Apple Getting Snobbish???

[CalBoy]

I don't know if I agree. I don't think it would be bad for Apple to expand into a cheaper market. The experience of owning a Mac is not about hardware, it is about the OS. If it were about hardware, then MBP owners and my friends with BBs would be purchasing highly spec'd alienware type computers for raw power with the incredible VISTA I know many users who use G4 PB macs which are god awfully slow in comparison to SR MBPs, but they still love them b/c of the stability and the OS.

You realize that they're still able to use them because Apple makes products that good right? When have you heard of a $500 notebook lasting for years? It doesn't happen very often. Why? Because they're cheaper computers that aren't meant for the long run. They have lower end processors and cheaper parts; essentially they are the "left overs" of the previous year's purchase orders. The experience of owning a Mac is both the OS and the hardware. Both are leagues ahead of PCs. That takes a premium. Going for bargain basement is a bad idea. It would create a host of problems, and would lower the marketing position Apple currently has.

That being said, generalizing that people who purchase 500 dollar computers are ignorant tech consumers is just wrong. Some people would LOVE to have a mac, but they just can't afford it. Yet in a similar way like your analogy, I know lots of people who would LOVE a BMW/Mercedes but they just can't afford it either. Yet computers are different than cars because the difference between a toyota and a mercedes is in the tens of thousands, while the difference between an HP and a Macbook is in the hundreds.

When was the last time you spent $500 for a primary computer? Thought so. My point was that most people who look for $500 computers don't know much about computers, and Apple probably would be better for them, but they don't know why. They don't take the time to understand the range of products before them, so they just purchase what seems to be the best price.
Where did you get the idea that HP and Apple are hundreds apart? For similar specs, the difference is at most $50(and this ignores the cost of virus protection, the extra RAM needed for Vista, and the heavier weight of HP's models).

If Apple truly wishes to expand further into the computer market then they must introduce more solutions to fill their price gaps. But it doesn't look like they are interested with this anymore especially if they drop the mini. But this would still be fine and satisfy investors if they continue to be successful with the iPod, continue to convince current Apple Users to upgrade every couple of years, and steal market cap in the cell phone market with their iPhone.

Frankly, too much expansion can be a bad thing too. As is true of all things, there is always a trade off. If Apple expands too quickly, we may see a decline in quality (as I"m sure some of you out there have already experienced). I think the iPod and Vista are drawing plenty of people to Apple for the moment. It better keep it up and continue to deliver quality products.

So in general, I don't think that Apple is snobbish at all. They are in the business to make money, plain and simple, revolutionizing the markets is what they need to do to do that. Apple users though do have a stereotype of being snobbish, which I must say is not always a good thing. The genius behind Apple, I have to argue, hasn't always been exclusive and great technology, it has been a unique user experience paired with incredible marketing.

I think Apple users seem snobbish because they just have it so good. We like to show off our stuff, and why not? It's sexy, fast, and all ours Otherwise, yes, Apple has a brilliant marketing department.

 

[CalBoy]

"We're not going to be profitable this holiday but the Zune project is a multiyear strategy."[/i] The company also added in the original article that the investment "may take years to bear fruit."

That doesn't mean that each Zune is being sold at a loss. If production costs are $200, and it's being sold for $250, then it's not a loss. I believe Microsoft was saying that the Zune's development cost would take a few years to pay off. Very different from the PS3, which costs more to make than it is being sold for.

Of course it makes sense. What makes you think Apple only has one way to make money from the iPhone and one reason to sell them? Let's be clear though, I DISAGREE that it would be a GOOD IDEA if they had decided to do it... because it would be UNNECESSARY. But it would certainly make sense. As such, the following is just playing Devil's Advocate.

My statement was: "--it seems clear that Apple isn't looking to be a loss leader OR cannibalize its sales, but to sell hardware at what they see the market bearing for such devices". If Apple DID decide to use a "loss leader" strategy (just for argument sake), do you think Apple will ONLY make its money from an iPhone through iTunes (presumeably referring to content sales)? Moreover would those content sales alone be the ONLY justification? Well, for other ways Apple is making money hand-over-fist on the iPhone, let's play a quick game of "Did You Know"?

iPhone Profits: Did You Know?

• Apple receives a portion of the recurring cellular subscription fees?
• Apple's "Made for iPod" licensing program brings Apple a $4 per accessory fee from third-party manufacturers, and that its new "Made for iPhone" program isn't likely to be much different?
• Aside from music, movies, and tv shows, Apple intends to sell software applications and ringtones through its iTunes store (both of which represent popular categories for the sector and uniquely appealing prospects for its customers)?
• Nintendo and Apple may be planning to sell iPhone compatible Nintendo game titles for $29 through iTunes (something previously less than feasible given the iPods far more limited controls)?

While it would be expected that production efficiencies over time and economy of scale would offset much of the initial cost of the product (its been suggested that some components in the iPhone have not been manufactured in as high a capacity as Apple is demanding, and that cost would certainly go down in time).

Over time, iPhone/AppleTV/iPod will represent significant recurring software revenue for Apple alongside its Macintosh development, with the remarkeable concept that they will all be the same basic OS platform with different user-interfaces. If securing this paradigm is not a highly important and long-term goal for Apple, --worth being a loss-leader, I'm not sure what is.

Even with all that (which I knew) it doesn't make sense for Apple to be a loss-leader. The revenues generated from the sale of accessories and ringtones will never add up to be as much as the price of the phone. What does make sense is if Apple cut the price on its phone in order to sell more service plans. Loss-leading only makes sense when there's an advantage that can be gained from it. Like I said, loss-leading for Apple wouldn't make sense because Apple doesn't make enough from its other revenue sources (like accessories) to even consider loss-leading.

 

[SkyBell]

Imagine someone over at a friend's or neighbor's and seeing the Mac Mini G4. "How much was it?" "$499 - I just hooked it up to the monitor I had."

Now, the person shows up at the Apple store and finds out the cheapest Apple computing device is only "a phone with internet" at $499. MacBooks start at $1,099, and iMacs start at $1,199.

"Where's the Minis?" "Apple doesn't have those anymore."

"What about a desktop without the monitor?" "MacPros start at $2,499"

The person ends up at Wal-Mart with a Dell...

If Apple wants the OS X and iLife experience out there - they need go down from their loft a bit...

Keep the Minis (or have a direct replacement).

Why a G4? Why not a Mac mini Core Duo? (The current model)

Sorry, I'm bored.

These are just rumors of mini's being dropped. I don't see it happening, but it could happen. Apple had better have a damn good replacement, or they'll be a lot of pissed mac users. I also doubt they'll drop the 17" iMac. When I got to choose a mac, I had to decide between a top of line mini, or the 17" iMac. There's a lot of people just like me making that decision. Apple will not drop the mini.

 

[Cleverboy]

That doesn't mean that each Zune is being sold at a loss. If production costs are $200, and it's being sold for $250, then it's not a loss. I believe Microsoft was saying that the Zune's development cost would take a few years to pay off. Very different from the PS3, which costs more to make than it is being sold for.

Mm... quibble all you like, I never said Zune was a loss-leader product on raw components, but that the Zune was simply sold at a loss, which was reflected clearly by Microsoft's statements that the project simply wouldn't be profitable (bend and writhe, there's only one way to read that). Next time, you could ask me to clarify, but I thought I was pretty clear in my second post.

Moreover, do you realize manufacturing process and licensing fees also account for whether a product is "sold at a loss"? Why wouldn't they be? If it cost me (total) $350 to put out a product I then SOLD for $300, and I told you that the raw components cost me $250, but I paid $100 in licensing fees and labor cost, I'm still selling said product AT A LOSS. Microsoft contracted Toshiba to create the Zune, and did a number of other things to launch the product immediately and gain holiday marketshare. It was so important to launch for Christmas 2006, that the Zune did not even work with Windows Vista until a month after it shipped its business version. I'm pretty sure you're either struggling to bend the facts so that you can simply sound "correct", or you really don't know what you're talking about. It's not BAD that Zune is sold at a loss. It's just a mark of how much technology goes into a new product and how much financial muscle is required to push it out. Don't confuse the message here, I'm not mocking them, my original statement only used them as an example of the work involved. Ok?

Even with all that (which I knew) it doesn't make sense for Apple to be a loss-leader. The revenues generated from the sale of accessories and ringtones will never add up to be as much as the price of the phone.

You're being a little whacky you know... You DO realize something being a loss-leader, is usually NEVER a 100% loss?

In marketing, a loss leader (also called a key value item in the United Kingdom) is a type of pricing strategy where an item is sold below cost in an effort to stimulate other, profitable sales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

You're acting like I said it would make sense that Apple gave away iPhones. When Go Daddy sells a .COM domain name for $3-$5... their wholesale cost at the registry is still $6, but they make up the difference by requiring purchasers accompany the product with other offerings with higher margins. Of course it "makes sense", just as I outlined. Also, there is a certain "value of a customer" figure that all companies bat around. It uses averaging to determine how much value each customer brings in, versus how much (on average), the company can afford to pay in acquiring that customer. If you're saying that Apple customers are so disloyal and generally do not buy more Apple products once they've made an initial purchase, I really disagree.

Now, neither of us have access to Apple's latest agreements and financials, so we won't know for some time how much "extra" revenue comes in from these ancillary sources. Until then, we can just disagree. Strongly.

--Note: I'm only playing devil's advocate however, because as I said, I think things are fine the way they are. Why sell something for less when you: a.) erode your high-value brand, b.) leave money on the table, c.) slow the rate at which you recoup development costs. Doesn't make "financial sense" is markedly different from doesn't make "strategic sense". Perhaps we're talking past each other, and we're each arguing a slightly different sense of "sense"... both right in our own regard. I'm arguing that it COULD make financial sense to do it (we're talking potential not absolutes, with no crystal balls on hand), but that I agree that strategically, an simply from opinion, that such a thing would be far less advantageous and the reward, much less predictable. If you can "stack the deck" or "have your cake and eat it do" why not, right?

For instance, Steve Jobs, as a board member, was reported recently to be pushing Disney to stop producing "Direct-to-Video" versions of its cartoon classics like "Peter Pan 2" or "Lion King 2 1/2". The point being NOT that it didn't make Disney extra money, but that it eroded their brand. Not that Disney didn't sell more product, but that the esteem to which the company was held and its brand equity was experiencing diminishing returns. While it might make sense for the iPhone to be sold as a loss leader (discounted by Apple over its costs, etc) it would not necessarily be in Apple's interests from a number of persectives other than basic customer acquisition.

~ CB

 

[CalBoy]

Mm... quibble all you like, I never said Zune was a loss-leader product on raw components, but that the Zune was simply sold at a loss, which was reflected clearly by Microsoft's statements that the project simply wouldn't be profitable (bend and writhe, there's only one way to read that). Next time, you could ask me to clarify, but I thought I was pretty clear in my second post.

Moreover, do you realize manufacturing process and licensing fees also account for whether a product is "sold at a loss"? Why wouldn't they be? If it cost me (total) $350 to put out a product I then SOLD for $300, and I told you that the raw components cost me $250, but I paid $100 in licensing fees and labor cost, I'm still selling said product AT A LOSS. Microsoft contracted Toshiba to create the Zune, and did a number of other things to launch the product immediately and gain holiday marketshare. It was so important to launch for Christmas 2006, that the Zune did not even work with Windows Vista until a month after it shipped its business version. I'm pretty sure you're either struggling to bend the facts so that you can simply sound "correct", or you really don't know what you're talking about. It's not BAD that Zune is sold at a loss. It's just a mark of how much technology goes into a new product and how much financial muscle is required to push it out. Don't confuse the message here, I'm not mocking them, my original statement only used them as an example of the work involved. Ok?
You're being a little whacky you know... You DO realize something being a loss-leader, is usually NEVER a 100% loss?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

I was taking all things into account. The Zune is not currently a "loss-leader" because it is not being used to generate other revenue for Microsoft (at least not enough to warrant a loss). The Zune's costs are related to the expense it took to create the product, not out of a desire to push Microsoft's music store (or something similar).

I am aware that it isn't a 100% loss, but on a $500-$600 phone, even a 10% loss is a lot of money. The average person is not going to be buying $60 worth of ringtones and accessories.

However, after reading your first post, I can tell that you weren't implying that the Zune was a loss-leader, which means this has gone on long enough.

You're acting like I said it would make sense that Apple gave away iPhones. When Go Daddy sells a .COM domain name for $3-$5... their wholesale cost at the registry is still $6, but they make up the difference by requiring purchasers accompany the product with other offerings with higher margins. Of course it "makes sense", just as I outlined. Also, there is a certain "value of a customer" figure that all companies bat around. It uses averaging to determine how much value each customer brings in, versus how much (on average), the company can afford to pay in acquiring that customer. If you're saying that Apple customers are so disloyal and generally do not buy more Apple products once they've made an initial purchase, I really disagree.

They may be more likely to buy more Apple products, but that doesn't mean that they are going to be spending enough to recoup their loss on the first product. Like you said, we simply don't know about Apple's financials to say so.

Now, neither of us have access to Apple's latest agreements and financials, so we won't know for some time how much "extra" revenue comes in from these ancillary sources. Until then, we can just disagree. Strongly.

Agree^^^^

--Note: I'm only playing devil's advocate however, because as I said, I think things are fine the way they are. Why sell something for less when you: a.) erode your high-value brand, b.) leave money on the table, c.) slow the rate at which you recoup development costs. Doesn't make "financial sense" is markedly different from doesn't make "strategic sense". Perhaps we're talking past each other, and we're each arguing a slightly different sense of "sense"... both right in our own regard. I'm arguing that it COULD make financial sense to do it (we're talking potential not absolutes, with no crystal balls on hand), but that I agree that strategically, an simply from opinion, that such a thing would be far less advantageous and the reward, much less predictable. If you can "stack the deck" or "have your cake and eat it do" why not, right?

For instance, Steve Jobs, as a board member, was reported recently to be pushing Disney to stop producing "Direct-to-Video" versions of its cartoon classics like "Peter Pan 2" or "Lion King 2 1/2". The point being NOT that it didn't make Disney extra money, but that it eroded their brand. Not that Disney didn't sell more product, but that the esteem to which the company was held and its brand equity was experiencing diminishing returns. While it might make sense for the iPhone to be sold as a loss leader (discounted by Apple over its costs, etc) it would not necessarily be in Apple's interests from a number of persectives other than basic customer acquisition.

Agree with that. No need to be a loss-leader in the current market. I'm kind of glad Jobs is forcing Disney to shape up. I remembered reading that story in the paper and thought it made sense (although I'm sure Disney's accountants are mad )

I think we really are talking about two slightly different things, which is why we're having such a hard time figuring out what the other is saying. Oh well, the point is that Apple isn't really snobbish

 

[Fahrwahr]

Why a G4? Why not a Mac mini Core Duo? (The current model)

The point was that the last time the low-end desktop computer cost only $499 was the Mac mini G4 -- with the Core Solo / Duo, Apple raised the minimum price to $599.

These are just rumors of mini's being dropped. I don't see it happening, but it could happen. Apple had better have a damn good replacement, or they'll be a lot of pissed mac users. I also doubt they'll drop the 17" iMac. When I got to choose a mac, I had to decide between a top of line mini, or the 17" iMac. There's a lot of people just like me making that decision. Apple will not drop the mini.

Let's hope they don't neglect the low end any further. Otherwise, the "halo effect" from the iPod won't be as powerful as it could have been.

 

[walangij]

You realize that they're still able to use them because Apple makes products that good right? When have you heard of a $500 notebook lasting for years? It doesn't happen very often. Why? Because they're cheaper computers that aren't meant for the long run. They have lower end processors and cheaper parts; essentially they are the "left overs" of the previous year's purchase orders. The experience of owning a Mac is both the OS and the hardware. Both are leagues ahead of PCs. That takes a premium. Going for bargain basement is a bad idea. It would create a host of problems, and would lower the marketing position Apple currently has.

You are right, I haven't seen many cheap notebooks last for that long, but I have seen some and I don't think it is because of the hardware, the hardware is fine. The almighty XP is the problem in most cases.

It is the OS that makes a Mac a Mac, plain and simple. I'm just trying to emphasize that Apple rarely utilizes the current edge of technology. Don't you remember when Apple computers came with a measly 512mb and small hard drives while almost all computers had 1GB and much larger hard drives? I'm sure you do b/c many users here would complain about that. I have to emphasize that owning a Mac is mostly OS rather than hardware. The common "it just works" isn't b/c the hardware is any different, OSX is the difference. If Apple released their OS to run natively on Windows boxes, then there would be no difference between their Apple Computers and say a Dell XPS that runs OSX. Apple maintains its consumer base expands with converts because:
1. Consumer is attracted to the design.
2. Consumer remains Apple user because of the OS.
I don't think any consumers looks at Apple and says "WOW SANTA ROSA", Hardware isn't a selling point to new consumers, it is a selling point to existing Mac users.
Now saying this, I don't see Apple releasing a sub-standard notebook, those that want Macbooks are the same users that look at the inspiron Dells and thinkpads, ect.

When was the last time you spent $500 for a primary computer? Thought so. My point was that most people who look for $500 computers don't know much about computers, and Apple probably would be better for them, but they don't know why. They don't take the time to understand the range of products before them, so they just purchase what seems to be the best price.
Where did you get the idea that HP and Apple are hundreds apart? For similar specs, the difference is at most $50(and this ignores the cost of virus protection, the extra RAM needed for Vista, and the heavier weight of HP's models).

Sure, I may not spend 500 dollars on a computer but many people do and those many people can equal major profits for Apple if they choose to pursue. If these "bargain basement" users "buy for the best price" and Apple just happens to be in this price range, then I don't see how it could hurt Apple at all, except that Macs would be much more common than they are now. Apple could manage to maintain a good product at a low price range without dropping their quality. But their profit margins on this machine would be lower and I don't know if it fits their business plan.

Also, the idea that HP's and Apples are hundreds apart was just pointing out that the analogy of computers to cars is not A-A.

Apple might make a lot of money in the short term, but like I said, that would ruin their product image. Do you see BMW or Mercedes make a "middle class" model? No. They've chosen their target demographic, and they seem to be doing just fine

So your analogy about MB/BMW and Apple just does not fly. Making a lower end computer does not hurt a computer company's product image unless they choose to do so. Though some may say it might with many more Mac users and the "elite Mac user" being a thing of the past. I think it is safe to say that Apple's "target demographic" is everyone.

Frankly, too much expansion can be a bad thing too. As is true of all things, there is always a trade off. If Apple expands too quickly, we may see a decline in quality (as I"m sure some of you out there have already experienced). I think the iPod and Vista are drawing plenty of people to Apple for the moment. It better keep it up and continue to deliver quality products.

True, but the expansion of a company being directly correlated to a decline of quality is because of poor planning. Any company can expand and maintain, even improve quality if they really care about their products -but as we see most companies are more about maintaining profits rather than quality to keep shareholders happy. The iPod has won many converts. I don't know about Vista, I don't think that there has been a surge of new mac users b/c they just bought Vista and thought it was horrible. I've seen many Vista machines that work perfectly, just like Macs and these users were happy with their products. I've also seen many Mac converts at my university who are not happy with their macbooks or iMacs. They work fine, but I think they were expecting a "WOW THIS IS AMAZING" life-changing computer experience, but when all you do is surf the web and IM, its not much different than a windows box. But for their disappointment, I blame hype.

I think Apple users seem snobbish because they just have it so good. We like to show off our stuff, and why not? It's sexy, fast, and all ours Otherwise, yes, Apple has a brilliant marketing department.

Yep, that is totally correct. I'm also glad to see that PC manufacturers are at least making an effort the make their computers sleeker/sexier like the Intel notebook we saw a few months ago, that is a beautiful PC and hopefully Apple releases something even better as we can expect that something on par will be released.




Now then:
I don't know if it is stereotypical of Mac users and I hope that in general it is not, but at my university, the majority of Mac users are too snobbish to the point where they bash people when they purchase a thinkpad instead of a MBP or install vista on their XP computers. Helping people choose correctly is fine, but bashing Microsoft/users I don't agree with.

So with all that said, I hope they maintain the Mac Mini line b/c my dad sure wants one but I told him to wait for an update.

 

[CalBoy]

You are right, I haven't seen many cheap notebooks last for that long, but I have seen some and I don't think it is because of the hardware, the hardware is fine. The almighty XP is the problem in most cases.

True, but even so, $500 hardware is not going to last as long as long as a more expensive hardware.

It is the OS that makes a Mac a Mac, plain and simple. I'm just trying to emphasize that Apple rarely utilizes the current edge of technology. Don't you remember when Apple computers came with a measly 512mb and small hard drives while almost all computers had 1GB and much larger hard drives? I'm sure you do b/c many users here would complain about that. I have to emphasize that owning a Mac is mostly OS rather than hardware. The common "it just works" isn't b/c the hardware is any different, OSX is the difference. If Apple released their OS to run natively on Windows boxes, then there would be no difference between their Apple Computers and say a Dell XPS that runs OSX. Apple maintains its consumer base expands with converts because:
1. Consumer is attracted to the design.
2. Consumer remains Apple user because of the OS.
I don't think any consumers looks at Apple and says "WOW SANTA ROSA", Hardware isn't a selling point to new consumers, it is a selling point to existing Mac users.
Now saying this, I don't see Apple releasing a sub-standard notebook, those that want Macbooks are the same users that look at the inspiron Dells and thinkpads, ect.

I still don't entirely agree. Apple does have very nice hardware. For me, both were selling points. The OS was important, but so was the hardware design.

Sure, I may not spend 500 dollars on a computer but many people do and those many people can equal major profits for Apple if they choose to pursue. If these "bargain basement" users "buy for the best price" and Apple just happens to be in this price range, then I don't see how it could hurt Apple at all, except that Macs would be much more common than they are now. Apple could manage to maintain a good product at a low price range without dropping their quality. But their profit margins on this machine would be lower and I don't know if it fits their business plan.

Also, the idea that HP's and Apples are hundreds apart was just pointing out that the analogy of computers to cars is not A-A.

So your analogy about MB/BMW and Apple just does not fly. Making a lower end computer does not hurt a computer company's product image unless they choose to do so. Though some may say it might with many more Mac users and the "elite Mac user" being a thing of the past. I think it is safe to say that Apple's "target demographic" is everyone.

We weren't talking about profits, we were talking about product image. Believe it or not, but being expensive is a marketing point. Sometimes people won't touch a more "economical" product because they believe it's cheap. Apple doesn't want that. They've chosen their niche, and they're sticking to it.

Yep, that is totally correct. I'm also glad to see that PC manufacturers are at least making an effort the make their computers sleeker/sexier like the Intel notebook we saw a few months ago, that is a beautiful PC and hopefully Apple releases something even better as we can expect that something on par will be released.

Still not as sexy as my mbp Seriously, they've gotten better, but they're still not as good as Apple. PC makers don't seem to understand that less is more when it comes to notebooks.

Now then:
I don't know if it is stereotypical of Mac users and I hope that in general it is not, but at my university, the majority of Mac users are too snobbish to the point where they bash people when they purchase a thinkpad instead of a MBP or install vista on their XP computers. Helping people choose correctly is fine, but bashing Microsoft/users I don't agree with.

So with all that said, I hope they maintain the Mac Mini line b/c my dad sure wants one but I told him to wait for an update.

Well most college students are snobby because they think they know it all (including me!) Seriously though, I don't bash PC users. I do encourage OS X, but I don't bash.
I hope the Mini stays alive too. It's a good concept.

 

[Cleverboy]

However, after reading your first post, I can tell that you weren't implying that the Zune was a loss-leader, which means this has gone on long enough.

Yes!

Oh well, the point is that Apple isn't really snobbish

I agree. I believe people give Apple the grandeur of a "fashion design" company, due to what often amounts to a higher selling price than other things in the same category. Often though, you're getting more, and its more difficult to keep feature parity with a much more simplified product line and operational methodology. Sometimes this attitude on Apple's part is frustrating, other times its absolutely masterful and visionary. It's interesting to watch and frustrating to see mislabeled.

~ CB

 

[killerrobot]

Is it just me or does all of Apple's hardware get made by the same chinese/korean sweatshops as every other computers hardware?

I also feel that everyones arguments about the g4 lasting forever (which it does) is valid, but I don't think that is going to be true now that Apple is on Intel and updating all their machines every 6 months. I would really like to know how many people are still using their first C2D in another year vs. how many upgraded. I have a 4 year old dell inspiron that's still running fine (for internet, word etc.). Yeah I upgraded, but so does everyone else with a g4 that needs to do massive photoshop/editing work.

I don't think Apple is snobish, I think most of their users are -- especially because if you type Dell or Microsoft in these forums most people try flame them like it was the worst thing ever.

 

[zap2]

if you type Dell or Microsoft in these forums most people try flame them like it was the worst thing ever.

Not really...its gotten better IMO, Mods won't let terrible flame wars starts, sometimes people come, and they are clearly attacking Apple(or trying to do it all sly like), in which case, people defend it.

Really, its not that bad here.

 

[killerrobot]

Not really...its gotten better IMO, Mods won't let terrible flame wars starts, sometimes people come, and they are clearly attacking Apple(or trying to do it all sly like), in which case, people defend it.

Really, its not that bad here.

I know I'm exaggerating a little, but man look at where this post has gone with one guy saying he bought a dell. No one can just be happy for him that he got a new computer.

 

[CalBoy]

I agree. I believe people give Apple the grandeur of a "fashion design" company, due to what often amounts to a higher selling price than other things in the same category. Often though, you're getting more, and its more difficult to keep feature parity with a much more simplified product line and operational methodology. Sometimes this attitude on Apple's part is frustrating, other times its absolutely masterful and visionary. It's interesting to watch and frustrating to see mislabeled.

~ CB

I like the simple product line. In the PC world, trying to compare models is very difficult; certain models will have things that others don't, and then there's always the difficulty of pricing. Apple's basic idea of "here's what we offer, take it or leave it" is nice and easy. While I would like to see a little product variety (like a small pro notebook and a larger consumer notebook), it's still a pretty good line-up. As you put it, at times it is frustrating.

I know I'm exaggerating a little, but man look at where this post has gone with one guy saying he bought a dell. No one can just be happy for him that he got a new computer.

Well, you do have to remember that this site is named Mac Rumors. I think you're going to see some of that. I think that poster could reasonably forsee such a response n'est-ce pas?

 

[gkarris]

Turnaround?

Hopefully, the iPhone Nano is true, and it will be reasonably priced and available on ALL CARRIERS. Add this to hopefully a Mini replacement and it proves me wrong that Apple has become snobbish!

 

[CalBoy]

Hopefully, the iPhone Nano is true, and it will be reasonably priced and available on ALL CARRIERS. Add this to hopefully a Mini replacement and it proves me wrong that Apple has become snobbish!

Don't bet on the all carriers horse. ATT is probably going to hold them to that 5 year deal.

 

[gkarris]

Don't bet on the all carriers horse. ATT is probably going to hold them to that 5 year deal.

Yea, but a deal with the iPhone may be different from the iPhone Nano...

 

[rhagen]

Yea, but a deal with the iPhone may be different from the iPhone Nano...

I am pretty sure something in the contract states that any phone from apple will be with AT&T for the 5 years.

 

[CalBoy]

I am pretty sure something in the contract states that any phone from apple will be with AT&T for the 5 years.

Yeah, lawyers aren't stupid Although, I wonder how profit sharing will work. Apple might be able to demand a little more for the plans since the nano phone may have more buyers than the regular iPhone.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I think basing your position on speculation of future products that may or may not appear is, well, a bit baseless. But looking back Apple (at least most Apple users) has, for as long as I can remember, looked down on the common PC. Just look at the now iconic 1984 Apple commercial or the Think Different ad campaign.

Only looking at hardware doesn't show a complete picture though. How much does OS X cost? How about iLife? Final Cut Express? Final Cut Studio 2? Yes, you *might* pay a bit more for a Mac compared to a similar spec'ed Dell, but once you start factoring software it's a different story.


Lethal

 

[Music_Producer]

It's not about being snobbish.. Apple serves the professional market with the MacPro, MacBook Pro, etc. Until a few years ago Apple consumers were generally professionals working in the audio/video department, photography, etc. If you are going to complain about the $600 price of a device as great as the iPhone, maybe I could call you cheap.. instead of calling Apple snobbish. Why don't you just compare it to the SOny Mylo? The mylo is an 'internet device' .. memory? 1 gb.. no real internet browser.. no cell phone capabilities, and that's what? $300? So you pay $300 more for an 8 gb ipod, with video, sleekest interface.. awesome hardware.. geez! Quit complaining.

The people who want to go out and buy a Celeron desktop that costs $399 - just want to email, browse the web, and chat online (mostly) When I work with my music needs, I find nothing comes close to obviously Apple hardware+software to make my work much, much easy. Hell I would gladly pay them up to 9-10k if they could come up with a 8 core macbook pro maxed out with goodies.

It doesn't seem like Apple wants to make super cheap products that would appeal to the budget minded consumer - for that they would have to sacrifice power, design, components used, etc. Might as well just make a plastic box, stick an apple logo on it and make it run OS X. Sure, they do make their profit margins on their hardware, but what company doesn't?

I personally think that Apple *consumers* tend to have more taste, and you might perceive that as being snobbish. I for one wish they hadn't come out with the ipod, the Apple store is always crowded since they launched .. and now with the iphone, even more so.

I expect Apple to make powerful and beautiful computers - appropriately priced.. and they do deliver just that. No one else even comes close.

Instead of calling Apple snobbish you should call some of the fashion labels snobbish.. how anyone can pay $8000 for a stupid purse is beyond my understanding.

 

[Eraserhead]

Apple are not going to enter the $500 PC market for several reasons.

#1 Cheap PC users don't buy any software (except for Office, possibly), so the only money to be made is up front, so software developers don't get extra sales.

#2 The margins on $500 PC's are very low as the market is extremely competitive, certainly not close to the 30% margins Apple is used to.

#3 The quality of $500 PC's is very low as they have to use lower end hardware, either Apple would look like a rip-off at the price point or they'd have to use the same hardware which is extremely unreliable, many cheap computers break after about 2 years or so.

#4 Many buyers of cheap computers don't understand technology as they aren't willing to spend more, so they are more likely to get viruses/spyware, yes you are shutting out poor computer geeks, but they'd probably build their own PC anyway as the specs are better.

#5 With regards to point 1 and 4, they are less likely to upgrade their OS to the latest version, which means that the cool new features in the OS take longer to propagate, it's going to take 5 years for developers to release Vista only software using it's cool features, however in 2 years (maybe less for open-source/freeware) you will see Leopard only software.

#6 you can get a $500 Mac, just buy a second hand one on eBay, it'll probably last longer than a $500 new PC anyhow, as it's been made of better quality materials.*

* Though a high quality (business) PC laptop would probably last even longer .

 

[cleanup]

Apple's products have always been relatively expensive.

What bugs me is the drop in quality over the past few years, when it comes to Macs. My MacBook is nowhere near as well built as my cousin's iBook. The screen is so flimsy. I can push on it and it will literally do the following:

1. Make a clicking noise. I assume it wasn't properly mounted.
2. Show the most LCD ripples I've ever seen on a laptop screen when pressed.
3. Move so far back that I can see it bending and separating away from the bezel.

My cousin's iBook, however, is as solid as a rock.

 

[Eraserhead]

1. Make a clicking noise. I assume it wasn't properly mounted.
2. Show the most LCD ripples I've ever seen on a laptop screen when pressed.
3. Move so far back that I can see it bending and separating away from the bezel.

FWIW my CD Macbook doesn't do any of those things, and produces far less ripples than any machine I've used before, it sounds like you have a lemon.

 

[gkarris]

Apple are not going to enter the $500 PC market for several reasons.

#1 Cheap PC users don't buy any software (except for Office, possibly), so the only money to be made is up front, so software developers don't get extra sales.

#2 The margins on $500 PC's are very low as the market is extremely competitive, certainly not close to the 30% margins Apple is used to.

#3 The quality of $500 PC's is very low as they have to use lower end hardware, either Apple would look like a rip-off at the price point or they'd have to use the same hardware which is extremely unreliable, many cheap computers break after about 2 years or so.

#4 Many buyers of cheap computers don't understand technology as they aren't willing to spend more, so they are more likely to get viruses/spyware, yes you are shutting out poor computer geeks, but they'd probably build their own PC anyway as the specs are better.

#5 With regards to point 1 and 4, they are less likely to upgrade their OS to the latest version, which means that the cool new features in the OS take longer to propagate, it's going to take 5 years for developers to release Vista only software using it's cool features, however in 2 years (maybe less for open-source/freeware) you will see Leopard only software.

#6 you can get a $500 Mac, just buy a second hand one on eBay, it'll probably last longer than a $500 new PC anyhow, as it's been made of better quality materials.*

* Though a high quality (business) PC laptop would probably last even longer .

Well put. But doesn't Apple want to be a part of EVERYONE'S digital lifestyle? Not just the people who own nice mansions and expensive cars?

Look at the rumors for now a cheaper iPhone. Look at the shuffle. Heck, I remember when the Classic (a cheap desktop), the LC (a cheap color) and the IIsi (a cheap business) came out. There was a ton of buzz (I still have all the release materials from the rags). I even went to the store and got my basic Classic for $849 (I had a corporate employee purchase plan discount from Computerland).

The buzz was, a Mac under $1000 that was very affordable and now more people can own one! Why buy a $1000 green-screened IBM clone?

If Apple wants more people into the OS X fold, they will need an Mini replacement... or at least keep them...

 

[CalBoy]

Apple are not going to enter the $500 PC market for several reasons.

#1 Cheap PC users don't buy any software (except for Office, possibly), so the only money to be made is up front, so software developers don't get extra sales.

#2 The margins on $500 PC's are very low as the market is extremely competitive, certainly not close to the 30% margins Apple is used to.

#3 The quality of $500 PC's is very low as they have to use lower end hardware, either Apple would look like a rip-off at the price point or they'd have to use the same hardware which is extremely unreliable, many cheap computers break after about 2 years or so.

#4 Many buyers of cheap computers don't understand technology as they aren't willing to spend more, so they are more likely to get viruses/spyware, yes you are shutting out poor computer geeks, but they'd probably build their own PC anyway as the specs are better.

#5 With regards to point 1 and 4, they are less likely to upgrade their OS to the latest version, which means that the cool new features in the OS take longer to propagate, it's going to take 5 years for developers to release Vista only software using it's cool features, however in 2 years (maybe less for open-source/freeware) you will see Leopard only software.

#6 you can get a $500 Mac, just buy a second hand one on eBay, it'll probably last longer than a $500 new PC anyhow, as it's been made of better quality materials.*

* Though a high quality (business) PC laptop would probably last even longer .

Agreed. In fact, I've been arguing most of these points throughout this thread