Why do used older Macs still cost so much ?

[&RU]

As you can see...

There are plenty of good reasons for the higher prices. My main work machine is an "older" iMac G4 and I use it for fairly demanding work. I have an even "older" iMac G3 with Panther installed which runs MS Office, Mail and Safari as fast as any other computer. The ability to run newer versions of Apps and the OS keeps the prices fairly boyant. Frankly these "older" macs do most average tasks with as much speed as the average user needs... with much more flair. : )

There are also certain macs that have very ardent followers... like Erasmus and his Cube. Some Compact Macs fall into this catagory like the Colour Classic. Everyone has an Apple product that they really related to - hell, look at all the Newton users still out there. *Runs for cover*

Another reason to pay good money for "older" machines is software. There are plenty of really solid applications that didn't make the transition to OSX, and the new Intel machines don't run classic. Adobe Streamline is one of my favourites.

 

[iW00t]

Collector items maybe?

I really can't imagine why people will pay $500 for a G4 when for like $700 you can get a used Macbook.

Post a link perhaps?

The myth of good resale value for Macs have finally passed thanks to the x86 switch.

 

[BoA*]

Because they just work and they bring back nostalgia...

I STILL want to buy a dalmation iMac G3 and a lampshade iMac G4. Those iMacs are legendary and then add in the cube it is like being back in the old days again. You remember the good ol' days, lol? <3

 

[Tryo]

A fortnight ago I was an idiot and kicked a pint of beer over my Powerbook g4... it died. Since the reason I got a mac was my pc dying, I couldn't use that, I've been forced to go back to my old Dell Inspiron 7000 laptop, which is about 9 years old, while I wait for my insurance company to send me my new 24 inch iMac (still another week or so to go - apparently this is Apple's fault, because the insurance company told me in would have been ready weeks ago - but this is an entirely different story!)

Back to the point - using this old laptop has opened my eyes to the charms of using vintage computers - and I'm now eyeing up a OS 9 laptop to play around with - and use for word processing on the go, since I'll now being using an iMac. I too have been puzzled by the price of the old laptops! Do you guys think I'd be better off finding these in refurb stores? Would they be cheaper there? Or should I give up and just stick with the Dell? I really don't want to spend too much money - more than £50 really.

 

[volvoben]

Old macs are expensive for the same reason new macs are expensive: they're a controlled product manufactured by only 1 company and only available through a relatively small number of outlets, and they're the only existing computers that can (legally and easily) run a certain well-regarded OS.

with each 1% drop in price for a used mac you seem to get at least a 2% drop in performance though. a refurb macbook c2d is $950 in lowest form, while a used 12" ibook g4 1.33 in good shape will run around $750 (varies of course, could be more could be less) with the same ram, slightly smaller hd etc. but for 79% of the price, you really only get 50% of the performance. it may be slightly smaller, but it's screen is lower res and dim, the keyboard's worse, no magsafe, single core slower processor, no wireless n, plus there's probably no warranty left. the % of performance loss is a subjective number, because some folks would use both computers and say 'nah, i'll save the money and take the cheaper one'. i just think that this % of people who would give up so much for such a small price drop is artificially inflated in the mac world.

I'm very happy that apple has the refurb/edu options available though, they're really the best way to buy most apple products, and hopefully with the intel generation they can help bring used prices down a bit. my hope is that the 'refurb reality' will set in, meaning:

When you buy a new mac, you walk out of the store/take it out of the box, set it up, use it for 5 minutes, and it has essentially lost any value above a refurb. It may still have the warranty, but unless you know the person using it personally, you really have no reason to trust it beyond a refurb coming straight from apple, shipped free to your doorstep. With intel macs this theory is at least partially working, however used mac stores are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overpriced. Even very trustworthy quality establishments are wildly overpriced. Example taken today from a trustworthy well known reseller:

Certified Pre-Owned LCD iMac G4/1 GHz

768 MB of RAM, 80 GB internal drive, internal SuperDrive, internal 56k modem, includes keyboard and mouse, Airport Extreme installed, 17" TFT display, Used Mac with 90 day warranty, OS CD is not included, OS 10.3.9 installed

$899.00

...that's RIDICULOUS!!! the iMac G4s have the great design, but so does a brand new 17" intel C2D iMac for $999 or refurb for $849!!! so for $50 less, you can have a current generation iMac which is not only at least twice as fast, but will also last MUCH longer before becoming obsolete, with full apple warranty at your doorstep. I just chose a random example, but there are soooooooooooo many more where that came from (a 20" G5 iMac for $2000!?!?!? anyone heard of a 24"!?!?!??!)

About cheap vintage computers: mac is not the way to go. They're super and can run osx, os9, linux etc, but they're simply overpriced. Even PCs on ebay are overpriced (laptops at least), so I always get my vintage tinkerboxes from people i know/places i work etc.

 

[dpaanlka]

Using a 400mhz G4 is not similar to using, say, a 400mhz Pentium 3. A 400mhz G4 can still do lots of things beyond just email and web browsing.

 

[RacerX]

with each 1% drop in price for a used mac you seem to get at least a 2% drop in performance though. a refurb macbook c2d is $950 in lowest form, while a used 12" ibook g4 1.33 in good shape will run around $750 (varies of course, could be more could be less) with the same ram, slightly smaller hd etc. but for 79% of the price, you really only get 50% of the performance. it may be slightly smaller, but it's screen is lower res and dim, the keyboard's worse, no magsafe, single core slower processor, no wireless n, plus there's probably no warranty left. the % of performance loss is a subjective number, because some folks would use both computers and say 'nah, i'll save the money and take the cheaper one'. i just think that this % of people who would give up so much for such a small price drop is artificially inflated in the mac world.

I love flawed arguments. The main thing I love about them is what they all have in common... being flawed.

While the facts are off in this argument (performance of an Intel Mac running PowerPC native software and the cost of buying new or upgraded Universal versions of software were completely ignored) lets assume, for the sake of this flawed argument that what has been put forward is infact true. Does the argument hold even when giving it this out.

No.

The true foundation of this argument and the conclusion it reaches is that everyone looking for a Mac has (as a starting point) enough money to buy the more expensive model. You can only conclude that someone is saving money buying the cheeper one if they had the funds to buy the more expensive one to begin with. With most people, acquiring the funds for a computer is not a prospect of having more money than they know what to do with... quite the contrary, they are often looking for a computer to match the limited funds they have on hand.

If a person has only $750 to spend on computer equipment, then they didn't save any money by buying the iBook compared to the refurbished MacBook at $950... the MacBook was never an option for this person.

What I also love about arguments like this is that they are always put forward by those who have the means for either system given in the comparison... it is soooo Republican in that way (sorta like the argument that the poor wouldn't be so poor if they made more money).

 

[Keebler]

i always liken macs to lexus cars.

why is a lexus es300 worth alot more than let's say a toyota camry? they are essentially the same vehicle, but why?

branding and recognition. now, a toyota may not the best example b/c they are very reliable vehicles, but try another brand of car in the same category and a lexus will still hold their value much better.

people know when you buy a lexus, you're getting a quality product.

same thing with a mac.

and someone else said something very important - apple's OS's are made to work on older machines.

we are not forced to upgrade for the sake of upgrading like some other company...cough..ms..cough cough.

good chat.

cheers
keebler

 

[stainlessliquid]

People consider them collectors items and will pay outrageous prices for something worth not even half. Another thing ridiculous about the price is that most dont even come with an OS. They illegally pre-install a single copy of OS X Tiger on every machine and dont give you the liscense or disc to reinstall it if something should go wrong.

The best deal Ive ever seen on ebay for a mac was a barebones G4 powermac for $75 that did not have any hdd's or ram. That was a fair price and I would have bought it if it was slightly faster.

The most ridiculous things I see on ebay are G4 mac minis sellings for MORE than an intel mac mini or for the same price. What idiot would buy a G4 mac mini for the same price as a brand new intel one with a legal OS?

G5's are also insanely overpriced since people are scared of rosetta.

As for PPC native programs being better.... ok maybe if youre buying a top end G5 compared to an imac but a G4? Get real. Didnt benchmarks already prove that core 2 duos strong arm rosetta emulation to the point that they are still quite a bit faster than their "native" ppc counterparts? I have no problem with rosetta, it takes extra time to open (a wopping 5 or so seconds!) but once its open the program has no problem performing better than a slow G4.

Basically I try to stay away from looking at used macs on ebay when I want a cheap extra computer, I always get disgusted with what these people are asking when you consider how horrible they will perform compared to a modern and cheaper computer. Its simply not worth the money if all you want is a cheap extra computer, they have a premium added similair to antiques and collectables so they should be treated as such.

 

[BoA*]

i always liken macs to lexus cars.

why is a lexus es300 worth alot more than let's say a toyota camry? they are essentially the same vehicle, but why?

branding and recognition. now, a toyota may not the best example b/c they are very reliable vehicles, but try another brand of car in the same category and a lexus will still hold their value much better.

people know when you buy a lexus, you're getting a quality product.

same thing with a mac.

and someone else said something very important - apple's OS's are made to work on older machines.

we are not forced to upgrade for the sake of upgrading like some other company...cough..ms..cough cough.

good chat.

cheers
keebler

But, Toyota makes Lexus...

 

[iJawn108]

I'm waiting for the G4 mini's to come down in price. They arnt all that old, but common i've seen them for MORE then a brandnew mini. :\ So not going to happen.

 

[Sdashiki]

But, Toyota makes Lexus...

And the difference between a Camry and an e300 or a Maxima and its luxury Infiniti counterpart, is the "luxury" that goes into it.

granted, its the SAME car, but MORE goes into it. the thing that always comes to mind is that sound deadening is more prevalent in luxury models than the consumer level cars.

so while Lexus vs Toyota is a brand name kind of price thing, it does come with extra perks.

 

[AlexisV]

Maybe a better comparison (at least in Europe) would be the Volkswagen Golf, Seat Leon and Skoda Octavia. The same car, made in different countries, but the VW is the most expensive.

Anyway, Apple has a style and cachet, in the same way BMW and Mercedes do. They just hold their value and don't depreciate as much!

 

[Keebler]

And the difference between a Camry and an e300 or a Maxima and its luxury Infiniti counterpart, is the "luxury" that goes into it.

granted, its the SAME car, but MORE goes into it. the thing that always comes to mind is that sound deadening is more prevalent in luxury models than the consumer level cars.

so while Lexus vs Toyota is a brand name kind of price thing, it does come with extra perks.

you're right, but not with many differences.

but my point stands, and is proven by someone else who correctly stated that toyota makes lexus.

pretty much the same car, but different beast.

 

[ejb190]

My kid was using it to surf Disney Online until they recently went flash now the site takes days to open and play.

My niece has played that site on all my computers (including my wife's 64-bit 3.0 Ghz PC w/ a gig of RAM) on fiber optic connection. It runs slow on EVERYTHING.

 

[QCassidy352]

The Mac-mini is a waste... So looking at the cost of buying an iMac versus buying a CPU upgrade for a G4 tower, the CPU upgrade wins for most people with modest computing needs.

Your argument goes something like this:
1) The imac is a better value than the mini
2) Therefore, nobody should ever buy a mini
3) So someone who wants to get a cheap mac must choose between an older mac (or upgrade card) or a new imac

What you didn't do is compare the "value" of a new mini to that of a G4 upgrade. If you'd done that comparison, you'd see that a mini is a vastly more cost effective upgrade than a new processor card (which can still sell for hundreds of dollars, even more than entire G4 towers with that processor included sell for).

Sure, the imac is the best value of these three options. But sometimes absolute price matters more than a price to performance ratio. If you can't or don't want to spend upwards of $1000, the imac is not an option. And in that case, the mini blows the doors off any older mac or G4 upgrade.

There was just NO way i was gonna shell out $800 on a ( maybe useful for my interests) mac mini cold turkey never having used a mac ( since 2nd grade) .

minis start at $600.

I think a lot of people like me ARE looking ahead. I got to experience what all the "fuss" was about for reasonable price..

Well that's a good point. If you're new to macs and want to try it out for cheap then, as I said above, the absolute $ figure may matter more than the relative values of a new mini and an old G3.

But the prices of old macs are SO out of hand that you really don't have to get very advanced before these older G4s are selling for nearly as much or as much as an intel mini.

Example: I saw a dual 1.25 Ghz G4 on craigslist for $500 the other day. "Wow," I thought, "That's a great price!" Until I started thinking about it. For $100 more I could get a core duo mini that would smoke the G4 in basically everything, be much smaller and quieter, run bootcamp, and have a full warranty instead of no warranty.

And that was a really good deal by the standards of CL or ebay. Single procesor quicksilvers go for that much. I sold a single proc. MDD 1.25 for over $800 on ebay a few months ago. Now that's approaching refurb core 2 duo imac territory.

So yes, if you want to spend WAY less than the price of a mini to try OS X or to pick up a backup machine, then fine. But buying basically anything more than a G3 or very early G4 (and we're talking 7+ years old with those machines) very, very quickly gets you to or very near the price of a new mini. And spending $450 for a 733 mhz G4 tower when a $150 more gets you a core duo mini is simply nuts.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Yeah I understand but correct me If I'm wrong a 600 or 700Mhz stock G3 will be painfully slow for anything other then email checking and light surfing. Most web sites now days that incorporate Flash content etc. would take days to load on a old G3 processor correct ?

And whats with the Cube ? 450Mhz how painful must this be for anything other then email ?

Up until just a couple months ago, the non-profit I work for produced a weekly PBS program (second highest rated PBS show in the state, ooooo) on a pair of 400mhz G4 PowerMacs w/384mb RAM (there was some additional hardware for the video encoding/decoding being used).

They replaced those two machines with a Mac Pro and a 20" iMac this year, and I've repurposed one of the old PowerMacs to be a webserver for an internal, developmental version of our website. It's running 10.3 now and is plenty usable for web coding and hosting, and basic graphics manipulation (color balancing, cropping, resizing, rotating, etc). I wouldn't be afraid to run iTunes in the background while doing these tasks, either.

Your argument goes something like this:
1) The imac is a better value than the mini
2) Therefore, nobody should ever buy a mini
3) So someone who wants to get a cheap mac must choose between an older mac (or upgrade card) or a new imac

What you didn't do is compare the "value" of a new mini to that of a G4 upgrade. If you'd done that comparison, you'd see that a mini is a vastly more cost effective upgrade than a new processor card (which can still sell for hundreds of dollars, even more than entire G4 towers with that processor included sell for).

Sure, the imac is the best value of these three options. But sometimes absolute price matters more than a price to performance ratio. If you can't or don't want to spend upwards of $1000, the imac is not an option. And in that case, the mini blows the doors off any older mac or G4 upgrade.

Well said. I also take exception to the notion that the mini is a waste in general. My G4 mini is wonderful. I've NEVER come up against a task it wasn't up to (except gaming, which I think should be considered as a separate issue than all other computer tasks). I've had no trouble doing web development, photo manipulations, video editing, video encoding, image creation, any sort of communications tasks... it's been perfect for my needs and I am actually a pretty high end user.

I'm 90% going to get another mini this year, assuming we get an improved GPU in them (not so much because I feel like the 950 isn't good enough for me, it probably is, but rather my G4 mini is still sufficient for me and I'd like to wait it out for the x3000 since it's likely coming sometime soon). I'm also hoping for some price cuts, but we'll see.

 

[gothiquegirrl]

minis start at $600.

The $600 Mini would be a paper weight in my house in the long run. The $800 mini *might* be useful. A $200 G3 is *only* a $200 dollar investment... If it doesn't work out.. then it's *only* $200... Where as a $800 ($600) mini is $800 ($600). If it doens't work out... Then I've got to sell it so I can go buy that $2000 machine that is *actually* gonna serve my purposes and be useful.

 

[gothiquegirrl]

Well said. I also take exception to the notion that the mini is a waste in general. My G4 mini is wonderful. I've NEVER come up against a task it wasn't up to (except gaming, which I think should be considered as a separate issue than all other computer tasks). I've had no trouble doing web development, photo manipulations, video editing, video encoding, image creation, any sort of communications tasks... it's been perfect for my needs and I am actually a pretty high end user.

I don't think the Mini is a waste.. But i personally think it doens't *fit* a lot of people's *computer* needs. By that I mean.. A lot of people would have to ALSO go buy a monitor and ect... Which adds up on a tight budget.

I think the mini is a Great deal for people who want to use it for a Media center... or Who already own a monitor and ect... or who specifically DON'T want an intergrated "All-in-one" machine.

I know for me.. When I finally buy that all alusive new mac.. It's gonna have to last me several years. SO.. I want as much speed and ect that I can get... 1.83 GHZ is great and all.. but I want the best i can get for my money as it will have to last at least 3 to 4 years. AND.. I don't already have an extra monitor or anything sitting around.. so... the mini is out for now.

For the record.. I am not after a iMac. Maybe later down the road.. I want a Macbook or a Macbook Pro. I could use the portability..and later down the road i can buy a monitor when it's convient.

But that's just me...

Excuse the spelling mistakes...

 

[QCassidy352]

The $600 Mini would be a paper weight in my house in the long run. The $800 mini *might* be useful. A $200 G3 is *only* a $200 dollar investment... If it doesn't work out.. then it's *only* $200... Where as a $800 ($600) mini is $800 ($600). If it doens't work out... Then I've got to sell it so I can go buy that $2000 machine that is *actually* gonna serve my purposes and be useful.

Ok, now I'm confused. A G3 is useful to you, but a 1.66 Ghz core duo mini is a paper weight? And to further compound the confusion, bumping that 1.66 to 1.83 might make the mini useful?

Also, I already agreed that someone in your position (wanting to test out OS X) might be well served by buying something very cheap.

My point is that the selection of older macs available at prices significantly lower than the cost of a brand new mac mini is very small. Sure, you can spend a lot less than $600 (say, $200 and under), but what you're getting is orders of magnitude slower than the mini. Anything even somewhat recent (e.g. a G4 quicksilver or dome imac) seems to start at about $400 and go up quickly from there.

And once you're above $400 or $500, you're saving one or two hundred dollars but losing a TON of speed, modern tech (airport extreme and bluetooth 2.0 for example), and perhaps most importantly, a full warranty.

 

[Sdashiki]

A G4 mini and/or a CD mini is more than MOST people ever need.

while im not saying its what YOU need, it is a slick and well packaged machine.

most people dont give a crap about upgrading RAM, HD or graphix, they want a machine that works. a mini certainly fits that bill well.

im always pointing Windows users to a mini as it is #1: cheap, and #2: simplified

 

[gothiquegirrl]

Ok, now I'm confused. A G3 is useful to you, but a 1.66 Ghz core duo mini is a paper weight? And to further compound the confusion, bumping that 1.66 to 1.83 might make the mini useful?

My point was... Now that i've Tried out OS X and I am ready to buy...
A mini isn't gonna cut it. My G3 cost me $200 and it's useful for what it is.. but If your talking buying a a $200 G3 V a $600 mini.. Well Obviously, the G3 isn't a "long term buy". It's gonna break at some point.. the $600 Mini would have to be a long term buy as it's new and $400 more plus the monitor and ect. In the "long term" that mini would be a paper weight around my house. It's not just the speed bump.. but the lack of SuperDrive.. and I'd need a larger hard drive as well.. so a Mini is gonna Start at $799 for me, if i wanted to go with a mini. To get a mini that would fit my needs... Minus the Monitor, key board and mouse... it's $1249 on apple.com. For me to buy a Macbook that is gonna serve my purpose it's $1774 on apple.com... that's with a monitor and a mouse ( even if in reality i'd buy an extra BT mouse)... Not to mention I'll probably use the Macbook more because I can take it with me. So No, for ME the mini just wouldn't do it.

So in my mind as I was lurking around ebay...

$200 G3 - Minimum Investment.. all the benefit of OS X .. no real commitment. Disposable. Plus.. I also got Software Cd's such as CS2, and the Retail of OS X Tiger.. OS 9 ... and some other stuff I may find useful or could sell later for a few bucks after the G3 is no more..

$600 mini - Too large an investment to be disposable... Not a good match for long term use in my home. Would need to buy Monitor, keyboard, mouse...

If you notice in my posts.. I say *for me* ... So I DO recognize that other may need different things.

 

[2ndPath]

A G4 mini and/or a CD mini is more than MOST people ever need.

"640 k ought to be enough for anyone"

...

But the prices of old macs are SO out of hand that you really don't have to get very advanced before these older G4s are selling for nearly as much or as much as an intel mini.

Example: I saw a dual 1.25 Ghz G4 on craigslist for $500 the other day. "Wow," I thought, "That's a great price!" Until I started thinking about it. For $100 more I could get a core duo mini that would smoke the G4 in basically everything, be much smaller and quieter, run bootcamp, and have a full warranty instead of no warranty.

...

This is true if you take into account only the pure computing performance. There are some other advantages to the PowerMacs though. One of them is the possibility of expanding them to fit ones specific needs. For example, if someone needs a lot of disc space in the machine and doesn't want to deal with the mess of several external drives, a PowerMac might be much more attractive than a mini. And the possibility to expand is a feature you can't buy on a new Mac without investing at least about $2000.

 

[savar]

Macs are less in number, therefore demand is greater, therefore prices are higher.

Macs last longer then PC's in most cases, and you can still do great stuff with G3's. What can you do with a 300 MHz PC?

Not much.

Ehh.. Macs are less in number, true, but that is supply (not demand). Believe me, if demand was higher, Apple would increase supply to meet it.

I think the 2nd argument is better: Macs are like quality cars. They depreciate, but they hold value better than cheap commodity PCs.

It's annoying to those who want to buy 2nd hand, but its a benefit to those who buy new. Your total cost of ownership is much less if the computer resells 5 years later for several hundred $$.

Yeah I understand but correct me If I'm wrong a 600 or 700Mhz stock G3 will be painfully slow for anything other then email checking and light surfing. Most web sites now days that incorporate Flash content etc. would take days to load on a old G3 processor correct ?

And whats with the Cube ? 450Mhz how painful must this be for anything other then email ?

It will be painfully slow for everything including email and surfing, if you're running modern OSes and applications. If you keep OS 8 or 9 then it will be okay, but you're going to be cursing on lots of complex web pages.