May 16, 2006 10:55 AM PDT

Researcher: Macs not as expensive as thought

Although Apple Computer's machines are more expensive than PCs, one Wall Street researcher says the price of a Mac isn't that much more than a comparable Windows-based computer.

Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said that his research shows an average price difference of only 13 percent for desktops and 10 percent for laptops, once you factor in the same components that Apple uses.

pcsaleshcart

"We believe both consumers and investors tend to believe that purchasing a Mac will cost 20 percent to 30 percent more than a PC," he said in a research note.

But IDC researcher Richard Shim noted that Apple competes only in part of the market.

"You can compare a Mercedes and a BMW and say that there isn't much price difference," Shim said. "But the point is you can't reach a mass audience with that kind of premium brand."

The Piper Jaffray report compares an $1,874 20-inch iMac with two Dell models and two Hewlett-Packard models ranging from $1,440 to $1,970. On the laptop side, the $2,699 17-inch MacBook Pro is compared with a $1,899 HP laptop and two machines from Dell, a $3,445 XPS M1710 and a $1,922 E1705.

But while HP and Dell offer machines at those lofty prices, they also have machines that cost far less. It is now common to see ads touting $300 desktops or laptops for $500.

And, to use the car metaphor, most people are buying Hondas, not BMWs or Mercedes.

"If you look at sales by price band, very few desktops are sold in that $1,500-and-above category," said Samir Bhavnani, a researcher at Current Analysis. "The sweet spot for desktops tends to fall around $600."

For notebooks, he said the sweet spot is around $1,000.

Last year, the average desktop with a display sold for $744 in the U.S., according to IDC, while the average laptop sold for $1,070. Those prices are forecasted to drop further this year, with the typical notebook selling for $981 and the average desktop fetching $711.

Apple basically starts at those levels with its cheapest models. The least expensive laptop, the new MacBook, starts at $1,099, while the desktop Mac Mini sells for $599, but doesn't include a display.

Dell, meanwhile, recently had a sale that saw a Core Duo laptop with 1GB of memory, an 80GB drive, a 15.4-inch screen and a DVD burner selling for $699, down from a usual price of $1,234.

Shim said the fact that Apple caters to the high-end of the market "isn't a bad thing."

He pointed to the 13-inch widescreen display in the just-introduced MacBook as an example of where Apple chose the feature it wanted over price considerations. Shim said that 12-inch and 14-inch widescreen displays are relatively standard and tend to be comparably cheaper because there are already 12-inch and 14-inch traditional flat panels that are used in laptops. The 13-inch display is more unusual, he said.

"They often lead in innovation, and you often have to pay for that benefit," Shim said.

An Apple representative declined to comment.

See more CNET content tagged:
Richard Shim, researcher, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Apple Computer

197 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
ooh *gasp* what a suprise...not.
nt
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Reply Link Flag
what a waste
How about adding something relevant, if not just move on.
Posted by rfelgueiras (189 comments )
Link Flag
ooh *gasp* what a suprise...not.
nt
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Reply Link Flag
what a waste
How about adding something relevant, if not just move on.
Posted by rfelgueiras (189 comments )
Link Flag
Apple needs to make a short term sacrifice.
If Apple wants real market share, they need to charge less money than a PC, not 13% more. Most people care about cost first. Get more Macs out there (many more), get more software written for Macs, get it more mainstream, and THEN you've got a product that might be worth 13% more. Or, with the greater quantity of production, profit margins will be 13% greater. Like XBox or PS3, the manufacturers know they have to take a loss up front to get the user base built up... then profits will come.
Posted by skeeboe.com (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Bargain pricing = big mistake
Do you think PC manufacturers aren't now regretting going to
rock-bottom pricing? How much do you think Dell makes on a
$399 computer? And who wants to buy a Dell for $2,000 when
they can buy a Dell for $399? After all, the brand name "Dell"
now stands for "cheap."

I think Apple is smart not to cheapen their brand by trolling for
bottom-feeders. If you make a premium product, stick with
premium pricing. It's not for everyone, but at least you can
make a profit that way.

Remember the entry level BMW and Mercedes hatchbacks?
Failures. Jaguar X-Type? Bad idea.

"Like XBox or PS3, the manufacturers know they have to take a
loss up front to get the user base built up... then profits will
come."

Ah, which is why MS is still losing money on XBox after all these
years, and Sony will certainly take it on the chin with the PS3. I
think taking a big loss on hardware to gain customers is a bad,
bad business model. Ask TiVo. Apple doesn't need to play that
foolish game.
Posted by LagunaSol (2 comments )
Link Flag
Xbox / PS3
The XBox/Playstation model works on making almost no margin
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.

It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.

I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.

But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.

Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
Posted by JulesLt (110 comments )
Link Flag
Xbox / PS3
The XBox/Playstation model works on making almost no margin
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.

It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.

I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.

But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.

Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
Posted by JulesLt (110 comments )
Link Flag
Disagree
I think Apple is smart to stay out of the bottom end of the
market. There are no profits there. The cheap machines that
Dell or HP advertises are called "loss leaders" for a reason.

Apple is better off building marketshare gradually by continuing
its strategy of product differentiation with machines that have
slightly higher margins. There is a reason -- and it is not just
iPods -- that Apple is one of two computer manufacturers that
has been consistently profitable in recent years.

It's true that if someone cares *only* about the price, Apple is
not likely to win their business. For how many major purchases,
however, is the cheapest product the best product? Cheaper is
only better if all else is at least equal.

The XBox or PS3 analogy doesn't apply. In those cases, the
profit is all in the games. For Apple, software is still only a small
portion of overall sales.
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Link Flag
Sacrifice the OS, not the hardware
Now that Apple has the universal binaries and the OS supports the core duo I think it would make more sense to offer OS X in a box that can be installed/booted on a standard Windows PC. I suspect that if people start using OS X now on their current PC systems they are more likely to purchase a 13% higher priced Apple system when they next upgrade their hardware.

Apple should not offer any super low prices systems. The Mac Mini is already a good low cost system. It might be nice if they offered a "sale" package that included a monitor/keyboard/mouse with the mini to promote moving to the Mac though.
Posted by idvlpsw (7 comments )
Link Flag
Xbox / PS3
The XBox/Playstation model works on making almost no margin
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.

It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.

I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.

But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.

Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
Posted by JulesLt (110 comments )
Link Flag
Macs are not Game Consoles
Sony and Microsoft can afford losses on the game consoles,
because they make it up on the games and accessories, which is
where the real profits are.

If Apple dropped the cost of the Mac by $100 or $200, I doubt it
would bring more buyers. You can save close to that on anti-
virus software alone.

People are lemings. They follow the leader. Today it is still
Microsoft, but tomorrow....who knows?
Posted by smcarter (19 comments )
Link Flag
LOL!
I won a PC laptop as a doorprize a couple of years ago. It's the
most expensive computer I've ever owned. My Dual 2 ghz G5 is far
less expensive.

I guess you just don't value your time, or maybe you think any
computer will be just as much trouble as a PC. Either way, you're
wrong.
Posted by Macsaresafer (802 comments )
Link Flag
Apple needs to make a short term sacrifice.
If Apple wants real market share, they need to charge less money than a PC, not 13% more. Most people care about cost first. Get more Macs out there (many more), get more software written for Macs, get it more mainstream, and THEN you've got a product that might be worth 13% more. Or, with the greater quantity of production, profit margins will be 13% greater. Like XBox or PS3, the manufacturers know they have to take a loss up front to get the user base built up... then profits will come.
Posted by skeeboe.com (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Bargain pricing = big mistake
Do you think PC manufacturers aren't now regretting going to
rock-bottom pricing? How much do you think Dell makes on a
$399 computer? And who wants to buy a Dell for $2,000 when
they can buy a Dell for $399? After all, the brand name "Dell"
now stands for "cheap."

I think Apple is smart not to cheapen their brand by trolling for
bottom-feeders. If you make a premium product, stick with
premium pricing. It's not for everyone, but at least you can
make a profit that way.

Remember the entry level BMW and Mercedes hatchbacks?
Failures. Jaguar X-Type? Bad idea.

"Like XBox or PS3, the manufacturers know they have to take a
loss up front to get the user base built up... then profits will
come."

Ah, which is why MS is still losing money on XBox after all these
years, and Sony will certainly take it on the chin with the PS3. I
think taking a big loss on hardware to gain customers is a bad,
bad business model. Ask TiVo. Apple doesn't need to play that
foolish game.
Posted by LagunaSol (2 comments )
Link Flag
Xbox / PS3
The XBox/Playstation model works on making almost no margin
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.

It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.

I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.

But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.

Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
Posted by JulesLt (110 comments )
Link Flag
Xbox / PS3
The XBox/Playstation model works on making almost no margin
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.

It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.

I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.

But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.

Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
Posted by JulesLt (110 comments )
Link Flag
Disagree
I think Apple is smart to stay out of the bottom end of the
market. There are no profits there. The cheap machines that
Dell or HP advertises are called "loss leaders" for a reason.

Apple is better off building marketshare gradually by continuing
its strategy of product differentiation with machines that have
slightly higher margins. There is a reason -- and it is not just
iPods -- that Apple is one of two computer manufacturers that
has been consistently profitable in recent years.

It's true that if someone cares *only* about the price, Apple is
not likely to win their business. For how many major purchases,
however, is the cheapest product the best product? Cheaper is
only better if all else is at least equal.

The XBox or PS3 analogy doesn't apply. In those cases, the
profit is all in the games. For Apple, software is still only a small
portion of overall sales.
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Link Flag
Sacrifice the OS, not the hardware
Now that Apple has the universal binaries and the OS supports the core duo I think it would make more sense to offer OS X in a box that can be installed/booted on a standard Windows PC. I suspect that if people start using OS X now on their current PC systems they are more likely to purchase a 13% higher priced Apple system when they next upgrade their hardware.

Apple should not offer any super low prices systems. The Mac Mini is already a good low cost system. It might be nice if they offered a "sale" package that included a monitor/keyboard/mouse with the mini to promote moving to the Mac though.
Posted by idvlpsw (7 comments )
Link Flag
Xbox / PS3
The XBox/Playstation model works on making almost no margin
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.

It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.

I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.

But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.

Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
Posted by JulesLt (110 comments )
Link Flag
Macs are not Game Consoles
Sony and Microsoft can afford losses on the game consoles,
because they make it up on the games and accessories, which is
where the real profits are.

If Apple dropped the cost of the Mac by $100 or $200, I doubt it
would bring more buyers. You can save close to that on anti-
virus software alone.

People are lemings. They follow the leader. Today it is still
Microsoft, but tomorrow....who knows?
Posted by smcarter (19 comments )
Link Flag
LOL!
I won a PC laptop as a doorprize a couple of years ago. It's the
most expensive computer I've ever owned. My Dual 2 ghz G5 is far
less expensive.

I guess you just don't value your time, or maybe you think any
computer will be just as much trouble as a PC. Either way, you're
wrong.
Posted by Macsaresafer (802 comments )
Link Flag
iSight
This doesn't mention any of the features that the Mac has that
aren't offered in these other models. The iSight camera would
make up the difference, not to mention the Front Row remote.
Posted by jwmoreland (48 comments )
Reply Link Flag
iSight
This doesn't mention any of the features that the Mac has that
aren't offered in these other models. The iSight camera would
make up the difference, not to mention the Front Row remote.
Posted by jwmoreland (48 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Macs are great, even if more mula $$$
I've been using PCs since 1990, the Win OS and even tho the Mac does cost more, the software that is available and the stability more then makes up for the headaches and viruses and reformats and re-installs and the headaches and nightmares that come with Windows. For Music, Video, Photo production, Macs are pretty much the king, discounting special mainframe used to render SGI movies.

I just bought the G5 2Ghz model and I love it, I would never trade it in for no PC. I must admit to liking Excel/Access and VBA programming that comes with it. But for pretty much all else, I now use a mac and never been happier.

So take dat!!!
Posted by rmiecznik (224 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Form over Function is what you are paying for
Is a Mercedes REALLY that much better a car in its price range for reliability?
Apple products are more expensive because you are paying for the design and the hype. It used to be when the mac was "the defacto design tool" but Adobe changed that with (inevitable) addition of Windows marketshare.
Head to head, some mac features are better for the user, but for the admin, windows still wins.
And with pricing on hardware, I can get a black laptop, with more features for less.
But, do I want that? Would I rather have a dual-booting, cool, hip, easy to use, MacBook or MacBookPro? Sure. Marketing sells...
Posted by Below Meigh (249 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Form AND function.
Firstly - I won't deny there is an Apple premium (their profit
margins demonstrate that) - but I would disagree that it's all
about Form. The Function is also good, which is why Macs are
increasingly popular with developers who aren't locked into the
MS world.

I can't quite work out exactly what Admin features you think are
better on Windows. If you mean, for MSCE admins, Windows
machines are what they know, then yep, of course that's true,
but to anyone with familiarity with Unix the reverse is way true -
especially once you start going beyond Unix and learning what
OS X offers on top.
It's taken me about a year of use to realise the true functional
differences - the problem is it's difficult to sell them in a
soundbite way. And of course most people aren't going to use
bash to script iTunes.

Examples : It's taken me less effort to configure a Citrix
connection to our corporate network than it has on a Windows
box. Equally, do a search on Ottomate - you need to buy an
independent test tool to do the same with IE. System level
dictionary shared across all apps (not just Office ones). Native
PDF. emacs key bindings. Really simple networking. That works
when you put a machine to sleep on one network and wake it up
on another.
Posted by JulesLt (110 comments )
Link Flag
The difference
Between Apple and Mercedes, is that Apple actually uses better
quality components, whereas Mercedes has one of the worst
luxury car quality ratings in America, and sometimes, as well, in
hometown Deutschland. Better to compare Apple to Lexus,
which has the highest quality rating.

That said, your argument, IMHO, is inherently faulty because you
talk about "hype" and design, both subjective arguments. There
are several cars that are designed to look good, but still don't
sell (relatively speaking) because of the perception of "low
quality", i.e., the current Hyundai Tiburon, the Kia Sorrento SUV,
the Hyundai Sonata. Hyundai and Kia have been coming up fast
over the past 5 years, but people won't buy them because of
perception of cheap quality.

Apple uses better quality (and hence, more expensive) materials
and components in the manufacture of its products. Apple tends
to have better customer service than competitors--the training
for which costs more--thus adding to the costs. Apple markets
more then competitors, and spends more money (based on
percentages, not actual dollars) than competitors, so all these
costs trickle down to customers. But what customers get is an
earlier and greater return on their investment with Apple. They
get a better quality of life by being able to USE their computers
instead of having their computers often at the repair shop.

I don't buy my computers because they are "cool", I buy them
because I get to DO MY WORK, while my Windows using
colleagues get to cool their heels at the offices of Tech Support.
Oh, and I work in IT, so I'm not some Windows Geek with a Tech
Support agenda to push.
Posted by ronjay (109 comments )
Link Flag
RE: Form over Function is what you are paying for
"Apple products are more expensive because you are paying for
the design and the hype. It used to be when the mac was "the
defacto design tool" but Adobe changed that with (inevitable)
addition of Windows marketshare."

Personally, I think the two go hand in hand. At least they do on
my G5. Why settle for just one when you can have both.

And don't forget that for the last few years Apple has been
number one in Consumer Reports with the lowest number of
units shipped with problems out of the box and they have also
received the best scores in Tech Support. That should be worth
something when looking for a system.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
Not!
Obviously you have never used Mac's in a high pressure
production environment.

Mac's make production enginneers like me more cash -- they
don't cost MORE-- they cost less.

A similarly equipped Mac versus a similarly equipped Mac with
identical users is more productive due to these factors: 1)
Stability, 2) Unix Command Line Shell and Customization, 3)
More efficient, keystroke driven interface.

Done deal.

Don't believe me?

Fine with me.

An uninformed, untested user means less competition for me in
my line of work.

I'll keep kicking my PC brethern in the dirt, gettting better
clients and insuring my future.

Dante
Posted by dansterpower (2511 comments )
Link Flag
I own a Mac and Windows machine. I must admit I think I was won over by Mac vs PC commercials. Yes, OSX is flashy with cool animation compared to XP, but honestly XP is easier to use, is just as stable, and runs better on slightly lower hardware. When I got my Mac I told people how much better it was because I didn't want to admit that in the end, it is still a PC and it has its own set of problems. For people are claiming that the isight and the frontrow remote makes up the difference in price, PUHLEZE! My HP laptop has a media center remote is incredibly more useful than front row.

In the end, I think Mac is like buying a Coach purse for my wife. Is the purse really better? Not really, but people look at you and ask questions about it. In the end, she still loses her keys and lipstick.
Posted by frankwick (413 comments )
Link Flag
Form over Function is what you are paying for
Is a Mercedes REALLY that much better a car in its price range for reliability?
Apple products are more expensive because you are paying for the design and the hype. It used to be when the mac was "the defacto design tool" but Adobe changed that with (inevitable) addition of Windows marketshare.
Head to head, some mac features are better for the user, but for the admin, windows still wins.
And with pricing on hardware, I can get a black laptop, with more features for less.
But, do I want that? Would I rather have a dual-booting, cool, hip, easy to use, MacBook or MacBookPro? Sure. Marketing sells...
Posted by Below Meigh (249 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Form AND function.
Firstly - I won't deny there is an Apple premium (their profit
margins demonstrate that) - but I would disagree that it's all
about Form. The Function is also good, which is why Macs are
increasingly popular with developers who aren't locked into the
MS world.

I can't quite work out exactly what Admin features you think are
better on Windows. If you mean, for MSCE admins, Windows
machines are what they know, then yep, of course that's true,
but to anyone with familiarity with Unix the reverse is way true -
especially once you start going beyond Unix and learning what
OS X offers on top.
It's taken me about a year of use to realise the true functional
differences - the problem is it's difficult to sell them in a
soundbite way. And of course most people aren't going to use
bash to script iTunes.

Examples : It's taken me less effort to configure a Citrix
connection to our corporate network than it has on a Windows
box. Equally, do a search on Ottomate - you need to buy an
independent test tool to do the same with IE. System level
dictionary shared across all apps (not just Office ones). Native
PDF. emacs key bindings. Really simple networking. That works
when you put a machine to sleep on one network and wake it up
on another.
Posted by JulesLt (110 comments )
Link Flag
The difference
Between Apple and Mercedes, is that Apple actually uses better
quality components, whereas Mercedes has one of the worst
luxury car quality ratings in America, and sometimes, as well, in
hometown Deutschland. Better to compare Apple to Lexus,
which has the highest quality rating.

That said, your argument, IMHO, is inherently faulty because you
talk about "hype" and design, both subjective arguments. There
are several cars that are designed to look good, but still don't
sell (relatively speaking) because of the perception of "low
quality", i.e., the current Hyundai Tiburon, the Kia Sorrento SUV,
the Hyundai Sonata. Hyundai and Kia have been coming up fast
over the past 5 years, but people won't buy them because of
perception of cheap quality.

Apple uses better quality (and hence, more expensive) materials
and components in the manufacture of its products. Apple tends
to have better customer service than competitors--the training
for which costs more--thus adding to the costs. Apple markets
more then competitors, and spends more money (based on
percentages, not actual dollars) than competitors, so all these
costs trickle down to customers. But what customers get is an
earlier and greater return on their investment with Apple. They
get a better quality of life by being able to USE their computers
instead of having their computers often at the repair shop.

I don't buy my computers because they are "cool", I buy them
because I get to DO MY WORK, while my Windows using
colleagues get to cool their heels at the offices of Tech Support.
Oh, and I work in IT, so I'm not some Windows Geek with a Tech
Support agenda to push.
Posted by ronjay (109 comments )
Link Flag
RE: Form over Function is what you are paying for
"Apple products are more expensive because you are paying for
the design and the hype. It used to be when the mac was "the
defacto design tool" but Adobe changed that with (inevitable)
addition of Windows marketshare."

Personally, I think the two go hand in hand. At least they do on
my G5. Why settle for just one when you can have both.

And don't forget that for the last few years Apple has been
number one in Consumer Reports with the lowest number of
units shipped with problems out of the box and they have also
received the best scores in Tech Support. That should be worth
something when looking for a system.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
Not!
Obviously you have never used Mac's in a high pressure
production environment.

Mac's make production enginneers like me more cash -- they
don't cost MORE-- they cost less.

A similarly equipped Mac versus a similarly equipped Mac with
identical users is more productive due to these factors: 1)
Stability, 2) Unix Command Line Shell and Customization, 3)
More efficient, keystroke driven interface.

Done deal.

Don't believe me?

Fine with me.

An uninformed, untested user means less competition for me in
my line of work.

I'll keep kicking my PC brethern in the dirt, gettting better
clients and insuring my future.

Dante
Posted by dansterpower (2511 comments )
Link Flag
You Pay for What You Get
And you get a lot more with a Mac. My Dells are great for work,
but I don't use them for personal, or opertional use at all. I
develop Windows software. But at the end of the day, I'm very
happy on my Mac.

I think consumers are looking at a lot more than getting the
cheapest PC. If that cheap PC results in tech-calls, and the
assorted on-going issues, they may well want to look at
something else that actually makes their life easier. That is the
point of owning a computer anyway, isn't it?

In the end, to each his own ..
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You Pay for What You Get
And you get a lot more with a Mac. My Dells are great for work,
but I don't use them for personal, or opertional use at all. I
develop Windows software. But at the end of the day, I'm very
happy on my Mac.

I think consumers are looking at a lot more than getting the
cheapest PC. If that cheap PC results in tech-calls, and the
assorted on-going issues, they may well want to look at
something else that actually makes their life easier. That is the
point of owning a computer anyway, isn't it?

In the end, to each his own ..
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Reply Link Flag
like i care about isight
nobody i know uses a mac or ichat, it's not even compatible with
AOL, so what's the point of paying for something most people don't
use. the new ibooks/macbooks are too expensive for what they
offer, i would't want one even for free. a macbook pro is a
wonderful computer, thou too expensive for my budget (starting @
$2200 CDN).
Posted by wayland.ind (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So, so, wrong
Almost everyone I know uses their AOL id with iChat. I do as well.
The only thing I'd like to see happen is it support additional IM
protocols they way Trillian does.

Would not want one for free?! That, in itself, is a complete riot.
These computers don't START at 2200. You can spend that if you
want.

I kind of feel some anger coming from you.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
iSight and AOL
"...it's not even compatible with AOL..."

WHAT?

Have you ever actually USED iChat or a Mac? Maybe when you
say "not compatible" you actually mean, "all the features of the
AOL Messenger client are not available in iChat". That I would
agree with, but then, are Mac users not using the AOL
Messenger client REALLY missing out on anything? No. Besides,
AOL does make their Messenger for the Mac, if you MUST go
down that road.

Oh, and the iSight is not ONLY for chat, it also shoots video and
still photos, and has an EXCELLENT microphone built-in. I've
used that mic to produce professional, static-free, noise-free
recordings for podcasts and video voice-overs. I think you need
to check your facts.
Posted by ronjay (109 comments )
Link Flag
Obvioulsy clueless...
The best part of using iChat as an AIM client is you don't have to deal with all of the craptacular advertising!
Posted by The_Raven (50 comments )
Link Flag
iChat
iChat is AIM you moron. You wouldn't want "a wonderful
computer,thou too expensive for my budget" for free just shows
what kind of an idiot you are appearing to be. Make sure you
know what your talking about before you open your uneducated
mouth. Instead of sitting in the dark corners of your computer
world, maybe you should sneak into an Apple Store (maybe even
wear some sunglasses so none of your M$ friends will recognize
you) and see what OSX has been offering their users for the past
year. You may find its all the new "innovative features" Bill Gates
has been promising and promising and promising with Vista.
Posted by william roark (34 comments )
Link Flag
like i care about isight
nobody i know uses a mac or ichat, it's not even compatible with
AOL, so what's the point of paying for something most people don't
use. the new ibooks/macbooks are too expensive for what they
offer, i would't want one even for free. a macbook pro is a
wonderful computer, thou too expensive for my budget (starting @
$2200 CDN).
Posted by wayland.ind (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So, so, wrong
Almost everyone I know uses their AOL id with iChat. I do as well.
The only thing I'd like to see happen is it support additional IM
protocols they way Trillian does.

Would not want one for free?! That, in itself, is a complete riot.
These computers don't START at 2200. You can spend that if you
want.

I kind of feel some anger coming from you.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
iSight and AOL
"...it's not even compatible with AOL..."

WHAT?

Have you ever actually USED iChat or a Mac? Maybe when you
say "not compatible" you actually mean, "all the features of the
AOL Messenger client are not available in iChat". That I would
agree with, but then, are Mac users not using the AOL
Messenger client REALLY missing out on anything? No. Besides,
AOL does make their Messenger for the Mac, if you MUST go
down that road.

Oh, and the iSight is not ONLY for chat, it also shoots video and
still photos, and has an EXCELLENT microphone built-in. I've
used that mic to produce professional, static-free, noise-free
recordings for podcasts and video voice-overs. I think you need
to check your facts.
Posted by ronjay (109 comments )
Link Flag
Obvioulsy clueless...
The best part of using iChat as an AIM client is you don't have to deal with all of the craptacular advertising!
Posted by The_Raven (50 comments )
Link Flag
iChat
iChat is AIM you moron. You wouldn't want "a wonderful
computer,thou too expensive for my budget" for free just shows
what kind of an idiot you are appearing to be. Make sure you
know what your talking about before you open your uneducated
mouth. Instead of sitting in the dark corners of your computer
world, maybe you should sneak into an Apple Store (maybe even
wear some sunglasses so none of your M$ friends will recognize
you) and see what OSX has been offering their users for the past
year. You may find its all the new "innovative features" Bill Gates
has been promising and promising and promising with Vista.
Posted by william roark (34 comments )
Link Flag
Loss leaders are not a vialble comparison
"Dell, meanwhile, recently had a sale that saw a Core Duo laptop with 1GB of memory, an 80GB drive, a 15.4-inch screen and a DVD burner selling for $699..."

At this price it is a loss leader or is used in a bait and switch. It is not a sustainable price. To claim that it is anything else is misleading.
Posted by shadowself (202 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yeppers
You're absolutely right about that. Dell has already been nailed a
few times for the bait and switch.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
Yes they are
An open system leads to price competition.
Price competition leads to deals like this.

It is a completely fair comparison.
Posted by chibimike (8 comments )
Link Flag
Loss leaders are not a vialble comparison
"Dell, meanwhile, recently had a sale that saw a Core Duo laptop with 1GB of memory, an 80GB drive, a 15.4-inch screen and a DVD burner selling for $699..."

At this price it is a loss leader or is used in a bait and switch. It is not a sustainable price. To claim that it is anything else is misleading.
Posted by shadowself (202 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yeppers
You're absolutely right about that. Dell has already been nailed a
few times for the bait and switch.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
Yes they are
An open system leads to price competition.
Price competition leads to deals like this.

It is a completely fair comparison.
Posted by chibimike (8 comments )
Link Flag
What about life cycle length/price value?
A mac generally has a longer life than most PC's. That needs to
be factored in. I still have a 6 year old PowerMac G4 that runs
the majority of what I can throw at it, including the latest release
of Tiger, without any upgrades other than ram. Most PC's that
age can barely run XP. As far as price is concerned I like apple's
price points, and I am by no means rich. I just don't need to
replace then as much as when I had a PC.

Also, saying that a mac is like a BMW and a PC is like a honda is
a slap in the face to a honda. In reality, Macs are like a new
Toyota and PC's are like a Ford. They both generally run nice in
the beginning but the real test is how many repairs and how
lengthy it's life cycle is, without needing to completely over haul
it or replace it.
Posted by rfelgueiras (189 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Right on
In fact, Mercedes is Germany's General Motors. They sell a bunch of
moderate-quality priced cars and trucks there. In the US they just
sell premium stuff. I remember when I was in Brazil I saw Mercedes
minivans (REALLY MINI, like an Mini Cooper SUV) for just over
$10,000 US. (~30,000 real)
Posted by ewelch (767 comments )
Link Flag
What about life cycle length/price value?
A mac generally has a longer life than most PC's. That needs to
be factored in. I still have a 6 year old PowerMac G4 that runs
the majority of what I can throw at it, including the latest release
of Tiger, without any upgrades other than ram. Most PC's that
age can barely run XP. As far as price is concerned I like apple's
price points, and I am by no means rich. I just don't need to
replace then as much as when I had a PC.

Also, saying that a mac is like a BMW and a PC is like a honda is
a slap in the face to a honda. In reality, Macs are like a new
Toyota and PC's are like a Ford. They both generally run nice in
the beginning but the real test is how many repairs and how
lengthy it's life cycle is, without needing to completely over haul
it or replace it.
Posted by rfelgueiras (189 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Right on
In fact, Mercedes is Germany's General Motors. They sell a bunch of
moderate-quality priced cars and trucks there. In the US they just
sell premium stuff. I remember when I was in Brazil I saw Mercedes
minivans (REALLY MINI, like an Mini Cooper SUV) for just over
$10,000 US. (~30,000 real)
Posted by ewelch (767 comments )
Link Flag
new MacBook verus Dell Inspiron E1405 Dual Core - Mac cheaper by $200
If you configure the new MacBook versus a comparable Dell Inspiron (E1405 Dual Core), the Mac comes out about $200 cheaper unless you buy the new one with the black case. To the Dell you have to bump up the processor, add bluetooth and change the screen to be the true life brighter screen. Just completed the config today (5/16) and it shows Mac actually winning on price by about 20%. Can you believe it? A Mac that's actually cheaper than a PC, wow.

Josh
Posted by woldage (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
and that does not include software...
the silence from the PC fanboys is deafening...
Posted by robot999 (109 comments )
Link Flag
1505 cheaper with more
Amazingly enough, since there are many choices out there for pc's, there is a notebook with more features for less money on the dell website(talking hardware, argue software all you want since that is of relative value to each user)

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&#38;cs=19&#38;l=en&#38;oc=E1505S2&#38;s=dhs" target="_newWindow">http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&#38;cs=19&#38;l=en&#38;oc=E1505S2&#38;s=dhs</a>

Same processor, twice the ram, DVD burner, larger screen. Yep, it doesn't have a webcam, oh well, I think a dvd burner is a fair trade for a webcame. It checks out at 949, $150 cheaper than the lowest mac configuration. Once again, you can argue software all you want, im just comparing hardware.
Posted by Rolndubbs (194 comments )
Link Flag
new MacBook verus Dell Inspiron E1405 Dual Core - Mac cheaper by $200
If you configure the new MacBook versus a comparable Dell Inspiron (E1405 Dual Core), the Mac comes out about $200 cheaper unless you buy the new one with the black case. To the Dell you have to bump up the processor, add bluetooth and change the screen to be the true life brighter screen. Just completed the config today (5/16) and it shows Mac actually winning on price by about 20%. Can you believe it? A Mac that's actually cheaper than a PC, wow.

Josh
Posted by woldage (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
and that does not include software...
the silence from the PC fanboys is deafening...
Posted by robot999 (109 comments )
Link Flag
1505 cheaper with more
Amazingly enough, since there are many choices out there for pc's, there is a notebook with more features for less money on the dell website(talking hardware, argue software all you want since that is of relative value to each user)

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&#38;cs=19&#38;l=en&#38;oc=E1505S2&#38;s=dhs" target="_newWindow">http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&#38;cs=19&#38;l=en&#38;oc=E1505S2&#38;s=dhs</a>

Same processor, twice the ram, DVD burner, larger screen. Yep, it doesn't have a webcam, oh well, I think a dvd burner is a fair trade for a webcame. It checks out at 949, $150 cheaper than the lowest mac configuration. Once again, you can argue software all you want, im just comparing hardware.
Posted by Rolndubbs (194 comments )
Link Flag
Why I switched
I had a mac in the early 90's, but they screwed me when they changed to the unix side and my mac couldn't cut it. I decided that, since *most* companies and the general population use PC's, I would also. I find it weird to see these mac nuts with their religious fervor over a bunch of chips and a keyboard. It's purely an elitist viewpoint, verses a 'lets get the job done and save money at the same time.
Posted by sadiesmog (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Calling
We'll call the Wahbulance. Sorry you're regretting your choice and
need to resort to sarcasm and rhetoric.

Apple is a complete technology company: hardware, software, and
more important than anything else, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
R &#38; D costs money, to come up with those insanely great ideas, and
bring them to market (which most every PC assembler then tries to
copy).
Posted by Gromit801 (393 comments )
Link Flag
Screwed Me Too ...
Yep. My Performa 6230 CD just can't cut it any more. That
pesky OS X, or is it "Ten.x.x" ? Anyway, the old 6230 just plugs
away on my network to handle one item of non- X'd software
that a couple of my staffers just gots to have! Release date of
'95.

But, that's OK. Median age of OSX machines at My firm = 2.9
years / on a 6 year replacemant cycle. My XPwintels, 2.2 / 5
year cycle. And only due to a certain accounting application.

Gosh, maybe I should have tossed my 128 because it wouldn't
run system 7.5. BTW, have you read about all the cool features
on "Vista" for Quarter 1.? of '07 ... sounds like and "X" to me.
Posted by Kalama (57 comments )
Link Flag
Mac users save more money than PC users...
And this is a blanket statement because, well, it's true. The workflow on a Mac is superior to a windows platform, the OS is far more stable and secure, and there's less crap software and more quality software to get the job done.

Sorry, but my Powermac G4 has been running solid for three years, and when I have to batch process a ton of pics in photoshop, I can tweek the settings by just a little, click one button, and not only do the fiels get batch processed, the results are placed in a new folder, the originals are placed into a new folder and that folder gets zipped, then the folder get thrown in the trash and the zipped file is ready for email/upload. All from one click.
Posted by (461 comments )
Link Flag
You didn't switch
You're liar.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
My 486 won't run Windows XP.
"I was screwed by Microsoft, so I switched to Mac OS."

LOL

If you're going to make up stories, at least make them plausible.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
cheapest?
Lots of Windows based computers are way "over priced." But sometimes they look cool. Sony computers are often "over priced" but cool looking. The term "over priced" is insanely objective and subject to market forces.
Posted by tipper_gore (74 comments )
Link Flag
Why I switched
I had a mac in the early 90's, but they screwed me when they changed to the unix side and my mac couldn't cut it. I decided that, since *most* companies and the general population use PC's, I would also. I find it weird to see these mac nuts with their religious fervor over a bunch of chips and a keyboard. It's purely an elitist viewpoint, verses a 'lets get the job done and save money at the same time.
Posted by sadiesmog (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Calling
We'll call the Wahbulance. Sorry you're regretting your choice and
need to resort to sarcasm and rhetoric.

Apple is a complete technology company: hardware, software, and
more important than anything else, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
R &#38; D costs money, to come up with those insanely great ideas, and
bring them to market (which most every PC assembler then tries to
copy).
Posted by Gromit801 (393 comments )
Link Flag
Screwed Me Too ...
Yep. My Performa 6230 CD just can't cut it any more. That
pesky OS X, or is it "Ten.x.x" ? Anyway, the old 6230 just plugs
away on my network to handle one item of non- X'd software
that a couple of my staffers just gots to have! Release date of
'95.

But, that's OK. Median age of OSX machines at My firm = 2.9
years / on a 6 year replacemant cycle. My XPwintels, 2.2 / 5
year cycle. And only due to a certain accounting application.

Gosh, maybe I should have tossed my 128 because it wouldn't
run system 7.5. BTW, have you read about all the cool features
on "Vista" for Quarter 1.? of '07 ... sounds like and "X" to me.
Posted by Kalama (57 comments )
Link Flag
Mac users save more money than PC users...
And this is a blanket statement because, well, it's true. The workflow on a Mac is superior to a windows platform, the OS is far more stable and secure, and there's less crap software and more quality software to get the job done.

Sorry, but my Powermac G4 has been running solid for three years, and when I have to batch process a ton of pics in photoshop, I can tweek the settings by just a little, click one button, and not only do the fiels get batch processed, the results are placed in a new folder, the originals are placed into a new folder and that folder gets zipped, then the folder get thrown in the trash and the zipped file is ready for email/upload. All from one click.
Posted by (461 comments )
Link Flag
You didn't switch
You're liar.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
My 486 won't run Windows XP.
"I was screwed by Microsoft, so I switched to Mac OS."

LOL

If you're going to make up stories, at least make them plausible.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
cheapest?
Lots of Windows based computers are way "over priced." But sometimes they look cool. Sony computers are often "over priced" but cool looking. The term "over priced" is insanely objective and subject to market forces.
Posted by tipper_gore (74 comments )
Link Flag
Then why are macs such an utter failure?
If macs aren't as expensive as thought, then why are they such a colossal failure in the market place? All they have is 3% of the computer market. Could it be the lack of software? The lack of choice when it comes to hardware? Could it be the mindnumbing religious zealotry of Apple owners? Maybe they're just a lousy deal.
Posted by lingsun (482 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I wish I owned a ton of that "utter failure"
Is BMW an utter failure? Their numbers are few compared to
Honda. Apple has very loyal customers and has made
billionaires of its founders.

Apple was selling for $40 a year ago, today it is at $65.
Microsoft was selling for $26 a year ago, today it is at $23.00.

You really think Apple's stockholders consider it an utter failure
and are wishing they had bought Microsoft?
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Link Flag
RE:Then why are macs such an utter failure?
"If macs aren't as expensive as thought, then why are they such
a colossal failure in the market place?"

Short answer, they aren't. Long answer, Abe Lincoln said it best..
You can fool some of the people all the time... Business history
has
proven time and again that cheap will win out over quality most
of the time. I have been using IBM compatible PC's, (an Apple is
after all a PC), for over 20 years. I bought my first Mac about 2
1/2 years ago. After a few days I gave my XP machine to my
daughter. And when I bought my Mac I also priced comparable
Windows based computers. The Mac was actually priced a bit
lower and when I factored in the cost of the software I would
need to either buy or upgrade with the Windows computers the
Mac was the clear winner.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
Answers to your questions...
//Then why are macs such an utter failure?

Maybe they're not. Your question has no premise.

//If macs aren't as expensive as thought, then why are they such a colossal failure in the market place?

The majority of PC makers are also colossal failures by this definition. Only five have larger PC market share than Apple.

//Could it be the lack of software?

Possibly the *perceived* lack of software. Typically the people complaining loudest have *never* investigated Mac software options.

//The lack of choice when it comes to hardware?

Possibly the *perceived* lack of choice. In reality, both platforms offer similar hardware choices. Granted, the Mac motherboard must come from Apple. But you can buy drives, memory, cables, and peripherals from anyone.

//Could it be the mindnumbing religious zealotry of Apple owners?

Typically, *any* preference towards Apple products tends to receive the "zealot" label.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
Nope
Actually, it's due to the sycophantic nature of the herd beasts, who
don't have an original idea in there heads and won't do anything
unless "it's what everybody else is doing".
Factor in the mindnumbing religious idolatry of Bill worshipers, and
I think that sums it all it up.
BTW, 3% of marketshare is rapidly changing. Apple is selling about
1.2 million computers per quarter.
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Link Flag
Small market share doesn't equate with failure...
Mercedes, Jaguar, and BMW have small market shares
COMPARED WITH GM.

Are they failures???

There are thousands of companies with small market share that
are extremely successful. The Applw BRAND is one of the most
valued brands out there - that's what Advertsing Age says
among other noteable market research studies say.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Small market share doesn't equate with failure...
Mercedes, Jaguar, and BMW have small market shares
COMPARED WITH GM. In fact it is GM that suffering today!

Are they failures???

There are thousands of companies with small market share that
are extremely successful. The Applw BRAND is one of the most
valued brands out there - that's what Advertsing Age says
among other noteable market research studies say.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Where to begin?
Your logic escapes me.

How did you conclude Apple was a "collosal failure in the market place"? Market share is only part of the picture.

Let's put aside the platform wars for a moment.

Apple has been in business 30 years and is doing quite well financially. Tell that to Osborne, Amiga, Atari, Radio Shack, and DEC to name a few. Even IBM is out of the PC game.

Apple has a market capitalization approximately equal to Dell's. This is one measure of investor confidence in a company.

Lack of software? Depends on what you use a computer for. I use my computer general business applications like e-mail and word processing, and related applications like PhotoShop and Acrobat. I do some molecular modeling on Spartan and HyperChem. I also can go to SourceForge and download *nix freeware for specialized scientific applications. I don't play games on my computer - my son's Playstation is better for that and a lot cheaper.

Lack of choice in hardware? Apple hardware can be BTO like most vendors. What's your point?

Lousy deal? The average Mac is serviceable for much longer than most PCs. In my lab at work we have six PCs and one Mac. Four of the PCs are dead and collecting dust, and the Mac is going strong. The other PC is a laptop running an instrument.

That brings me to another point, which is share of market SALES is not the same thing as units IN USE, and the computer you can USE is the whole point.
Posted by ice9ine (3 comments )
Link Flag
You got it.
"Could it be the mindnumbing religious zealotry of Apple owners?"

Those guys are scary. I own a Mac, but only admit that anonymously.

I wouldn't call the Mac a failure, but the zealots do scare aware potential buyers. Normal people just don't care that much about a computer. It's like being attached to your favorite brand of pocket protectors.
Posted by just_some_guy (231 comments )
Link Flag
History Time... AGAIN
People bought PC's for only a couple legitimate reasons: They
were cheaper (not better) than Macs, and it's what they used at
their work (originally a lot of IBM's that business weren't going
to toss out).

Those that came after, bought PC's because it's what they were
told the rest of the herd bought, and so on.

Go back 30 years, and count all of the computer companies that
existed. Of those. ONLY Apple is still in business making home
computers. Utter failure? Get your meds updated.
Posted by Gromit801 (393 comments )
Link Flag
Macs are far from a failure
"If macs aren't as expensive as thought, then why are they such a colossal failure in the market place? All they have is 3% of the computer market."

They are anything but a failure in the marketplace. Apple is somewhere in the top 5 PC manufacturers by dollar amount, and Mac marketshare is growing due to the Intel switch. Apple is quite profitable, and the stock is doing well. Some "failure".

"Could it be the lack of software?"

Since Intel Macs run more software than any other PC (particularly Windows-only boxes), no.

"The lack of choice when it comes to hardware?"

I really doubt it, since I'd guess 80% of computer buyers have little knowledge about hardware details.

"Could it be the mindnumbing religious zealotry of Apple owners?"

I'm not sure why you'd think that given how "few" of them there are... But no, I think most Mac owners are just happy to have a good computer and like to share their positive experiences.

"Maybe they're just a lousy deal."

Definitely not! The bundled software (and superior OS) easily make up for the price difference. :-)

At any rate, we'll see how things go as Apple continues to build momentum and marketshare.
Posted by booboo1243 (328 comments )
Link Flag
Then why are macs such an utter failure?
If macs aren't as expensive as thought, then why are they such a colossal failure in the market place? All they have is 3% of the computer market. Could it be the lack of software? The lack of choice when it comes to hardware? Could it be the mindnumbing religious zealotry of Apple owners? Maybe they're just a lousy deal.
Posted by lingsun (482 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I wish I owned a ton of that "utter failure"
Is BMW an utter failure? Their numbers are few compared to
Honda. Apple has very loyal customers and has made
billionaires of its founders.

Apple was selling for $40 a year ago, today it is at $65.
Microsoft was selling for $26 a year ago, today it is at $23.00.

You really think Apple's stockholders consider it an utter failure
and are wishing they had bought Microsoft?
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Link Flag
RE:Then why are macs such an utter failure?
"If macs aren't as expensive as thought, then why are they such
a colossal failure in the market place?"

Short answer, they aren't. Long answer, Abe Lincoln said it best..
You can fool some of the people all the time... Business history
has
proven time and again that cheap will win out over quality most
of the time. I have been using IBM compatible PC's, (an Apple is
after all a PC), for over 20 years. I bought my first Mac about 2
1/2 years ago. After a few days I gave my XP machine to my
daughter. And when I bought my Mac I also priced comparable
Windows based computers. The Mac was actually priced a bit
lower and when I factored in the cost of the software I would
need to either buy or upgrade with the Windows computers the
Mac was the clear winner.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
Answers to your questions...
//Then why are macs such an utter failure?

Maybe they're not. Your question has no premise.

//If macs aren't as expensive as thought, then why are they such a colossal failure in the market place?

The majority of PC makers are also colossal failures by this definition. Only five have larger PC market share than Apple.

//Could it be the lack of software?

Possibly the *perceived* lack of software. Typically the people complaining loudest have *never* investigated Mac software options.

//The lack of choice when it comes to hardware?

Possibly the *perceived* lack of choice. In reality, both platforms offer similar hardware choices. Granted, the Mac motherboard must come from Apple. But you can buy drives, memory, cables, and peripherals from anyone.

//Could it be the mindnumbing religious zealotry of Apple owners?

Typically, *any* preference towards Apple products tends to receive the "zealot" label.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
Nope
Actually, it's due to the sycophantic nature of the herd beasts, who
don't have an original idea in there heads and won't do anything
unless "it's what everybody else is doing".
Factor in the mindnumbing religious idolatry of Bill worshipers, and
I think that sums it all it up.
BTW, 3% of marketshare is rapidly changing. Apple is selling about
1.2 million computers per quarter.
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Link Flag
Small market share doesn't equate with failure...
Mercedes, Jaguar, and BMW have small market shares
COMPARED WITH GM.

Are they failures???

There are thousands of companies with small market share that
are extremely successful. The Applw BRAND is one of the most
valued brands out there - that's what Advertsing Age says
among other noteable market research studies say.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Small market share doesn't equate with failure...
Mercedes, Jaguar, and BMW have small market shares
COMPARED WITH GM. In fact it is GM that suffering today!

Are they failures???

There are thousands of companies with small market share that
are extremely successful. The Applw BRAND is one of the most
valued brands out there - that's what Advertsing Age says
among other noteable market research studies say.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Where to begin?
Your logic escapes me.

How did you conclude Apple was a "collosal failure in the market place"? Market share is only part of the picture.

Let's put aside the platform wars for a moment.

Apple has been in business 30 years and is doing quite well financially. Tell that to Osborne, Amiga, Atari, Radio Shack, and DEC to name a few. Even IBM is out of the PC game.

Apple has a market capitalization approximately equal to Dell's. This is one measure of investor confidence in a company.

Lack of software? Depends on what you use a computer for. I use my computer general business applications like e-mail and word processing, and related applications like PhotoShop and Acrobat. I do some molecular modeling on Spartan and HyperChem. I also can go to SourceForge and download *nix freeware for specialized scientific applications. I don't play games on my computer - my son's Playstation is better for that and a lot cheaper.

Lack of choice in hardware? Apple hardware can be BTO like most vendors. What's your point?

Lousy deal? The average Mac is serviceable for much longer than most PCs. In my lab at work we have six PCs and one Mac. Four of the PCs are dead and collecting dust, and the Mac is going strong. The other PC is a laptop running an instrument.

That brings me to another point, which is share of market SALES is not the same thing as units IN USE, and the computer you can USE is the whole point.
Posted by ice9ine (3 comments )
Link Flag
You got it.
"Could it be the mindnumbing religious zealotry of Apple owners?"

Those guys are scary. I own a Mac, but only admit that anonymously.

I wouldn't call the Mac a failure, but the zealots do scare aware potential buyers. Normal people just don't care that much about a computer. It's like being attached to your favorite brand of pocket protectors.
Posted by just_some_guy (231 comments )
Link Flag
History Time... AGAIN
People bought PC's for only a couple legitimate reasons: They
were cheaper (not better) than Macs, and it's what they used at
their work (originally a lot of IBM's that business weren't going
to toss out).

Those that came after, bought PC's because it's what they were
told the rest of the herd bought, and so on.

Go back 30 years, and count all of the computer companies that
existed. Of those. ONLY Apple is still in business making home
computers. Utter failure? Get your meds updated.
Posted by Gromit801 (393 comments )
Link Flag
Macs are far from a failure
"If macs aren't as expensive as thought, then why are they such a colossal failure in the market place? All they have is 3% of the computer market."

They are anything but a failure in the marketplace. Apple is somewhere in the top 5 PC manufacturers by dollar amount, and Mac marketshare is growing due to the Intel switch. Apple is quite profitable, and the stock is doing well. Some "failure".

"Could it be the lack of software?"

Since Intel Macs run more software than any other PC (particularly Windows-only boxes), no.

"The lack of choice when it comes to hardware?"

I really doubt it, since I'd guess 80% of computer buyers have little knowledge about hardware details.

"Could it be the mindnumbing religious zealotry of Apple owners?"

I'm not sure why you'd think that given how "few" of them there are... But no, I think most Mac owners are just happy to have a good computer and like to share their positive experiences.

"Maybe they're just a lousy deal."

Definitely not! The bundled software (and superior OS) easily make up for the price difference. :-)

At any rate, we'll see how things go as Apple continues to build momentum and marketshare.
Posted by booboo1243 (328 comments )
Link Flag
Factor in the cost of the software and a much superior OS and...
the price difference is minimal.

Unlike the average PC, the bundled software that comes on every
Mac is software you will use and like using.
Posted by No invasion of privacy (52 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Right on!
And that same superior OS and software is exactly why Apple is the #1 software company in the world with the most popular product in production today. Corporations worldwide use OSX because of the ease of use and invulnerable to viruses, spyware, adware, and end users....

... I'm sorry, I can't go on. It's just too easy.

Fantasies are nice to have, but they don't exactly reflect reality.
Posted by Vegaman_Dan (6683 comments )
Link Flag
Software is only valuable if you use it
Unused software has a value of $0. So don't assume that everyone will use it.

I am different than many here in that I have 2 laptops and 3 desktops in my house. Each has a specific purpose. Only 1 machine would use iLife, but I'd be paying for it 5 times as it is factored into the cost of each of the machines.
Posted by chibimike (8 comments )
Link Flag
Factor in the cost of the software and a much superior OS and...
the price difference is minimal.

Unlike the average PC, the bundled software that comes on every
Mac is software you will use and like using.
Posted by No invasion of privacy (52 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Right on!
And that same superior OS and software is exactly why Apple is the #1 software company in the world with the most popular product in production today. Corporations worldwide use OSX because of the ease of use and invulnerable to viruses, spyware, adware, and end users....

... I'm sorry, I can't go on. It's just too easy.

Fantasies are nice to have, but they don't exactly reflect reality.
Posted by Vegaman_Dan (6683 comments )
Link Flag
Software is only valuable if you use it
Unused software has a value of $0. So don't assume that everyone will use it.

I am different than many here in that I have 2 laptops and 3 desktops in my house. Each has a specific purpose. Only 1 machine would use iLife, but I'd be paying for it 5 times as it is factored into the cost of each of the machines.
Posted by chibimike (8 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.