Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If you controlled the pricing on Apple how would you price Macs?
- Thread starter gunraidan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would love them to be about $300 cheaper - I would love to get a MacBook Pro 15" for about $1300 instead of the current price.
But thats just me.
I think that the current pricing scheme is smart. It is not so expensive that it is priced out of the market, yet not so cheap that they retain a very good profit margin. Except the Mac Pro, that is too expensive for what you get, the Quad should start at $1999 and the Octad at $2499.
If I controlled apple pricing that would mean I was an apple executive and as such my bonus is based on profit margin, so I would be pricing them pretty close to where they are so that they are affordable, but not cheep. From a consumer standpoint, of course I want them cheeper.
If "I controlled the pricing on Apple", then I would be an employee and get the "employee discount", so I wouldn't bother changing anything and you guys can continue to pay the current prices so that I can get a huge "executive salary" and "executive bonus". 
I'm happy with current pricing. Maybe the 15 and 17" MacBook Pro are a bit pricey. Perhaps non pro versions of these would be a good idea. Otherwise I think others are pretty good value for what you get.
Buy one, get one free.
Seriously, I would cut about $200 at the lower end models and $4-500 at the higher end. They don't have to be the cheapest computer, but they should be at least in the ballpark.
Seriously, I would cut about $200 at the lower end models and $4-500 at the higher end. They don't have to be the cheapest computer, but they should be at least in the ballpark.
I think an interesting second part to this question would be for the people who want to see cuts: How would you achieve them? Poorer materials and construction? Or sacrifice some of the components inside?
The shareholders won't like a cut in margins.
The shareholders won't like a cut in margins.
i Would want to release a Mid Range tower (which apple will never do). It would be larger than an mac mini but smaller than a power mac. It would be supplied without a monitor but with a keyboard and mouse.
It would vary between £599-£1,199 I would call it the sMac (S standing for speed).
Base specs
_____________________
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB Memory
320GB Hard Drive
Nvidia GT120
OS X 10.6
Top specs
____________
3.06GHz Core 2 Duo
4GB memory
1TB HD
Nvidia GTX 260/GTS 250
OS X 10.6
A man can dream...
As for the others i would keep prices slightly lower by about £150.
It would vary between £599-£1,199 I would call it the sMac (S standing for speed
).Base specs
_____________________
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB Memory
320GB Hard Drive
Nvidia GT120
OS X 10.6
Top specs
____________
3.06GHz Core 2 Duo
4GB memory
1TB HD
Nvidia GTX 260/GTS 250
OS X 10.6
A man can dream...
As for the others i would keep prices slightly lower by about £150.
Lower the profit margin per computer to get more sales overall.
Yes you can sell your fancy lemonade costs a bit more to make than regular lemonade for $5 but if the stand across the street is selling lemonade that's for $1 and is having 10 times the sales, who's making more profit?
True.
But you are making a huge assumption that your lowering of prices will result in a significant enough increase in sales volume to make up the lower amount of revenue per sale. Over the past 10 years or so Apple has been getting more and more profitable as other hardware providers (Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.,) have struggled to grow let alone keep their head above water.
Also, if you lower the cost per machine you'll need to raise the cost first party software which is basically used as a loss leader to get people to buy Apple hardware.
Lethal
None of the above. The materials are already fairly poor ( second palm wrest and counting on my old MB. Worst viewing angles EVER on by UBMB ) - and the components are already bare bone ( still no BR options, still crappy hissy audio, still not enough connectors )
I would reduce margins, and in doing so increase volume, thus retain profit. I think Apple simply has it too far in the direction of high price and low volume. I think people like Asus have it too far the other way with their very cheap EEE PC's. There is a middle ground in which Apple could do better than it does imho.
Although everyone would like the price to be.... "FREE" I am content with the price as it is. Just to be rid of Windows and have the quality and security of a Mac. It would help to lower it another 2 or 300 though.
I didn't say that Apple should sell their stuff as cheap as Dell and HP, but more so that they should lower their prices to be in the same ball park. It's common knowledge that what scares off consumers the most from Macs is their price. And while Dell and HP haven't grown much they still sell many more PC units. Yes I know they might not be as profitable but its an indication that consumers would prefer computers to be under the thousand dollar mark and if Apple could just cheapen their computers a bit more they may grab a nice chunk of this demographic thus increasing their marketshare.
True. I mean I may not agree on everything you've said but I do agree that the price we pay for performance is too high, especially for the non-entry Macs and Mac Pro's.
From Apple's perspective why would they do this? Doing things 'the Apple way' has increased profitability and market share. Also, if Apple drops the cost of their hardware significantly how much do you think they'll need to increase the cost of their software which is basically a loss leader? For example, Final Cut Studio 2 sells for $1300 but contains around $30,000 worth of apps.
Yet Mac market share is around 8% today and was barely pushing 2% 7 years ago.
Market share does not equal profits though. Before Jobs came back to Apple the Mac had much greater market share but the company was circling the drain financially. Over the past decade the only two computer providers that haven't slid down hill are Dell and Apple. Dell did it by providing low prices and keeping very low overhead and Apple did it by offering a 'unique' experience that came at a higher price tag. Every company that tried to compete w/Dell's 'race to the bottom' (HP, Compaq, Gateway, IBM, etc.,) was bleeding money like a stuck big. Heck, IBM got completely out of the personal computer business and they were the company that pretty much started the PC business.
Not every company's goal is to mass produce the most product at the lowest cost, and as much as people b*tch about Apple's pricing more people are buying Macs now than 10-15 years ago.
Lethal
I understand these things but again I'm not saying that Macs should drop down the price where Macs are competing to Dell in terms of cost, but they should not cost at times near twice the amount of your average computer. This really scares consumers away. I'm just saying that they should put the computers at least in the same ballpark as PC's.
I admit my previous examples were a bit too much but I think doing a 7-12% price drops on their current hardware (more for the Mac Pro's but that's due to being radically overpriced) so they'll attract a bit more consumers. Seems that Apple may be experimenting with that with the price drop on the Macbook Pro as well as sticking with the $999 Macbook (though that may be phasing out), and looking at the past Apple has dropped down their prices over the years (or haven't brought them up due to inflation).
Yes marketshare /= profit, but sacrificing a bit of profit on the average unit to sell many more units could turn in more profit than before (this is not like loss leader at all). That's all I'm saying.
When you match computers feature for feature Macs do not cost twice as much as Dells and there's more than one type of consumer out there. Not every business needs to try to appeal to every type of consumer to be successful.
And I assume you have proof that shows that dropping the prices by the amount that you want will increase sales enough significantly enough to be worth the risk?
I'm not trying to bust yer balls or anything, but it's a common thing for people to say X costs too much w/o understanding why X costs what it costs.
Lethal
Have you looked at how much Sony is charging? Some of their POS cost even more than Apple.
No, you cannot reduce Apple, a technology INNOVATOR, to sell things at the price of commodity resellers that don't spend any money on R&D.
Also, design is worth something for quite a number of people. Why do you think a Picasso costs millions of dollars? It's just canvas and some paint, so the design must be worth nothing.
No, you cannot reduce Apple, a technology INNOVATOR, to sell things at the price of commodity resellers that don't spend any money on R&D.
Also, design is worth something for quite a number of people. Why do you think a Picasso costs millions of dollars? It's just canvas and some paint, so the design must be worth nothing.