Mac Marketshare Growth in High End Retail Market

[JoeDMD]

Again: almost NOBODY in the ordinary Apple market targets cares about upgradability (apart from MacPro customers). I have NEVER upgraded anything apart from RAM. HD: portable external. Sound system: external. Wireless keyboard/mouse: external. GPU? Never. Superdrive? Never. Airport? Never. Monitor? Never.

So you take your beautiful "wire clutter free" iMac and you stick external drives into it?

Things I've added to my G4
1. Zip drive (ok, haven't used it in 4-5 years)
2. A 320GB HD - a 60 GB doesn't really cut it anymore

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user? Apple //e emulator card? x86 PC on a Mac card? Perhaps a home automation system? Yep, this is so early 90s and reaaaaaaaaaally relevant for Apple.

3. USB 2.0 card when I got my iPod

(and I did add a video card and extra hard drives on my 8500)

I must be a super techie tinkerer to do all those wacked out things.
Maybe people would even want to add eSATA.

I don't need 8 cores, particularly 8 slow cores. I don't want to pay a premium for things I don't need. I don't want a cheap machine for cheapness sake, I just don't want to buy something I don't need.

Also, my G4 was only slight more expensive than my PC. The current Mac Pro would be double or triple the price.

 

[AidenShaw]

Actually PCIe, not PCI

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user?

Dual HDTV tuner for my Vista Media Center ...

That's a pretty "home"-y thing to use an expansion slot for

 

[MacFly123]

I do not think that Apple has ruled the Mini out completely, and am pretty sure that something is gonna come soon.

In fact, ANY update to it means the existence of a very good entry-level Apple "headless" Mac, no matter how much rabid "xMac" fans try to deny it. The fact of the matter is: not even 5% of ordinary customers ever wish to install new GPUs, HDs or whatever in their machines. This is a silly habit from the PC side, which has grown accostumed to building ugly beige boxes with spare parts.

Again: almost NOBODY in the ordinary Apple market targets cares about upgradability (apart from MacPro customers). I have NEVER upgraded anything apart from RAM. HD: portable external. Sound system: external. Wireless keyboard/mouse: external. GPU? Never. Superdrive? Never. Airport? Never. Monitor? Never.

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user? Apple //e emulator card? x86 PC on a Mac card? Perhaps a home automation system? Yep, this is so early 90s and reaaaaaaaaaally relevant for Apple.

I have been an user in the Mac realm since 1994 . Only hobbyists and hardcore gamers would like an xMac...something that 99% of customers could not care less about.

I totally agree. I just hope they update the mini soon. I would love one in my car!

 

[macidiot]

Well, no. Not really. My Macbook is no more stable or productive than my work's Lenovo T60 although, in fairness, Lenovo's ain't cheap.



It's not though. There is a misconception that PCs are cluttered unusable devices which are less efficient than Macs and that's exactly what it is - a misconception. In my experience they're no better nor any worse.

Simply put, you get what you pay for. Yes you can find a cheap PC. You better hope it has some expansion because unless you want to replace it in 6 months, it's going to need upgrading. And frankly, you'll be lucky if something doesn't break on it.

As you said, your Lenovo isn't cheap. Which is one reason it will work better than a $600 off-brand laptop.

Think about this, in the low end pennies mean a lot. And if a maker has to have a feature rich product (which is all a lot of PC users seem to care about), they HAVE to cut costs somewhere. So it means using a slightly cheaper HD, or a slightly cheaper power supply, or a slightly cheaper i/o, or a slightly cheaper screen, or a slightly cheaper keyboard. Or maybe all of the above. And what you end up with is more parts of less quality. Creating more potential points of failure.

Dell cut costs through process refinement for years, without affecting general quality. But at some point, those savings stop, and yet they still have to cut costs. Which means the actual product suffers.

Yes Apple maintains a fairly high margin. But it also gives them the ability to spend an extra dollar or two on a power supply. Or spending an extra week on product testing. Or spending an extra couple of days refining something like how a folder opens or the speed of a scroll. Or having someone from the United States answer the phone when you call for help.

And I can't comment on your personal experience, other than to say that is is just that, the personal experience of one person. In MY personal experience, every PC I worked on had some sort of problem from minor (Windows doing its own ridiculous thing) to major (major hardware problems).

And if we're throwing around anecdotes, how about this one (true story):

A friend of mine bought a Macbook to go with his 2 PC's (one laptop, one desktop) about a year ago. Six months ago he bought another PC laptop. As of today, only the Macbook is running reliably. One laptop has software problems and the other computers have physical hardware problems. So in his experience, any "premium" he paid for the Macbook was obviously worth it.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Not true, these days, computer upgrades involve purchasing extras like RAM, Wi-Fi, Blue Tooth, Optical Super-Drives, Larger HDs, etc., taking the price above $1000. For the same price, you can have an all-in-one state-of-the-art iMac 24", and people are making this choice.

Sorry, but you're not being truthful or do not know the facts, IMO. I own a Mac (I'm typing on it now; it's a souped up PowerMac that runs my whole house audio system based off two AppleTV units and an Airport Express) and I also own a PC. I got the PC last November. It cost all of $700, M$ Windows included. It has an AMD dual-core 2.8GHz CPU, 2 Gigs of 800MHz low-latency ram, an Nvidia 7900GS, a Lightscribe DVD/CD burner (what you know as a "SuperDrive"), 5.1 sound, a 320GB 7200RPM Sata hard drive, Gigabyte Ethernet, USB 2.0, etc. Unlike all but the made-to-order 24" Imac (which costs well over $2000!!!!) and the MacPro (which costs well over $2400!!!!), this machine can run all current games out there acceptably plus any productivity software I throw at it. I've since added a 2nd 7200RPM 500Gig drive for an extra $80 on-sale and installed Linux on a partition and use the rest for backup. So for under $1000 (with monitor), I've got a system that blows away ALL Macs under $2000 (save the Psystar clones).

If I need Firewire and/or Bluetooth, I can add it for another $100-150 or so. It's STILL a FRACTION of what your $2200 iMac costs. There is NO good justfication for Apple to sell their only 3D capable machines at $2000+ prices. They could include a DECENT 3D card in their $1200 laptops and/or the MacMini but they purposely choose NOT to in order to force those of you that WANT decent 3D graphics to buy a $2000+ machine. That is underhanded, IMO and it's why I fully support Psystar's efforts as if nothing else, it may force Apple to offer a reasonable mid-range machine in the future. Personally, I love MacOSX, but I do not love Apple's hardware options and prices compared to comparable PC equipment.

So again, I say that making bold claims that Apple own 67% or whatever of the $1000+ PC market is deceitful given that the majority of PCs being sold today are sub $1000 machines. You can get a reasonable $600 laptop running Windows or Linux even. There is no Apple equivalent in that price range. You're paying a premium for Apple hardware, YET there is nothing "special" about Apple hardware. It's the OPERATING SYSTEM that makes "Macs" special. But Psystar and DIY Hackintosh projects prove that a cheap PC can run the MacOS just fine and without real issues. Apple should reposition itself as an operating system and gadget maker and leave the PC hardware to the people that have been making it for years and years. There is no reason a person should have to pay a premium for generic PC hardware just because Apple says so (i.e. you can't run their OS unless you buy THEIR overpriced generic Intel hardware, which is illegal TYING of OS to hardware (proven in a past court case with another company) and thus nullifies their Eula).

BTW, your BMW analogy in another post is wrong. That implies the hardware (car) is different, but it's not. It's the same Intel PC hardware everyone else is using save the EFI instead of a bios (more like a different key/ignition system on the same car). The OS is artificially tied to that key system. Beyond that, it'll run on any hardware there's a driver for (quite a few).

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Simply put, you get what you pay for. Yes you can find a cheap PC. You better hope it has some expansion because unless you want to replace it in 6 months, it's going to need upgrading. And frankly, you'll be lucky if something doesn't break on it.

Your comments make no sense. You can build a high quality PC for under $1000 that will last as long as the equivalent Mac. The whole point is that the HARDWARE *IS THE SAME*. Only the OS makes a real difference.

And this idea someone said on here that Mac users don't want upgrades is cyclical in nature. You CAN'T upgrade all Macs except the MacPro so THEREFORE "Mac users EXCEPT MacPRo" ones "don't care about upgrades". Well, how can they care about upgrades if they CANNOT get them PERIOD anyway??? It's a ridiculous argument. Maybe IF Mac users COULD upgrade, they WOULD upgrade instead of buying ANOTHER $2000+ Mac every time they need slightly better 3D graphics.

 

[G58]

Nice point, well made. Or should that be: Good point, nicely made?

Either way, you're right. And although it's seen as arrogant these days to even try to be right, never mind point out when one is, the quality of making correct assessments of any given situation, especially a business situation, is what makes winners.

I like being on a winning team. But being on a smart winning team is even better.

What strikes me most interesting about this data is that the number of PC's on the market at a retail price point of + 1000 has diminished.

While there may be various reasons for this I can't help but draw my own conclusion that HP, Dell etc can't justify the cost of a + 1000 PC in quantity to the consumer (specialty consumers and hard core gamers aside ).

Because no matter how hard they try they have very little to offer / differentiate at those price points. Where as Apple has been able to do just that and keep that market segment.

The world has finally realized that there is little substance behind the short lived trendy marketed scheme of advertising a PC company with Cow patches and a "im getting a dell" kid. Underneath all the hoopla it's just a PC.

Naturally this is something most mac users have known for quite some time but it's nice to see it translate into actual market share as a result finally.

people are willing to pay premium if the product is right. Apple has demonstrated this fact.

 

[G58]

I keep repeating this and people still seem to be surprised that Apple is doing so well. So here is the very short version again:

iMac
Napster
Music industry law suit
iTunes
iPod
Increased Mac sales
Blackberry
iPhone
More Increased Mac sales

There are loads of other sub headings in there, but principally that's the chronology. Had Napster not been as popular as it was, had the music industry's short-sighted law suit not closed down free downloads, iTunes would never have been launched, iPod would never have become the best premium marketing tool of all time and we would not be having this discussion now.

Every morning, Steve Jobs jumps out of bed, gets down on bended knees and thanks whichever god he worships for all of the above. And it all began with a student from Northeastern University in Boston. If they don't teach this at Harvard... Hell, they don't need to, it's obvious!

eWeek first reported on an interesting breakdown of Apple's retail marketshare. According to numbers from the NPD Group, Apple's Q1 2008 retail (brick and mortar) reached 14%. Note that by limiting it to retail, they've excluded online sales and institutional/enterprise sales.

Chart from eWeek

More surprising, however, is if you limit the data to computers priced above $1,000, Apple represents 66% of all retail computer sales.As with all statistics, it's difficult to take these raw numbers at face value. Instead, the most revealing finding is how quickly this market share has been increasing. Fortune reports that Apple's $1,000+ January 2006 marketshare was only 18%. Their share grew to 57% by September 2007 and finally to 66% in the 1st quarter of this year. These numbers confirm Apple's reporting of large year-over-year growth of Mac sales during their financial results.

One long term question becomes whether or not the saturation of their target market ($1,000+ computers) will limit Apple's future growth. If more customers aren't attracted to this high-end market over time, Apple's Mac sales growth will necessarily stall. Meanwhile, up until now, Apple has been resistant to compete in the low margin market. Apple's only sub-$1,000 offering, the Mac mini, has been rumored to be just hanging on to life.

This phenomenon could explain Apple's willingness to experiment in seemingly niche markets that were not previously satisfied by Apple's offerings. A product like the MacBook Air might be able to further expand their already-large marketshare amongst customers in the $1,000+ market. If Apple's success continues, however, there will be no where else to look but to the sub $1000 market for additional customers.


Article Link

 

[kamm]

From Fortune.

This is such a hilarious spin - since when people buy any other $1k+ machine than Apple in retail?

This is the lamest, cheapest, most pathetic spin I've seen in long time, seriously.

 

[kamm]

Simply put, you get what you pay for. Yes you can find a cheap PC. You better hope it has some expansion because unless you want to replace it in 6 months, it's going to need upgrading. And frankly, you'll be lucky if something doesn't break on it.

Jesus, it's 2008 and some people still citing the same-old, clueless MAc-mantra about 'special Mac hardware'?

I thought the complete switch to commodity PC hardware in Macs finally killed these idiotic legends (along with the stupidest-ever car analogies)...

 

[macidiot]

Your comments make no sense. You can build a high quality PC for under $1000 that will last as long as the equivalent Mac. The whole point is that the HARDWARE *IS THE SAME*. Only the OS makes a real difference.

And this idea someone said on here that Mac users don't want upgrades is cyclical in nature. You CAN'T upgrade all Macs except the MacPro so THEREFORE "Mac users EXCEPT MacPRo" ones "don't care about upgrades". Well, how can they care about upgrades if they CANNOT get them PERIOD anyway??? It's a ridiculous argument. Maybe IF Mac users COULD upgrade, they WOULD upgrade instead of buying ANOTHER $2000+ Mac every time they need slightly better 3D graphics.

The old saw about building a PC is incredibly tiresome. Try building a laptop from scratch.

And your incredibly naive to think the hardware is the same. Yes, the mobo and cpu might be the same. But the case, screen, and testing to make sure it all works together are not. But whatever.

I could also build my own house and save a pile of money. Who the hell cares.

Guess what, my time is money. While I can easily build a PC and have done so in the past when I had more time, I could care less about building one today. You might save a couple of hundred dollars, AT BEST, on component costs. For me, those savings would be gone in about an hour and a half in time. Factor in build time (about 2 hours), shopping time (1-2 hours at least on the internet, longer going to a store). And hope that every piece works together the first time, with no driver issues, or else your looking at an even longer build time.

99% of people that have a computer did NOT build it themselves. So pointing out that you could build one for less is worthless.

As for upgrading a Mac being cyclical thinking, you are misusing the term. However, I understand what you are saying. But you are wrong.

For one thing, because a Mac Pro or any other tower Mac typically is a fairly powerful system when bought, it has less need for upgrades to stay current. A typical PC user that upgrades is cash poor and upgrading over time, typically because the PC is too slow at some task. Well guess what, as you point out, a Mac Pro is expensive. Someone that buys it isn't going to need to skimp and save to put in a new video card after 2-3 years. They are just going to buy a new Mac.

I've owned 4 tower Macs, all bought new. The ONLY things I worked on on any of them were RAM, and hard drives. One, I added a new video card and one I added a $20 USB 2.0 card. And when they got too slow, I just bought a new computer. I could have replaced the CPU. Why bother.

Again, what you seem to be missing is that, in reality, NO ONE really is interested in doing any hardware work more complicated than installing RAM. And many pay to have someone else do even that simple task. Mac users, and most computer users, just want a computer to work, much like a telephone or TV. They just want to turn it on, do their thing, and turn it off. When it becomes outdated, they just replace it. This isn't 1992, when most computer users were hobbyists and most tinkered with their PCs. It's 2008, where basically everyone has a computer. And many don't even know how to open one.

As for the hardcore, who build gaming rigs, constantly upgrading, they are a dying breed, just like PC gaming. And a Mac user is NOT interested in finding what video card will actually work with Crysis and installing it. They will just have a 360 or PS3.

 

[macidiot]

Jesus, it's 2008 and some people still citing the same-old, clueless MAc-mantra about 'special Mac hardware'?

I thought the complete switch to commodity PC hardware in Macs finally killed these idiotic legends (along with the stupidest-ever car analogies)...

Oh really? Then why did the power jack break on my friend's HP laptop, making it essentially useless, and not on his Macbook?

OHHH, right, that super-NON-special commodity Mac hardware called MagSafe.

 

[DiamondMac]

Maybe PC's are as stable as Mac OS.....Maybe people on here have had PC's for years with no problems

But, I could not keep my Gateway Laptop, Dell Laptop, nor other Dell Laptop healthy for longer than 3-4 months before I fell to either a viruses or boot-up problem with Windows. I also had terrible problems with adware and countless other things

I spent years battling those types of things weekly

Then I got a MacBookPro two years ago and shocker.....no boot-up problems, no virus problems, no adware problems......I mean, nothing. No hardware problems

I got a iMac a few months later (thus a year and a half ago) and....shocker....no problems either

So, maybe it was me....maybe I was the cause of all my Windows problems....but all I know is that since I have moved to Macs, I don't have to worry one bit about stability issues whatsoever NOR hardware issues.

If I have to pay more for these types of computers, that is 100% fine by me

 

[DMann]

Build your own vs iMac

I got the PC last November. It cost all of $700, M$ Windows included. It has an AMD dual-core 2.8GHz CPU, 2 Gigs of 800MHz low-latency ram, an Nvidia 7900GS, a Lightscribe DVD/CD burner (what you know as a "SuperDrive"), 5.1 sound, a 320GB 7200RPM Sata hard drive, Gigabyte Ethernet, USB 2.0, etc.

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap, cheap plastic dvd trays that snap easily, and flat screen monitors which suck in terms of clarity, depth, and color saturation. Windows cost me too much in terms of time re-starting and tweaking. If you prefer working with this utter crap, well then this is your choice. Build your own machine for $1200 with a dim lo/res monitor, mismatched parts, running a primitive BIOS Windows OS with bloatware included, which takes over 3 minutes to start up, that is until the malware brings it all down to a grinding halt; all for a fraction of what? $1200 vs $2000?

For an extra premium, you get ultra-fine design, an extraordinarily functional OS experience, better graphics, front side bus, and completely avoid the horrendous bulk and clutter. This works for many people who are willing to spend a little more to save much more in terms of time, hassle, and life span (relevance) of equipment. I have countless clients who recently took the "build your own" route and jumped ship two months later.

For a rock-solid and powerful workstation which will be relevant for 10+ years (MacPro), I'm more than willing to spend $2000+. If you want something cheaper, purchase parts, build it yourself, and be happy.

BTW, your BMW analogy in another post is wrong. That implies the hardware (car) is different, but it's not. It's the same Intel PC hardware everyone else is using save the EFI instead of a bios (more like a different key/ignition system on the same car). The OS is artificially tied to that key system. Beyond that, it'll run on any hardware there's a driver for (quite a few).

Is it? A BMW uses steel alloy just as a Ford Escort does, and uses rubber for the tires as well. It even uses glass for the windshield and plasic for the instrument panel. What you pay for when you purchase a BMW is design, style, and quality. The same is true of an iMac 24". (I've yet to see a PC built with the same solid and high quality aluminum structure and stellar design of an iMac)

 

[AidenShaw]

You have a point, and it shows how stupid the NPD data is...

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap...

Dell is our standard corporate supplier, so we have hundreds of Dell desktops in our group.

We have very, very few problems with them - and most of the problems that we do see are the disk drive failures that you expect to see for a population that large.

Of course, these systems that we buy are like the OptiPlex 755, where our standard config lists for about $1400 with 19" flat panel.

Of course, NPD's data ignores systems like that, since they're not found in brick-and-mortar stores.

So yes, $1500 Apples and PCs are built better and are higher quality than $500 PCs is most likely a true statement. Are $1500 Apples and $1500 PCs the same quality? I'd say that's most likely another true statement.

 

[gkarris]

Dell is our standard corporate supplier, so we have hundreds of Dell desktops in our group.

We have very, very few problems with them - and most of the problems that we do see are the disk drive failures that you expect to see for a population that large.

Of course, these systems that we buy are like the OptiPlex 755, where our standard config lists for about $1400 with 19" flat panel.

Of course, NPD's data ignores systems like that, since they're not found in brick-and-mortar stores.

Here we go again. For our very large company, Dell is running at about 80% of the units have problems within the first month of purchase....

At least we can choose our desktops to be HP, and our servers are all HP. The purchase of new desktops for my area I go with HP....

 

[AidenShaw]

...Dell is running at about 80% of the units have problems within the first month of purchase....

I find that hard to believe - it's certainly not the typical experience. Dell would be out-of-business if it were.

How do you define "problem", and how are your statistics collected? Does a user calling the help desk about a software setup question with a new system count as a "Dell problem"?

 

[Eidorian]

Is something wrong with me if I've only had good experiences with large PC hardware vendors at several jobs and from personal purchases? Not to mention the excellent phone/e-mail support...

Is there really a reason for us Mac users to seem to just go out of our way to point out how bad PC hardware and Windows is? Is it really that bad?

 

[IJ Reilly]

The old saw about building a PC is incredibly tiresome. Try building a laptop from scratch.

And your incredibly naive to think the hardware is the same. Yes, the mobo and cpu might be the same. But the case, screen, and testing to make sure it all works together are not. But whatever.

I could also build my own house and save a pile of money. Who the hell cares.

No kidding. I got so weary of hearing about how home-building was so easy and cost-effective, I had to try it myself. In the end, I saved maybe $200 over an equivalent PC bought retail, and it took me most of a day to assemble and get up and running. And that doesn't even count the time I spent figuring out what I needed and shopping for the parts. The technical expertise required is substantially above the what general population has, or wants to have. And another thing the home-builders will never tell you: be prepared to be your own technical support.

My conclusion: if you enjoy home building, fine -- but stop telling me about how easy it is or how much money you can save. The fact that Apple doesn't allow OSX to be run on home-built generic PCs is not earth-shattering. In fact, it's effectively irrelevant.

 

[JoeDMD]

For one thing, because a Mac Pro or any other tower Mac typically is a fairly powerful system when bought, it has less need for upgrades to stay current. A typical PC user that upgrades is cash poor and upgrading over time, typically because the PC is too slow at some task. Well guess what, as you point out, a Mac Pro is expensive. Someone that buys it isn't going to need to skimp and save to put in a new video card after 2-3 years. They are just going to buy a new Mac.

So mac users have 2-3k they can burn every couple of years?
All mac buyers are that wealthy?
Who do you know buys a new monitor every 2-3 years?
With the iMac you are forced to.

I've owned 4 tower Macs, all bought new. The ONLY things I worked on on any of them were RAM, and hard drives. One, I added a new video card and one I added a $20 USB 2.0 card. And when they got too slow, I just bought a new computer. I could have replaced the CPU. Why bother.

Well you did add hard drives which you can't do to an iMac, you did add a video card, and you added a $20 USB card, which would now cost $2000 to upgrade, since you can't add a 20 usb card to an iMac.

Again, what you seem to be missing is that, in reality, NO ONE really is interested in doing any hardware work more complicated than installing RAM.

And that is your opinion, yet your own history proved you wrong.

According you your model, you have to buy more expensive external components, forgo new technology until you are ready to buy a new machine, or pay 2000+ for a new iMac whenever some new technology come out. (you could spend less, if you want to downgrade your screen from 24 to20.)

The iMac is the complete antithesis of the mini, yet both are produced by the same company.

The mini is relatively inexpensive, and BYODKM. If you buy a nice monitor, you get to keep it when you replace your mini. The iMac forces you buy the whole package. I would get the mini if it were more powerful.

 

[G58]

Some time ago, when my PowerBook G4 Ti 550 hard drive fell over, I was left with no Mac and no net access. I was in need of an new hard drive and some advice on how to fit it.

I got the hard drive from my local trade dealer for less than a third of what Apple wanted to charge me. Having never done it before, and without access to the net, I dug out three old G3s that were designated as US. Inside they were filthy and had various parts missing.

But after an hour I had one case and a working motherboard with PROAM battery cleaned and re-fitted. I dug out a virtually unused HDD from another old Mac [Performa], found and tested a bunch of cables until I found ones that worked. I did the same for the cards, found some more cables and hooked it up to an old Sony Triniron.

Then I dug out a Pace 56K Modem, power supply and a couple of phone cables and hooked it up to my phone socket. Next I booted my 'new' cobbled together G3 [which was too much of a miracle to call Frankenstein!], loaded OS 10.1 I think, and I was in business!

Hardware wise I was back in 1997. OS wise I was in 2002. Getting on the net was easy and surprisingly quick. [How nostalgic to hear those callout tones again!] I downloaded a browser version that worked [Opera?], found the ifixit web site, followed the step-by-step advice and installed my new hard drive in my PowerBook just as the birds started to sing and the Eastern sky started to pale.

My point? It makes a nice anecdote and it's great to be able to say "I did it!" As a hobby, it would even be fun to build an up-to-date Mac, right up to and including a case that did it justice. But as a time efficient exercise who's sum product of what would inevitably be many hours' research and work, is an unsupported computer. And am I really going to use this as my main machine with all my music and my photos and all my work on it?? I don't think so. I'm good, but I'm not stupid.

The G3 still works though. I fire it up now and then just to play with it. And it's always there should my PowerBook, MacBook Pro and soon to be delivered 24" iMac all fall over at once!

No kidding. I got so weary of hearing about how home-building was so easy and cost-effective, I had to try it myself. In the end, I saved maybe $200 over an equivalent PC bought retail, and it took me most of a day to assemble and get up and running. And that doesn't even count the time I spent figuring out what I needed and shopping for the parts. The technical expertise required is substantially above the what general population has, or wants to have. And another thing the home-builders will never tell you: be prepared to be your own technical support.

My conclusion: if you enjoy home building, fine -- but stop telling me about how easy it is or how much money you can save. The fact that Apple doesn't allow OSX to be run on home-built generic PCs is not earth-shattering. In fact, it's effectively irrelevant.

 

[BongoBanger]

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap, cheap plastic dvd trays that snap easily, and flat screen monitors which suck in terms of clarity, depth, and color saturation.

You get what you pay for - if you buy low end you get low end. Can you also advise when you bought these boxes because design features change from year to year. I'd agree that PCs were aesthetically unpleasing a few years ago but that simply isn't the case for a lot of the new ones.

Windows cost me too much in terms of time re-starting and tweaking.

I'm sorry this is your experience. For the vast majority of people it's not otherwise MS would have been out of business years ago.

If you prefer working with this utter crap, well then this is your choice.

I do actually because:

a) Windows isn't actually 'utter crap'. Leopard may be slightly beter than Vista (but see point b) but XP was for a long time better than the previous OSX 10 variants. Fashions in OSs change. Apple's current product is beter than Microsoft's. Who's to say Microsoft's next OS won't be better than Apple's?
b) Leopard, for all its good points, doesn't run the apps I most commonly use. Yes, I could use Parallels but why would I want to when I predominately use Windows based apps 90% of the time? It's just not cost effective to do so.

Build your own machine for $1200 with a dim lo/res monitor, mismatched parts, running a primitive BIOS Windows OS with bloatware included, which takes over 3 minutes to start up, that is until the malware brings it all down to a grinding halt; all for a fraction of what? $1200 vs $2000?

See, now you're just being silly because $1,200 will get you a good machine with an excellent monitor. In addition my Windows machines take less than a minute to boot up - about the same as the Macbook - and seconds from sleep mode. As for malware, anyone who allows their PC to get infested has really only themselves to blame. There is absolutely no excuse to allow malware on your PC with the likes of ZoneAlarm, Avast and AdAware available for no cost.

For an extra premium,

Actually it's an extra 66% of cost.

you get ultra-fine design,

Yup, it's nice but so are a lot of the new PCs.

an extraordinarily functional OS experience,

It's nice but extraordinary? No, not really and, like I say, has the problem that it doesn't run the apps I need it to.

better graphics,

Than a PC with a, say, 9800GT or 8800GTs running in SLI? I doubt it.

front side bus,

The iMac has a 1066MHz FSB. Most new PCs use 1333MHz or 1600MHz as standard. This statement is untrue unless you're talking about a Mac Pro...

and completely avoid the horrendous bulk and clutter.

...which you're obviously not as a Mac Pro has the same bulk and peripheral clutter as any high end PC.

This works for many people who are willing to spend a little more to save much more in terms of time, hassle, and life span (relevance) of equipment.

Perhaps. However Apple customers tend to upgrade at the same rate - if not faster - than PC customers.

I have countless clients who recently took the "build your own" route and jumped ship two months later.

Sorry but I simply don't believe this.

For a rock-solid and powerful workstation which will be relevant for 10+ years (MacPro), I'm more than willing to spend $2000+. If you want something cheaper, purchase parts, build it yourself, and be happy.

Good for you. I think the Mac Pro is an excellent choice for a workstation. I think anyone who buys one for personal, non business related use is crazy though because that's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

But we were comparing a PC to an iMac were we not?

Is it? A BMW uses steel alloy just as a Ford Escort does, and uses rubber for the tires as well. It even uses glass for the windshield and plasic for the instrument panel.

Yup.

What you pay for when you purchase a BMW is design, style, and quality.

I agree, but then I would consider high end PCs to be Audis or Mercedes to Apple's BMW.

The same is true of an iMac 24". (I've yet to see a PC built with the same solid and high quality aluminum structure and stellar design of an iMac)

The XPS One is nice but most PC builders don't build all in one units because of their limitations.

 

[BenRoethig]

So mac users have 2-3k they can burn every couple of years?
All mac buyers are that wealthy?
Who do you know buys a new monitor every 2-3 years?
With the iMac you are forced to.

They do seem to assume we have an unlimited budget, don't they?

Well you did add hard drives which you can't do to an iMac, you did add a video card, and you added a $20 USB card, which would now cost $2000 to upgrade, since you can't add a 20 usb card to an iMac.

You can add a HUB though. In fact, with the iMac you pretty have to buy a hub. Yeah, the hard drive thing is annoying, especially since it was accessible in the last generation. But this is an Ive designed machine. Who actually cares if the thing works if it looks good right?

According you your model, you have to buy more expensive external components, forgo new technology until you are ready to buy a new machine, or pay 2000+ for a new iMac whenever some new technology come out. (you could spend less, if you want to downgrade your screen from 24 to20.)

Works for Apple's bottom line and anyone who is using the Mac for purely social reasons. Not so much for everyone else.

The iMac is the complete antithesis of the mini, yet both are produced by the same company.

The mini is relatively inexpensive, and BYODKM. If you buy a nice monitor, you get to keep it when you replace your mini. The iMac forces you buy the whole package. I would get the mini if it were more powerful.

Not quite. Same song, different verse. Both an experiments in how to get a computer in the smallest space possible. The Mini is just taking that to the extreme. They assume just because someone doesn't want an iMac, it means they already have a display, keyboard, and mouse.

With the iMac Apple is either making a lot of assumptions or they just plain don't care if you have to throw away a perfectly good display as long they get paid. For a family user, who the iMac should be aimed at (but can't afford), the computer should last as long as the display. They just kinda assume you're either just reading emails or are George Lucas.

 

[kcpenner]

Apple's growth will come in new areas

This article assumes the status quo will continue (Apple will only be able to find new customers for low-end Macs). I'm sure that Apple is working hard on The Next Big Thing, which I'm guessing will be what I call the EyePhone, an iPhone-type unit with retinal-scanning laser display, augmented reality, etc. With the continuing trends of miniaturization, increased wireless bandwidth, and location-aware mobile multimedia devices, whichever company can first introduce an EyePhone that "just works" will sell a billion of them. I would say that Apple is one of the few companies poised to make this kind of breakthrough. My prediction (since 2001 and still on target) is that this type of product goes mainstream in 2011 (using Microvision's Color Eyewear, as an example). With increased processing power, it will have all the functions of a basic laptop (plus many new features, such as 3D graphics and augmented reality), but cost well under a $1000.

 

[BenRoethig]

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap, cheap plastic dvd trays that snap easily, and flat screen monitors which suck in terms of clarity, depth, and color saturation. Windows cost me too much in terms of time re-starting and tweaking. If you prefer working with this utter crap, well then this is your choice. Build your own machine for $1200 with a dim lo/res monitor, mismatched parts, running a primitive BIOS Windows OS with bloatware included, which takes over 3 minutes to start up, that is until the malware brings it all down to a grinding halt; all for a fraction of what? $1200 vs $2000?

For an extra premium, you get ultra-fine design, an extraordinarily functional OS experience, better graphics, front side bus, and completely avoid the horrendous bulk and clutter. This works for many people who are willing to spend a little more to save much more in terms of time, hassle, and life span (relevance) of equipment. I have countless clients who recently took the "build your own" route and jumped ship two months later.

If you want to see bulk and clutter, you should see my iMac. I had to add the Card reader/3-port hub, 20x DVD-burner (that can read camcorder discs), and TV tuner externally. In a tower like the one Apple used to sell me all those things would be inside and tucked neatly under my desk.

As for life span. My Performa 5200 lasted be five years, and kept on going for another 5 after as a computer for my grand parents. My B&W G3 lasted me five before I sold it. I was able to extend the usefulness though upgrade to the optical drive, hard drive, video card, and RAM. After that I got a iBook for college. Its still around, but has averaged a new motherboard every 9 months or so. The new 2.4ghz iMac was bought within days of the launch in August and even with a RAM upgrade and external devices, it is already becoming long in the tooth. Like the iBook, it has had it share of little bugs and quite frankly I don't trust it much more than the POS HP I recommended by parents not buy. Then again I do now buy the Apple care I didn't think anyone would ever need back in my G3 days.

Is it? A BMW uses steel alloy just as a Ford Escort does, and uses rubber for the tires as well. It even uses glass for the windshield and plasic for the instrument panel. What you pay for when you purchase a BMW is design, style, and quality. The same is true of an iMac 24". (I've yet to see a PC built with the same solid and high quality aluminum structure and stellar design of an iMac)

You're not looking hard enough. You assume that Dell, Gateway, HP, Acer, and Lenovo are the only computer makers on the planet right? Look up Lian-Li or cooler master. They make cases for most of the top flight PC makers.