Article:		Developer Notes from WWDC 2003
Subject:		price
Date:		2003-06-24 14:55:53
From:		revdiablo
Oh, and next time someone says, "Well, I think Mac OS X is a cool operating system, but I don't really want to pay a premium price for the hardware to run it," pull this out of your back pocket. You can buy a 2 GHz dual processor G5 that can hold up to 8 GB of memory with a Radeon 9600 Pro graphics card, 4X SuperDrive, high performance I/O, serial ATA hard drives, 133 MHz PCI slots, and full SMP Sorry to break it to you, but despite being cheaper than the (arguably) equivalent x86 box... this hardware still runs for what I would call a premium price. I mean, one may say it's "premium" hardware... but it's still pretty pricey. My beef with Apple hardware is not necessarily with their price-performance ratio, but more with the absolute price. Perhaps OS X really does require extremely beefy hardware, but I cannot find any seemingly affordable machines at Apple.com. And before anyone replies: no, an 800mhz eMac for $800 is not affordable; remember I'm talking absolute dollars here. I wouldn't ever spend more than $500 for a complete system, no matter how powerful.

Showing messages 1 through 8 of 8.

• price
  2003-06-24 16:39:17  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  So your talking about a low-end consumer machine, I think your in the wrong area. The area for cheap throwaway computers is to your left and down a couple of blocks next to the Pinto over there. Do you see it?
  
  I guess you can buy a $500 dollar PC every year but why not just get a G5 for $46 a month using Apple loan. It is an operating expense and immediately deductable. Mac's average a 5-7 year life and Apple has historically designed their OS's to work with older hardware. I mean the G3 running at 300Mhz can run OS X very well with enough RAM.
  
  If you want to save money, do it smartly.
• price
  2003-06-24 17:55:09  revdiablo [View]
  
  

  Thank you for your demeaning attitude, but it's entirely unfounded. I buy cheap PC hardware and use it satisfactorily for years. I fail to see why Mac hardware has to be any different -- it is essentially the same stuff (i.e. silicon, aluminum, copper, etc). Maybe I haven't looked hard enough into avenues of obtaining used Mac hardware, but everything they sell on Apple.com is just too much.

  
  
  

  PS: People like you insulting my intelligence and level of computer use is the type of thing that makes me want to investigate Mac hardware even less. I may not require the shiniest new machines out there, but I'd hardly call myself a low-end consumer. Oh well... this is getting pointless.

• price
  2003-06-26 16:36:48  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  pointless indeed. I fail to see why Cray, Sun, SGI and now Macintosh hardware has to be any different -- it is essentially the same stuff.
  
  I fail to see why i should drive anything other than what you are driving. After all, a car is a car? Right? Why does anyone want a ferrari? why don't we all drive what i drive? my intelligence dicates this to be so.
  
  I fail to see why people should have a choice in computing platforms. After all, what is good for the market share should be good for everybody.
  
  I fail to see why you don't use a commodore 64 instead of a pee cee, after all it is the same stuff as a....
  
  I do see that you have failed to get *it*
  
  hugs and kisses you intelligent person you....
• Same Stuff???
  2003-06-26 14:19:32  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  revdiablo wrote: " I fail to see why Mac hardware has to be any different -- it is essentially the same stuff (i.e. silicon, aluminum, copper, etc)."
  
  Just like Mac OS X must be equivalent to Windoze because it's all just lines of code? Just like you must be just like me because we're both made of molecules? That's a ridulous statement. I feel for you, we all wish we could have a G5 for $500 but it's simply not realistic (at least, at this time). If that really is your absolute limit, buy used or go down to Costco and get your $500 eMachines. Within a month you will be hating life and going blind from staring at the crappy monitor you added for $50. I have a number of friends who went this route and most now regret it (IOW, no computer is better than a bottom-of-the-barrel cheapo one).
• price
  2003-06-24 20:34:50  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  I can understand this person wanting to get into Mac OS X for $500 ... there is nothing wrong with that. To many people that's a month's rent and more users of Mac OS X is good news for everyone. I suggest you try and get your hands on ANY model G4 with 400Mhz or greater on EBay and pick up a used 15 or 17" VGA monitor for $50 to $70. My kids have an old 233Mhz original iMac with 192MB RAM and it runs OS 9 great and can run OS X although a little sluggish.
• price
  2003-06-24 18:24:21  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  People like you insulting my intelligence and level of computer use is the type of thing that makes me want to investigate Mac hardware even less. I may not require the shiniest new machines out there, but I'd hardly call myself a low-end consumer. Oh well... this is getting pointless.
  
  Yes, I agree this is pointless. But here I go.
  
  I have to use your statements. Sorry. It's not meant to be insulting. However, you stated you are not willing to spend more than 500 for a complete system.
  
  Bottom line: you are not a customer Apple wants, if you are not willing to look at bang/buck. Likewise, it would be hard to get a real estate agent to return your calls if you won't go above a 300/mo. mortgage payment.
  
  What does your 500 bring to Apple? Nothing recent. E-Bay may be a good place to start, though.
  
  I want Apple to continue to allow me to get my work done fast (in terms of workflow), and enjoy it when I do work. I am willing to pay a little more (well, apparently over 1000 more than you) to make my work/play more pleasant. I will budget for it, just as I budget for other major purchases, that represent major outlets of my time.
  
  No one was insulting your intelligence. You came to this site with, let's be honest, a ridiculous statement. 500 is bottom of the barrel with any vendor, much less Apple.
  
  OK. My fingers are tired.
• price
  2003-06-25 18:21:20  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  I also agree. $500 is bottom of the barrel, and this is with ANY vendor, PC or otherwise. I recently read an interview with the CEO of Gateway, and he was very bitter about the direction the PC market has taken in the last several years.
  
  He stated that at one time his company (and others) would typically sell a $2000 computer and make $300-$400. Now, they mostly sell $500 computers and struggle to make $40 off each computer.
  
  With hundreds of millions of dollars in ongoing operating costs, Gateway is taking a beating trying to keep things afloat with $40 here and there. It just doesn't work. In fact it has gotten so bad that Gateway is now going to be "expanding" into other household devices. For example their flat-screen TV did so well they are going to come out with several other models, and they're looking into video cameras, MP3 players, etc. (Sound familiar?)
  
  It's difficult to feel sorry for Gateway, since they are one of the companies most responsible for this rush to produce ever cheaper PC's. But that's not the point. The point is that even companies who helped create this business model are leaving it because it is simply not sustainable.
  
  People who complain about Apple charging too much for their computers or demanding too high of a margin are missing the point - Apple is only doing what every other PC maker on the planet wishes they COULD do. The only thing is that NONE of the other PC manufacturers has enough consumer loyalty to pull it off.
  
  Polls have shown time and time again that for the vast majority of PC users, there is very little brand loyalty. And this applies much more to the sub-$1000 market.
  
  Don't kid yourself. The CEO and founder of Gateway has made it clear that he would go for Apple type margins in a New York minute if his company could get away with it, but he knows that he can't. Do you think it's any different at Dell or Acer. No way.
  
  You are not going to see a $400 Mac anytime soon, if ever, because Apple has no interest in trying to cover billion dollar operating budgets with $30 per machine profits. Does this make Apple fundamentally different than other PC makers? Only in the sense that Apple has enough consumer loyalty that they CAN DO THIS.
  
  I have been using Macs since the early 90's. I spend all day on the thing, and I bill out tens of thousands of dollars a year on it. Would I trade the Apple quality and reliability in order to save a few hundreds bucks one time?
  
  Hell no.
• price
  2003-06-25 11:06:19  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  I agree completely. One of the more salient comparisons I've read was that in the industry Apple/OS X is a Porsche while Intel/Windows is any GM make of automobile. Yes, both cars will get you from point A to B but just about everyone knows why a Porsche is better than the Pinto (from the above comment). Same comparison here: $500 oem pieced together everything-on-the-motherboard computer or a well engineered $3000 Apple.