $800 PC and a $1700 PC aren't necessarily all that different. The performance of a $1700 PC and a $1700 Mac aren't all that far off, either.
They are suitable for desktop use. Please check Intel's website for usage configurations, including the original Core Duo spec sheets (before there WERE multiple lines), which identify the Core Duo as a desktop and mobile processor. Intel marketed Merom for desktops and notebooks alike--the "low power" mobile Core processor is still in the pipeline, and the Conroe/Woodcrest models are available for desktop and workstation applications.
So now you're abandoning your "comparable hardware" approach? Which is it? Are you comparing computers with like hardware, or just the computers that make the most sense to you. Not all of the product lines I mentioned have been replaced with Core 2 Duo processors, not that I expected you to look at any factual evidence.
Gosh, that Core 2 Duo must make all the other computers stop working, all automagical-like and whatnot.
Actually, the most expensive Quicksilver configuration (BEFORE loading up with upgrades) was $3899 originally. There certainly was a $3299 Quicksilver in 2002. I bought one.
"What happens when they don't..." "Apple stock prices floundered"
Those are your words, unless I've slipped into a parallel universe.
matticus008 said:
You are being blinded by your fanboism. How hard is it to comprehend "comparable hardware and usage"? Especially in view that usage wise the PC wins hands down, a $1700 PC will have a graphics card that you cannot even get on a $3000 Mac Pro.
Sure, it runs OSX, does it run Windows applications? Bzzzt.... duh...
I don't care if it runs OSX or not, does it do a job?
matticus008 said:
The newer iMacs are price adjusted to be more much competitive in the market, I give you that. Trouble is with Apple these price adjustments are far and between, sure the iMac is great value now, but what about when it was first launched?
Following that line of thinking the Macbook Pro and Macbooks are priced at the same price point as 5 months ago, are they good value today? As a buyer does one have the power to choose what you want? Or to do comparison shopping?
No. Not if you are a Mac user.
That's precisely why the Photokina and MBP threads have thousands of posts in them, that is something which even you as a Mac user cannot deny. The lack of choice, the inability to pick what you need and throw out what you don't.
matticus008 said:
Suitable for desktop use? Sure... but it is suboptimal. The better question is why. The "Conroe" has a faster FSB, the same cache, and costs less too! Price differences between the Conroe and the Merom might only be a couple hundred bucks, but why use a subpar processor for desktop use?
The real reason of course is Apple wants to protect its golden egg laying goose of a Mac Pro. Stranger thing is unlike other PC manufacturers, Apple find it in their best interests to frivolously spec out their systems for less performance in a bid to sabotage its ability in undercutting their premium line's sale. PC manufacturers give what the buyer wants. See the difference?
matticus008 said:
Can't you read?
You have failed to address his points, and instead you turn around and make some load of a BS argument?
Typical.
matticus008 said:
Yeah, like Intel macs make G3s stop working too!
matticus008 said:
It probably costs less than a lower performing PC back in the day!
With a superior OS no less!
It's amazing how you can be accused of fanboism in one thread and Apple-bashing in another, all in the same day. What doesn't add up is the fact that the alleged "comparable" hardware is a subset of hardware. There is a price range on hardware of $700 to $1600 or so--Core (1/2) Duo machines with essentially the same specs. The argument that a given Mac is "not competitive" with the bottom 10% of that range isn't a valid one.generik said:
My problem with this is the framing of the comparison--the most expensive stock Apple configuration pitted against very low-end PC configurations and a refusal to admit that PCs at similar price deliver similar performance to the Mac at that price in many/most cases. Again, what does the $x Sony do that the $x Mac does not?
Simply put, it depends on how you evaluate value. If you're a Mac user, then they are the exact same value they were when launched. If you're not tied to any given platform, then you can probably do better with this week's models from HP or Dell if out-of-pocket price is your only criterion. But any advantage you have now will be lost within the first few months of ownership in residual value.
Macs still depreciate at a notably slower rate than do PCs, even the Intel Macs. Your cost savings don't translate into a competitive advantage at the end of the first year of ownership.
There's no lack of choice. If Apple doesn't sell something you need, you can always buy from someone who does meet your needs. It would be nice if Dell's $800 PC looked and felt like a MBP. It'd be nice if I could get a $1000 Mac desktop and get rid of Windows entirely. It'd be nice if parts for my Audi weren't 30-70% more expensive than comparable VW parts. The point is that there is no panacea; having OS X means giving up some other conveniences.
I don't see where Apple is having a problem delivering what its customers want. Everything Apple sells is selling at least as well as expected. I also don't see anyone complaining that the iMac, for example, suffers from performance problems--seems to me that it's more than adequate for desktop and basic to intermedia multimedia use.
My god. Have you people got nothing better up your sleeves? Not all the lines are Core 2 Duo as claimed, and Core 2 Duo doesn't magically make the Core Duo products any worse. Has there been a magical performance gain that I missed with the addition of that fun numeral? Most everyone else seems to think that it's an incremental improvement and the real excitement is yet to come.
Have you stopped to consider that the iMac isn't really a traditional desktop computer? It's certainly not like any other desktop and has a lot of the same engineering challenges you'd find in a tablet PC, which of course is notebook-derived. Many, and I'd argue essentially all, of its perceived shortcomings stem directly from the consequences of the iMac's configuration, not from any deficiency or flaw in its execution.generik said:
I know this makes your rage a little more baseless, so you might not be willing to entertain this notion. But the iMac has very little in common with traditional desktops...just as media centers and HTPCs, so-called "lifestyle PCs," and other atypical configurations begin to blur lines. The iMac, in many ways, is riding the front edge of the massive shift in how and where computers are used--a shift that may well thin out the traditional "desktop tower" market to just a small niche in the next several years.
Basically, I'm waiting for an explanation of how the iMac pales in comparison to other midrange systems...an explanation that transcends the consequences of its configuration (or "form factor," as it is popularly known on this forum, despite the inaccuracy of that term).
matticus008 said:
Aren't these two statements a bit in contradiction? If having OS X means giving up on other conveniences, Apple certainly does not deliver exactly, what its customers want. And the fact that the iMac is selling well does not mean that everyone who buys it wouldn't prefer another system.
And what generik was referring to in his post is - as I understand it - people who want a more flexible machine than an iMac, but don't need the power of the Mac Pro and don't want to pay for the power of the Mac Pro.
Not exactly. Apple customers are, by definition, people who purchase Apple computers. These users would not buy Apple computers if there was no machine that met their needs. For a few of them, the current Macs are the realization of their highest dreams in a computer. For most, though, it's somewhere between sufficient and perfect.2ndPath said:
The contradiction is in your assumptions a) "exactly" and b) that "customers" refers to "every single customer," neither of which is part of the equation. The big problem lies with potential Apple customers--the ones that want OS X but want something other than what exists in the current Mac lineup. This is an inherent condition in any company--no product meets the exact hopes and dreams of all customers. However, companies not satisfying customers on the whole will see drops in sales, loss of profitability, and other market consequences. Obviously, Apple is not experiencing any such negative effects.
Furthermore, Apple is no more at fault for failing to deliver the "perfect" machine for any given customer than any other manufacturer. This is a critical point: it is clear, from posts by generik and miloauckerman, that companies with "superior" systems are not "competitive" in some other way--or those people would buy their perfect computers and enjoy them. I'm betting that it's OS X, and it's frustrating to them because their "superior specifications" are hampered by inadequacies in other departments.
But given that a) many people choose the iMac over other options and b) rational theory dictates that people buy what best fits their goals and requirements, it's safe to say that the iMac is successful (and by virtue of strong sales, considered to be competitive and a reasonable value by those customers).
Desire is not the issue here...Apple lacks a product that sits in that position, and it's valid to want that product. That's totally distinct from declaring Apple's products to be universally inferior, overpriced, and not competitive because their specific wishes are unfulfilled. The argument being pushed so far is that if an $800-900 PC can match or exceed a $1600 Mac in specs, the $1600 Mac is completely worthless and way overpriced compared to the PC side (conveniently ignoring the $1600 PC machines sharing similar specs to the $1600 Mac and $900 PC).
Saying that Apple's products, and Apple's Mac unit in general, is not competitive in the marketplace is an unwarranted tantrum for people who want OS X but can't find the exact hardware they want in Apple's lineup. That's all I'm saying.
matticus008 said:
Of course Apple can't deliver a selection of machines so wide that every potential customer get his perfect machine. Thus they have to make a selection of available products which will also lead the loss of some customers. Certainly all the machines they sell currently are selling well. After years of falling market share, this trend has now stoped or even reversed to a growing business. The difficult thing to estimate is - as you said - how many potential customers are on the market. Considering that 95% of the market is not buying Macs, this number might be substantial.
matticus008 said:
I agree with you to the point that Macs are generally comparable in price to a machine with similar hardware or not much more expensive. For what you pay, you get more or less adequate hardware. The problem I rather see, as many potential customers I talked to, that there are things like expansion options, which are standard on almost every available desktop pc, which at Apple are only available on their high end workstations. Therefore many people think that Macs are very expensive although usually you really get something adequate for the money.
matticus008 said:
Where was this?
So Intel encourages you to use a slower, more expensive processor in your desktop line?
Huh, one might wonder why they bother selling Allendale and Conroe at all.
I never said anything about 'comparable hardware' for the portables, bro. That was precisely the point: Apple charges the same amount, but doesn't give equal value in hardware. How difficult is that to grasp?
It does make Core Duo machines sold at the same price-point a lesser value - if for no other reason than depreciation.
No, you didn't. The 2002 Quicksilver, 1GHz model (top of the line) peaked at $2999 USD. The models I saw on Ebay were those initially priced less - the 800GHz and so on, which, yes, pegs their multi-year depreciation right in line with that of 9-month old iMac Core Duos.
This is called a hypothetical. What happens to Apple when they don't intro a new iPod for Christmas - as almost happened this (and caused the stock price to fluctuate wildly)?
Delayed iPod introductions move the stock price. Delayed Macbook Pro intros don't. Following from A to B - which one, then, do analysts and investors care most about?
Some people love to open up the hood of their cars always tinkering and adjusting
or adding custom features for that extra look or performance.
The majority just want to drive their car without any problems.
In the professional world where time is money and your livelihood depends on
getting things done, dealing with Windows security issues has become simply unacceptable to many users.
These people generally could care less about Gaming or having the ultimate Video card. They want a system that works with the least amount of hassle and they don't mind paying a bit more for a system that works.
or adding custom features for that extra look or performance.
The majority just want to drive their car without any problems.
In the professional world where time is money and your livelihood depends on
getting things done, dealing with Windows security issues has become simply unacceptable to many users.
These people generally could care less about Gaming or having the ultimate Video card. They want a system that works with the least amount of hassle and they don't mind paying a bit more for a system that works.
Does "75-100% premium for OS X" sound familiar? That means that if you're looking at a $1600 Mac, your PC of choice is $800-1000.milozauckerman said:
I'll assume that you mean iMac and Mac mini when you talk about "desktop lines." These products have little in common with a conventional tower and fit more in the media center/HTPC/lifestyle PC category and share many of the same engineering concerns as tablets and notebooks. I don't accept the premise that a product can't compete because it doesn't use the exact same processor. Intel has a wide product array, and many of its products aren't used by Apple. It has nothing to do with "encouragement." It has to do with Apple saying "this is the best processor for this product and we're going to use it."
It's not difficult to grasp; it's just flatly untrue. There are still Core Duo systems for sale in the market--and not at a 75% discount over C2D models, as you seem to think would be appropriate. Further, what is the actual performance advantage of the C2D? Are Core Duo systems no longer sufficient to run software, now that C2D is out? Are those C2D systems 50% faster at the same clock speeds? No. There's no breathtaking performance difference in the new processors--it's an incremental step. Core Duo is still punch-for-punch competitive with C2D. C2D offers some improvements, sure, but does it make your 6 month old Core Duo Dell seem like a brick? No way.
The gulf in your comprehension is that you're not actually talking about value. You're talking about price vs. paper spec sheets. It's not even price vs. performance, which would at least be a bit more credible. Beyond that, the overall value of the Mac must consider OS X, bundled software, aesthetics, and the relevance of the "cool" factor to consumers in general. Here's a simple illustration:
Given the exact same specifications and the exact same price, which is superior: a Mac or a PC? Obviously, the Mac, or there'd be no reason to be whining about it here. Now, increase the price of the Mac until it's no longer a better overall value at purchase. How much did the price go up?
Now. Take a 2.33 GHz CPU (Core 1/2 Duo, doesn't matter). Now find a PC in your designated $800-900 range...but don't stop there. Find the most expensive PC with that CPU (ignoring the XPS gaming rigs that have nothing in common with notebooks in general). Why is it that the specs on that more expensive PC don't account for more than a fraction of the ~$1000 difference in overall price? It must be more than the CPU and GPU, or no PC manufacturer would sell $1700 notebooks that, on paper, look basically the same as $800 ones. And yet, they do, and people buy them. According to your theory, those PCs are worthless and overpriced and no one should bother selling them.
Look at that $1700 PC, with similar specs to your $800 PC. Now look at the $1700 Mac. Does the $1700 PC represent a better value? Didn't think so.
For the love of god, check your information. There was an "ultimate" 1GHz Quicksilver priced at $3899. Subsequently, there was a dual 1.25 G4 at $3299. I BOUGHT ONE. If I have to find the receipt and scan it for you, I will.
Nearly every 20" Intel iMac sold for somewhere in the $1100-1500 price range (over 2 pages of results). Likewise, the same vintage PCs almost never topped $700. The PCs devalue at 2-3 times the rate of Intel Macs. Sad, but true, and saying that they're in line with project Intel Mac depreciation only proves that the Intel machines are still holding their value better than Wintel PCs. As for G4s, even the lower-end $1600 800MHz machines still sell for $500-600. You'd be lucky to get $150 for a four plus year old PC.
No, because hypotheticals are written in the subjunctive mood and don't include the word "when." The word you're looking for is "if."
You know, some people are just never happy with anything.
You want a CHEAP Mac and a CHEAP OS and CHEAP Applications and you probably wouldn't be happy with them either.
And you'll probably spend the rest of your miserabled life picking apart this imperfect world while most of us enjoy the systems we've purchased.
If you're so impressed with Microsoft products and you don't mind dealing with Microsoft issues, then by all means buy yourself a P/C.
You want a CHEAP Mac and a CHEAP OS and CHEAP Applications and you probably wouldn't be happy with them either.
And you'll probably spend the rest of your miserabled life picking apart this imperfect world while most of us enjoy the systems we've purchased.
If you're so impressed with Microsoft products and you don't mind dealing with Microsoft issues, then by all means buy yourself a P/C.
matticus008 said:
Right, if you want to build a machine like the iMac, the core 2 duo laptop CPUs are probably the right choice. The iMac is not a classical desktop computer. However customers looking for a desktop system at Apple will end up with the iMac in many cases, because it is the closest thing to a mid range desktop Apple provides. Therefore from a customers perspective the iMac has to compete with the desktop computers from other companies.
That depends on whether they're looking for a desktop tower or just for a computer to sit on their desk. If they're shopping for the former, the iMac just isn't going to fit the bill, and it's easy to say, "boy, this iMac sure is a crappy desktop tower"--but it's about as valid as saying "wow, my blender sucks at being a food processor." Similar in some ways; radically different in others. If all they're looking for is a computer that isn't a notebook and don't care about upgradeability, then the iMac is probably one of the best options on the market.2ndPath said:
matticus008 said:
The problem is here that when people are shopping for a non-portable computer and don't care about upgradebility, desktop pcs and iMacs are both options. In this comparison the iMac relies on the more expensive laptop hardware (CPU, chipset, optical drive) and thus is more expensive. If the customer wants an all-in-one-machine, he is prepared to pay a premium for that. If he doesn't care about it, the iMac will seem more expensive to him. (And if he cares about upgradebility, it will look like a very bad deal).
I don't really care what the prices of PCs are. Frankly, their worthless to me at any price. The fastest PC in the world is nothing more than a paperweight for me, and the cheapest PC is still too expensive for what it is... not a Mac.
As for those who have pointed out that Apple isn't doing enough to tout that Windows runs on Macs... you are completely right. But then again, Apple originally didn't want Windows running on Macs. Their hand was forced when people started attempting to hack their Mac's firmware leaving them with dead systems.
What was Apple to do? Tell customers that they broke their system (most wouldn't admit that they had attempted the hack) and now they had to live with it? Eat the cost of technical support for people hacking their Macs? No, they opted to remove the issue that had needed to be hacked to keep people from screwing up their systems.
As for those who have pointed out that Apple isn't doing enough to tout that Windows runs on Macs... you are completely right. But then again, Apple originally didn't want Windows running on Macs. Their hand was forced when people started attempting to hack their Mac's firmware leaving them with dead systems.
What was Apple to do? Tell customers that they broke their system (most wouldn't admit that they had attempted the hack) and now they had to live with it? Eat the cost of technical support for people hacking their Macs? No, they opted to remove the issue that had needed to be hacked to keep people from screwing up their systems.