In two years, the prices of Windows notebooks have fallen by 20 percent, while Apple notebook prices are down just 3 percent, suggesting the upcoming Apple "product transition" could involve cheaper notebooks.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Erica Ogg and other reporters will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies and others strike back against the iPhone. E-mail Erica at erica.ogg@cnet.com.
Add this feed to your online news reader
:)
I have a personal preference for the Mac OS, but I also know that the belief that Macs are better for graphics and video is a relic of the 90s: Windows machines have caught up and software developers make excellent software for both platforms, so I don't NEED a Mac to do my particular work.
So for my new equipment research, I'm looking at all the viable options, not at trendiness, and I'm going to have to submit my findings to the person in charge of the budget. So far, spec-for-spec, the Macbook Pros are coming out about equal to equivalent Windows laptops, and the Mac Pros are a hair cheaper than a Windows machine with close to identical specs. Throw in the cost of virus protection, and the Windows machines become more expensive.
Of course, I'm talking about machines for professional work, not the garbage they sell to consumers for $700, so take that for what it is.
My personal opinion: if they prices are almost the same, I might as well get one with an OS I like, and my recommendation to the budget department will likely be, since the prices are the same, we might as well favour the one with the nice stable Unix core.
Buy something that's better for the environment. Something with lots of software. Something whose pioneers give back to the world via their philanthropy.
Buy a PC. Load it with Linux or Windows. Feel better about yourself.
I'd rather pay less for Windows & Office and then choose which charities to support without help from Bill Gates. The idea that it's ok for a monopoly to overcharge because they support charities is asinine. I'm sure Steve Job's does charity work - but he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.
No direct competition means no pricing pressure.
If other companies were allowed to build machines to run OSX, then I think you would see some stronger shifts in pricing.
"And drop in quality."
www.appledefects.com
Macbook battery defects
Apple laptop chargers sparking, catching fire
G4 Power Supplies failing widespread
Touch screens failing out of the box
You're right. It's all about the quality. Unfortunately Apple doesn't have it anymore. They did at one time, but times changed and they haven't. If you don't keep up, you get left behind. But as long as people are willing to pay for that sort of quality, then they will have a market.
Psystar needs to win the lawsuit in order to make Apple realize that having competition is good for all. The idea that you can lock in all your customers and reign supreme in the marketplace without any backlash is indeed a very bad delusion. And you're right, the supposed "quality" Apple provides is quickly deteriorating, as seen by the numerous problems with late models of all or most of their product lines (my iPod Touch skips every so often when playing mp3s, almost like how a record needle would get stuck, what's up with that?). And because their hardware configurations are sub-standard at best (everybody else knows it's not just about who has the biggest CPU anymore), and said hardware is downright ugly (to me anyway), and probably costs Apple far less than what you pay for it, you are really paying for an OS that is far, FAR more expensive than Windows ever will be. Not only that, but they charge you something like $150 for every minor OS update that should really be a free service pack. My problem, as you can see, has nothing to do with Macs in general, but rather with Apple's bad business practices, and the fact that they are getting away with murder while Microsoft gets huge fines for jaywalking.
The bottom line is that Apple needs to be forced to compete in order for them to be fair to their customers and to ensure strict quality control practices are maintained.
Now, cue all the people who have never turned on a Mac to say, "I have used Macs for 65 years and they all suck."
Kind of like those people in the Mojave experiment who love Vista because they got a 5 minute demo of the Aero interface. That's just not long enough to properly evaluate an OS
The market hard on the PC side, while Apples sells are moving forward. The PC side is dropping prices to move inventory, Apple is ALREADY moving inventory. If you can't come to the correct conclusions from basic facts, you are TRULY IDIOTS.
As far as my grammar? Typos happen, and trust me, I knew when I made the post it wasn't going to change any fervent beliefs anyone already held.
Should I apologize ... ummm no. But I should try to take a step back.
But as far as it's superiority:
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20080625/153861/fig2.jpg
Tah Dah!
You have one valid point in the article. "But while the Mac vs. PC debate is always good for ratings, .."
The precise reason for which you wrote the article on a slow news day. Some people would do anything given the space to publish. (look at me)
As for "Not to mention PC's can actually run every essential business application out there, while Macs cannot." Really? Name one.
The basic question would be how would you use your computer ? I did not see either real beginners or hard-core guys using Macs. Most of those in Mac-Nation are intermediate users (seeking validation), that said Mac may have its advantages but, PCs give me a better bang for the buck.
If your in aesthetics power to you, Macs are not better than PCs. I can load *BSD if I dont want viruses. And have a real 64-bit OS, not a fake one.
AAMOF, I seem the Windows users as the intermediate ones seeking validation. These are usually the folks who know some of the basics of computing in general, but are fearful of the command line, and wouldn't dream of diving under the hood without an .exe to help them do it.
As for bang-for-buck? I have a 2004-era dual G5... it still runs the latest-and-greatest software very smoothly, and until recently, it ran the same copy of OSX 10.3 that was installed in it (I skipped 10.4 and just parked Leopard in it). Being able to run the latest OS on a 4-year-old computer, and not have to buy a ton of RAM or various other boosters to do it? Very satisfying.
Aesthetics on a physical level has no factor for me... the box sits under the desk, and I'm using an NEC 25" CRT for a monitor. Now aesthetics in construction, structure, flexibility, and efficiency? OSX has Windows beat very easily.
"Actually, the question is: How long does a Ford last versus a BMW? Which maker has a higher resale value on average? Which one gives you consistent performance. Which has had the most (and the most spectacular) product recalls? "
Oh, that's easy. Ford without a question is the answer. Longer warranty, more reliable, more capabilities, more affordable, in use by more consumers, very configurable, and what people want. BMW's... well, they are short lived and exciting vehicles- but you should really ask a BMW owner how often they have their vehicle in the shop. I think the answer will surprise you. Heh.
Do you want to own a machine that looks pretty while sitting in the shop or actually *use* it?
BMWs are extremely reliable. They outperform just about every vehicle on the road and receive only the highest marks during track tests. Oh, and by the way, since apparently you haven?t done a lick of research, BMWs retain their value better than any other company excluding Porsche.
Ford can?t even compete in the same class and I am insulted by your blatant ignorance.
There are two types of BMW owners: Those that have an unequivocal passion for driving, and those that should have bought a BENZ. These aren?t luxury vehicles people, this is ?The Ultimate Driving Machine.? And besides, oversteer is a beautiful thing
Right on dot boyz. Let's say people would "pay" to read CNET articles, do you think CNET would still give it free? Absolutely not.
The reason why CNET allows its readers to read their articles free is because readers don't be paying to read such articles.
Quality and reliability cost, however, lack of quality costs more.
Definitely the most intelligent comment I've seen on CNET to date.
Apple may have the occasional problem (like all makers), but note that it doesn't even come close to approaching the systemic troubles that Dell and HP stumble into. Also note that Apple products in general last longer, hold a higher resale value, and tend to hold up better overall.
Every manufacturer has bad batches. resellers like NewEgg get their cheep prices by purchasing lots with high fail rates at a deep discount. NewEgg is good for disposable equipment. Do not use them for mission critical parts.
It is not the factory, it is the batch. Some batches are good, some are bad. Asus and Seagate Have more good batches. Gigabyte and Maxtor have less. If you want good parts you can count on, you must track batch numbers.
I have spent thousands of dollars at new egg buying top quality from top hardware companies. Not once have I had to RMA something, or even consider it. From processors to RAM to hard drives, nothing has ever failed.
You buy a high quality part from a high quality company and it doesn't matter who the middle man is. If you get a defective part, from what I hear, New egg RMA service is great. It is not like new egg profits from buying a ton of known to be defective parts. Why? because they have to replace them and deal with the chance that the customer won't come back to buy more.
No matter what lot it comes from there is a chance that what you get is defective. Do you really think that the XEON quad core that you get at new egg is any different than the one you might be able to find in a local mom and pop shop or directly from Intel? If you do you need to seriously educate yourself.
I will put my machine where every part was purchased from new egg against any dell of any price. The machine I have, which is rock solid stable and reliable and is exactly the way I want it with no crapware is half the cost of a comparable Dell.
That said, I think the likes of Dell and HP have nightmares each night of Apple slashing prices (after all, Apple has big enough by way of margins that they can do so by quite a bit... Dell and HP don't).
That sort of business plan will limit their growth and keep them in a very minor share of the market until they choose to play with the big boys.
As you said, it's basic laws of economic demand- there isn't a demand for Apple products at this time at the competitive levels needed, so they stay in their niche market where they do not have to. Apple knows that if they tried lowering their prices that they would have no hope to compete- take a look at the Mac Mini. That isn't exactly flying off the shelves.
"
Face it, Apple tried the competitive market and there simply isn't a demand. They are better off in the fashion designer market. That's a good thing for them.
As for margins- now that they have a chip manufacturer, that should help their pricing, right? Maybe, but maybe not. They can't make enough and spread it through the market to reduce the price to be competitive. Again, basic laws of economic demand. That means those chips will be expensive and very limiting. They'll have to absorb all the R&D costs.
I'm glad you pointed out the economic demand aspect. You've demonstrated very clearly why Apple does *NOT* compete in the lower price range model market, nor can they afford to.
Do I think Macs are overpriced? As a computer, yes. Do I think BMWs and Mercedes are overpriced? As a car, yes. If you judge Apple, and more specifically Macs as simply a computer, they are overpriced.
However, what "this" computer can do (or do differently) than another computer is what sets the price, otherwise we'd all be driving 4cyl Ford hatchbacks.
More than that, you can't even compare a Mac to a BMW or Mercedes, because most PC's are actually more powerful, and have more features than similarly or even higher prices Macs, whereas most BMW's have higher specs than say a Ford. Not to mention, PC's can run a heck of a lot more business applications than Mac's can. Its plain silly top buy an overpriced Mac for such purposes. You'd be paying more for less usefulness.
But your argument has no merit anyway - witness the iPhone. Europe can't keep enough of them in stock right now. I figure that in a year, perhaps two at the most, Symbian is going to get very nervous, much like RIM and Microsoft are now (esp. after MSFT got spanked so hard by the iPhone, and so quickly).
Your right about that, they do not look cool, or even "hot", frump is what they are all about. :)
Ummm..Apple Macs have been on sale in Europe for as long as I can remmember. In Britian,(where I lived for some times), Apple macs are every bit available at Dixons and Curry's(electronics store chains in Britain) as Macs are avilable at Best Buy, Circuit City etc in America.
So stop using the tired old, "them poor foreigners want Macs. but can't find them in the shops" excuse. They have plenty of Macs in the shops, they are just not prepared to pay up to TWICE as much for a computer as they need to, so being of sound mind, they buy Windows PCs instead.
Good for them too.
Here, let me help you: http://www.macworld.com/article/56643/2007/03/retailstore.html
In 2007, Apple had a grand total of 20 stores outside of the US. They added 10 more in the interim. They opened their very first store in China last month: http://www.macworld.com/article/134545/2008/07/applestorebeijing.html
...you were saying something then?
@Perry: You do realize that you're about to be assassinated by hit-men, in turn hired by French and Italian fashion designer companies, right? "
I was being snarky and I fully understand that looking good is not restricted to Americans. A lot of people are about their looks, and it certainly helps with your self-esteem and confidence. However, a some people don't care and to them a pair '70s polyester plaid pants and a stripped shirt is something you wear when you want to impress the guy at the PC parts store. /snark
"I figure that in a year, perhaps two at the most, Symbian is going to get very nervous, much like RIM and Microsoft are now (esp. after MSFT got spanked so hard by the iPhone, and so quickly)."
Wow, I'm rather surprised you think that Microsoft makes cell phones. Exactly how long have you been in the computer industry again?
That is the biggest piece of nonsense I have seen so far in this thread.
92 PC's are sold in america for every 8 Mac's sold. That makes it ELEVEN times as many PC's as Macs sold. Question : Who is moving more inventory? Even a 5 year old will answer that PC's move far more inventoryby far than Mac's do.
The fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs and his snake oil salesmen at Apple have always rippped off the Apple Mac fanatics, who just love drinking Apple Kool Aid and being taken advatage off.
It's no surprise that Apple's market share outside America is so low, as sane working people, have refused to hand over their hard earned money to Apple just so they can "look cool", even while theeir families starve.
As for who is moving more inventory? Matters not... Question is, who is moving more inventory this year than they did last year? Dell and HP are barely squeaking in line with overall PC growth. Apple is out-selling overall growth by orders of magnitude. While Dell and HP are practically begging for sales, the customers are quite busy with beating a path to Apple's door.
The rest of your post is, as usual, mere tripe.
PC = Personal Computer
Compare Dell, HP, Apple and a few other hardware manufacturers, that will get you more defensible results.
Normal rubbish from the resident chief Apple shill.
# 1. It is incotrrect and impossible that 800-1000 Fords get sold for every BMW of Mercedes. I suggest you check your figures.
# 2. You can't compare Ford to Dell or HP to Ford. Dell/HP are both making huge profits on their PC business, while Ford is making big losses on their car busines.
#3. Both HP and Dell recently registered big increases in sales and profits in their last quarters.
# 4. Since most of Dell's sales are direct sales, Dell has virtually no inventory for them to be in a hurry to get rid of. Usualy, Dell gets the money in the bank, before they even manufacture the PC, which is a darn site better than Apple has manged to do since Apple was founded.
re #2: why not? Ford and Chevy have had profitable years and bad years... just like Dell and HP have had. QED, your argument here is pretty much worthless.
re #3: HP and Dell both grew in line with overall PC growth figures, as previously stated. Apple has put them both to shame in the growth department.
re #4: Dell has huge staging and order fulfillment centers overseas, which avoids the VAT and tariff laws. Apple is only barely beginning to get those built (and for now, mostly for the iPhone.
Ford sells at most 8 times as many cars in Amerivca as BMW does{http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN0147449420070301}. Thers is simply NO stretch of the definition of the word "roughly" than can approximate "8 times" to 800-1000 times". Now why don't YOU check up on YOUR literacy skills?
# 2. Ford and Chevy have profitable years too?
So what?
Dell has made profits every singe years ince Dell was founded (that is a heck of a lot better than Apple has). HP is crrently making miney hand over fits too. Ford on the other hand, is lucky if they make profits in 2 straight quarters in ANY year. Ford is bleedig money like crazy right now. You simply can't compoare Ford to HP or Dell
# 3, Bottom line. Dell gets paid, before they ship their PC's to consumers. They have no inevtories to speak off. So they can't be in a hurry to sell PC's because of inventoty.
Seems your math skills (claiming 12% when in reality it's orders of magnitude smaller) are sorely lacking too. ;)
From my link:
Ford car market share 15.0 %
BMW car market share 2.0 %
http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN0147449420070301
That makes it an 8:1 Ford/BMW ratio.
That is not even on the same planet as your totally wild, plucked from thin air 800:1 ratio that you tried to pass off before.
But hey, just keep your nonsense coming. I am in a mood to be amused.
What part of Economics 101 don't a lot people here seem to understand?
I'm sure this will get attacked, but the simple facts don't lie. Supply and demand at work.
- by sanjayb August 6, 2008 6:30 PM PDT
- What bugs me is that you would think Apple costs for making computer would gradually go down. So why aren't those savings passed on to the consumers? The Macbook Pro hasn't gone down much in price since it's refresh while similar configured PC laptops have gradually decreased in price over the same time span.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Vegaman_Dan August 6, 2008 9:40 PM PDT
- They don't have to drop the price. People buy it willingly the way it is. Yes, Apple's costs go down and their profits go up as a result. That's great for Apple at the expense of their cusotmers. It's up to the customers to decide with their dollars if they want to keep supporting it.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (103 Comments)For the record, I bought a Touch a few weeks ago at $500, so I've been helping Apple's profit margin as well.