Can Apple beat the too-expensive rap?
Apple got aggressive on pricing at WWDC 2009.
(Credit: James Martin/CNET)SAN FRANCISCO--The big knock on Apple--whether or not it's always been accurate--is that its products are more expensive than most of its competitors.
But in the keynote speech Monday that opened Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference, it became clear the company is tackling the price question head on.
The best example of this new attitude is the decision to keep the 8GB iPhone 3G, but sell it at $99. That was the most aggressive price move it made Monday. But Apple was price conscious in other ways, too: It upgraded its 13-inch unibody MacBook to specs worthy of its more high-end MacBook Pro line, while also reducing the price. The MacBook Pro 15-inch and MacBook Air also received price cuts. And Apple didn't stop there. The new Mac OS X 10.6, known as Snow Leopard, will cost current Mac OS X 10.5 owners just $29 to upgrade when it becomes available in October.
The price cuts on the MacBook lineup and the iPhone 3G are clearly intended to bring more "switchers" over to the Mac and iPhone platforms. And it shows that Apple is acutely aware of the financial problems facing potential new customers. But will it work?
There are two things that lowering the price of the iPhone to $99 does: It broadens the potential base of people who can now afford the iPhone. It also kneecaps Palm. The $199 8GB Palm Pre has been touted as a potential "iPhone killer," or at least a very nice alternative to Apple's device. But the Pre is now $100 more than the comparable device from Apple. That could make the decision very easy for people who are on the fence.
But this isn't just about Palm. It's about all the other phones that are currently sub-$100 right now, too. As of the beginning of the year, Apple owns just under 11 percent of the smartphone market, and that could increase exponentially now. In order to figure out just how much a price cut from $199 to $99 on the 8GB version will affect consumers, the best example is what happened when Apple cut the iPhone from $399 to $199 last year. That was also a 50 percent price reduction.
Apple watcher and Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster notes that the price cut last year tripled the sales of the device, from 4.7 million iPhones sold in the three quarters before the price cut, to 15 million iPhones sold after the release of the $199 iPhone 3G. There are other factors of course: greater visibility for the iPhone after a year of being on the market, people who had been holding out for a 3G version of the phone, and more availability in international markets. But Munster says demand in the U.S. alone increased 100 percent with that price cut.
Whether Apple can repeat this is going to be determined by a number of factors. Of course, the economic environment isn't the same as it was a year ago, plus far more people have iPhones already, and there are more smartphones on the market now.
In any case, the decision on price shows Apple is being aggressive, and it makes a statement about the kinds of customers it is courting.
The same is true of its pricing approach to the Snow Leopard upgrade. While there are plenty of flashy new tweaks to the operating system, they're just that: tweaks. The updated OS is not a monumental change from Leopard, which is why Apple likely went with the easier-to-stomach and surprisingly low upgrade fee for current Leopard users of $29. (When Leopard was introduced, it cost $129).
Jab at Redmond
The move also clearly puts pressure on Microsoft vis a vis
Windows 7, which will start shipping in October. Microsoft executive Bill Veghte told CNET News last week that Microsoft is considering whether to offer a lower-cost Windows 7 upgrade for Vista users--and hinted as much in a speech earlier on Monday. A leaked Best Buy memo says the retailer plans to pre-sell Windows 7 upgrades for $50. However, it is unclear if that is a promotional price; Microsoft has yet to publicly detail its plans.
That wasn't the only jab at Redmond during the presentation. Some were more subtle than others (Like Bertrand Serlet's remark about "Windows 7 is just another version of Vista.") Microsoft has worked hard to make the choice of buying a Mac or a PC about the price--just witness its series of I'm a PC ads that send moms, kids, aspiring actresses, and college students searching for inexpensive laptops at retail stores. Apple, however, has never really engaged on the issue of pricing--the company's messaging on Macs has always been to position it as "the best computer" period. But the aggressive pricing on Mac laptops revealed at WWDC today shows that Microsoft (and Hewlett-Packard, and Dell, and Sony, etc.) has Cupertino's attention.
Prices were cut across the board, from the newly introduced 13-inch MacBook Pro to the MacBook Air. The 13-inch now starts at $1,199 and 15-inch at $1,699, though both received upgrades to battery life, the screen technology, and a new SD card slot. The MacBook Air price was the biggest change: It now costs $1,499 for the low-end Air and $1,799, down from $2,499, for the high-end version packed with a 128GB solid-state drive.
Apple is obviously hoping to rejuvenate its Mac sales. While the overall market for computers has dropped steeply, Apple's sales have fallen but not as drastically. Its market share stands at about 7.5 percent, but sales for February and April this year were both trending at about a 4 percent to 16 percent declines in unit growth from the same time a year prior. Price cuts across the board could definitely get people to shop again.
Perhaps even Laptop Huntresses "Lauren and Sue" will want to reconsider that 15-inch MacBook.
Erica Ogg is a CNET News reporter who covers Apple, HP, Dell, and other PC makers, as well as the consumer electronics industry. She's also one of the hosts of CNET News' Daily Podcast. In her non-work life, she's a history geek, a loyal Dodgers fan, and a mac-and-cheese connoisseur. E-mail Erica. 
Consumers want cheap, or free - before the downturn, PCs (including Macs) were a commodity; after the downturn, PCs should be cheap because they should be. Like this blather of mine, it's a waste of time to gripe about it. You want cheap, get a Windows-based box from a company that may not be in business next year. You want a Mac, get a Mac. You want something else, get a pencil, calculator, and a pad of paper.
Just to be clear, the $1699 MacBook Pro 15" is now faster than the computer she bought, and has 4GB of RAM. That is well below $2000, and there is more than 2GB of RAM.
MS had an ad buy in place, timed to follow WWDC to try to "remind" customers of the "cost" of a Mac. Problem is, if you are going to play that game, you can't assume that prices will remain the same after a major conference/trade show.
MS has some splainin' to do if any state attorney generals call them...
@"CTO_Dude" - if you think Apple lied, then kindly point those 'lies' out, and be specific. Also include evidence.
Considering the last couple of years of Mac vs PC switcher ads have similarly been wrong in that they give the wrong information about PC's, wrong pricing, and even made the claim that the Mac doesn't need any maintenance, backup files, and is immune to hard drive failures, etc (look at the add with the fine print for dozens of violations)- I don't see that this is an issue- except to you.
If you are ready to take the OEM's to court, be sure to bring Apple in as well. They are guilty of far more issues such as this than the rest of the entire industry combined... and yet nobody really cares because this is called 'marketing'.
@Random_Walk:
My 'free' Apple warranty for my Touch has cost me $52 because of their mandatory shipping and handling charges for any and all service... even though I brought my unit to the service center where it would be worked on. There was no shipping and handling, which the employee acknowledged, but they are forced to charge it anyways.
For a 'free' warranty, why did I have to pay to get service? Unlike making false claims in an ad, this one actually cost ME money. Care to explain that one? Apple is the only company that does this, by the way...
You two need to take a chill pill, seriously. It's marketing. It's advertising. If there was such a thing as truth in advertising, then Apple woudn't be allowed to advertise at all.
Right. Macs are secure.
"Safari hole exploited in seconds at security conference"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10199652-83.html?tag=mncol
I have NEVER had virus protection. EVER. I have NEVER had a virus EVER. I have been using Macs since 1994. I have not had a single virus with no protection whatsoever in 15 years. I have run a Mac consulting company for 10 years. Not one single customer has ever had a single virus in that time. Not one. At least 90% of them do not use antivirus programs.
Are we literally immune? Nope. We just have a better chance of winning the lottery.
Point taken. I'm not trying to put down your decision to use OS X, nor am I supporting my decision to use Windows. I was trying to make the point that OS X is not secure. Just like any other operating system, Windows, Linux, or whatever. Just like all browsers, Java, and Adobe products are not secure. All of these Mac users are being mislead by the security of their OS. Granted, you may not have had a virus in forever, but I know a lot of Windows users that can say the same thing. A lot of exploits require user interaction, and if you are an intelligent computer user, you can typically avoid most threats.
Bottom line: Like you said, no one is immune.
Before I get any of the immense fanboy flame wars started. I use both windows and OS X. My laptop is a powerbook G4 and my desktop currently runs windows XP but previously has run Windows 7 and Vista. Personally I greatly prefer the ease of use of OS X to windows but to call Windows 7 an upgraded Vista is a horrible horrible understatement. Windows 7 is a far far far superior OS to Vista (my comp could barely run Vista but it flew on Windows 7).
But to make you happy, there will be some shiny new things in 10.6. Shiny, pretty things. You'll like that.
However, Mac OS X has had many of the new "banner" features for years; Aero Peek = Expose, New Task Bar = Dock, etc.. Windows 7 is still missing features like Time Machine, Built-in PDF support, Automator, AppleScript, and Spaces. Windows also doesn't have a built-in dictionary and thesaurus, not big features mind you but still missing. Windows doesn't come with a free professional level development environment, that cost extra money BIG extra money.
Snow Leopard is not much of an upgrade, but the Exchange support alone is well worth the price. I forgot to mention that Windows 7 does include an updated version of Word Pad and Paint.
Snow Leopard requires that you own an Intel based Mac, so I actually view this as not so much of a good thing. Microsoft has and continues to ship two versions so they don't leave behind millions and millions of people without 64 bit chips. When I bought a retail copy of Vista it came with both versions.
Snow Leopard seems a steal at the $29 upgrade price though... Certainly eliminated any apprehension I may have had about getting it sooner than later.
@montex66 "And is Windows XP/Vista/7 all 64-bit regardless of which version you buy? No?"
Snow Leopard requires that you own an Intel based Mac, so I actually view this as not so much of a good thing. Microsoft has and continues to ship two versions so they don't leave behind millions and millions of people without 64 bit chips. When I bought a retail copy of Vista it came with both versions.
Snow Leopard seems a steal at the $29 upgrade price though... Certainly eliminated any apprehension I may have had about getting it sooner than later."
The reason you state is not true. It has nothing to do with 32 Bit or 64 Bit systems. It has to do with Intel and Power PC systems. G5s were 64 Bit BTW. Everything is going to Intel systems starting with Snow Leopard.
Fanboy fodder. You obviously have never seen a PC so go climb back under your Mac Classic.
or addd technologies like open CL , full 64 bit support excahnge support etc ?
believe wat you want but seven ofers nothing more than vista with a newer UI and makeup
it's probably more of a service pack than Snow leopard will ever be
plus for 29$ I have no idea wat more you MS fanboys want ?
you're probably bitter paying that 300$ Microsoft tax for 7
Snow Leapard is what it is. A tweak on Leapard. At least Leapard didn't need fixed the same way Vista did or they may have had to release Crouching Snow Leapard 7.
@Seven7dust:
"does a service pack give you back 6 GB of free space"
Nope, Windows was never as large as OS X for disk space used in the first place so there was no need to return what wasn't taken. :)
"or addd technologies like open CL , full 64 bit support excahnge support etc ?"
Let's see... 64 bit has been available for *years* now. Perhaps you just weren't aware of it. Every version of Windows has had it available since XP.
"believe wat you want but seven ofers nothing more than vista with a newer UI and makeup
it's probably more of a service pack than Snow leopard will ever be"
Ah yes, spoken like a true ignorant person. I would suggest you actually try the product before you blast it. Learn from experience instead of relying on other people to make up your opinion for you. If you had tried Win7, you would not be making those comments. That would be like saying that Snow Leopard is just an update for OS 9. You can avoid such mistakes in the future with a bit of research.
"plus for 29$ I have no idea wat more you MS fanboys want ?"
Service Packs have always been free. Apple charges $29 for them. I don't see how you are having difficulty with this idea. Even Apple says this is the case. This isn't a big deal, really. Don't get so worked up over it.
"you're probably bitter paying that 300$ Microsoft tax for 7"
Windows has never cost $300, again a fact you would know if you ever tried the product.
Your comments are misinformed and do a lot to spread misinformation around as well. Please go back and research the topic before commenting to avoid such mistakes and you can prevent the title of 'troll' being applied by readers.
I couldn't figure out a way to configure a Dell with the specs of the two 13" MBPs. Their 13" products don't have the juice options, and the 14z is a little bigger and can get similar specs, but will cost HUNDREDS more than the $1499 model. HP has a 13" with inferior graphics but the next notch up in the Core 2 Duo 9000 series, but otherwise the same specs, for $10 more.
Most people who claim that Macs cost more aren't comparing the entire feature set and configuring the competition accordingly. That includes upgrading to Vista Business or Ultimate (equivalent to OS X), including bluetooth and wireless-n, upgrading the battery, including recovery disks (Apple includes them at no cost, most BTO models don't), etc. And I don't see a FW800 option on any of the competition, so to be really fair, you need to include an expresscard FW card (but let's ignore that).
Most people look at cheap, slow, discount laptops from BestBuy or wherever on sale and say "see, look how much cheaper that is" when it's not the same product in any way.
Consider the higher Hard Drive Space and RAM the HP dv3 and the Dell Studio XPS 13 include a higher hdd and ram. Also the even the graphics card on the dv3 is a dedicated 512mb even with that its still about 200-300 dollars cheaper than the 13 inch macbook pro
most of them are a lousy 3 hrs and no LED back lit screen too !
actually adding all the missing stuff to the Dell XPS makes it more expensive than Apple's offering
Wow ! Now you PCers can enjoy your Dell tax
and not to mention 300$s of Microsoft tax for Vista SP3 AKA Windows 7
Btw, the only people claiming windows 7 is another vista are the mac fanboys like you. Everyone who has tried it will tell you otherwise.
For example, if I was in the market for a laptop now I'd get the 13 inch MSI X320 or X340, which are $600 and $800, respectively. They may not match the CPUs in the MacBook Pros, but they are as thin as the MacBook Air and weight only 2.86 pounds. And the vast majority of consumers don't need the faster CPUs. I have an Atom-based Hewlett Packard Mini netbook, and the speed is fine for web surfing, email, using Microsoft Office, or doing anything else I want to with my computer. I don't need to play games on my laptop because I play console games on my TV.
Perhaps you may want to look at the specs of a system before you price them. Considering the lower price of the MBP now has a video chipset that most OEM's shun as being seen to be an underperforming low value item, you have to consider the cost to the user in reduced performance of that unit as compared to another OEM who is using a higher end card.... yet charges less.
These are the real world facts. Reasearch.
Anyway, since my post last night, Dell has put an "instant discount" and a free 500GB upgrade on the XPS13 of $450 because they realized that they would be priced way too high. You can't rely on those deals being in place day in and day out though, but it's nice that Dell responded to Apple.
HP added (subtracted) a $150 Instant Savings on theirs. So now it's about $80 less (again, you have to configure it the same way, which includes the glass screen, bluetooth+wireless N, backup DVDs, etc. etc.)
So now, once again, Macs are "overpriced." That's assuming you don't value the Mac software in any way. Funny how it takes Apple releasing a new product for these "price gouging" PC makers to drop their prices.
Though, by doing it via "instant savings" and "free upgrades" rather than MSRP price drops, they aren't committed to this pricing long term.
However, if you buy a new Macbook Pro with a 256 solid-state drive, it's gonna cost 'ya big time!
The iPhone 3G 8Gig ($99US) is $200US cheaper than the Palm Pre 8Gig ($299US)
This is what you will need at the shop to buy one. Palm then offers a $100 mail in rebate.
$299 or $99, what you got in your wallet?
so the plan prices are no more expensive actually
both phones are still expensive for the average buyer !
They have exactly two things that are priced competetivly. One of those (The MacBook) is questionable.
My last check of another quality brand had it down 600.00 from a couple of months ago. Apple still can't touch that.
I have reservations on Apple's idea of integrated batteries.
I like my black 13" Macbook very much because the battery can be replaced.
Apple's idea of integrating the battery means that you will buy another Macbook in 4 years.
Why 4 years you ask?
Because if the batteries can effectively hold a charge for UP TO 5 years, the average consumer will not tolerate the final year of death. The charge level will gradually decline and in the last year of it's projected life-cycle, the charge capacity won't be worth the hassle.
Even if Apple can replace the integrated battery, there's no telling WHAT crazy price tag they could charge for the service.
Batteries do not carry the same warranty life span of that of the actual computer. Typically OEM's will warranty a battery for 1 year after purchase even if the laptop has a 3 or more year warranty. Apple is not excluded from this unless you pay for the higher end Apple Care plan.
It's worth getting the highest plan available to cover these things, but the price of that plan should be included in your price comparisons as it is a very real cost to consider.
Fair point on the batteries. One more reason my next Mac will be a Hackintosh Thinkpad.
"So OK, I'll just buy a new iPhone replacement when it comes out in a year instead of replacing a battery!", nope not so fast, you must pony up 200$ more than a new iPhone user! Yes that's right Apple fan boys, you don't get the subsidized price as you would have if you were upgrading from a different AT&T phone, like a Windows Mobile Phone to an iPhone. Sounds like something fishy if you ask me! I can't upgrade my iPhone 3G to a subsidized iPhone 3GS, but I can upgrade my Windows Mobile to a subsidized iPhone 3GS. This is against competitiveness as it only pits Apple products against non-Apple products, instead of having the 3GS against Apple iPhone, iPhone 3G and other mobile phones.
Time for an ANTI-TRUST lawsuit.
My iPhone 3G battery life is 60-70% of what it was when I bought the phone and I CANNOT afford to lose my business cell phone because I need to send it back to Apple. How about sending back your notebook computer!?!?!?
Don't buy these phones in hopes for a replacement when your battery is useless, I was duped, but you don't have to be.
HOWEVER, every time the PC users I know find their cheapo laptop batteries are dying, or won't hold a charge after a year, lo and behold, that laptop maker no longer makes that specific battery, and a replacement battery costs more than another cheapo PC laptop. So they go buy another laptop, break it in, and use it until that battery goes. And so the PC cycle goes.
I cannot speak for iPhone use myself, but the iPod I use seems to keep its charge quite well after two years - as does the older Macbook I still use, so I must be caring for them correctly.
Secondly for laptop batteries, the new batteries have 1000 charge cycles, compare that with 3-500 max on any other laptop. Not only that they last hours longer then the competition.
Lastly, and maybe you live in an area where there is none, but you can walk into ANY Apple store and they will replace the battery right then and there for you.
If your handy there are tons of kits out there that you can replace the battery yourself. For less then $10 you can replace an iPhone battery, and the kit comes with everything you need to take the iphone apart as well.
You were not duped, you are just uninformed.
But anyone with a little skill (or find a friend) can replace their iphone battery. easy peasy. Don't know about the laptop but with apple's claim of 5 hours or more you won't have as many charge cycles = still works two years later. And I don't know anyone, business or otherwise who carries a "2nd battery". I'm sure there are people who do. They have many choices of laptops with swappable batteries.
Screenshot here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anole/3608913663/
Which iPhone do you have? If you have the original you can upgrade at any time because there was no subsidy. If you have the 3g to get the $199 for a 3GS you need to have it at least 18 months, although some are getting away with getting it slightly earlier.
Which iPhone do you have? If you have the original you can upgrade at any time because there was no subsidy. If you have the 3g to get the $199 for a 3GS you need to have it at least 18 months, although some are getting away with getting it slightly earlier.
EDIT: I just read your ficker post. You have the original iPhone which is not subsidized that is why you can upgrade now and not wait. You could have upgraded 2 days into your contract if you wanted, AT&T didnt pay you anything when you bought your V1 iPhone
It looks like Apple's pricing policy also leaves the current iPhone users in the cold because they have to pay a premium to upgrade their phones, so much so that the Barron's calls them the "unfortunates" :-(
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2009/06/08/apple-for-the-unqualified-iphones-cost-a-bundle/
Not true that as an existing iPhone/AT&T user you can't upgrade for the reduced price. I've been a a user of both for 1.5 years, and currently have a $199 3Gs on reserve. And this was after they checked my account and credit, not some smoke and mirrors.
Screenshot here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anole/3608913663/
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/06/09/the-new-iphone-im-waiting-until-christmas/
Without the subsidy, we are really feeling the Apple tax. I wished I waited but I just couldn't resist the iPhone temptation and got mine 3 months ago :-( I love my iPhone but I just feel being left behind in this product launch. Just wish Apple can give us a nice trade-in program.
I hardly think that's an "Apple Tax". The iPhone is very reasonably priced compared to other phones. How much is the G1 or Storm unsubsidized? What about that $700, unsubsidized Nokia.
The answer is no and Apple is realizing that but are slowly dragging their foot when it comes to pricing. They realize consumers can get just as good a computer from Windows PC's or even better. Phil Schiller lying on stage about 75 million Mac users doesn't make it any better. He simply used the iPhone OS user base to top that up because its running a variant of OS X. OS on a desktop computer is actually at 35 million. It proves that Apple's message is falling on deaf ears meaning it has only increased it measly market share from the stagnant 25 million in the 90's.
I think the right term in revenue share
and Apple actually has 30+% share of that in U.S retail
pretty impressive if you ask me for a company that so many people bash as overpriced !
It's a key question in marketing. It's one reason price is such a tough call. Sell few at a higher price, or more at a lesser one? Apple vs. HP. (though HP used to be like Apple and a lot of people lament the change because HP is no longer a quality brand).
However for computers it is generally accepted that the most important measure is market share, which is the percentage of unit sales. The reason is that software developers will be more likely to write software for a platform that has higher market share, and device manufacturers are more likely to write drivers for a platform with larger market share.
so are BMW or lexus cars overpriced ?
some people want better products and are willing to pay more for them
doesnt mean they are getting shafted !
the new prices are actually a lot better than Dells Xps range !
"had a look at some of the netbooks last weekend. What a piece of crap. Looks and feels like the cheap plastic toys. I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole."
That may be the case for you, but for the millions being sold now, that's a huge amount of money and increasing market share as a result. It's a missed opportunity for companies that ignore it.
@Seven7dust:
"so are BMW or lexus cars overpriced ?"
Both BMW and Lexus postes losses this year from sales dropping. I would say yes, they are overpriced. :)
For me, phone price is not an issue unless my first choice turns out to be like $500 more than my second choice. The folks who care about a $100 price difference just want a phone that makes calls, so they won't be getting the palm or the iphone.
These are the people who were either going to get a free phone or something basic. There are a TON of phones in the $99 space, and most of them (probably none) can really do what the iphone does. Its like someone walking into AT&T and saying hmmmm I will buy this Motorola V365 or the Samsung Jack, and sitting next to it for the same price is the iPhone. Normally the person would not have even looked at the iPhone because of price now there is compelling reason to. Not only that its now also cheaper then just every Blackberry that Apple offers.
if they do add tethering then the sprint plan suddenly looks crappy
Plans are a moot point, IMO. Everyone already has a cell phone plan. The only thing that would cost more is data perhaps. You're not going to buy a texting plan just because you have an iPhone if you didn't have one before.
3GS iphone.
As for any iphone users like us...get prepair to be screw every 6 months to a yr cause there is a new phone out there and ATT and Apple won't let you upgrade unless you pay full price.
If I pay full price for the phone, why don't I spend 250$ penalty keep the old phone , and then open a new iphone? I am not lossing much money since they charge us 200$ extra per phone anyway...
There should be some discount from full price since we might be 1 yr or 1.5yr into the old contracts already and ATT make back every buck already ...
screw it, I am going to stay with my company blackberry and save me $2400 all together .
Is $178 worth it? For ever? Maybe in the future these prices will change when mobile internet is an expected feature of every phone/car/whatever.
Not true that as an existing iPhone/AT&T user you can't upgrade for the reduced price. I've been a a user of both for 1.5 years, and currently have a $199 3Gs on reserve. And this was after they checked my account and credit, not some smoke and mirrors.
Screenshot here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anole/3608913663/
So Blackberry doesn't require service charges of any kind in order to work? Does the Blackberry you're talking about also do every last thing that the iPhone 3G does and include an app store?
you can buy unlocked phones and use without this but you'll be missing internet access anywhere !
so thei Phone plan is no way more overpriced than anything else
Lets see, you can afford to get a new phone every year? And you have a phone for 6 months and you have a company that will allow you to upgrade to the newest phone for half price or less? Why are you complaining about the iPhone. You need to say with that other company. It it exists.
Nooooooo we wouldn't be doing that at Apple's expense would we?
C|Net the "National Enquirer" of the Tech World.
Missed the point entirely, so I will use simple words & you can try to follow along.
CNET had 2 choices with this article:
1. Apple announces lower prices at WWDC!
2. Can Apple beat the "expensive rap"?
They chose the second one knowing full well that their Sugar Daddy Microsith has been spreading this message on their commercials & within their ads on CNET.
This in turn will throw gas on the fire & start a PC vs Mac discussion, thereby generating LOTS of hits ( +127 & counting ). ESPECIALLY during an Apple WWDC.
CNETS advertising rates are based on the number of "hits" by site viewers, so they are "padding" their ad revenue profits by choosing a headline title with a negative spin vs. option #1 with a fact based positive spin ( as stated in their WWDC video ) with LOWER PRICES.
This benefits MS + CNET directly at the EXPENSE of Apple.
THAT WAS MY POINT Mr. Seafoam ZERO.
there are apps on the iphone that allow free SMS
plus switch to email
the rest, is still overpriced, just less overpriced than before
whoose paying that Dell tax now ?
plus the Air has better specs and batterylife too
plus imagine using a Adamo with Vista { that should be lovely}
looks like dell will be shutting down another factory soon !
Dell Adamo? Not even in the same league as the Air. It's like Kia making a BMW and trying to charge a BMW price. No insult to Kia intended. At leat Kia keeps improving their product.
I said the $1500 Air is a good deal for an ultraportable
Do they match the Air's configuration? No. But they are all the performance the average consumer needs but at 1/2 the price of the Air.
As far as Apple computers are concerned, they are solidly in the BMW luxury category. What if all I want is a Honda Accord or even a Honda Fit?
I think there are a lot of PC companies (especially HP and MSI) offering tremendous value for the average consumer, and Apple isn't even trying to compete for that market.
wats so wrong with that ?
@renegade and @pithenumber
wat I was trying to say is Adamo = fail
because cnet was hyping the crap out of it !
I think there are a lot of PC companies (especially HP and MSI) offering tremendous value for the average consumer, and Apple isn't even trying to compete for that market.
But why should they? Most if not all of you who have been bashing Macs and Apple on this forum wouldn't buy one any way. What is the sense in changing how they market their product just to appease you. I have never owned a PC so I really don't know that much about them, except from what I hear from my friends who do use them. I pay a premium for my Mac. And I have no problem with that. Why do you care, your never going to buy one anyway.
It's like the iPhone. I know some folks who bash Apple all the time. Oh I would never buy anything from them. When the iPhone came out they bought one. Imagine that. Seems like when the product is worth buying, some of us will pay the premium price for what we want. Be it a car, TV, stereo, computer or even a phone.
*shrug* To each their own. I like my pc's, other people like their mac's. Just please stop with the nonsense that mac's are superior to pc's. They are just a different product.
Prove it. Mac users have a rep for having more money than the rest. With that being so, why would there still be no viruses, keyloggers, etc released in the wild to exploit that?
Without proof of concept (i.e., a workable Mac virus) you have nothing backing up your statement.
Oh, just so you know, virus= self replicating/propagating piece of software.
That's why, people make viruses to copy themselves and infect other computers with intentions of crashing whole networks of computers and wreaking havoc, that is why PC's are attacked, there are more of them than there are macs. If apple had the bigger market share, then Microsoft would be cranking out ads that PC's are virus free, unlike macs. Think about it.
By the way my PC never has any viruses. It's simple, use Firefox.
as far as overpriced goes I'll give you desktops
but with the new prices laptops are a bargain compared to those plastic pcs
Funny, you ask to please stop the nonsense that Mac's are superior. But your first paragraph definitely sounded like you were saying the same about PC but without much evidence.
This $99 dollar marketing does nothing. We need to look at the 'non-contract' price. What was the 16GB iPhone 3G? Like $700+ or something?
Not cheap. My advice with phones has always been go cheap because if you want a high powered piece of equipment, go with a Laptop or a Macbook if you prefer.
Eventually the market (if it keeps up) is going to crush companies who's products are more expensive than the other. In electronics, that's Apple first. Sad thing but they should have covered an area like Netbooks to keep a consumer base that buys inexpensive electronics.
Apple will go first? Are you kidding me. Where do guys get this information. Have any idea how much cash Apple has sitting around? No. The Mac according to you all has been over priced for years. Seems like they are still around and now we're starting to take market share away from the PC folks, even if it is small steps.
Netbooks are a fad that will soon fade, just like Twitter and FaceBook. Why worry about producing a Netbook when they have the iPod. Sold millions and millions. The iPhone isn't doing to bad either. For everyone of you who complains about it there are five non-Mac users buying one.
They may come out with a NetBook later, but why worry about it. They joined the phone game late and look at where they are now.
And I don't agree that the 17" is even value priced at this point. Apple is charging a $500 markup for the 17" screen and 256MB of VRAM. Granted, it's a 1920x1200 high quality 17" screen, but that's still a pricey upgrade, over an already not cheap 15" with professional graphics.
Snow Leopard is not the usual upgrade with all the bells and whistles that users expect.
This is a system upgrade. There are some bells and whistles, like a new QuickTime, but most of the upgrades are under the hood. Stuff that normal folks aren't going to see until they use it. So why sell it at $129. The normal upgrade price for all Mac OS software.
And no its not to help with sales. Come on, why do all you PC folks feel that you need to jab Apple all the time. Do any of you know how to read.
This counters the claim that Apple chargers $129 every two years to upgrade the OS, while MS charges for the OS once at a higher price and then you get the SPs for years for free.
Now, it's basically a four year price of $129+$29 (if you upgraded from Tiger when Leopard came out), $129 if you skip from Tiger to Snow Leopard, or $29 if you bought a mac with Leopard and want to sprinkle it with snow.
And this isn't and has never been a "home basic" or anything like that. Leopard was somewhere between Vista Ultimate and Business (not full 64-bit, but didn't have 32-bit 2GB limitation, all networking bells and whistles that Home lacks, etc.). Snow Leopard will be full 64-bit, full professional/ultimate equivalent, which retails for HUNDREDS from MS.
which is both portable powerful and now with a 2hrs increase in batterylife
plus it has that Firewire port
oh yeah we'll still have the glossy whiners to deal with
so only the 17inch belongs in the MacBook Pro line
I would say the $1500 MacBook Air is the best deal from Apple right now
its a high end ultraportable for the price of more expensive low end ones
I still consider anything without a dedicated Graphics card a Consumer level product !
- by kelmon June 9, 2009 5:37 AM PDT
- It honestly does not look as though Apple has a "too expensive" rap. Certainly their major products are considered to be expensive but there is a big difference between "expensive" and "too expensive". "Expensive" seems to suit Apple's business so I'm expecting business as usual.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (159 Comments)