“Steve Jobs should take his own advice and sacrifice some profit margin in exchange for some market share. When Apple releases 970-based Macs, they may well be better than their PC counterparts, but Apple’s current price structure will drive the masses off to the competition.” Read the editorial at MacObserver. C|Net News.com says that Apple is preparing to introduce a new line of machines that are built around IBM’s speedy new PowerPC 970 chip, analysts say, a move that won’t erase the “gigahertz gap“, but should at least narrow the chasm. Elsewhere, Shake 3 is out.
The Bet: Apple, Faster, Better & Still a Loser
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
it is good that all these apple critics are not running the company. if they look at success as market share alone they will drive the company into the ground.
The guy has a point though, you can’t deny that. The new 970 is very likely to be very expensive, so that will drive most consumers to the cheaper competitor (x86). Or in the best case, to a G4.
Without industry standard software and hardware, they are doomed. I agree Aqua is a nice user interface and all, but how about running Aqua alongside Windows XP? I heard the PowerPC is all about multitasking, etc so technically it should be possible
It would be okay for Apple, I think, to keep their price structure on the upper level Power Macs *if* they would come out with a true entry level Mac. They spent all that money on the Switch campaign, but had nothing to offer to most people.
My own fantasy (and I know it’s a fantasy;-) is for Apple to bring back the Cube and 15″ Studio Display. All specs, design and research have already been done. That would cost them nothing. Make it good but very inexpensive. They would probably lose money on it, but gain overall, bringing new people into the Mac fold. And, they’d still get the high margins from their pro Power Macs, etc. And the middle consumer could still get an iMac.
I believe that the 970 is suppose to be cheaper than a G4 because of IBM’s superior manufacturing capabilities compared to Moto. However, all the other expected improvements may negatively affect the price.
“…you can’t deny that. The new 970 is very likely to be very expensive…”
Why is that? care to give your insight on how IBM microelectronics, one of the wolrd’s largest fabs, can not manage “consumer grade” pricing?
Brian: Well, seeing where as IBM manufactures most of the G4’s today already….
The inexpensive machine is eMac. But the problem is that it is still too pricey for what it is. The low end eMac model should have been $499 and the next model up should have been at around $649.
>Why is that?
Because the rest of the specs are very high-end. Expensive stuff: 500 MHz DDR dual channel is just one example. That won’t be a cheap machine.
As for cost, the IBM970 will have a higher intial cost but it should drop over time since IBM will be using the 970 in their own blade servers. The Motorola CPUs were only being used in the Macs and Motorola was spending their bigger R&D budget on embedded Gx CPUs.
According to some sources the 970 are 25-33% cheaper than what Apple are currently paying for G4s from Motorola. Unlike Motorola, IBM will be cranking out these processors in fairly large number, as they plan to use them in their own products as well, driving down the cost of production. So, unless Apple chooses to expand their profit margin because they think people will pay exorbidant prices for a G5, these boxes could very well come in at the same price point as the current models, if not cheaper.
Most people want and need cheap PCs which they can use to surf the web, write email and documents and of course all the funny stuff they can buy at the mall be it games or a garden planner should work on it. They want a x86 Windows PC (before some nut screams “Linux!” – most people don’t want to sacrifice a single minute of their life for reading a man page etc.)
Macsters are different. They are willing to pay a premium price for the stuff Apple offers. There are different reasons for buying a mac but sure as hell there are not the same reasons why most people buy PCs.
This is Apples market, a market that has nothing todo with the ordinary PC market at all.
Why should Apple try to compete against Dell? They would be out-of-business real fast.
Or should they try to compete against MS on the OS market? That would be suicide.
I agree that Macs aren’t an alternative to cheap Wintels but Apple doesn’t try to enter this market, either. I guess they know all to well that they wouldn’t survive a day in ‘the pit’.
CPUGuy — IBM may produce the G4, but the G4 is only being used in Apples machines. As I state above, the 970 will find work outide of Apples own machines and in IBMs blade servers, but don’t expect them to run OSX.
I know you’re quoting the headline of the linked editorial, but really . . .
Anyway, the guy does have a point about Apple’s pricing still being a little over the “justifiable” premium so as to restrict the number of likely buyers.(*) The thing of it is, I think he’s going to lose his bet. I think Apple will gain market share for sales quarter over quarter for the next year or two because of the 970 and Panther.
(*) The exception on pricing is the 15″ PowerBook, which is still an incredible value with a G4.
The primary difference between the marketing of PCs and the marketing of Macs is the profit margin on each unit sold.
Macs are notarious for having fat margins, with the original 1984 Mac having a 100% profit on each unit. Things are slimmer now, but PCs are still sold en mass with paper thin margins. The advantage here is the resulting volume of sales. The sheer volume of units sold still ensures some profit for PC makers.
Furthermore, that high volume ensures that PCs will continue to be the favored platform, out-competing Apple as PCs become more and more entrenched.
It seems it would be simple for Apple to create a “low end” product that would still make people happy, but as long as Jobs considers himself a “visionary” first and a businessman second, I cannot see this happening.
John:
Yes, but that has very little to do with efficiency of manufacturing, as Brian said, other than the fact that IBM will be producing the 970’s on a much larger scale.
I agree, Apple is sitting on a lot of cash. They are not cash strapped. I say they start getting back to basics and start selling machines at a reasonable price.
“The guy has a point though, you can’t deny that. The new 970 is very likely to be very expensive, so that will drive most consumers to the cheaper competitor (x86). Or in the best case, to a G4”
Interesting, because I had read that the 970 chips will cost Apple less than the current G4s. Poorly researched conclusion.
That’s right Eugenia! It may just as well be the eMac. If only they would lower the price and write off the losses.
If you read the links within the article, the tests are assuming and the author(s) even say they are not sure how the 970 will be preforming when released.
As for price-point VS market share. At this late stage in the game, apple cannot just win over the person on the street even if there computers were $200. They must make headway within some professional; markets then hope for the “trickle down” to happen.
I have a feeling this is going to be a powerhouse of a computer if it ever is released. The bigger question can IBM and Apple keep the hardware close to PC counterparts. Price Points is just the latest in a long list of reasons people say Apple only has sucha small marketshare
The price of the 970 systems is irrelevant. This release will drive the price of existing G4-based systems down. (i.e. the eMac and the iMac)
Insanely great.
Hide and watch.
I’m a happy Mac user, and I’ll be glad if we’re a minority as along as Apple stays in business. The PC hardware and software market is flooded with absolute crap.
The extra few bucks is a small price to pay for that arrogant elitist feeling.
Although Apple/G5 looks impressive but I’m waiting for my Athlon64…
Opteron/Workstation is OK but none of the major manufacturers are producing such systems…
I think your idea of ibm chips/prices is too apple-centric.
I think IBM is moving into an old unix niche who’s customers are looking for new options, hp dropped pa-risc, compaq is dropping the alpha, sgi has tried and is trying again to move away from mips and to intel, etc, etc, etc.
Linux being the new workstation os, already having rights to ppc and invested billion(s) into linux, its perfect. IBM wants to make sure intel is not the one supplying all the cpus. IBM makes a new workstation class/price processor (ppc is already cheaper to make than x86 offerings) based on their server class chips allowing easy porting and development for deploying ibm iron based solutions (oooh I sound like i should be in PR, got the whole lack of grammar too) and get to sell them to apple, who is already a good customer.
2 birds, one stone, secures market from one possible monopoly. Plus IBM really hates MS internally (remember os/2 and MS’ sodomization of ibm?)
to whom it may concern: moto fabs most g4s btw, g3s are fabbed by ibm, you know the low power/heat/cheap mac processors.
CPUGuy – Brian: Well, seeing where as IBM manufactures most of the G4’s today already….
John – CPUGuy — IBM may produce the G4, but the G4 is only being used in Apples machines. As I state above, the 970 will find work outide of Apples own machines and in IBMs blade servers, but don’t expect them to run OSX.
IBM produces the G3…. Motorola produces the G4.
Get your facts straight kiddies.
Apple needs Windows XP comaptibility
By Generation Movement (IP: —.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) – Posted on 2003-06-21 02:56:30
dude(or dudette), I use WINDOWS.
I use MAC.
I also use Redhat and Freebsd.
YOU should put down the crack pipe.
I setup a small network here at home on 5 computers. All use Linux (my machines are in a constant state of distro change, thank God for home servers!), except for one that dual boots with W2K (the wife’s, only because of work and Access). I didn’t use man pages to get NFS to automount or Samba to automount. I used the web, just like I did when I got started getting two W98 machines networked. When I want to use any new package, I read the README and INSTALL files, just like I did when I was using Windows. Bashing Linux is fine, I bash Windows all the time, but please don’t base your arguments on years old ways of doing things. And don’t tell me that editing .conf files is a pain. It sure beats trying to figure out the Windows Registry.
But everyone’s just a pretender to the throne. There are currently two approaches to selling computers these days. There is Dell’s approach, which all the other PC OEMs try to emulate. And there is the Apple approach. In the Dell approach, you sell your computers with little to no profit on each box, but rely on the fact that you are the marketshare leader. And everyone chases your prices in a race to the bottom. With the Apple approach, you don’t sell nearly as many computers as Dell, but you don’t need to. You earn a huge profit on each box relative to Dell. Now, a lot of companies can be like Dell. HP, Gateway, etc. They’re all pretty much on par with Dell. Now Apple…who can really emulate Apple? Let’s all remember that Gateway and Dell have all tried to do their own iMac variants and failed miserably. It’s much harder to encroach upon Apple’s space, whereas anybody can encroach on Dell’s marketspace. And they are. I see Apple alive and well 20 years from now. I’m not so sure Dell will be there 20 years from now.
How much actual registry fiddling do you have to do to get most windows applications running? I virtually have to change NONE.
Thanks for the accuracy kid. God bless you bytore. And God bless the European Union.
“How much actual registry fiddling do you have to do to get most windows applications running? I virtually have to change NONE.” — is “virtually… NONE”: 5 or less? Per month? 10 per year? I can say that using Linux I have not had to face the Windows Registry AT ALL. Virtually or otherwise.
That’s a hell of alot to ask, and something I don’t see ever happening since it’d require a lot of fancy footwork to even get something line wine ported.
However, I wonder if it will happen via Microsoft. I’mwondering if the would kill off their Mac product line but instead use Virtual PC and a specialized edition of Windows for basically something like classic. MS could charge a bundle for it. Mac users would want it, non mac users would see that and the price of a mac, compare it to a regular PC and pick the cheaper. I love Apple but I don’t see anyone wrestling the dominance from Windows anytime soon; period.
“”How much actual registry fiddling do you have to do to get most windows applications running? I virtually have to change NONE.” — is “virtually… NONE”: 5 or less? Per month? 10 per year? I can say that using Linux I have not had to face the Windows Registry AT ALL. Virtually or otherwise.”
Yeah, sure, but you have a lot to do with conf files…
I spent days to configure my debian for firewire, wireless lan and other things which are so easy in windows. Linux’s strength is surely not in the easy configuration ! Try to configure an ADSL modem on any distribution ion less than 3 minutes.
But once you figure it, it is quite usable, and programming/wworking on a networl with linux is very enjoyable. Here are the strength fo linux. Certainly not in the configuration ( dependence problem, even with the powerful debian system, etc… )
By the way, the limk pointed by the article is pretty interessant :
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-0.html
Is is not so easy to find such great articles for newbies in
CPU… Kind of a reference, I guess.
However, I wonder if it will happen via Microsoft. I’mwondering if the would kill off their Mac product line but instead use Virtual PC and a specialized edition of Windows for basically something like classic. MS could charge a bundle for it. Mac users would want it, non mac users would see that and the price of a mac, compare it to a regular PC and pick the cheaper. I love Apple but I don’t see anyone wrestling the dominance from Windows anytime soon; period.
I’m actually not worried at all about Microsoft’s acquisition of VirtualPC. If they were actually foolish enough to do something like that, I could very easily picture VMware being ported to OS X, and in turn beating VPC into the ground. To the consumers, VMware already has one strike for them, they’re not Microsoft.
If Apple could sweeten up Microsoft to make a Classic-like layer of Windows XP using Virtual PC (they own the code, right?), I’m sure it would be nice. However, I frankly wouldn’t want to buy a Mac to run Windows apps – well, all of my apps (except Opera) runs perfectly fine native on the Mac.
Price-performance ratio is a factor – how much bang can i get with the buck?
We have the next generation of Wintel being oriented around security, DRM and user monitoring. From the BIOS to the CPU to the OS, everything will work together to close off the architecture and close down the machine so that the user can be controlled more effectively. This big change is to suit the needs of the ever more dominant large corporations and governments. The Wintel PC is evolving to be a “controlled information access terminal”. And there will be new designs for games, perhaps even XBox PC’s that have a tower case and room for expansion.
We have Apple moving into workstation territory with their G5 PowerMacs. We have Apple moving more and more into professional markets and specialized niches both with their hardware and their software purchases. Apple offers machines and software for people who need to get something specialzed done.
We have near-zero revenue growth for Intel and the Wintel PC market. We have PC’s that harder to use every year and much more complicated to maintain. The basic functionality of the PC has in many ways gotten worse over time. The simple things are harder to do and they take more time. No software outside of a few Microsoft apps works together.
And on the Mac, something different is happening. Apps work together. People work together. The machine is useful without nearly as many headaches as a PC. We have what computers were supposed to be about before Microsoft (and Intel) achieved the tremendous monopoly power they enjoy today.
What the mostly moronic ‘pundits’ don’t see is that commoditization in turn drives specialization. And it is in specialized niches that Apple is planting their seeds. As long as Apple is good at taking care of their garden, they will continue to flourish.
When Wintel wakes up and realizes people don’t want a pile of shit computer that simply runs the same old tired Microsoft shit a little bit faster, then perhaps Apple will be in more danger. But it looks like that day is long time coming. The positive of the Microsoft monopoly is that Microsoft does not press themselves to make their crap any better. The Wintel PC world is a giant cesspool filled with ravenous Microsoft bacteria. And it is getting more and more repulsive over time — “it’s the smell”.
Saying one doesn’t have to fiddle with the registry under Linux is a really *stupid* argument against it. Thats like a windows user saying they never have to resolve an RPM or other package dependency, or make all.
… that anyone is suggesting that the 970 processor itself will be more expensive. It may be just the opposite.
However it comes down to what kind of configuration they will be offered in. Given the specifications of the high end G4 models, and the fact that 970 is better than the G4, it is unlikely that they will offer it as an option in the low end models at all: and thats probably why most people base the assumption of the 970 being more expensive.
Personally, I’d like to see this baby compete with the best of Intel & AMD … maybe this will make the competition fiercer thus driving the companies to raise the performance & lower the prices.
There are currently two approaches to selling computers these days. There is Dell’s approach, which all the other PC OEMs try to emulate.
Gee, that leaves Sony/AlienWare/etc. with no approach…
Besides, there are many OEMs following Dell’s model that are earning profit. Companies like HP and Gateway gives it a bad name, which is no suprise cause if you are an average PC buyer, normally HP and Gateway stuff doesn’t seem too appealing.
And if Dell doesn’t exist anymore in 20 years, well, it must be a case where the government decided to split it up, or got engulfed in a Soviet-like madness where the government takes over everything (that’s right, only the government can bring Dell down). Other than that, Dell may resign to an obscure market position if they fail, but definately not dissapear.
The PowerPC 970 weighs in with about 52 million transistors, in the same ballpark as the Pentium 4 2.8ghz with 55 million transistors.
The PowerPC 970 weighs in at 121mm2 die size compared to 131mm2 for the Pentium 4 2.8ghz.
The PowerPC 970 is built on a 0.13um process, the same as the Pentium 4, 2.8ghz.
The PowerPC 970 at 1.8ghz dissipates 42w, much less than a 2.8ghz Pentium 4 which dissipates 68w.
By all measures, the PowerPC 970 will be just as cheap to build as a Pentium 4. The system constraints will be fewer than the Pentium 4, giving Apple more flexibility in building machines.
There is no reason the PowerPC 970 cannot be used in all of Apple’s machines. Imagine a 1Ghz PowerPC 970 iMac or a dual mode 1Ghz/2Ghz PowerBook. That would work for Apple very well indeed.
Wow. I am taken aback. Your comments smack of corporate brainwashing. Now I’m not saying I have a problem with it, but you make a bad case for your plight by foaming at the mouth so much.
This big change is to suit the needs of the ever more dominant large corporations and governments.
Can you categorically point to which governments and corporations will be using this (besides Microsoft). Corporations and governments already use other security technology. I’ve got news for you, most government agencies are a lot more paranoid than this simple DRM/Palladium idea. The likeliness of them using this technology internally is remote. So wake up and smell the coffee.
We have Apple moving more and more into professional markets and specialized niches both with their hardware and their software purchases.
I would say ‘making attempts’ or ‘testing the waters’ is more likely. I’m not sure which professional markets you refer to but in my line of work (broadcast engineering) we continue to use HP, Sun, SGI, and Linux. There is a slow shift to Linux for testing the waters, and this is mainly because lower price and TCO enables cheaper systems to be sold (cheap meaning under $1mil). Somehow I can’t see Apple competing here. And this goes for many other markets in this vein — the same basic principles apply.
We have near-zero revenue growth for Intel and the Wintel PC market.
Show me the numbers.
And on the Mac, something different is happening. Apps work together. People work together. The machine is useful without nearly as many headaches as a PC.
May I lay down my violin now? I’ve seen sweeping statements before but this takes the cake.
What the mostly moronic ‘pundits’ don’t see is that commoditization in turn drives specialization. And it is in specialized niches that Apple is planting their seeds.
Yeah, planting seeds alright. If the niche is graphics, isn’t it interesting we see releases of e.g. Maya on Linux? That niche is getting competitive. Wintel renderfarms running linux are cheaper than using Macs.
When Wintel wakes up and realizes people don’t want a pile of shit computer that simply runs the same old tired Microsoft shit a little bit faster, then perhaps Apple will be in more danger.
Got news for you — Intel does not imply Microsoft OS. Although it does in many circles leave a bad taste in the mouth since people assume that ‘the server is Intel and runs M$’. And as for the Mac vs. the world in Spec, we’ve been down that trodden path so many times that its really not interesting any more.
In the same way Hondas are cheaper than Yugos. They retain a much larger percentage of their value at resale.
Scream and yell all you want, there is not a single study showing PCs have a lower cost of ownership than a Macintosh.
Im starting to get a little annoyed at all these assumptions about a) the price of Apple systems, and b) the market share of Apple.
Firstly, Apple commonly create computers for professionals- not geeks who want 1337 game systems. I personally can’t stand it when geeks jack off to numbers reflecting on the speed of computers. Sure x86 systems are quite fast- and very popular among geeks/gamers, BUT- I have a question to those kinds of people- What do you do with all that power? Run benchmarks? Boot MS word in a few milliseconds? Play q3a with 400fps? I mean really…. These new Macs are professional computers for professional industries, and those people working in the industry don’t post on web sites bitching about the price- in fact a vast majority of those people are ready and waiting to upgrade- so the expected news of IBM970 + Panther is not a matter of price – but more a matter of availability.
Secondly, does marketshare reflect how good the systems are?
If that’s what you think- you may need to loosen that grip on your rod.. Let me tell you boys and girls, quality of quantity is working very well indeed for Apple. The ‘marketshare’ of Apple- along with the ‘GHz Gap’ are only a reality that exits on forums such as these- The simple reason for that is, The professional markets for Apple systems are doing BETTER THEN EVER’ and could care less for geeks bitching about such trivial doom and gloom for Macs. So please- look at the big picture
Buyer:”Hey this Macintosh looks great, how much does it cost?” Salesperson tells them – potential customer almost faints.
Then they learn they can’t use any of their existing software, won’t play their favourite games, use many of their existing peripherals and is expensive and difficult to upgrade.
Buyer: “What a piece of crap!”
” Then they learn they can’t use any of their existing software, won’t play their favourite games, use many of their existing peripherals and is expensive and difficult to upgrade. ”
Maybe you haven’t spoken to any GOOD salespeople lately..? A Mac can do all of the above + more. Anyone who thinks or says otherwise is ignorant, idiotic, or both. Before you can think of whatever typical PC bigotted comeback you might have, let me just tell you from experience that in my line of work, we sell Macs to PC users EVERY SINGLE DAY. And YES, they are able to acclomplish all of the above, often times right out of the box. So before you go around spouting your ignorant BS, learn a little. Thanks. 😉
PC’s are cheap indeed, but PC’s are crap.
Suns, SGIs, Alphas,… are real computers, but they’re extremely expensive ($10k-$50k for a workstation… ouch)
Apple is somewhere in between, providing high quality yet at a very low price.
Right now, Dell sells their computers with margins at less than 1% and yet because they and all other PC companies can’t compete on features (they all use the same stuff), they’ll simply going to have to lower the price.
Dell, Compaq, HP etc… we really wont be happy to you lower your prices to .25% margins.
Lower those prices… lower those prices, lower those prices!
I don’t care if you can’t run your business on margines less than 1%, we MUST put apple out of business! Take it down to .1% margins dammit! We CAN’T let Apple continue to have the better product!
Apple will never build such cheep crap like low-cost PCs are nowadays. I hope thay keep up their good software and hardware quality. It is logical that you have to pay more for that anf thats ok. Accept the fact that Apple will never be a company that build Walmart PCs and I bet that this not their economic goal.
“the new 970 is very likely to be very expensive”
Eugenia, IBM has stated that the 970’s production is actually cheaper to produce than the G4. Who knows what Apple will price their computers at, but if history repeats itself, they will bundle a lot with them a price them VERY competatively with equivilent;y spec’d PC systems.
Your comment seems somewhat trollish, but then again… i think simply posting this article (consider the headline alone) is trollish.
“Without industry standard software and hardware, they are doomed.”
Thankfully, Apple has and uses industry standard software and hardware. If didn;t already know this, you need to get out more.
“I agree Aqua is a nice user interface and all, but how about running Aqua alongside Windows XP?”
I agree Windows XP is nice and all, but why doesn’t Microsoft run Mac OS with full compatibility. Considering the fact that more and more industry standard software is being produced for the Macintosh only… it would be a wise decision.
“I heard the PowerPC is all about multitasking, etc so technically it should be possible”
I heard that the latest x86 chips have a lot of MHz, etc so technically it should be possible.
“It would be okay for Apple, I think, to keep their price structure on the upper level Power Macs *if* they would come out with a true entry level Mac.”
Perhaps you didn’t notice the eMac or the ibook, both are “true entry level Macs”. What a lot of PC people fail to realize that the vast majority of the $500 PCs are nothing more than bait and switch marketing techniques. Offer a computer without any real usefulness but give the consumer the opportunity to make it useful for another $300-$400 with various upgrade options.
“They spent all that money on the Switch campaign, but had nothing to offer to most people.”
Apple has plenty to offer to most people including low-end consumer Macs for price-concious consumers
“My own fantasy (and I know it’s a fantasy;-) is for Apple to bring back the Cube and 15″ Studio Display. All specs, design and research have already been done. That would cost them nothing. Make it good but very inexpensive.”
Sounds to me that you’re simply looking for a well-equipped Mac at the price point that the bait and switch PCs are priced at. Sorry bud, it ain’t gonna happen. Thankfully, Apple’s computers (asside from their current towers) are all very competatively priced.
“They would probably lose money on it, but gain overall, bringing new people into the Mac fold.”
I got a better idea, they should sell a computer with several added benefits that can’t be had on the PC side of the fense and sell them for a reasonable price. Wait a second, that’s the marketing plan that they are curently using…. Nothing to change I guess.
Why are PCs “crap”? They do exactly what they’re suppose to do. If the majority of the market uses their computer simply to send e-mail and do homework assignments in Word or something, then isn’t a PC doing exactly what it’s built for perfectly? Since Windows 2000, crashes are few and far between, admittedly the GUI sucks ass in winXp, but eye of the beholder and such. I mean, shit… Not Dell’s fault that most people are only using their computers for lightweight chores. They arn’t marketed as webservers or workstations, so why bitch when they don’t perform well in those roles?
“The inexpensive machine is eMac. But the problem is that it is still too pricey for what it is.”
Not at all. Spec an equelly equipped PC, and you’ll find that the eMac is priced VERY competatively… as is all of Apple’s hardware… (asside from their current tower lineup)
“The low end eMac model should have been $499 and the next model up should have been at around $649.”
With that logic, the low end PC retailing for $500 should cost about $100.
What would happen if Apple made a $500.00 pc? They would sell them to people who either don’t have or won’t spend money.
Will increased market share help Apple if those customers never buy software?
The quality of Apple’s customer base probably makes their 2% as good as the bottom 25% of the Wintel market.
Loser? I don’t think so. How many other companies have been around since 1977? How many have 4 to 5 billion in the bank? Not many.
“The rest of the specs [on the upcoming G5] are very high-end. Expensive stuff: 500 MHz DDR dual channel is just one example. That won’t be a cheap machine.”
And if Apple follows its current pricing trend, it will be priced very competatively.
“Maybe you haven’t spoken to any GOOD salespeople lately..? A Mac can do all of the above + more. Anyone who thinks or says otherwise is ignorant, idiotic, or both. Before you can think of whatever typical PC bigotted comeback you might have, let me just tell you from experience that in my line of work, we sell Macs to PC users EVERY SINGLE DAY. And YES, they are able to acclomplish all of the above, often times right out of the box. So before you go around spouting your ignorant BS, learn a little. Thanks. ;-)”
I didn’t say that is what I think – it is what many other people think.
We don’t all live in the US. Here in Australia a Mac costs at least 3x as much as a similarly specced PC. In my home city, Brisbane, we have two very small Apple retailers for a population of more than one million. There are hundreds of PC retailers.
Australians don’t buy Dells or Compaqs in quantity as we have numerous extremely good White Box retailers who will build a quality custom system while you wait. Many of these companies are run by Taiwanese or Malaysians who have encyclopedic knowledge of hardware and can supply the latest and best technology at bargain prices. I can order a custom system at midnight online have it delivered to my house the the next afternoon. Even major corporations rarely buy ‘branded’ desktop PCs.
Many of the Mac features such as photo printing and iTunes are not available in Australia. A lot of software has to be purchased by mail order. Many Mac peripherals such as printers, external storage etc are only available from a couple of specialist retailers in Sydney (1000 km away). Apple retailers are very rare outside capital cities in Australia. If something goes wrong with your Mac in some parts of Australia you may be 1500Km or more from the nearest repair centre. A dual 1.42 Ghz G4 and 23″ cinema display costs as much as a new small car here.
Few outside the US cares less what happens to Apple – we just see it as an irrelevancy.
PS Your “premium” quality Macs are made in the same Chinese factories as the cheapest OEM PCs. Macs use cheap OEM RAM, cheap hardrives, cheap CRTs and LCD panels. Mac parts are often lower quality than those found in any reasonable. whitebox PC.
“Most people want and need cheap PCs which they can use to surf the web, write email and documents”
That statement needs correcting… most people need an inexpensive computer to surf the web, write email and documents… Thankfully, Apple’s low end Macs fit that bill perfectly.
“and of course all the funny stuff they can buy at the mall be it games or a garden planner should work on it.”
I would argue that what consumers want as access to the software you listed that is avaialble for both platforms to be made equally available. If that were the case, people would have more choice.
“They want a x86 Windows PC
I don’t know of anyone clamoring for x86 or Windows… they’re simply looking for hardware and software that can do all they want it to do. The macintosh can fit that bill also.
“(before some nut screams “Linux!” – most people don’t want to sacrifice a single minute of their life for reading a man page etc.)”
Nor do they want to spend any more time troubleshooting the Windows registry. they want a system that “just works”?
“Macsters are different. They are willing to pay a premium price for the stuff Apple offers.”
“Macsters” aren;t any different in this regard. They, just like many PC users are willing to pay a premium for added functionality. Asside from the current Mac towers, Apple computers are priced VERY competatively with PCs when they are compared with the same specs.
“There are different reasons for buying a mac but sure as hell there are not the same reasons why most people buy PCs.”
Much of the reason why people buy PCs is not because of an added benefit that can’t be had on the Mac, but rather, a perceived added benefit that they believe can only be had on the PC.
“This is Apples market, a market that has nothing todo with the ordinary PC market at all.
Sure it is. Apple sells to the EXACT same consumers that PC manufacturers do.
“Why should Apple try to compete against Dell? They would be out-of-business real fast.”
not at all. Apple ALREADY compets with Dell and are profitable… just like Dell.
“Or should they try to compete against MS on the OS market? That would be suicide.”
Not at all. Apple ALREADY competes with Microsoft in the OS market. Where have you been?
“I agree that Macs aren’t an alternative to cheap Wintels
I agree with you here. The cheap Macs have much more to offer than the cheap PCs.
“Apple doesn’t try to enter this market, either.”
Oh, if what you mean is that Apple doesn;t enter the bait and switch market… you are correct.
“I guess they know all to well that they wouldn’t survive a day in ‘the pit’.”
They’ve not only been surviving, but thriving. Apple competes with all the other PC manufacturers out there… many of which aren;t surviving very well in ‘the pit’.
“IBM may produce the G4, but the G4 is only being used in Apples machines.”
Not true. The G4 is being used in many other areas other than Macintosh computers.
“As I state above, the 970 will find work outide of Apples own machines and in IBMs blade servers, but don’t expect them to run OSX.”
Who knows… maybe they will. Maybe this is Apple and IBMs plan to kick out Intel and MS. Sounds like a good plan if you ask me… but then again… neither of us know yet, so neither of us should be making broad assumptions like we both just did.
“The guy does have a point about Apple’s pricing still being a little over the “justifiable” premium so as to restrict the number of likely buyers.(*)”
This is true only for Apple’s tower lineup. The rest of Apple’s hardware is priced VERY competatively when compered with equal specs to a PC
“The thing of it is, I think he’s going to lose his bet. I think Apple will gain market share for sales quarter over quarter for the next year or two because of the 970 and Panther.”
I would bet on it. Remember, marketshare for any given company is calculated in relation to the sales of its competators. Everything Apple has been working toward pivots on the release of OS X running on next generation hardware.
The release of this hardware, when coupled with Apple’s Panther operating system starts the completion of Steve Jobs’ rebuilding of Apple.
It’s this combination, which the computer using populace has been waiting for, many of which have said that they’ve been holding back their computer purchases for Apple to get the time table right.
This sudden sales windfall will occur in parallel with the PC industry’s slow sales rate, which means that Apple’s percentage will likely jump from its current 3 percent status to double-digit growth, (somewhere in the 12 percent range) in as few as 6-9 months.
I’m actually not worried at all about Microsoft’s acquisition of VirtualPC. If they were actually foolish enough to do something like that, I could very easily picture VMware being ported to OS X, and in turn beating VPC into the ground. To the consumers, VMware already has one strike for them, they’re not Microsoft.
Last I checked VMware didn’t actually emulate that much and ran the other OS in a window. Because it doesn’t emulate the processor VMware would need to do a LOT to make a port. VPC already has “relatively” speedy x86 emulation and if it was somehow streamlined like classic you could just doubleclick on any windows app, and it would load like it belonged in OS X, along side every other window. It’d really be quite useful but it’d also be a perfect excuse to drop the Mac product line and just focus on one code base (since the Mac users could then run Windows Office.)
That guy has obviously never used an Apple in his life. They all have excellent performance! Not to mention that Mac OSX is pretty much the finest operating system out there.
“Macs are notarious for having fat margins”
No more so than similarly equipped PCs. This is true when you consider the fact that when you match specs between Macs and PCs they all (except for the current towers) are priced within $100 of each other.
“with the original 1984 Mac having a 100% profit on each unit.
Don’t confuse the past with the present. Apple’s computers are VERY price competative.
“Things are slimmer now, but PCs are still sold en mass with paper thin margins. The advantage here is the resulting volume of sales. The sheer volume of units sold still ensures some profit for PC makers.”
Apple is within the top 5 competer resellers because their margins are on par with PCs.
“Furthermore, that high volume ensures that PCs will continue to be the favored platform, out-competing Apple as PCs become more and more entrenched.”
Apple doesn’t need to outsell the combined PC conglomeration, they simply need to be profitable to continue producing best of breed hardware and software… something they’ve managed to do for quite a while now
“I say [Apple start getting back to basics and start selling machines at a reasonable price.”
You must mean their towers because they rest of the Mac lineup is very competatively priced.
“It may just as well be the eMac. If only they would lower the price and write off the losses.”
Why would they sell the emac at a loss when they can continue to grow market share at a profit?
“I have a feeling this is going to be a powerhouse of a computer if it ever is released. The bigger question can IBM and Apple keep the hardware close to PC counterparts.”
If Apple continues with their current business model, their prices will remain very price competative. The only Macs that are not price competative are the company’s towers. Hey, Apple is releasing new towers on Monday, I’ll bet that they’ll be priced competatively with equally equiped PCs
“Price Points is just the latest in a long list of reasons people say Apple only has sucha small marketshare.”
Assuming you are talking about the current towers, you may be right.
Remember, everything Apple has been working toward pivots on the release of OS X running on next generation hardware.
It’s this combination, which the computer using populace has been waiting for, many of which have said that they’ve been holding back their computer purchases for Apple to get the time table right.
This sudden sales windfall will occur in parallel with the PC industry’s slow sales rate. This means that Apple’s “market share” percentage will likely jump from its current 3 percent status to double-digit growth, (somewhere in the 12 percent range) in as few as 6-9 months.
Remember, marketshare for any given company is calculated in relation to the sales of its competators. This will cause Apple’s market share to make an even larger spike considering the fact that each individual PC manufacturer’s sales wont be there to counter Apple’s.
“If Apple could sweeten up Microsoft to make a Classic-like layer of Windows XP using Virtual PC (they own the code, right?), I’m sure it would be nice.”
Apple is moving in a direction which makes it LESS dependant on Microsoft. This scares microsoft to death. A consumer ready platform that has no Microsoft hooks to drag it down is the ultimate evil in Bill’s eyes.
I like competition, but get your facts straight:
Aside from the processor and the Motherboard, if you are using a MAC you are using the same hardware a PC does, BUT you are spending WAY more for it. You think your CD burner, your IDE drive is some special piece of hardware? Apple tells you you are, but you are not. You are using off the shelf PC stuff. The cables are, and in past Macs your RAM was (and in the new ones it will be too). So why are you paying a premium? Its like you bought the BMW but your parts are made by Chevy. Come on now. Get real. You Video card some weird mac item, or is it a PC device made to work with your mac?
I think the author is right, Macintosh must realize that to get more into the fold they must offer a reasonable price.
Along with its power series (powermacs and powerbooks) I hope that apple updates it’s consumer line of eMacs, iMacs, and iBooks to the 2.0GHz, 2.2 ghz, and 1.8ghz mark, respectively. I believe that for the professional systems, the new PowerMacs and Powerbooks should start at 2.4 Ghz and run up to 2.8 Ghz. Hopefully on Monday they do this, because if apple waits and “eventually” does this, than the PC world will hit a 3.4 Ghz milestone and apple would be left behind an entire ghz.
Did you read ANY of the news in the last 24 h???
The upcommung PowerMay specs are out! There will be no such thing than 2.4 or 2.8 GHz.
BTW: GHz != overall Systemperformance
You simply cannot directly compare the Pentium 4 clock rating to that of other processors as the new 64bit AMD or IBM processors. The AMD processor will become available with 1.8GHz in the beginning, according to HP, and it will be called 3100+. so it is probably comparable to a Pentium 4 3GHz. The PowerPC 970 will perform similarly.
Really, does anyone believe that if Apple sells computers at 400$, they will gain significant market share? We are not talking about OS tinkerers, or computer freaks. We are talking about normal users. Normal users who hear everyday from their sysadmin that “Apple computers are for graphics designers, you can’t do other stuff with it”.
Most people just don’t consider buying a mac, they will only compare Dells, Compaqs, a pc clone from the local computershop,.. not a mac, because it’s not a pc.
Another thing is why a company would desperately want a bigger market share? It’s more important to make profits, and Apple is definitely doing that, not only through their computer hardware sales, but also through the itunes music store and the ipod. There are enough third party software developers who are able to survive and make profits for computers with a small market share. Omnigroup, Ximian, Crossover,.. Heck, Adobe, Macromedia and Microsoft make software for computers with a small market share. They are all still standing and developing.
If Apple would want to increase market share, they need better marketing, not necessarily better pricing. For example, there is absolutely no marketing at all being done in Europe. Better and more ads would improve market share a bit. Giving (or selling at very low prices) apple computers to computer science students should improve market share too. After all, if you want to buy a computer, who do you ask for help to pick one out? Yup, the kid on the block that knows something about computers.
Apple has a niche market and will have a niche market for the forseeable future.
Apple provides a user experience from the ordering of the machine to the setup to the running of it’s OS that is simply unmatched in the pc world.
Apple will always have a customer base of people who have money to spend on premium hardware.
Apple has been going downhill for 20 years now.
In 1984 Apple sold slow, expensive extremely innovative computers and it still lost market share to barely usable XTs with monochrome screens running DOS.
Apple now sells slow expensive computers that are at best a little easier to use than PCs.
Nothing will change on Monday. The G5 machines will be very expensive and a bit faster than current PCS. Within 6 months both Intel and AMD will be producing faster and much cheaper machines.
Desktop Macs are all standard PC components except the case, motherboard and processors. An OEM motherboard costs about $25. G4 processors are apparently cheaper than x86 chips. In reality a Mac should cost no more than a PC to produce.
The Mac fanboys constantly state that Macs are competitively priced compared with PCs – on Planet Infinity Loop maybe.
These prices are current today in Australia:
PC:
#ATX Midi Tower Case with Front USB, 350W
# Sony 1.44 FDD
# Microsoft Multimedia Value Pack( MS Multimedia Keyboard & Optical Wheel Mouse (OEM))
# Benq 17″ V772 CRT Monitor
# Asus 52x24x52 CDRW Retail box
# Seagate 80GB IDE 7200RPM Barracuda 7200.7 ST380011A (1-YR Warranty)
# Corsair 512MB PC-2700 DDR
# V9520 MAGIC – GeForce FX 5200 – TV Out 128Mb – DVI
# Windows XP Home OEM
# Liteon 166S 16X DVD/48X CDROM
# Asus P4PE INTEL845PE, 6 Channel Sound, 10/100 Network
# Intel Pentium 4 3.06GHz 533FSB
# 600w Subwoofer Speaker System
AU $1999 (approx US $1300 inc 10% tax)
**************
Apple eMac
1GHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive
Price $1899 (Approx US $1235 US inc 10% tax)
So for $100 Australian (US$65) more than a cheap eMac I get a machine with a comparable performance to the fastest dual processor G4 tower. Additionally the quality of components in the PC are much better than the cheap OEM components in the eMac.
I’m not a Mac hater- I’ve owned a Classic, LC111, LC475, LC630 and a 7100/66. However 2 years ago I decided to upgrade and decided that a 1GHz Athlon with a 20GB hard drive was a lot better buy than a 2nd hand 233MHz/4GB beige G3 for the same money.
Macs are now so far behind in the price/performance stakes that it is embarrasing.
The G5 will change nothing. It will temporarily stall the performance lag of Apple. The trouble is for Apple that the G5 is all x86 technology except the processor. The Athlon64 will provide similar performance to the PPC970 and hypertransport is AMD techmnology anyway. In 6 months white box dual Athlon64s will be on the market for a fraction of the price of Apples machines.
good points…
in germany you get a high- (not highest) end-pc for €999, the slowest 1 ghz-apple is €1738 at the online-appleshop, you might get it cheaper on ebay or some appledealer, but still the price/performance ratio is much in favor for the pc.
on the other hand, if you buy a mac, you don’t just buy it as a tool, but it’s some kind of lifestyle. but if apple won’t be able to improve it’s computers performance, even the image won’t be enough reason for people to stay with apple.
given that the manufactured number of x86-processors is much higher than the g4 or ibm 970 will ever be, apple likely will have a lasting price-(and performance-)difference.
so maybe it should make the move to a sole softwarevendor, offering os-x for x86 also-it would be interesting to watch exactly how much marketshare they could take away from microsoft.
but in turn, they would come under pressure from linux just as mfst does. also, mfst would immediatly stop working on office for mac, of course!
hm, it’s hard to imagine a good future for apple, they might just fade away and being crushed between linux and windows.
Other than the obvious point that you can’t compare cars to computers, the only thing in the article that wasn’t highly speculative (price-performance guesses) or silly (large, heavy laptops) was this:
Further, Apple has no market entry in the US$400-$500 computer category, which is now a large volume category.
I really do hope Apple will address the last point (and it is rumored that they are at least considering an entry into the $500 headless market).
The eMac really doesn’t fit the bill because many people already have a monitor. It needs to be headless.
But really, this article says nothing new.
I didn’t think there was a MHz race. I thought it was to complete tasks. Many new processors from Intel and AMD are “slower” in the MHz department but still faster (new mobile Pentium – Pentium M? – can’t keep them straight, Opteron, etc…).
I think when we run benchmarks we’ll find that the 970’s do some things faster and some things slower than the top Pentiums. The two questions that we’ll have to wait to answer are:
1) what’s the ratio of those two “things”
2) what’s the price of the new 970 computers
If Apple keeps the price structure of their Fast, Faster, Fastest they should be very competitive on price/performance.
I seriously do not get some of these self-proclaimed analysts. I have been hearing “apple will go down” for ages… it hasn’t happened, on the contrary some people are switching.
Everytime there is a new processor coming out people say “they should lower prices”…well DUH! The G4 prices are gonna fall, and the G5 prices will be the same as the G4 prices today! Thats how business runs!
Not only that, but I also absolutelly despize the so called Gigaherz Gap… I mean WTF! Why are people so stuck up on frequency rather than the amount of work that you can do?! I have a 350Mhz G3 and I can do more (productive) work than on my 1Ghz PIII that I have at work! You cannot compare Mhz (well if you want to be an intelligent person anyway), and you can’t always say “I would buy a mac if the price was xyz” or “I would run MacOS X if it ran on intel”…. It’s just never going to happen, the prices at apple are pretty much fixed, and unless apple sees mases of people flocking to switch, they will not lower prices cause its cutting into their bottom line.
Merikes fores exo tin entiposi pos merika atoma exoun axira anti gia mialo! (greek: Sometimes I get the impression that people have Hay instead of brains in their skull).
Mini0me
I think a lot of you should watchout when you hear the 970 is cheaper then the G4 as the CPU is not the whole price of a system. Think about the RAM, Firewire 800, 3D Graphics and other things. So I guess the price will not go done.
However if they could hack the G4 and put faster FSB into it. It would be great for a lowend eMac. I’m talking about a $400-500 Mac that is comparable to a 1.8 Ghz x86 system.
Also I agree with the car analogy. I would rather compare it to gaming console’s. Or maybe even like cheap brandless cola vs Coca Cola.
And why isn’t Apple working with MS to port the .NET platform to OSX? This would be a killa feature. Run all future Windows apps on the Mac. Ooh shit I remembered MS has Windows (they don’t wany people running on something they don’t make money off) anyway if you pay MS the right price the may consider it. OSX is already MS COM technology
About Linux. The funny thing is that I needed to have Windows installed to download it. Then Windows internet to read how to set up my ADSL networking before I could use it. But I can say in Mandrake 9.x its very easy to setup ADSL well as hard as in Win2k anyway. However now I have an hardware router / firewall. I can just choose DHCP in any distro.
The guy has a point though, you can’t deny that. The new 970 is very likely to be very expensive, so that will drive most consumers to the cheaper competitor (x86). Or in the best case, to a G4.
We just don’t know. Rumors on Mac sites for over a month now point to the 970 being cheaper for Apple than the G4s.
“If” Apple can get the cost comparable with a PC…I will switch. I don’t mean comparing MHz to MHz either. I mean COST.
As with everything else, computer parts lower in price w/ time. If price is a concern, don’t expect to buy a G5 when it comes out. The 500 Mhz DDRAM is going to be expensive, yes, when first out; with a bit of time 6 to 8 mnths it should be as much as the current DDR 2700.
Apple has probably been keeping the G4’s in low quantity these last few weeks/months. What I hope is that the base price for an entry level G5 will be around $1100 to $1200 US w/o the monitor but topped up w/ more ram and a nice video card. I figure Apple’s markup was not all the cost of the MAC. For the quantity of G4’s being produced probably had more to do with it (low quantity and produced for Apple only by Motorola).
If the system prices and performance are reasonable enough, I’m more than willing to dump my PC w/in a year and get a G5.
.NET is not platform independent and only C# has gone through a standardizing process… and why should apple port .NET when it already has Java? .NET is for monopolists… Java is for the rest… say bye bye to .NET if you are not one of those monopolists…
>> on the other hand, if you buy a
>> mac, you don’t just buy it as a
>> tool, but it’s some kind of lifestyle.
Ah, that rhetoric sounds poetic, but what exactly is the difference between using computer as a “tool” and using it as a “lifestyle”?? Me, I don’t get it. “Lifestyle” will not persuade many people to spend that extra cash needed to get a mac.
>> so maybe it should make the move
>> to a sole softwarevendor, offering os-x
>> for x86 also-it would be interesting to
>> watch exactly how much marketshare they
>> could take away from microsoft.
No kidding. Apple is already expanding its revenue streams elsewhere. It should not be too scared and should really consider moving fully to the x86 market. Microsoft would never like that, of course, and you know, there’s a reason why: if well planned right, apple does indeed have a good chance of succeeding mightily in the desktop.
MS Office for Apple? I think that problem is more of a media problem. It is way very overrated. Heck, the issue of compatibility with MS Office only arises, if at all, when you are sending documents to another person. And just how often do YOU do that?
Apple should join forces with Linux on the Office end. The world needs a certain amount of standardisation on document formats, and the only way to help Microsoft support that is by growing the competition. If microsoft could topple the formerly pervasive WordPerfect Standard, there’s no reason why the end of MS Office for any platform should kill that platform. If they really mean to, Apple can do a useable Office Suite.
Apple loyalists will always stick with their Apple products… like it or not. We recognize that it’s a more expensive system– but we pay the price for what we believe is a better product. Yes, it’s more expensive– but yes, it’s also justified in my opinion. Their price will continue to fall as their market share gradually grows– and, as for the 970’s price…. it is to be very competitive. It’s apparent not much research was done on this topic before its publishing.
1. BMWs run on normal roads and use the same fuel, oil and tyres as many other cars. The control layout is very similar to other vehicles.
2. BMWs are an obvious status symbol that says you are affluent. Your Mac isn’t on display unless you have a laptop. Mac doesn’t say affluent it says ‘quirky’.
3. BMWs have good price/performance. A BMW costs about the same as other vehicles that have similar handling, build quality, performance , braking, safety etc. such as Lexus, MB or Jaguar.
4. A BMW may be,literally, a life-saver in an accident compared with a cheaper car.
4. BMWs are not overly expensive. In Europe BMW charges a relatively small premium over manufacturers such as VW, Opel (GM) and Ford (say 10%) for vehicles of similar specifications.
5. No vehicle maker has more than about 20% of the total market. The biggest manufacurers offer a wide range (sometimes hundreds) of models covering many brands and price niches. Renault, for example,is also the worlds largest maker of heavy trucks (that’s right that American icon Mack Trucks is owned by the perfidious French!). BMW caters for most sectors except the very cheap, the super-exotic and commercial vehicles. BMW is also one of the worlds largest manufactures of motorcycles. In computer analogies it (BMW) covers the market from Athlon XP 2000+ to SGI but doesn’t make mainframes or $199 Walmart specials.
6. BMW may have only 3% of the total car market but a much larger percentage of the markets in which it competes. BMW has a large percentage of sales in each of the niche markets it operates in (sometimes the biggest seller). BMW only has Mercedes-Benz as a direct competitor in most of its model sectors. MB is not in a price war with BMW as both sell similar models at similar prices and at very high profit margins for the most expensive models.
7. Macs aren’t BMWs. Apples are made with totally standard PC components except CPUs and motherboards. Macs are really like a Ford Focus with sporty new body panels,low-profile tyres, an engine and brakes from a 1976 Toyota Corolla and Ferrari badging and price tag.
wrong. That’s partly what killed OS/2.
If an app written for XP will run great on XP and OS X then why write ANY app for OS X?
You said:
<QUOTE>.NET is not platform independent and only C# has gone through a standardizing process… and why should apple port .NET when it already has Java? .NET is for monopolists… Java is for the rest… say bye bye to .NET if you are not one of those monopolists…</QUOTE>
.NET is just as platform independent as JAVA. Its the same compile once and run anywhere.
Why not JAVA because .NET has a future to be used for desktop applications. I don’t see a lot of dekstop apps written in JAVA even after what 7 years or so?
I think a lot of companies are going to write for .NET and just port the runtime to OSX and you get 5% more possible users.
And to proove agian. If its not platform independent. Why do people bother writing MONO? And I don’t think mono is the awnser. You would want an officially supported version which is 100% compatible.
I am interested in the discussion of whether Macs are competitively priced. I am a Unix user and I’m sick of not being able to buy a PC without M$ Windoze with Internet Exploiter.
I thought I’d get a Mac since Mac is Unix, but they do seem much more expensive for equivalent functionality. Since price is one of the big factors keeping me in PC-land, maybe someone can help me out. Here is an example:
Mac: From http://www.apple.com
$999.00
1GHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive
I went to envisioncs.net and tried to configure a similar system. This is what I got:
$660.00
Athlon XP 1900+ (1.60 GHz, 256k Cache)
128MB PC2100 DDR266
60BG Ultra ATA drive, Seagate
CDRW, 52x24x52
Yes, the system includes the non-specified things like 17″ Monitor, keyboard, optical mouse, Network card, SB sound, etc.
At first glance, this system seems to be equal or superior in every respect to the Mac one, but it is only 2/3 the price.
I’m not saying that the Macs aren’t worth it. I am asking how are they price-competitive with PCs of similar specs? Remember, I am asking because I am interested in a Mac. People here have said that they are comparably priced with PCs of similar specs. I just don’t see that.
I agree that it’s a poor analogy (as I have already stated). But remember that Apple isn’t competing with beige box companies selling to corps either. Apple claims to have 10% of the home market. That aint too shabby (but certainly needs improvement).
FYI: BMW competes more with Acura, Lexus, and Cadillac than Mercedes on the low end. Mercedes has a high end (80-110k) that BMW barely touches. And the low end has been such a drag for Mercedes. The new C-series has dropped them so far in the quality rankings its not funny.
Do you think that apple doesn’t get that the machines are getting expensive.
my opinion is that they might release a new “low cost” machine, either that or the PowerMac G5 will be cheeper than we all imagined.
> .NET is just as platform independent as JAVA. Its the same compile
> once and run anywhere.
> And to proove agian. If its not platform independent. Why do people
> bother writing MONO? And I don’t think mono is the awnser. You
> would want an officially supported version which is 100% compatible.
They are writing MONO BECAUSE .net is NOT platform independent. What matters most is the .net-Framework and mono is implementing that.
Plus: Why should MS – of all companies – bother with platform intependence?
AZ
well, add in all the software that comes with a mac that you do not get with a PC…and I am talking about software that can compete with the iLife apps.
also, a 1GHz ppc is near the top for the mac so you need to go with a near the top PC proc…try around 2.4 GHz.
next is the combo drive the mac has…you do not have that on the PC.
finaly, look at the other periferals you get with the mac that does not come with the PC….now go out and price those periferals along with the software to become feature complete, then take in the fact that the Mac software is so well melded into the system that it is like one contiguouse system and not a hodge podge of programs that can not talk with one another.
the mac is worth it.
Rotf! -Westyvw, you wrote:
“I like competition, but get your facts straight:
Aside from the processor and the Motherboard, if you are using a MAC you are using the same hardware a PC does, BUT you are spending WAY more for it. You think your CD burner, your IDE drive is some special piece of hardware? Apple tells you you are, but you are not. You are using off the shelf PC stuff.”
Hahahahaha- man that’s golden. Firstly, Apple design a majority of their hardware- and then send it to third party manufactures. Or I must be dreaming fixing an Apple made cd-rom drive for the iMac (1999) or I spose you can buy the modern iMac circular motherboard “off the shelf” …
Kind of ironic your statement of “get[ing] your facts straight eh
Heres another moronic statement- this time by ‘Ralf’
“BTW: GHz != overall Systemperformance”
This really shows some people- or should I say, most PC users display a real lack of understanding or knowledge of their lovable PC’s- but are more than willing to declare sweeping statements like the above. I’m not even going to dignify Ralf’s statement- as it’s moronic- and deserves no retort…
And finally- we have ‘Anonymous’ who proclaims
“In 1984 Apple sold slow, expensive extremely innovative computers and it still lost market share to barely usable XTs with monochrome screens running DOS.”
Hahaha!! Ahh man- this is great- slow 1984 Macs?- Macs running DOS? This really shows the level of intelligence of some PC users…. If your going to debate- at least comment only on topics you have an understanding of
hmm- my bad- I didnt read your post throughly Anonymous- however my point still stands redarging the first statment I made
The next time a person compares x86 vs 970 or Power4
it sould be done using value like.
IOPS Interger Operation Per Secound
or
FLOPS Floating Point Operation Per Secound
And
The GHz speed is well.
Eg Intel P4 32Ghz 100 IOPS
G5 4GHz 110 IOPS
I have a dual 1.25 GHZ G4.
Did you have a look inside at your MAC?
Memory is from SAMSUMG PC2700
Harddrive is from Seagate + I have a 60gig Maxtor
SuperDrive is from Pioneer DVR-A05
Video Card is from NVIDIA
“Thankfully, Apple has and uses industry standard software and hardware. ”
What is “industry standard software” ? Standard in what industry?
The software that best matches that description would be programs like gcc or Apache that can run on almost any computer. Not programs that run on only one platform.
I’d say its more like buying a Jaguar and the parts are being made by Ford. 😉
Mr. McDonald’s,
There are only 2 non-standard PC components in a Mac:
-the motherboard
-the PPC processor
Everything else is industry standard with special roms flashed when necessary.
-Generic DDR Ram
-Generic ATA 100 HDDs
-ATI Radeon or nVidia Gefore with a special ROM <– hence all the stories about being able to flash a PC Radeon 9800 so that it can work in a PowerMac.
So you might want to get your facts straight. Aside from the motherboard/processor, the only thing that makes apple hardware specific is the few kbits of data that gets flashed into the rom.