Apple: The cheaper alternative?

I can't believe what I'm reading. All across the Web, reporters are saying that at Apple's press event next week, the company will unveil an $800 Mac to appeal to those looking to spend less on an Apple computer.

Anyone who has followed Apple since its inception knows that the very idea that Apple could actually compete on the same level as its competitors on price is a shocker. For years, the company has wanted to be considered a boutique vendor that doesn't submit to price leadership to sell units.

Steve Jobs went out of his way to create good-looking devices with a unique experience so he wouldn't have to charge less for his computers and it worked like a charm.

Mac sales have never been higher, and it's quickly becoming apparent that people are more than willing to spend the additional cash to own a Mac. And yet, the rumors that Apple will sell an $800 Mac simply won't go away.

Now, I'm a firm believer that Apple should start lowering its prices to appeal to more consumers and take the fight to Hewlett-Packard and Dell, but if Apple's plan next week is to offer cheaper Macs, I can't help but wonder if this is Apple's new strategy going forward.

I think it is.

Remember when we all made a fuss over how high the price of the original iPhone was? Do you remember when we all rejoiced as Apple announced that the lower-end iPhone would retail for $199?

And if you look at the iPod, now you can spend as little as $49 for the iPod Shuffle, $149 for an iPod Nano, and $229 for the iPod Touch. And just in case you want an Apple TV, the entry-level price of $229 isn't too bad for a set-top box with that kind of functionality.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Apple is quickly becoming a company that offers high-quality products at a relatively affordable price. And if it decides to sell a Mac for $800, I don't think there's any debating the fact that Jobs has decided to change his company's business model.

And what a change that would be. As I mentioned, Apple is a boutique vendor on a number of levels and has decided that it would rather offer products for a higher price than play the pricing game. But as economic conditions change and people need to think more about their wallets than they may have over the past few years, Apple feels it needs to change its course and compete more effectively against HP and Dell.

Will it work? I can guarantee that it will. But what will it do to Apple's image? As long as the company continues providing high-quality products that easily eclipse the competition, I don't think it will have anything to worry about on that front either.

Apple's decision to offer a cheaper Mac is a smart one. But it goes beyond a cheaper product. In reality, Apple is now a changed company that will compete on price. And it's because of that that its competitors should be scared.

Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.

[sevort]

What was the point of this piece? As a technology writer, Don should know that Apple have been making a cheap Mac for years. It's called Mac-mini.

[Warhaven]

There's the mini, yes, but I think he's talking about an $800 Mac that's comparable with an $800 PC. That's going to be REALLY tough, considering I just built the following system for my brother for his upcoming Christmas present for $758.18 after tax, shipping (well, it all had free shipping -- newegg FTW), & rebates:

Antec TPQ 850 Modular PSU
Antec 900 Case
ASUS P5Q Pro LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Mobo
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz
SAPPHIRE 100245L Radeon HD 4850 512MB
Mushkin 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800
HITACHI Deskstar P7K500 HDP725050GLA360 (0A35415) 500GB 7200 RPM SATA
LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD Burner Black SATA

[giyad]

aren't Apples technically PC's as well? A PC is a personal computer, wasn't the first PC ever an Apple!? I know this has nothing to do with anything but I hate how even Apple is distinguishing themselves against PC's...

[aztec92154]

@Warhaven

While I think what you did for your brother is very nice, non-technical people would have a tough time picking out all of the individual components. If they don't have someone as kind as you to setup their computer for free, then they'd have to hire someone like Geek Squad. Apple will help you with most of the issues that arise at a Genius bar. If you build a computer for your brother, you also become the defacto 24/7 technical support hot line. If the typical WinTel PC computer user needed help, they again would have to call Geek Squad for help. Check out these prices:

PC Setup - $129.99
Operating system install - $229.99
Software Suite Install - $149.99
Software Install - $129.99
Computer Optimization - 129.99

Source:
http://www.geeksquad.com/services/computer/category.aspx?id=455

An Apple store has a Genius bar that will move over all of your windows info to a Mac for free. If you had to re-install the OS, they would also do this for free. These are all very real costs that come with a computer, but that isn't reflected in the price of components that are required to build a PC.

[Warhaven]

@ aztec92154

Quite right. I actually do this for a living part time -- computer consulting for home office and small business. And to be honest, the bill would be about $250 higher after throwing in scavenging-time & labor. Add in the operating system for $120, and a 24" display, and you're already up to the price of a 3 GHz iMac anyway -- minus the convenience factor of having all your hardware (including the display) covered under a single warranty.

So, yeah, this post is sort of self defeating. :-)

[ferretboy88]

If you have to pay the geek squad to set up your computer and os then you really need not use a computer. They charge $100 just to come over and take it out of the box. Building your own computer is super easy. Can you read? If yes then you can build one.

[meneesscooter]

I would have to agree with you. What is the purpose of this piece?

[drfrost]

aztec - The reply is not moot. For people who already have a nice monitor they like, already have a keyboard, mouse, etc.... and they're just looking for a new tower... what does Apple offer in this price range? Nothing. Which leads to point 1: Apple is missing a midrange tower.

Furthermore, in a year, when apple is halfway between model updates for your model, the guy who "built" his computer has a lot of "cheap" options for boosting performance without buying a whole new system. The one who purchased the Apple product doesn't have this option. Which leads to point 2: Apple product cycles are longer than their competitors.

Now, Apple has many positive points and I don't mean to malign them. (I don't own a macintosh, but I do appreciate certain features of their OS.) But these are two negatives about Apple's current product lines and development cycles that I think most objective people would agree with. And, furthermore, I think there is a large portion of the market interested in a mid-range tower (which makes Apple's lack of such a product... interesting).

My 2 cents...

[Warhaven]

I'm wondering if this is more related to their gains in market share than anything else. Has Apple reached the point where they're selling enough Macs that their production costs have dropped significantly enough to warrant larger-than-usual price drops? The more you make, the cheaper you can make it, so it goes in technology...

[Lerianis]

Actually, that doesn't always hold true. There are making a lot of NVidia cards in the upper echelons, yet they are expensive as anything.

[JRG1392]

I don't think that the Mac-Mini really counts as a competitive computer. I know that sounds stupid but it is just so far behind what Dell and hp are offering for that price that it would be stupid for anybody to get it. And I think that apple is finally ready to compete.

[Macbrewer]

Compete? Apple has invented practically everything in the entire computing industry, or at the very least popularized it or been the first to come out with it. If you mean compete on price, they've been doing that VERY WELL despite what the wintel-owned press have to say.

The mini isn't very popular, but it's no slacker in terms of the CPU and ports it offers. And it's FAR less OS limited than your generic PC, which can't run OS X. That is a huge advantage on it's own, but it also comes with the best software you can find for photo, movie, music, web, etc... all included. There is no keyboard and mouse, but I think their idea there was to use the ones from your PC--which it was designed to replace.

[Get_Bent]

"And it's FAR less OS limited than your generic PC, which can't run OS X."

That limitation is due to a marketing decision by Apple. There is no technical reason why OS X can't run on regular PC hardware.

And you obviously haven't looked around much lately, because there are FAR more operating systems that will run on a generic PC than on a Mac.

[UITD]

"which can't run OS X..."

who gives a crap? i mean, really now. we're NOT all fanboys, you know...

[bmelendy]

But how will they address the problem of nobody knowing how to use a Mac? I'm a software engineer and I can't use a mac to save my life. They do look cool though.

[RDWNUR]

Hopefully you are not a paid engineer. A five year old could be up and running on a Mac in no time. Or maybe this is more of the same fear tactics MS has always used to keep the flock in order.

[Gabrielsr]

My girl friend is a 20 year old student and she get used without pain in a week. =)

[Gromit801]

And on the opposite end, I converted my 60 year old sister to an iMac, and she was good to go with it in three days.

I hope you're not charging your clients too much.

[Perry_Clease]

I have seen that situation with engineer friends of mine, it is like it is too easy for them to use.

[MaggieRed]

I suppose you wish you could take this post back.

So you are saying as a software engineer you can't figure out how to use a Mac. Ok first off you are quite ambiguous. You are using the term "Mac" as representing what? Is it the computer hardware or the operating system. The hardware is designed such that a toddler could remove it from a box and connect the cables. You power a new one up and it prompts you in a few questions the information it needs to self configure. So that part is a no-brainer.

The operating system is seamless, you hardly know its there and little requirements to use it. In general OS X manages your files, allows you easy access, and using common sense to integration into everyday life. Just like the trash can, it doesn't ask you over and over, are you sure you want to delete the files. The system it self handles security quietly and behind the scenes. Writing HTML based documentation, my gawd IE ask you over and over and are you sure over and over just to open a file. It is pure craziness.

As far as naming the Mini as the cheaper alternative people are not looking for desktops that much any more. The desktop computer has become the laptop and smart phones are replacing the old laptop for on the go personal use.

Again I have to go back to your statement, "nobody knowing how to use a Mac." That is just pure nonsense, OS X is the easiest yet most powerful operating system to use.

[BNUX]

One of the must values of a Mac computer is the simplicity and efficiency of everything. Believe me if you are an Engineer than you probably should be a Microsoft Engineer. Because I am an IT Engineer and I confess the Apple computers are just easy and a powerful solution for everybody.

I thing you say that because you probably had work for decades only with MSWindows. So when a person see something different just get scared. But the situation here, is if that person take the time to adapt it self, I bet anything that that person most probably will choose on the future an Apple computer.

[Zoobie]

Wow--my 5 year old can log on (to a parental-controlled account I monitor), go to the internet, and start playing Webkinz, all without my assistance on my iMac. My teenager gets off on garage band, iMovie, and photo studio making really cool stuff. And my wife just made used iMovie to create a video for her high school reunion and did it in a pretty short time.

I'm sorry you find it so difficult. What kind of software do you engineer? I'd like to know so I can avoid it.

[lantzn]

I don't mean this disrespectfully but maybe your autistic. You are good at the software engineer side of the equation but have trouble managing the GUI.

[aztec92154]

I'm a software engineer, and I'm calling this BS. Don't pretend that this is anything but a post to get attention. If you were a software engineer you'd know that the Mac OS is based on Unix, which is a geek paradise.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html

[lawgone]

Chill people. It's not always a conspiracy. Lots of smart people THINK they are not using the Mac right just b/c it's somewhat minimalist in it's design and you think you're supposed to be doing more than you are. If you've been on a PC all your life, the first thing you do when you turn on a Mac is look for the Start button...but there isn't one. Also, some people are used to being able to (or needing to) locate and manipulate every system and program file on their computer. That is a little trickier on a Mac just b/c Apple doesn't really want consumers doing that. Plus the file extensions are going to be different than what you're used to. But yes, after you realize there is less you need to do, it is an intuitive, easy-to-use machine. Peace out brothers.

[supoman]

I'm assuming this will be in the area of an iMac. If they do this in addition to dropping the price of a Mac Mini THAT would be a slam dunk. How can PC companies compete with that? $299 Mac mini vs. a cheap HP? No comparison!!

[daedbird]

"Will it work? I can guarantee that it will" Guarantee? Huh? Well I guess if Don guarantees it, it will surely work then.....I read many columnists on cnet's site, and Reisinger is the most simplistic rube of the bunch. Unlike Brian Cooley, whose intelligent, witty rants I enjoy, even when I disagree with him, I only read Reisinger to see what idiotic thing he will say next. Instead of smart internal debate on what this will do to Apple's image, since it is the premier seller of $1,200-Plus machines. Debate if it would be like Mercedes, which sells everything from the $12,000 A Class to the $150,000 S Class, or more like when Cadillac built the Cimarron out of Cavalier parts. Or how about discuss the details of Dell and HP's offerings at the $800 level, what the specs are, and what Apple would have to offer to match them, or if the netbook market has made the cheap laptop a difficult market to play in. Or the fact that although Apple has been seen in the past as "overcharging" for its products, the specs show that today's line is priced comparably to those other makers. Just like his column on whether or not Sony should stick to a core group of products, I say Reisinger should maybe stick to reviewing the Flowbee......

[pjhenry1216]

The price comparison matches various specs, but leaves out other things that aren't normally included in specs, such as extra PCI slots, extra USB ports, ability to run dual video cards, etc. Some people like buying cheap and slowly building up their PC. This just isn't really possible with something like an iMac.

[aztec92154]

Buying cheap and slowly building up their PC? Bad idea. Buy what you can afford and stick with it.. 2GB of ram (max 4), and add a larger hardrive or an external one if you need to later on. If you buy cheap and then upgrade later, you'll end up with parts that are so old that it would be cheaper to just replace the whole thing.

[pjhenry1216]

That's ridiculous. You can spend a year upgrading a PC and the parts won't be that old. Don't want to buy the sound card yet? Put it off for a month or two. Want that second video card but don't want to buy it immediately? Again, put it off a month or two. Install those extra DIMMs a little later as well. There's nothing wrong with buying over time.

[LunaticSX]

Most of the world doesn't WANT to to spend the time and effort to upgrade their computer over time, though. An example of this trend is how laptop sales are increasingly outpacing desktop sales, even though laptops are inherently less upgradable. Most people just want a computer that works out of the box. When the time comes to upgrade, they'll buy a new computer, not try to cram new parts into an older one and have to deal with the hassles of driver compatibility, etc. Sure, SOME people want to be able to upgrade their existing machines, but they're increasingly in the minority.

[mbenedict]

I can't see how Apple is "the cheaper alternative" since places like Best Buy sell brand-name Vista Home Premium laptops (2.0GHz Dual Core, 15" screen, 2GB ram, etc) starting at a whopping $399.

That means even a $800 Apple laptop is still TWICE the price of a PC laptop that's probably overkill for most people already.

It's no wonder why Apple is forced to lower their price points, and yet still have their shares downgraded...

[anilsudh]

Have you ever looked beneath the specs they display. For that price they give you 1000 rpm HDD and sub standard front bus. No bluetooth. No Webcam. No backup management. No Video management. No music management. No chat. Nothing. You get a big ZERO for that price.

Try to configure a laptop with software and hardware similar to what Apple offers and you will find Apple is cheaper in some instances.

[aztec92154]

that would be like buying a $400 camera with a permanently foggy lens. You get what you pay for, go with a better model (PC or Mac). If you get a bottom of the barrel PC, expect the quality of the components to be poor and expect to pay on repairs and maintenance (which are actually included with a lot of Dell and Apple computers).

[Penguinisto]

The reason why is simple: compare the Mac with an equivalent (spec-for-spec) from any major OEM.

If you want a Dell or an HP with the exact same specs as, say, a MacBookPro, you'll end up paying HP and/or Dell anywhere from tens to hundreds of dollars more.

If you want a Dell or HP with the same specs as, say, an 8-core PowerMac, be prepared to pay a rather obscene amount of excess cash to Dell or HP for the privilege.

The author was a bit off - it isn;t that Apple is a 'boutique' seller, it's that they are a primarily high-end seller.

Your $399 laptop is more often than not loaded with grey-market parts ("house-brand" RAM that carries a slower speed or has no error-checking, a slower and usually narrower FSB, a screen that has a slower refresh rate and almost always gains its first dead pixel before the first year is up, slower RPM HDD's with smaller buffers, etc). Oftentimes the cheap rigs don't have components that match well with each other, causing an untold number of internal errors that slow things down considerably. The only quality component you're likely to find in a cheap laptop is the CPU, but even then it's quite likely a process generation behind (e.g. 90nm instead of 45nm, etc).

You can keep the cheap stuff. At least w/ an Apple, you know up-front that all the parts are matched, that the quality is going to hold up, and that the system (and OS) will perform exactly as described (unlike the "Vista Capable" debacle)... you can even test them in the store if you like.

/P

/P

[grpaul349]

How about comparing spec for spec... and try and add a price for OS X and iLife... and the cost savings of not having a yearly antivirus package purchase.

[MJTibbetts]

The biggest argument against a $399 laptop at Best Buy is right in your description of it: "Vista Home Premium".
For most that bother to try it, OS-X makes a computer worth twice the price of that Windoze powered machine.

[Lerianis]

grpaul, even on a Mac, you should damn well have antivirus. Period, done with, over: it is a necessity on ANY operating system - Linux, Windows, or OSX.

[Penguinisto]

@Lerianis: Pure Crap - you most definitely do not need an antivirus solution on OSX or Linux.

I can say this with confidence because:

1) I can count on one hand (and have four fingers left over) the number of credible viruses that have come out for Linux since 2001... and that last once required that you had a system that was unpatched for the previous 12 months or more before it came out.

2) Ditto for OSX - outside of the lab, all that has come down the pike are at most a handful of trojans that required one to surf to some rather shady websites in the first place.

So - given all of this, why in the unholy Hell should anyone be forced to pay $50+ per year AND waste system CPU cycles on something that is about as common as a hurricane in North Dakota?

Now if you have Windows, yeah - get an A/V solution and keep your defs current - all the botnets zombies out there are 99.99% Windows-based for a reason...

/P

[MTGrizzly]

"But how will they address the problem of nobody knowing how to use a Mac? I'm a software engineer and I can't use a mac to save my life"

Probably can't engineer software "to save [your] life," either. Windows must be way beyond your ability to comprehend, too. What kind of computers do you use? Leapfrog?

[mker1080]

The main problem is that nobody, before they use a mac, knows how gradual the learning curve is. I worked with PCs for a LONG TIME and yet the moment I switched over to a mac it didn't seem all that bad. If anything it was a far better experience than any experience I had on a PC. Someone who is far more literate than I am in computing (software engineer) should have no problem at all learning how to use a mac. To say that you would have a problem is to severely discredit yourself and invoke no confidence on my part in your ability to effectively adapt to a simple change in scenery. That is not something I would hope to see in a professional, especially a computing professional.

[Everlovin G]

RE:

by bmelendy October 10, 2008 9:46 AM PDT

"But how will they address the problem of nobody knowing how to use a Mac? I'm a software engineer and I can't use a mac to save my life. They do look cool though."

Please let me know, ASAHumanlyP, for which company you are a "software engineer," or consultant, as I want to make certain that I do not engage their services going forward -- especially when one of their engineers, you, is so un-smart as to not be able to "use a mac to save their life [sic]." Pathetic!

[Oleg Simkin]

you forget that Apple is designed for retards and that smart people have a problem dumbing them selves down to that level.

[BNUX]

@Oleg Simkin

Let me say that most of intelligent Engineers people that I know prefer a Mac than a PC with Windows. I prefer a Mac or a PC with Linux for Desktop. For servers I prefer Linux or Unix. So by your words I must be retarded... because I try not to use MS Windows and I prefer use a Apple computer or Linux than a Windows PC. :-))))

The ones that can't use a MAC is because they just are to much pro-Microsoft and too much limited to change. So your theory of "MAC is designed for retards" is just bad language. Mac is designed with intelligence for humans and that is why some people, like you, will never understand why people like Mac.

[garythecynic]

Mac is not for everyone. What I see most among even young engineers (such as myself) is that people are very resistant to change. If the little red "X" is in the upper left hand corner of a window instead of the upper right, they'll FREAK OUT and say that it's too difficult to learn.

Mac OS has a learning curve of a few hours, having an experienced user showing you what to push and where to drag. One of the least intuitive things at first is the concept of installing by dragging to the Application folder.

Another thing about engineers - most of them work for large corporations, and corporations are locked into some sort of convoluted love affair with Microsoft. This is simply because the systems IT has in place are so large they would be difficult to migrate to any other platform other than Windows XP SP3.

The whole system is just resistant to change.

[MTGrizzly]

You know, price point isn't really a concern for those of us who are more interested in getting something that works, rather than something that is as cheap as possible, no matter how it works.

Where I live, a cheap two wheel drive pickup will "work," somehow or another. However, if you wish to really accomplish something, easily and effectively, a four wheel drive works much better. Does that mean that the auto manufacturers should try to compete by trying to make a four wheel drive pickup at the same price point as a two wheel drive? Yes, if the Windows Whiners were to have their way.

If you buy computers on the cheap, you get what they pay for - a cheap system with a questionable operating system. If you chose to do so, have at it. Apple makes a decent computer, at a decent price that, above all, WORKS, first time, every time.

I would prefer that Apple continue to make machines that work. Leave the cheap market to PCs and buyers that believe they should be able to get a Porsche for the price of a Daewoo and, actually, like Windows...

[pjhenry1216]

I always forget that mac users aren't always that computer literate. Let me hear everyone say, "There are more than just Windows & OSX operating systems." Windows is *not* the only alternative to OSX and OSX is *not* the only alternative to Windows. If you are at any point using that as an assumption, you clearly have no place in a discussion such as this due to your simple lack of knowledge. Moreover, even if we DID use your assumptions, the hardware used in a Mac is virtually identical to that of a PC. The hardware isn't any better or worse. In fact, its kinda middle ground quality. That middle ground quality, if purchased separately, with the price of OSX added on to it, it DOESN'T cover the actual cost of an Apple computer. So, you're simply paying an inflated price. The only reason Apple charges that much isn't because it costs that much. They charge that much because people such as yourself are willing to buy it. You're still operating under the delusion of "you get what you pay for." Thats simply not true in this case. The cost of an Apple computer is just not justified by the cost of making the Apple computer. If you have no problem being locked into a proprietary system, thats fine. If you have no problem paying premiums with no returns, thats fine. Windows is *not* terrible compared to OSX. All it is is preference. Some people like one more than the other. Neither is better. Just pick what fits your preferences.

[drfrost]

pjhenry1216:

A lot of opinion, not much substance and too many insults.

You are correct that windows and OSX are not the only alternatives. You seem, however, to omit Apple's position on value added. You certainly don't have to agree with it, but to not mention their point of view at all suggests you don't know, don't properly understand or don't care.... any of which really disqualifies you from having an objective knowledgeable conversation on the topic.

[Kalama]

"daedbird" makes a very good point. Years ago, Apple's pricing was at a premium, to say the least. Yet, now, when I talk with friends about the Apple product line, I almost spreadsheet layout the specs. side - by - side WITHOUT the brand name listed .... In these cases, the pricing is no longer an issue, except it's a bunch of $'s .... Then the discussions lead to, "Well, I can buy one of _ _ _ _ 's for $400 !" Then check the specs again. Now, Apple ran the "eMac" series for a while ( year old iMacs at the time ); but that was in the conversion away from CRT based whole computer units. I think, IMO, Apple did that to help the manufacture group amortize the assembly expenses. If we happen to see a $ 7 - 800 Mac, we need to be aware that it Will NOT spec. out to the base units out there. Also, remember, the TCO ( total cost of ownership ) has often been favorable for the Mac product line, even with OS X upgrades not being Free. We Mac people tend to keep 'em longer. Hum? I guess it's time this weekend to dust off the 128 for it's annual boot up check ...

[pjhenry1216]

Normally you guys do keep 'em longer, but you still keep buying the news ones too though. Also, the specs comparisons doesn't take into account room to upgrade. Comparing an iMac to a similar spec'd PC at the same price point, mac fans tend to overlook the lack of extra PCI slots, extra video card slots to eventually run dual video cards in the future, etc, etc. You can probably get similar spec'd PCs, but then you can build off of them and make them much better over time. People invest in PCs over time, whereas Mac owners invest all at once, as something like an iMac has little room to be upgraded.

[LunaticSX]

Most of the world doesn't WANT to to spend the time and effort to upgrade their computer over time, though. An example of this trend is how laptop sales are increasingly outpacing desktop sales, even though laptops are inherently less upgradable. Most people just want a computer that works out of the box. When the time comes to upgrade, they'll buy a new computer, not try to cram new parts into an older one and have to deal with the hassles of driver compatibility, etc. Sure, SOME people want to be able to upgrade their existing machines, but they're increasingly in the minority.

[Gromit801]

The product announcements scheduled for October 14th, have to do with laptops. Not desktops.

An $800 Apple laptop would be quite welcome!

[the Otter]

This is nothing new. Back in 2003, I convinced our accountant *** company president to get me a Power Macintosh G5 because at $4,126.00, it was over $2K less than the $6,308 required for a comparable Dell Precision 650. Apples have been the less expensive alternative for a *long* time; they just don?t do cheap, and I?m guessing that even if they do hit the $800 price point (which is doubtful; I expect it will be $899), this fact will hold true.

[eyepoker]

Your bashing of the "software engineer" is pathetic. Lets take a person - anyone - they have been using some OS their entire professional career - now throw them into something completely different. **of course** they won't be productive from the get go. Naturally. Anyone, from the lowly receptionist to the highly educated engineer, when thrown into OSX will have problems. Its natural - you've taken something tht they are used to and have given them something different. There's a learning curve. I've run into hundreds of people - marketers, receptionsists, executives - who would be lost in OSX!

[Zoobie]

By calling himself a software engineer, he's claiming to be more technologically savvy than the average receptionist. But let's examine that learning curve (which I agree is real):

When I switched to Mac this year (going against my wife's desires), my wife called me a few times at work frustrated because certain things didn't work the way she expected. This lasted for maybe the first month. The funny thing is, those calls were much more enjoyable to work through than the calls about the computer running slow, the virus scanner won't stop popping up, why is Windows asking me to allow this or that, what do I do when everything freezes...

Now my wife, who admits she's not technically inclined, sings the praises of OSX to her friends and encourages them all to buy a Mac. When people start asking her about why Windows won't recognize their camera, or things won't print, she just smiles and says, "I don't have that issue. I use a Mac."

[aztec92154]

@eyepoker

A software engineer who is very familiar with the Windows OS will have a a much easier time getting used to the Mac OS than a receptionist. Look at it this way. A gamer who has played one first person shooter for years, will be much better at playing a different first person shooter than someone who rarely plays any games.

[jture]

I used Windows exclusively for 15 years before getting a Mac earlier this year. It took me exactly no time to get comfortable with it. And I am not a software engineer.

[deniskez]

This cannot be a software engineer. I am a software engineer. If you are one you should know at least a little bit of Unix and Mac OS X is Unix (X stand for X in uniX). I got an iMac at work exactly a week ago. I am completely switched over to it from my Windows box, have all the tools that I've been using. I do use Unix terminal a lot, I have to say, but if you are a Software Engineer that is expected. To me Mac OS X is just a pretty powerful Unix box with pretty interface, which I do not use that much. The interface is not that different from Windows, there are some specifics, but if you have a little gray matter in your head you should figure things out. It is very stable, Free BSD has a loooong history....

[Penguinisto]

To be fair? A real programmer isn't reliant on any single language, OS, or hardware. The concepts of programming are the same throughout them all - the only diff is syntax. Those who cling to a single set of languages, or a single OS, really aren't programmers in my opinion. If they intentionally limit themselves, why would they be worth hiring beyond temp contracts for some simple, set task? It's like hiring a CIO or IT Director who only knows and uses one vendor (no matter if it's Microsoft, Apple, or RedHat - or Dell, HP, or Sun). Folks who limit themselves are a bigger liability and limit to your organization.

Back to the point - Folks who call themselves software engineers, but refuse to expand their horizons? They are blatantly self-crippled when it comes to creativity and depth, and that kind of personality is the last thing you want in a programming job.

You claim to have met hundreds of folks who would be "lost in OSX", but I submit to you that you're wrong - give them time to sit with it (and not a very long time, either), and they'd have the hang of it in very short order.

/P

[D28Phil]

How can an engineer not switch between operating systems? I worked in a college admissions office for 5 years, coming in as a Mac-only user. They gave us all IBM Thinkpads, and I immediately became the guy who helped all the long-time Windows users get their work done. My formal training is in vocal music. Go figure.

[Warhaven]

It's going to be interesting to see how Apple's $800 computer stacks up with an $800 PC. I just built the following as my brother's soon-to-be-Christmas-present for just under $800 ($788.18) after tax, rebates, & shipping (well, shipping was practically free -- newegg ftw!):

Hitachi Deskstar 500GB 7200 RPM SATA
Lite-On 20X DVD±R DVD Burner Black SATA
ASUS P5Q Pro LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Mobo
Mushkin 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800
Sapphire 100245L Radeon HD 4850 512MB
Antec TPQ-850 850W Modular PSU
Antec 900 case
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz

[Penguinisto]

What would your specs cost if it were a laptop (like the $800 Mac will be)?

I agree that building your own is far cheaper, but how many folks do you think are capable of doing that?

[jeffharris]

So? That's a pointless comparison. It doesn't run Mac OS X.

If I wanted to, I could run any flavor of Windows or Linux on my MacBook Pro.

[ebernet]

You are kidding, right?
This article is about laptops, not desktops. And it is about buying pre-built machines, not building your own. Lastly, you did not price out an OS - so you going to be giving your brother Windows or Linux? Because Windows is NOT free...

3 strikes, you are OUT!

[MJTibbetts]

Try putting those specs in a notebook form factor that's under 1.5" thick, with a 13" - 15" led-lit LCD screen for less than $800. Also factor in how much you make at your regular job, per hour, and factor in the cost of your time to build it, install the OS and applications, etc., etc. Also, please remember, Apple's rumored $800 computer is supposed to be a Notebook, not a desktop.

[garythecynic]

Don't forget to throw in a 24-inch IPS panel!

One of those ought to fetch for around $700 - $800 :)

[tundraboy]

I wish those people who go "I built my system for X dollars . . ." would just go away. You are really not contributing anything useful to this discussion because people who buy prebuilt machines do so because they don't have the time or knowledge to build their own machines. And let's see you bring your home built machine on your next airline flight, lay it on your lap, and edit your latest quarterly report.

[logictrap]

Apple computers are so over-priced it's embarrassing. It takes a brain washed MacFundie to spew nonsense about the superiority of a Mac. It's even more apparent now that Apple ate crow and switched to Intel processors (which they for claimed for years was a technology with no future)

The Microsoft haters have bought into the idea that Apple is the solution to the monopolistic Microsoft practices - but instead of switching to a business that is less monopolistic ,Apple is even worse. It's like replacing Castro with Hitler. Microsoft only monopolizes Windows, Apple monopolizes OSX & the hardware. When Apple allowed 3rd parties to make Mac hardware they nearly lost their shirt as Power Computing made them better, made them faster and made less expensive Mac's. Apple hates competition so third party Mac hardware is not an option. Bend over and watch the quality decline should they be able to increase their market share.

Spew on Macfundies - you may even be able to convince yourself if you pray to a photo of Jobs you'll be more prosperous....

If and when I switch from Windows Vista it will be to Linux not Apple...

[anilsudh]

Looks like you didn't take your medication today Mental Case. You better hide before the mental asylum finds where you live. You are badly in need of some electric shock treatment.

[BNUX]

You say "... Apple is even worse. It's like replacing Castro with Hitler. Microsoft only monopolizes Windows, Apple monopolizes OSX & the hardware. ..."

I did not know that Apple monopolizes the Intel processors, the NVidea graphic board, etc... Apple just assemble does not monopolize any hardware. :-)

I could agree that I think Apple should let their OS X run in any machine, but letting not run is just an option from Apple. I think Apple lose more than wins with that attitude. But that does not make them the ugly beast you paint.

Let me remember about Sony PS3 who have an OS who runs only on PS3. They not sell the OS separated from machine. So it does SonyEricsson with Symbian UIQ and Nokia with Symbian S60. I could continue as you can see... So Apple is a hardware company as any other and not a monster who survives because of a legion of fanatics ... blablabla!!!!!

Get a life!!! And you will understand why so many people loves an Apple with Mac OS X! :-)

Cheers friend, I believe you are not a completely lost case! ;-)))

[pjhenry1216]

@BNUX: Apple *does* have a monopoly on their own hardware. You can't legally run OSX on anything other than what you buy from them. If you're the *ONLY* provider of something, that makes you a monopoly. This is different from something that carries an OS thats tailored to the actual hardware. The PS3 OS *CAN'T* run on anything else without its specific architecture. OSX *CAN* run on virtually anything else. This is called DRM. Digital Rights Management. Something people get mad at MS about, yet Apple does it SO MUCH worse and they get a magical pass because it looks pretty. Mac OSX dumbed down operating systems. They're appealing to the least common denominator. I'm sorry, but I don't want to work that way. OSX does things easily, but only one way. I like flexibility. I don't want to be walled in. Yes, sometimes that flexibility adds some issues, but I'm tech savvy enough to deal with them easily and not really care. Maybe thats not for everyone. Some people like being told what to do and how to do it. I don't.

[daedbird]

First of all, anytime anyone uses Hitler in their argument probably has such a weak argument that they should think before they speak. Second, price out a Dell with the same specs as a Mac Pro and.....wait for it....the Mac is cheaper (and don't use the old bait and switch, your Dell better have Xeon processors in it bub).

I see a lot of glittering generalities and adjectives in your vile spew, but no real facts, no numbers as far as cost. Maybe you need to get back to the RNC where you belong....

[BNUX]

@pjhenry1216

LOL You are funny... I use daily all kind of Operating Systems and you do? When you do than we can talk. ;-)))

So you talk about leomons when we talk about apples. :-)

Nothing is perfect and you have your reasons to ate so much Apple. But than you can stay with Microsoft if you think you are better. You can illude your self like Microsoft do with PCs... "I am a PC" so what this is mean? That when I buy a PC I have to buy a Windows OS? Probably yes and you do not even know it. So do not came talk on this forum about that because is just hipocrit.

Do you know Apple OS X is Unix BSD? Did you know that you can use X? Did you know you can use OpenSource code and compile as a Linux? Do you know when you need easy and fast you have OS X that works very well? Maybe you did know it, because you do not know what you talk about.

I see for your kind, we people that use Apple are all devils fanatics and Apple is all evil... Are you happy? Camon now just go sleep. Peace and love and use what you like! I will enjoy the day! ;-)))

[ENIAC-JR]

Correction Factor to your comment. From the inside of Intel I can safely say Intel made the Apple processor to THEIR (Apple) terms. Meaning they did not eat crow but enhanced Apples capabilities with advanced technological ways Intel embedded into the "Chip" - a bit too farfetched for most to comprehend but nevertheless Intel makes processors to appease whoever needs them. This included Phones, Digital TV etc.
Intel makes the most powerful processors in the world - That?s it. Apple simply joined the bandwagon when IMB and AMD could not keep up with the technological advances. Wait to you see the "Atom" and Wi-Fi stuff coming out. Try to visualize Dick Tracy watches if you know who that is.. We are living in the dreams of our forefathers -

[mmntech]

Apple's laptops and the Mini are overpriced in my opinion. However, the desktops are comparable to PC offerings. The 20'' iMac and the Dell XPS All-in-One with identical specs are both $1349. So to say that all Apple's systems cost much more than their PC counterparts is false. I believe the MacPro actually works out to be cheaper than comparable PC systems. You're just a Windows fanboy spreading FUD.

[jusben1369]

Apple wins many customers who WANT a closed system. Sorry, I know that's anathema to many gear heads but it's true. Apple builds an "end to end" solution and by being a "control" freak it reduces the amounts of issues that you as an end user experience. Driver compatibility? Check. Wireless connection? Check. To Johnny mainstream "it just works". Do you give up something for this integrated benefit? You bet. But that's a choice a lot of people are ok with.

So Apple is not "monopolistic" - it doesn't control the PC market and people can easily switch over to a PC whenever they wish. It is, however, unique in this industry for trading product flexibility for usability in a different way and that has been a big part of their "religious" following.

As for a central tenet on this argument - that an $800 Mac reduces their "botique" status (a competitive differentiator) I think that horse already bolted via the current array of Macs and iPhones and iPods that are everywhere now.

[drfrost]

We are living in the dreams of our forefathers - ENIAC-JR

But which dream: 1984, Fahrenheit 451, or Brave New World?

Ok, I'm being mostly facetious..... mostly....

[beansbaxter]

I think you're forgetting one thing. The newest craze with laptops these days is the netbook market. I expect Apple to also get into this growing netbook market, and with netbooks ranging from $300 to $500 - it makes sense to see an Apple Netbook come out for $800 because it's a premium price for laptop models from this sector and if Apple does it right, people will pay for it.

After the introductory netbook laptop, who knows where the MacBook will start out at, but I'd say $1000 is the new price point.

I guess we'll find out on Tuesday.

[BNUX]

I am a senior IT Engineer and I use a Mac OSX or Linux PC for Desktops! So it will be very welcome any down prices on the Apple Laptops. I think if Apple is changing is price policy is showing smartness and adaptability.

But I believe they should be more daring and have something like a NetBook not more that 400$ for compete with the EeePC and equivalents. I personally will not buy a computer with low specs because I need to run sometimes virtual machines to do some tech tests and so it would be very limited for me. But for most people should be enough an I thing 800$ will be only good for MacBook, but Apple should go forward on is strategies to raise is share. As I use to say for each people who get used to work with a Apple computer is one more who will never want other commercial Operating System.

[davidwb]

I see from many of the comments here that many people cannot tell the difference between a cheap computer and an inexpensive computer. I've seen quite a few cheap PCs with Vista - and after getting rid of the crapware, buying some decent software to run, and upgrading its RAM so it actually runs halfway decent, it becomes an inexpensive computer which some really cheap components inside. Meanwhile for about $50 - $100 more a Mac mini could be purchased and there's be no need to get rid of the crapware, install malware protection, or install more memory. Of course the rabid anti-Apple crowd can't see this but that's their problem, not mine.

[pjhenry1216]

Well, for that $50 to $100 more, you also cut the specs in half and lose the ability to upgrade. Sometimes all thats required for a PC to improve performance of a new game or play a new movie a bit better is just a new video card or more RAM. Increasing the usefulness over time is something that should be included in the price that Mac fans ignore.

[piroc]

to the point: http://www.myfirstmac.com/index.php/mac/articles/a-mac-user-buys-his-1st-pc-or-how-a-550-laptop-can-cost-more-than-1200/

[nicksinthis]

I believe that anyone that buys one of those "cheap" computers will be having many problems. Apple have been selling reliable computers since they started. I have a powerpc G4 top of the range and it is running well whenever I turn it on. My macbook has been running for 3 years and my macbook pro is running fine. My 2006 imac is still going fine. Apple are supplying great computers for a reasonable price.

[nicmart]

According to Consumer Reports and other sources, every major vendor of laptops has roughly the same incidence of defects. Actually, Apple finished last the last time CR reported on brand reliability, but CR said the difference between the first and last vendors was statistically insignificant.