A $300 Windows machine is not worth $300 to me. A $2000 Mac, on the other hand, is generally worth $2000 to me. That's how Apple can compete. Sure, I could get six or seven of the windows machines for the same price, but then I would just have six or seven junky machines lying around, none of which do precisely what I want.
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.
New PCs for $300, how can Macs compete?
- Thread starter hvfsl
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Cheap PC's
It doesn't matter if we would like to see Apple stick to the upper crust; an inexpensive (not cheap!) Mac would make a lot of sense. I know that Apple needs to cover the costs or R&D and all but think what would happen in a few years if all the people who bought "cheap" Mac's were to upgrade. After a few years of experience with the Mac, it would be time to move up to a more powerful, expensive machine.
When I worked at Micro Center we sold more of the cheap PC's than anything else. This hit big when the 845 chipset hit (P4 with PC-133, cheap) and people could but a reasonably powerful Pentium 4 for $500. Also, back when MSN came out you could get a "free" Celeron computer after rebates and a subscription to MSN for 3 years. We had lines going out of the store for quite some time. Granted that the PC's were junk ( I worked in service and we repaired A LOT of them) but for many people it was either their starter system or they couldn't afford anything else. Now they are Windows users unwilling to budge because it was hard enough work for them to learn Windows.
If Apple could get a family or a person started on a Mac because it would be a viable option price wise they could hook many more people who, again, eventually upgrade to a more powerful Mac down the road. That's how Apple got me. I only paid $800 for my iBook new and am now looking to get a Power Mac as soon as my PC sells on e-bay.
Just my opinion.
It doesn't matter if we would like to see Apple stick to the upper crust; an inexpensive (not cheap!) Mac would make a lot of sense. I know that Apple needs to cover the costs or R&D and all but think what would happen in a few years if all the people who bought "cheap" Mac's were to upgrade. After a few years of experience with the Mac, it would be time to move up to a more powerful, expensive machine.
When I worked at Micro Center we sold more of the cheap PC's than anything else. This hit big when the 845 chipset hit (P4 with PC-133, cheap) and people could but a reasonably powerful Pentium 4 for $500. Also, back when MSN came out you could get a "free" Celeron computer after rebates and a subscription to MSN for 3 years. We had lines going out of the store for quite some time. Granted that the PC's were junk ( I worked in service and we repaired A LOT of them) but for many people it was either their starter system or they couldn't afford anything else. Now they are Windows users unwilling to budge because it was hard enough work for them to learn Windows.
If Apple could get a family or a person started on a Mac because it would be a viable option price wise they could hook many more people who, again, eventually upgrade to a more powerful Mac down the road. That's how Apple got me. I only paid $800 for my iBook new and am now looking to get a Power Mac as soon as my PC sells on e-bay.
Just my opinion.
IMO, all of the iBlanks - Tunes, Cal, Photo, Movie, and DVD, more than make up for the price difference even if it only costs 50 bucks in the form of iLife. That's a freaking low price for some of the best software in the world.
A $300 linux box with very few extras, or an $800 eMac with a boatload of stuff? You decide.
A $300 linux box with very few extras, or an $800 eMac with a boatload of stuff? You decide.
No it means you don't get tech support if you do, contact microsoft.
Apple isn't competting, and has not competed.
When the REALLY cheap PC came out apple didn't buy it, they didn't do anything cause the PC's were ****.
Why would Dell be any different then a Compaq, they are the same lousy architecture.
What does the P3 that your school received four years ago and the crap they ship today have to do with one another? Companies cut corners, quality slips, etc.
XP is just a great OS now isn't.
The only hardware error is that it's based on a design that is over 25 years old.
The ghost image you are talking about takes more then two minutes and you have to create it.
Do you Dell doesn't ship the OEM edition, sure they do. Comparing apples to oranges. What kind of warranty do you get with the mom and pop peecee? Will they come to your house to repair? What if you move out of state or town, what do you do then? You get what you pay for. The peecee is an antiquated architecture that needs a revamp. It should have received one in the 80's, but nope. With the 64-bit AMD, it will never get one.
On the same subject, why do you think peecees are so cheap? Old technology. Something 25+ years old should be cheap.
i think some people have a misconception about what apple is out to doing...
apple is NOT out to:
1) sell os x
2) increase marketshare
3) sell more hardware
etc., etc., etc.
the only thing apple is concerned about is turning profits. mind you, HOW you turn the profit has many different methods, which makes apple "different" from, say, M$... but the bottom line is the same.
increasing marketshare is useless unless it leads to more profits. (NOT revenue)
if apple thought they'd make more money by selling cheap, sub-$500 computers, they would have done so. but historically, apple has stuck with selling "higher" (not "high") priced hardware... i don't think it's ever "necessary" for apple to sell the absolute cheapest computer.
even when apple was in a big financial trouble, they got out of it with crt imac, hardly the cheapest computer at the time.
apple is NOT out to:
1) sell os x
2) increase marketshare
3) sell more hardware
etc., etc., etc.
the only thing apple is concerned about is turning profits. mind you, HOW you turn the profit has many different methods, which makes apple "different" from, say, M$... but the bottom line is the same.
increasing marketshare is useless unless it leads to more profits. (NOT revenue)
if apple thought they'd make more money by selling cheap, sub-$500 computers, they would have done so. but historically, apple has stuck with selling "higher" (not "high") priced hardware... i don't think it's ever "necessary" for apple to sell the absolute cheapest computer.
even when apple was in a big financial trouble, they got out of it with crt imac, hardly the cheapest computer at the time.
i guess it's better to put it this way:
more marketshare and hardware sales, etc. are only useful if they increase profits. given the history and philosophy/business model apple operates under, it's is very unlikely that apple will try to increase the marketshare by selling sub-$500 macs because i believe apple regard that section of the market as not very profitable.
more marketshare and hardware sales, etc. are only useful if they increase profits. given the history and philosophy/business model apple operates under, it's is very unlikely that apple will try to increase the marketshare by selling sub-$500 macs because i believe apple regard that section of the market as not very profitable.
There is alot of truth in this.
I sounds like a "too easy" comparison, but it's absolutely spot on.
The only difference with the products you compare to the computers are:
People often recognize quality stuff when it comes to beer, cars and clothes, but not PC's.
Not really their fault as Apple doesn't really show people how GOOD their Mac's are. Only how "cool"....
Actually, apple is looking for the cheap mainstream market. this is exactly what the imac was made for - a cheap all in one box that you buy, put in a corner and use eventually without worrying about technics.
of course, if you buy a cheap linux box, you will end up caring for technics... however - upgrading is an incremental process that people don't recognize as expensive.
I'm not sure if I should even respond to some of the most blatant and blind fanboyism i have ever seen in my life. "25 year old technology" --So, let me ask you. Where does that put apple technology? Aside from their G5 chip and Firewire 800, EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING is borrowed from the PC realm.
The 133mhz PCI-X slots. They're already on the Opteron motherboards that have been shipping since the beginning of June. AGP 8X? That's been available since early 2002 in the form of NForce2 and with the 865 intel chipset since May and the 875 chipset in April.
What about Serial ATA? Motherboards supporting this have been available from both AMD and intel for MONTHS. My own a7n8x has supported it, in the form of the deluxe version since the end of 2002. "8 GB of addressable memory space"? The Opteron can address 16GB and is limited only b/c of current limitations on DIMM sizes, not to mention that the Opteron has been avaialbe since June.
Gigabit Ethernet, USB2.0, and optical digital audio are all exisiting PC technology.
And what about the G5 chip itself? It is not an Apple creation, but an IBM one. IBM designed the cpu and it is doubtful that Apple had any significant input on its design.
You didn't happen to get that misinformaton from
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296
Did you?
Check page 72 of 94 on this Powermac G5 Architecture PDF
The largest DIMM supported is a two-bank DIMM of 2 GB using 512 Mbit DDR
The Powermac G5 and Opteron address the same amount of memory. Apple just doesn't "officially" recognize 16GB in their literature until 2GB DIMMS are readily available.
Hope this clears up any confusion.
The G5 can read as much RAM as you can put in up to theoretically 4TB - like the Opteron. They are both limited by:
a)firmware (or BIOS)
b)DIMM sizes
c)slots on the Mobo.
BMW needs to make a $13000 car to compete in the Dodge Neon/Ford Focus market. That would be cool. Maybe they should build some houses in really good neighborhoods and sell them for $50,000.
Cars are very different from computers, you can run any car on a road and there is a speed limit (except in Germany) so there is not so much of a need for cars to go faster than that.
In the computer world, you can't just pick up any computer and run any software on it. Also computers are still not fast enough. In the PC world if you want a high end Windows machine you get a Sony, if you want a cheap one for basic tasks you get a eMachines. However in the Mac world, you have one company which only makes expensive machines and the low end ones are not as fast as PCs at the same price.
Although there is one area of cars you can compair it to. Imagine Apple was a hydro-power car and the Windows world were petrol (gas in the US) powered. You can get cheap petrol cars that can be used at any service station, however the hydro-powered cars can't be used everywhere, they cost more and are generally not as fast as the petrol ones.
i often hear about how computers can't be compared to cars. i disagree. first of all, the comparison is showing is how different companies target different markets.
bmw, mercedez, etc. aren't clearly targeting the same market as hyundai and kia.
and for the most part, differences in computers sold to most consumers can reasonably be compared to differences in common cars. most consumer computers will run most programs used by most people at speeds that are acceptable. so i wouldn't dismiss the comparison entirely. it's just a comparison, not meant to be anything exact.
the main difference i can see is that computers are more of a commodity (where price is the primary differentiation point) than cars.
bmw, mercedez, etc. aren't clearly targeting the same market as hyundai and kia.
and for the most part, differences in computers sold to most consumers can reasonably be compared to differences in common cars. most consumer computers will run most programs used by most people at speeds that are acceptable. so i wouldn't dismiss the comparison entirely. it's just a comparison, not meant to be anything exact.
the main difference i can see is that computers are more of a commodity (where price is the primary differentiation point) than cars.
I'm not talking about speed as much as handling and ride quality--the overall driving experience.
I would argue there is a speed limit on computers--it's the software. Intel could release a 25GHZ chip tomorrow. That would be really impressive but find me one piece of software that can use that much power.
I like my car analogy, but feel free to make your own if you don't.
Look at the underlying architecture of the X86 architecture; it is over 25 years old.
Gigabit is not a peecee technology. It is a STANDARD in the COMPUTER industry. There is a difference. AGP is a specification from Intel and Ethernet is a STANDARD. Do you know who had Gigabit first? Companies like Cisco and other network hardware companies did. Using your thinking, it was "borrowed" from the likes of Cisco.
ATA is compromised on mainly storage companies and is a standard. The peecee companies didn't invent it. They didn't invent optical digital audio, that has been in some audio hardware for sometime now.
The G5 is also based upon a newer design then that of the IA-32 and the PowerPC architecture was designed to be 64-bit. The IA-32 never was. The Opteron is still using the IA-32 architecture though, which is over 25 years old.
Looks like you need to get your facts straight.
Sorry to go off topic but ....
Besides the fact that I think that this is sarcasm (although I am not sure??) ... BMW is, in fact, rumored to be making a "1-series" for under $15,000. It's a subcompact I think, and I'm not talking about Mini Coopers. Just a slimlined 3-series ..
I agree with the car analogy. It's not exact, but more expensive cars GENERALLY equate to a better build quality, performance, overrall experience. Same with the computer world. A more expensive computer will GENERALLY give you a better quality machine with more solid performance and a decent experience. I don't think Apple should "lower" themselves to a sub-$500 market. What would happen to their excellent engineering? I think it would be reflected in the cost...
lol are we even talking about the same thing? The only thing that is clear is that you are accusing that ALL PC technology as being 25 years old--while ONLY the x86 cpu architecture is, i agree with that.
What I am trying to say is that Apple should not be credited with having the newest technology EITHER. Whether or not PC's developed/invented it, the Apple was NOT at the front of the line with the technology.
Apple DID NOT make the G5.
IBM made it, and thus i give them credit for the technology. IBM is the one who is ahead of the curve, not apple. Apple designs a great OS and software, I'll give you that much.
But if your going to reduce ALL PC technology as being a "25 years old", then you are sorely mistaken, and need to get your facts straight.
What I am trying to say is that Apple should not be credited with having the newest technology EITHER. Whether or not PC's developed/invented it, the Apple was NOT at the front of the line with the technology.
Apple DID NOT make the G5.
IBM made it, and thus i give them credit for the technology. IBM is the one who is ahead of the curve, not apple. Apple designs a great OS and software, I'll give you that much.
But if your going to reduce ALL PC technology as being a "25 years old", then you are sorely mistaken, and need to get your facts straight.
Hey don't insult 'ultra cheap' dvd players. I own a 75 dollar APEX dvd player, and it has worked great since the day i bought it last year. This dvd player has many features that higher end dvd players do not contain. Sure its not progressive scan, and doesn't come with the 'Sony' or 'Panasonic' name, but then again not all of the best things in life come with $300 price tag.
*puts on fire-retardent suit...*
Isn't it funny how when ever Apple implements something that has been available for a while on the pc side, it is
"borrowed"? Yet when pc manufactures began dropping floppy drives and adding 1394 ports, the idea(s) were "stolen" from Apple.
A double-standard? I think so...
-tazo
Just the CPU? What about the BIOS? You know, the device that doesn't play well with other devices. Oh, want to boot of the network, it needs to pass that to the NIC. Oh, adding a SCSI card, well, the BIOS can't handle the SCSI controller to well as they act independently and have some communication with each other. Compare that to the OF standard that Sun and Apple both use. Sun calls it OB, and you can go into it, scan the PCI bus, scan the IDE bus and scan the SCSI bus among many other features. OB interfaces directly with the SCSI controller and they work together seamlessly. Compare that with the BIOS where you have go into the SCSI controller and not through the BIOS. What about the great IRQ subsystem that the peecees use? What a marvel of engineering that was. It was shortsightedness at best and needed to be replaced early in its day. Some systems built today from the major peecee companies have IRQ conflicts. They are rare, but still exist due to a lousy design. What about multi-card graphic support? The BIOS couldn't handle it, they have made some changes so it is better now, but not truly fixed. AGP 8X was the first to offer two AGP slots if the peecee company decided to use it, most just offer one. OB allows you to tell which is the main to use for itself during the boot messages, and then the OS takes over. Look at some of the peecees that have integrated graphics, some can upgrade to a PCI card, others cannot.
IBM didn't create the G5, IBM made the PowerPC 970 processor. G5 is a system class name, not a processor per se. In the PowerPC architecture, there were THREE participants. IBM, Motorola and Apple.
As you see, the core of the peecee has been relatively unchanged in over 25 years. Intel even thinks its time to go. Their goal at onetime was Itanic everywhere. You were using some technology that the peecee companies were using that Apple borrowed it, but yet the peecee companies borrowed it from others. Ethernet is a perfect example; no peecee companies involved there. PCI was first seen in servers. ATA is run by standards body and anyone can use/license it. SCSI is as well. Intel modified the PCI bus and created PCI-X because they needed more bandwidth. This will be replaced most likely by Infiniband, as well as PCI. Infinband is not a peecee technology.
So try again.