Is Apple playing the PC market right?

[Veritas&Equitas]

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.

You CANNOT be serious! You think the only reason that Apple wrote BootCamp was in fear that they would have higher tech support costs? You have to be kidding me.

The second Apple switched to Intel, and probably way before that, there's no doubt they planned on running Windows on their machines. Imagine the market! Look at the numbers selling right now since they've introduced BootCamp...many more people are looking at Macs because they can both run their games via Windows AND get OS X.

There is no way in hell that Apple's hand was forced b/c a few hackers decided to figure out how to run Windows on their machines. Apple, like any other, is a PROFIT-DRIVEN company. The move to allow their machines to boot to Windows was well-planned and thought out LONG in advance; it's probably one of the main focuses of their entire business plan b/c it's great way for them to get more marketshare and profits. Please tell me you were kidding?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Funny how often Gaming comes up in the Mac discussions now yet the Fanboys are constantly defending the crapy GPU's Apple is pushing. You cant have it both ways. Either you are going after the consumer who'm many many enjoy a good looking game or your not. Apple has to start offering better GPU choices. Window users play games thats not a secret, so by going after this market you have to have a gpu that can do that. 2 foot imac having a 7600GT option is interesting to say the least but this may have more to do with drawing on a 2 foot screen rather then gaming. We will have to wait and see, has a light gone off in the board rooms of Apple? I hope so.

 

[ThunderLounge]

Wow, both sides of the fence seem well represented so far.

I think the biggest thing missing is that we tend to forget that the current models across the boards are Apple's initial foray into the Intel world. They're still in the transition to the new chips and their world. Granted they are towards the end of this cycle, however they are still in it even if only for a little while longer.

I can't disagree right now that the current notebooks aren't a tick higher than they should be, but such is the case with transitional products more frequently than not. They tend to stick around a bit longer than a lot of people think they should, but at the same time the current lines aren't so ancient that they aren't competitive.

Right now, I think Apple is gathering as much data as possible off the initial systems, and learning as much in every area that they can so that the next generation of products can again raise the bar and set Apple's standards. I personally see the lack of a price drop being attributed to this transition and the fact that it still incurs additional costs through the life cycle of their initial lines. Some of their products are indeed moving from transitional to the first post-transitional offerings, but at the same time some lines (such as the notebooks) may simply need a little more time to be refined.

Unfortunately, their not in a position quite yet to be able to fully keep pace. It's not a problem on any end, it's just the time it takes to fully analyze all the information and to ensure they keep their standards for quality or hardware and operation.

If this means that the price of the current models don't see a cut this go around, so be it. Their sales are still high, and often have been a little more than they could even keep pace with. Why? Because the majority of us here are in the minority when it comes to fully understanding what's under the hood, or even caring about it to an extent. In short, the difference in price currently isn't just the difference between the OS and that's it. It's also the additional cost for making the switch to Intel as well. Had Apple made the move a year prior, it wouldn't even be a considerable issue. It just happens to be their time line and where it fell onto Intel's time line and their processor release schedule.

If this was a year from now, I think it might be a bigger issue as Apple would have had more than enough time and been out of the transitional phase completely. Personally, I see it as taking a small initial hit to gain a bigger foothold down the road.

If it were as simple as just a processor swap in the notebook lines, it would have been done already. However there is more to it than that. I really think that they considered it, but decided against it in order to build it better and make it more future compatible than just the simple processor swap out they could have done. On top of that there's a few missing features that they most likely want to get into the line, more so in the MBP vs the MB, as well as some issues with both designs. I don't think Apple is "ignoring" the end user, I think they have them at the front of their mind. Why release a half-a**ed design just to say it has C2D? Does that do any good, when they could take an extra couple of months to put out something that is fully 64-bit compatible and be months ahead of the other manufacturers that will be waiting for the full SR platform?

I'd much rather wait a couple of months for these to be sorted out than to have a repeat incident of the random shutdown and other issues with the initial transition models. While their still good machines, they could have been better. Then again, so could almost any product out there. There is always going to be issues with something, no matter what it is.

A year or so from now if Apple isn't keeping pace, then there will be a bigger foothold for concern. However right now, it isn't that time. Let them work out the kinks, and provide the quality product that we expect.

Is this hurting their current sales? No, it's not. Apple isn't a Dell or a Sony. Their Apple. Regardless of what they do, there will still be people that jump off the cliff with the lemmings and just flat out don't understand that they have a choice. They think all computers run windows, and that's just the way it is. These are also the same people that think AOL is the internet, or that you can't get on the internet without Internet Explorer. And yes those kind of people are out there, and there's more than you think.

On the other hand, there are those out there that know there is a choice, but don't particularly care about the technical specifics of what CD is vs C2D. They see a quite capable machine for thier use, with the benefits of OS X. They are aware that Apple's are usually higher, and have accepted it. They want a Mac, so they'll buy one. They might look at overall specs, like HD capacity and the GHz label for speed, but other than that the little "2" in there (or not in there) is overlooked. That isn't everybody out there, but they are far more the majority than we here are.

 

[milozauckerman]

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.

Which is a mid-range computer now, not the lowest-end, as you claimed.. The greatest number of desktop PC sales are in the sub-$500 range - the median is between $500 and $700.

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 consider the mini anything - I don't know why anyone would buy one, they're an awful value in every way.

But anyway, whatever claims you want to make about the engineering concerns of the iMac, they are sold as competitors with desktop computers around the world. Ergo they are expected to perform as well and be priced accordingly.

Which is the problem.

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.

I never said that. I said that in nine months, they've depreciated from 40-50%, and by year's end, the depreciation will be on the order of 60% as C2D machines saturate the market.

That is to say: welcome to the world of Intel depreciation. No longer are you going to get a 65% return after three years.

Further, what is the actual performance advantage of the C2D?

Doesn't matter - the lowest-end pre-Core Celeron (or Pentium D, etc.) is plenty for most people - but they've still fallen by the wayside as something bigger and better came out.

A 2006 car that's been sitting on the lot is just as capable as the 2007 next to it - but it will sell for less because the market has introduced a newer, shinier competitor.

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:

There you go, there's your argument: buying an Apple makes people feel good about themselves. They're upscale, they're 'cool,' they bought the aesthetic du jour.

What you don't seem to comprehend is what I've been saying since the beginning: cool don't last. What happens when Apple's cool factor - meaning the iPod, primarily - wears off? How is the product line poised to survive in that eventuality?

What happens when other PC makers learn to tart up a computer just right?

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.

Wrong. Which is superior: a Mac or a machine running Windows. Note the difference: software isn't hardware.

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?

Yes, that's the concept behind my 'OS X markup' you protested so grievously against.

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?

Except that the 'specs on that more expensive PC' more than account for the $1000 difference.

The difference in price is accounted for in CPU (anywhere from a $100 to a $500 bump), in GPU (from a GMA to a 7900-class GPU - $200-$500), in expandability. Sound cards. etc.

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.

Yes, of course any given $1700 PC presents a better value than the Mac in hardware - it doesn't have 'similar specs' to the $800 PC any more than the iMac has 'similar specs' to a Core Solo mini.

The only way you can make this argument is if you're going to pretend that GPU, CPU and hard drives are irrelevant to performance and value.

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.

There was an 'ultimate' perhaps - heavily upgraded. But no Quicksilver 2002 retailed for either price.

Nearly every 20" Intel iMac sold for somewhere in the $1100-1500 price range (over 2 pages of results).

No, they aren't. Stock or near-stock iMacs sell for $1000-1150. Heavily upgraded iMacs, those with AppleCare - may sell for more, but then you have to count their depreciation against the $300 fee paid for a 500GB hard drive and $250 for Applecare and $300 for 2GB of memory - not $1600 stock.

This is not a difficult concept.

As for G4s, even the lower-end $1600 800MHz machines still sell for $500-600.

Yes, that was the old Apple depreciation - as I've been saying. Apples used to hold their value because change was slow and they were unique. There was little advantage to buying a new G5 tower when you could get a refurb for 80% or a used one for 70%.

That no longer holds in the Intel world.

No, because hypotheticals are written in the subjunctive mood and don't include the word "when." The word you're looking for is "if."

No, I was looking for 'when' - which is also suitable for a hypothetical.

 

[Ugg]

That is to say: welcome to the world of Intel depreciation. No longer are you going to get a 65% return after three years.


There you go, there's your argument: buying an Apple makes people feel good about themselves. They're upscale, they're 'cool,' they bought the aesthetic du jour.

What you don't seem to comprehend is what I've been saying since the beginning: cool don't last. What happens when Apple's cool factor - meaning the iPod, primarily - wears off? How is the product line poised to survive in that eventuality?

What happens when other PC makers learn to tart up a computer just right?

The used Mac market isn't going to be affected like you think. Macs simply last longer and there are still a few businesses running OS9. Some people need the latest and greatest, others are simply happy when a computer fulfills their needs.

Personally, I don't need an 8 core, super duper, 1 terabyte, ultra maxed out graphics card, etc, etc, computer. For those of us with modest neeeds, the Mini is the perfect solution. Whether it has a core solo, core duo or core 2 due is irrelevant. I plan on buying one next year after the release of Tiger and might well buy used.

The iMac was introduced in 1999. The PC manf. have yet to make anything as cool or as attractive as the iMac or the Apple's laptops. They've had six years so obviously there's little hope they'll ever meet the cool factor.

The same goes for the iPod. It's been around since '01 yet nobody has been able to come up with anything as remotely attractive or functional. Nor has anyone been able to come up with a service like the iTMS and that's where the iPod reigns supreme, being able to buy music that is not loaded with endless restrictions.

Let's face it, this isn't about Apple this is about your own fanboyism. If you don't like what Apple's sellling, don't buy it.

 

[matticus008]

Which is a mid-range computer now, not the lowest-end, as you claimed.. The greatest number of desktop PC sales are in the sub-$500 range - the median is between $500 and $700.

I didn't say lowest-end PC. I said lowest-end PC that fits the bill...that is Core 2 Duo at a comparable spec--the cheapest computers you can find to match or exceed a given Mac's specs. Are you now arguing that iMacs are inferior to sub-$500 PCs, too? What a comedy routine your posts have become!

But anyway, whatever claims you want to make about the engineering concerns of the iMac, they are sold as competitors with desktop computers around the world. Ergo they are expected to perform as well and be priced accordingly.

By your logic, HTPCs and lifestyle PCs are also sold as competitors to desktops--and they compare poorly at the same price to a standard tower as well. Just because two things are in the same price class does not necessarily mean that they compete directly for function/purpose. There is some overlap, yes, but I've already covered that. If you're looking for a desktop tower specifically, the iMac isn't going to work out for you. You've still not addressed why PC makers sell $1700 PCs and $800 PCs with startlingly similar specs. They obviously must compete in some other category.

I never said that. I said that in nine months, they've depreciated from 40-50%, and by year's end, the depreciation will be on the order of 60% as C2D machines saturate the market.

But they haven't. They've depreciated at most 40%, and naturally the first year is going to be the biggest hit--depreciation is not linear.

That is to say: welcome to the world of Intel depreciation. No longer are you going to get a 65% return after three years.

It certainly doesn't look that way. Intel Macs are still selling in the same ballpark as PPC Macs at the same age. There has been a small uptick in the depreciation rate, but it is still significantly less than ordinary PCs, something you've not addressed.

Doesn't matter - the lowest-end pre-Core Celeron (or Pentium D, etc.) is plenty for most people - but they've still fallen by the wayside as something bigger and better came out.

So you're saying that performance of the CPU doesn't matter to you; only the name of the newest CPU dictates its value. That's exactly why your argument is a load of horse crap.

According to you, the Athlon 64 is a poor value and can't compete with the Core 2 Duo at all. It is, after all, older than C2D and actually competes with the Core (1) Duo.

A 2006 car that's been sitting on the lot is just as capable as the 2007 next to it - but it will sell for less because the market has introduced a newer, shinier competitor.

Yes, but there is no "2007" Apple. Apple is still selling "2006" models while other manufacturers are bringing in their 2007s--it's the start of the transitional period, and not every car manufacturer brings in 2007s at the same time. There IS no newer Apple model, period.

But now that you've admitted that the Core 2 Duo isn't any more capable than the Core Duo, at least the ridiculousness of your "value" evaluation is out in the open.

There you go, there's your argument: buying an Apple makes people feel good about themselves. They're upscale, they're 'cool,' they bought the aesthetic du jour.

No, that's not my argument. That's the market's argument as one part of the consumer value of a Mac. There are other factors, which you've conveniently dropped--aesthetics, software bundling, OS X, greater lifespan and value retention (even after the Intel switch), and in some cases, design--some people don't want a two piece boxy tower or a plastic notebook covered in stickers and pop-off panels and sixteen colors with advertising all over.

What you don't seem to comprehend is what I've been saying since the beginning: cool don't last. What happens when Apple's cool factor - meaning the iPod, primarily - wears off? How is the product line poised to survive in that eventuality?

How is the PC market poised to cause that eventuality? The market will adapt, and Apple will adapt. Whether it will be successful is a matter for the future. Since it's not an extant situation, it doesn't affect current value.

What happens when other PC makers learn to tart up a computer just right?

Apple will have to change to stay competitive. But again, that's a question to frame with "if," and a BIG if, at that.

Wrong. Which is superior: a Mac or a machine running Windows. Note the difference: software isn't hardware.

News flash, skippy: almost no one buys computers specifically for hardware. People who do that build PCs themselves to get the best value for the hardware.

Yes, that's the concept behind my 'OS X markup' you protested so grievously against.

No, I protested against your ridiculous 75-100% markup claim. I didn't protest that OS X didn't impact the value of a Mac. It does.

Except that the 'specs on that more expensive PC' more than account for the $1000 difference.

The difference in price is accounted for in CPU (anywhere from a $100 to a $500 bump), in GPU (from a GMA to a 7900-class GPU - $200-$500), in expandability. Sound cards. etc.

So wait. You're saying that the more expensive PC has $1000 in hardware upgrades over the $800 PC, which is running the exact same CPU? And that the $800 PC isn't expandable, like the $1800 one? The GPU certainly may add a portion of that $1000 price increase, but not all of it. Both PCs would be expandable, so there's added value there.

Yes, of course any given $1700 PC presents a better value than the Mac in hardware - it doesn't have 'similar specs' to the $800 PC any more than the iMac has 'similar specs' to a Core Solo mini.

Well, it has the same CPU, because I told you to look at the retail price range of a single CPU to form a normalized baseline. The point being (and obviously lost on you), that a given Intel CPU is used on a wide price range of PC products, and that the hardware value of the higher half isn't really significantly greater than the lower half of that range.

The only way you can make this argument is if you're going to pretend that GPU, CPU and hard drives are irrelevant to performance and value.
They're not, but if you're looking within a single CPU product, the performance and value of the CPU are the same (by virtue of them being the SAME PRODUCT), and hard drives used in retail PCs are basically the same except in varying capacity. That leaves you with the GPU, and it doesn't account for a $1000 price difference. There must be some other reason people buy these PCs.

There was an 'ultimate' perhaps - heavily upgraded. But no Quicksilver 2002 retailed for either price.

You have got to be the densest, most idiotic person in the world not to get this. I bought a G4 tower in 2002, priced at $3299. I was not the only one to do so. The 2002 G4 product line included a dual 1.25GHz G4 tower. In fact, here is a link to shut you up, once and for all. Further, the "ultimate" still had some BTO options on it (note the $3899 price--not a fully BTO price, which would not be so nice and round to a retail number). I cannot believe you are actually trying to argue this point.

No, they aren't. Stock or near-stock iMacs sell for $1000-1150.

I know it pains you, but there are only ~8 results for 20" iMacs in that price range. There are 40+ results if you bump the ceiling up to $1600. Many of those do include AppleCare or upgrades, which is why I chose a lesser ceiling and suggested a $1300-1400 range.

Yes, that was the old Apple depreciation - as I've been saying. Apples used to hold their value because change was slow and they were unique. There was little advantage to buying a new G5 tower when you could get a refurb for 80% or a used one for 70%.

They still are, unless you're trying to buy a Mac to run Windows. The CPU change does not affect value if you're an Apple user (OS X and Mac hardware), because they remain unique and change is not the same as the PC market as a whole.

No, I was looking for 'when' - which is also suitable for a hypothetical.

No, when is not conditional, and it doesn't explain your use of the past tense. This is a minor point, and I really don't care.

 

[milozauckerman]

I tire of your inability to follow from sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph and post to post, so let's just go with some of your highlights.

If you're looking for a desktop tower specifically, the iMac isn't going to work out for you.

We'll pretend that "I" was "looking for a desktop tower specifically," but OK: Very good - so Apple has just lost a customer, because it has two legitimate desktop options: an overpriced laptop-spec AIO or a $3000 giant.

A business model to build upon, to be sure.

There has been a small uptick in the depreciation rate, but it is still significantly less than ordinary PCs, something you've not addressed.

Ah, finally, it only took you two dozen posts to finally agree with me on the original point of contention. Well done.

As to PC depreciation - I don't know. I couldn't tell you what Dell was offering six months or a year ago (for one thing, they didn't have many Core Duo desktops, it was mostly Pentium D and Athlon for most manufacturers) to predict its depreciation.

If it is worse than Apple's, I wouldn't be surprised (if for no other reason than supply - there are more used PCs to go around) - but it still has no bearing on your original argument that PPC depreciation was a predictor of future Intel-Apple depreciation.

Since it's not an extant situation, it doesn't affect current value.

Read my first post, for the love of God. I never said that Apple's potentialities impact 'current value.' What I'm saying is that we, as Mac users (who, presumably, hope to be using Macs in 5, 10, 15 years), should not be sanguine about Apple's move toward yuppie home-electronics. CE and 'coolness' are both fickle mistresses - what's cool today isn't tomorrow (or later this afternoon) and today's cutting edge in consumer electronics is tomorrow's DivX.

Apple is building and expanding on the back of those markets, and it could very well (as it often has historically), backfire. At which time, without iPod revenue flowing in, and a stagnant product matrix, puts them back in the dark days of the mid to late '90s.

In order to combat this, Apple must diversify and expand its computer offerings - in terms of product lines and aggressiveness in pricing. You can't build market share (given that there is no killer app - OS X and iLife are a lovely bonus, but clearly not enough to sway large chunks of people) with an empty pseudo-luxury brand offering last-generation technology.

Now, maybe the iPod defies everything and remains the only product in town for decades. And maybe the iTV manages to defy bandwidth issues and make downloading/streaming movies in HD a reality. And maybe DVRs around the world crumble and fall. But that hasn't been the history of technology, has it?

But I ain't betting on it, and that concerns me as to the future of Apple's core business (and the product I use): computers.

How is the PC market poised to cause that eventuality? The market will adapt, and Apple will adapt. Whether it will be successful is a matter for the future.

The PC market doesn't have to. Coolness saturation does. Seen anyone buy a PT Cruiser lately? How are VW Beetle sales doing compared to their introduction?

"Apple will adapt... but it may not be successful!" Well, duh, that's been the issue I'm banging on about - thanks for catching up.

So you're saying that performance of the CPU doesn't matter to you; only the name of the newest CPU dictates its value. That's exactly why your argument is a load of horse crap.

Not 'to me' - to consumers. (Do follow along.) To the people I'll be selling this Mac Pro to in three or four years. (And, once more, the depreciation factor is one more reason to wait for the C2D over a CD portable - you will be one generation up the price ladder, regardless of performance.)

People aren't rational about CPU specs (because they don't understand them, for the most part, or they're told they need the latest and greatest). But if you want to pretend that people don't buy based on name and number, you're a fool.

So wait. You're saying that the more expensive PC has $1000 in hardware upgrades over the $800 PC, which is running the exact same CPU? And that the $800 PC isn't expandable, like the $1800 one? The GPU certainly may add a portion of that $1000 price increase, but not all of it. Both PCs would be expandable, so there's added value there.

They aren't running the 'exact same CPU' - God only knows where you're even getting that from - there's a spread of roughly $700 retail between a low-end Allendale and the high end Core 2 Duo Extreme. To upgrade from a 1.8x Allendale to a 2.4Ghz C2D/Conroe in a machine is usually an upgrade cost of roughly $300-400.

GPU, likewise - GMA to upscale GPU is $200-500, and any OEM producing them has to upgrade the power supply.

Expandability is an issue - most cheap machines don't have as many PCI slots or Hard Drive bays.

Keep talking about things you know nothing of.

News flash, skippy: almost no one buys computers specifically for hardware. People who do that build PCs themselves to get the best value for the hardware.

Nonsense. Many gamers and enthusiasts and semi-pros don't want to chance screwing things up themselves on a first build, or they want OEM support and warranty, or they simply don't want to be hassled.

You have got to be the densest, most idiotic person in the world not to get this.

Except the model you now point to were the dual-processor "Mirror Drive Door" machines - which were not the Quicksilver 2002 models you referred to earlier. And still didn't retail for $3899 as you claimed.

 

[matticus008]

We'll pretend that "I" was "looking for a desktop tower specifically," but OK: Very good - so Apple has just lost a customer, because it has two legitimate desktop options: an overpriced laptop-spec AIO or a $3000 giant.

There you go again. They didn't lose a customer--they lost a potential customer, or in other words, failed to gain a customer. It's different.

A business model to build upon, to be sure.

Gosh, you mean companies that don't provide every possible option and product in the universe? You're right; that is a silly business model. That's like saying car companies that don't have SUVs have a bad business model because you want a Jaguar SUV. Here's a simple truth: not every company sells a product for every niche and corner of the market--not even if it's a very large corner. Most HTPC manufacturers, for example, don't sell powerful workstations or desktop towers. Guess that means they suck at life.

Ah, finally, it only took you two dozen posts to finally agree with me on the original point of contention. Well done.

Your original point of contention was that Macs are horrible values with gigantic markups, as I recall. I didn't realize that whole elaborate argument was simply a cover for the claim that Intel Macs depreciate faster than PowerPC Macs.

As to PC depreciation - I don't know. I couldn't tell you what Dell was offering six months or a year ago (for one thing, they didn't have many Core Duo desktops, it was mostly Pentium D and Athlon for most manufacturers) to predict its depreciation.

You don't have to predict depreciation. All you have to do is look. They have and continue to depreciate faster than Macs. That's my only argument with regard to depreciation.

If it is worse than Apple's, I wouldn't be surprised (if for no other reason than supply - there are more used PCs to go around) - but it still has no bearing on your original argument that PPC depreciation was a predictor of future Intel-Apple depreciation.

It is and has been. G5 iMacs depreciated along a similar line to that of the Intel machines so far--there are minor variations, but again, Mac depreciation is and has been substantially lower than PC depreciation. End of story. Apple depreciation is not tied purely to the CPU name.

Read my first post, for the love of God. I never said that Apple's potentialities impact 'current value.'

In order to combat this, Apple must diversify and expand its computer offerings - in terms of product lines and aggressiveness in pricing. You can't build market share (given that there is no killer app - OS X and iLife are a lovely bonus, but clearly not enough to sway large chunks of people) with an empty pseudo-luxury brand offering last-generation technology.

Why does Apple need to sway "large chunks" to continue growing? It doesn't need to leap into the 40% market share range to continue to be successful. It certainly isn't having a problem selling its "pseudo-luxury, last generation technology"--it is one of two profitable PC manufacturers in the whole technology sector.

Now, maybe the iPod defies everything...But that hasn't been the history of technology, has it?

What does any of that have to do with your ridiculous rant about the "value" of Macs?

Not 'to me' - to consumers. (Do follow along.) To the people I'll be selling this Mac Pro to in three or four years. (And, once more, the depreciation factor is one more reason to wait for the C2D over a CD portable - you will be one generation up the price ladder, regardless of performance.)

You're the one arguing that Macs are 75-100% overpriced, not consumers in general. You're the one saying that PC products are superior and half the price, not consumers. Consumers are happily buying Apple's products at a fast rate and producing profitable results for Apple.

As for depreciation, you'll be one generation newer if you wait, that's all. If you've set a plan to sell your Mac in 2010, then yes, it would benefit you to wait as long as possible to buy that Mac. Otherwise, a C2D Mac is going to be worth about the same at 4 years old as a 4 year old CD Mac.

People aren't rational about CPU specs (because they don't understand them, for the most part, or they're told they need the latest and greatest). But if you want to pretend that people don't buy based on name and number, you're a fool.

This isn't about people buying based on names and numbers. This is about your ridiculous argument that Macs are a horrible value and only idiots would buy them when they can get the same computer for half the price.

They aren't running the 'exact same CPU' - God only knows where you're even getting that from - there's a spread of roughly $700 retail between a low-end Allendale and the high end Core 2 Duo Extreme.

Looks like someone skipped a step. The "exact same CPU" was a core component of the exercise--I said to look at a CPU and find a computer at a low price using that CPU and then to look at the most expensive computer using that same CPU. Compare the prices of the bottom end and the top end of that line. Do the specs of the top end fairly account for the price difference? No. The whole point was to show that PCs with the same CPU are priced in a wide range, a range that extends below and above what Apple charges for similar products and doesn't magically stop at the lower end of that range.

Nonsense. Many gamers and enthusiasts and semi-pros don't want to chance screwing things up themselves on a first build, or they want OEM support and warranty, or they simply don't want to be hassled.

Why would gamers and PC hardware enthusiasts want a Mac? Since when would a "semi pro" care about the precise details of hardware--wouldn't they care which computers gave them the best performance to do their jobs?

Except the model you now point to were the dual-processor "Mirror Drive Door" machines - which were not the Quicksilver 2002 models you referred to earlier. And still didn't retail for $3899 as you claimed.

Actually, if you recall, you're the one who tossed "Quicksilver" into the discussion. The 1GHz ultimate did indeed retail for $3899--you've already been smacked down once, just Google it and save yourself from having it happen again. Thanks again for telling me three times that I bought a Mac that never existed, though. It was enlightening to me.

 

[FFTT]

My neighbors just purchased a new MBP yesterday.

They have been hardline Windows users at work for the last 15 years.

The Mac Book Pro is the nicest computer either of them have ever worked with.

My neighbors' brother is a senior IT administrator for a major firm and he's blown away at how easy the MBP's network set-up went.

To them the cost was worth every penny to free them from Windows security
and maintenance issues.

 

[RacerX]

You CANNOT be serious!...

Please tell me you were kidding?

Deadly serious, and not kidding at all.

Not only does the time line of events back up what I said, people I know who work for Apple have said that they only did it once they're hand was forced.

Apple was going to hold out as long as there wasn't a way for users to do it. Boot Camp was announced at the same time as a successful hack for getting Windows on Intel based Macs was found.

The second Apple switched to Intel, and probably way before that, there's no doubt they planned on running Windows on their machines. Imagine the market! Look at the numbers selling right now since they've introduced BootCamp...many more people are looking at Macs because they can both run their games via Windows AND get OS X.

There is no way in hell that Apple's hand was forced b/c a few hackers decided to figure out how to run Windows on their machines. Apple, like any other, is a PROFIT-DRIVEN company. The move to allow their machines to boot to Windows was well-planned and thought out LONG in advance; it's probably one of the main focuses of their entire business plan b/c it's great way for them to get more marketshare and profits.

You sound like you are new to Apple computers... lets take and look at your fantasy version of events for a second.

First, for you to be correct Apple would have had to put this feature front and center when they released the first Intel based Macs. They didn't.

Second, why make Mac initially incompatible with Windows if, as you said, this was their plan all along? Because it wasn't their plan.

If Boot Camp was their strategy, why push Parallels as the preferred way to run Windows apps on a Mac? Because Boot Camp wasn't part of their original strategy.

I'll clue you in on something... Apple computers running on Windows is the worst thing that Apple currently has to deal with looking towards the future. Why? Developers.

If Developers decide that you (the user) can run their apps just as well on your Mac in Windows, what is the point of porting their apps to the Mac OS in the first place? Without apps, no OS (not even a great OS) can survive.

And without the Mac OS, Apple computers are just PCs... and the last twenty years is littered with failed PC makers.

So yeah, running Windows on Macs was not something Apple wanted. And running Windows on Macs without Mac OS X running is even worse. See, if you aren't using Mac OS X, you aren't really a "switcher" in Apple's eyes. You are little more than a PC user to them. They can't count on you as a future customer, because you could just as easily buy some other companies PC the next time you need a computer. Mac users are loyal mainly because Apple makes the only Macs.

Don't believe me? there history showing that to. When Apple allowed clones, they hurt Apple's business. Most Mac users are loyal to the Mac environment, not Apple. And Apple knows this.

So Windows users buying Macs to run Windows doesn't accomplish their goals... to make Mac users. There have been reports that usage of Mac OS X has leveled off for the first time in the last few years (where it had been on a steady incline). To Apple this means that many of the Intel Macs that they have sold haven't successfully converted all the non-previous Mac users.

Apple isn't in this for short term gains... and this doesn't hold well for the future.



But if you wish to believe your version of events that is your problem, not mine. Facts are facts, and I've stated the facts. The philosophy behind what goes on at Apple Computer isn't that hard to understand. Neither is what trends are either good or bad for the company.

While you may wish to view this with rose colored glasses, the fact of the matter is that it is having an impact already... and it is a negative one.