Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Leopard Strategy to Kill Microsoft and Dell?
RX8 writes "A Digital Trends article suggests that Apple's Leopard agenda is to get Windows users to use Apple hardware then convert them to the Apple camp and that Apple will also be directly targeting Dell by offering a better experience when it comes to media and related tasks. Lastly, they suggest that Steve Jobs held back on showing more Leopard features so people would not get too excited and stop buying in 2006. 'If you get too excited about what is supposed to be an incredibly amazing product you simply won't buy a new Apple this year.'"
Price.
People buy Dells because they are cheap, and they work.
They're not particularly good computers, but they do the job.
They're not even in the same market: Apple isn't competing with Dell's primary market to begin with.
And here I just purchased my first Mac (MacBook, black) and now you tell me it'll be obselete 2 weeks after I just bought it?
Too bad the warranty doesn't cover that!
Sugapablo
Apparently, you missed it. Apple's new Mac Pro is cheaper than a comparatively configured Dell workstation machine.
But, on the overall, I agree; Apple's not fighting for the bottom dollar, Apple's positioned themselves as just a tad bit more expensive than the baselines from the Big Three, but with an enormous amount of extra features that make it that "bang for the buck". That factor alone could be considered a part of the "pricing war"; for all you get with an Apple computer, it'd take you not only longer to find a way to configure a competitive machine, but it's unlikely you could do it for cheaper without a ton of rebates, mail in coupons, etc.
So really, it is the price. Apple won't beat Dell at the bottom, but in the middle and top, Apple's already got them beat.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Of course apple is trying to convert users away.. However, why would they expect people to run Windows on Apple hardware? People switch to a Mac mostly for OSX (Altho the hardware is nice looking).. In addition, Dells market is very different from Apples, Dell is cheap to the masses, Apple is for the few...
Apple has made forrays into the cheaper market (the mini) and Dell takes a poke at the top end (thier quad graphics solutions/purchase of Alienware), but they both have primarily differnt markets.
People shouldn't assume that Apple want's to be the dominant controller, just because other companies think that way, there is much profit to be made by being select too (I would imagine Apples profit per unit sold is much greater then Dells, much like Nintendos standard "make a profit not control the market" stance grants them)
'If you get too excited about what is supposed to be an incredibly amazing product you simply won't buy a new Apple this year.'
It really is very delicious Eve, I promise you, after you take a byte, well, just a nybble perhaps, you'll know everything about We . Then you'll know everything about good and evil and never be allowed into the garden again. We will make sure the angels put up some fiery walls so you cannot enter again.
There are Apples and oranges and pears and plums lying around, just beware of the Micro- scopically-soft ones, they may give you a tummy-ache.
Apple is competitive on price-- the low-end just doesn't go as low. So Dell sells a $300 desktop, and Apple doesn't compete in that market. But you can't compete with Dell in that market, either, because they sell high-quality cheap crap in massive quantities, and they get as good prices as anyone. The only way to get a computer out the door for less than Dell is to sell low-quality cheap crap, and you'll probably still need to take some losses. The profit margins on those $250 Dells are just miniscule, and you can't under-cut that very much. So if you're waiting for a $100 Mac mini, you'll be waiting for a while.
go watch the developer keynote. they ARE competing on price.
Apple is slightly cheaper or equivalent to Dell on same spec machines. the only difference is that Dell also sells cheap shit that Apple wouldn't dignify with their logo.
So, uhm, Apple is, uhm, trying to compete, uhm, with, uhm,their competitors.
Thanks a lot for this insightful article Mr. Enderle....
Don't forget that the author is Rob Enderle, who tends to defend Microsoft and SCO with all his heart and bitches regularly on Apple and Linux... Do a quick Google on him...
If you want quality, you have to pay for it. If you want crap, enjoy your e-machine or low end Dell.
This is an article written by pundits, not Apple. If you disbelieve the premise, attack the pundits, not Apple.
Like a lot of these types of articles, it's all supposition and theorising. Nothing concrete, just ideas. These are the same people who confidently predict the iPhone is coming soon, or for years predicted the imminent demise of Apple (any day now!) so they've got little to no credibility in my eyes.
Now just deliver them for a price I want.
There's a paradox at work here
History has shown that the best product doesn't always capture the greatest marketshare. BetaMax was far better quality then VHS, but look which survived. The original Mac beat Windows 3.1 hands down, but again look who has 95% of the desktop market? I think you really can get what you pay for, the paradox is people too often expect awesome for cheap, then buy cheap and expect awesome. If you want it, buy it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Wow...so many of you shop on lowest price...the WAL-MART mentality. I shop on performance and design features, price is down the list. Is this how you shop for medical care, or insurance, or your home? I mean you can buy cheapest provider...i prefer to get real value. In case you havent noticed the new Intel based macs are very reasonably priced, but you probably havent noticed since you were so busy getting crap on sale at walmart on your way back to the trailer park.
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
"I haven't seen Jaguar, yet"
Jaguar?? I presume you meant to say "Leopard"
"I do know watching a 640x480 WMV on OSX is like upsampling a 160x120 video into 1080 high-def- UGLY"
Not at all. A 640x480 wmv file on windows has the same resolution as on OS X. They play fine with the flip4mac plug-in for quicktime. VLC can handle a lot of them too.
I chose to end my comments, not with a rim shot, but a long decaying F#7sus4
They already do, Apple's machines are competitive with Dell's offering of the same price (depends of the rebates you grab though, but Apple's price are lower than equivalent Dell machines without rebates), and you get OSX + slick cases (versus ugly dell cases).
They just don't compete on the very low end stuff (dell goes much lower in price/configurations quality)
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
FTFA:
"However, Steve Jobs is the master of being your best buddy while planning to stab you in the back. His biographies are filled with stories that do more than suggest that if he wants what you have, you'd better grab it and run for the hills."
Please. History is littered with the corpses of companies with which Microsoft formed a "strategic partnership"-- The MS people stick around and play nice for a while, then one day the other company gets notified that Microsoft wants to go in another direction so the partnership is over. Then a couple months later Microsoft unveils a competing product and kills the company with which they partnered.
The best historical example I can think of is Go Corp in the late 80s/early 90s-- Microsoft partnered with them, stole their stuff and created Pen Windows to crush them. You can get accounts of it from both sides if you read these two books. However, Microsoft is doing the exact same thing right now: They are desperate to take marketshare from iPod/iTunes. To that end, their partnerships to make portable players and sell music under the "PlaysForSure" moniker have been miserable failures-- so now, they are screwing their partners and rolling their own solution in-house, Zune, which is stated incompatible with all the PlaysForSure stuff.
~Philly
That's the job of Puma.
Then Ocelot will take out HP.
Marmoset, once released, will end IBM.
Finally, Mr. Whiskers Boddington (the name of Jobs' childhood cat) will make Google irrelevant.
Then we'll get those full-screen iPods everyone's been wanting. wheeee
Could you please flag articles by this unmitigated idiot so I don't wast the click. Reading his drivel is not worth anybodys time.
The article is written by none other than Rob (I wannabe John Dvorak) Enderle, the same clown who supported SCO's claims in their ongoing lawsuit against IBM. He now appears to be trying to get page hits by trolling the user communities of both Microsoft and Apple with outlandish opinions.
The whole idea that Apple could 'kill' Microsoft or Dell is too far-fetched to even consider. The only way either company could die is by suicide.
Let me know where I can get a dual core small form factor PC for significantly less than $800. Not from Dell, not from HP. HPs offering comes in at $650 after the rebate, but doesn't include things like wireless or even a dvd burner, it eats more power, and is huge. Dell rings in at 1200 but does come with a 20" monitor that you can buy for $400, so total cost is about $800, same as a mac mini. Both have shared mem video cards, again the Dell lacks a dvd writer(but it makes up for that by coming with a gig of ram standard) but it is a bigger case and uses the Pentium D chip. You would be hard pressed to even build one from newegg for that amount(you can if you don't mind the behemoth case, but I do). So yeah, you are right, Apple doesn't even come close on price :P
Monstar L
Until those converts from Windows run into how OSX handles Windows Media Video files and end up comparing it against what they saw when they used Windows instead.
I believe that is Microsoft's fault. After all they use a close format and even partially dropped support for WMV on a Mac. Personally, Quicktime and VLC work just fine for Divx and various other torrent media.
Besides, WMV and Mov wars on the web are loosing to Flash (Youtube and Google videos) so that is a moot point. If you want to watch video on webpages it will be all flash soon and everything else will run under VLC.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
First: What is the actual differences with a Dell notebook? I have a E1705, and it's basically a Powerbook. The differences are so minor, they are superficial (in my opinion) Second: Everyone says Apple is a hardware company. Then why is Apple not releasing their OS as open source? They are actually a software company. Apple should sell the OS as a competator to Microsoft, and then they would have a large market to grow into. Anyone can make a Intel box. Geez.
FTFA:
Another of the primary reasons Apple isn't being forthcoming about Leopard is the fear that if people get too excited about a product coming early in 2007 they will stop buying in 2006"
Uh, yeah, that might apply when you're talking about an expensive product. Mac OS X costs $129, and Leopard will run on any Mac sold in 2006 (and probably several years previous). Anyone who is paying attention to what's coming out of WWDC knows that and can likely afford $129 to upgrade. Everyone else who's interested in a Mac now will happily buy a Tiger system and probably not even notice when Leopard ships.
Furthermore, Microsoft has been talking up Vista for five years. You didn't see Dell or HP go out of business for lack of sales because people are waiting for Vista, did you?
~Philly
Because they are cheaper.
Umm... No. A Dell with the same hardware as a Mac pro is more expensive.
They run the same applications. They run more games.
Um... They can rame the same applications and technically the Mac can run more games because not only can it play Mac OS X only games but it can also boot into WinXp and play any windows game there.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Back in the days of the original iMacs, iBooks and the Blue-and-White/Graphite minitowers, everyone bagged on Apple for building "Fisher-Price" computers out of that thick ABS you used to only see on toys. Guess what? Those machines wore like iron. My iBook and my Blue-And-White were both purchased in 1999. Guess what? They are still 100% functional and run modern Mac OS X. I also was able to acquire a third-generation iMac from around the same era. Aside from a couple of pen marks, it was pristine.
And the thing about Apple is that the inside of these machines are just as good as the outside. The Apple Minitower design that was only phased out in favor of the aluminum "cheese grater" minitower was amazing. You unlatch one of the sides and pull it down, and you are inside the machine. No stupid sheet metal slidy doors or inverse-u shaped cowlings that are a bitch to tear down and even more of a bitch to replace right. And the parts used are good, sane parts. Not "hacked by Chinese" crap. You don't hear about explodey caps or random shorts with regard to these old machines. Yeah, you hear about explodey batteries on laptops, but let's face it, everyone except IBM has had problems with LiIon batteries, and I'm waiting for the reports of burning Thinkpads that I know will eventually come.
Apple builds to last with good solid parts and also by patronizing good facilities. Foxconn, ASUS, they don't deal with the Elitegroups of the world. If a top-tier Asian facility is unavailable, Apple has its own factories run to their standards.
Hell, people still use Mac SE30s after all these years. Why? They are BUILT.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Yeah, but does a out-of-the-box PC have the same quality of applications (iLife, iTunes, iCal, Mail.app, etc) with the same level of seamless integration? Sure PCs come with Music Match, some basic calendar app, Outlook Express, and other bundled software, but it is nowhere near the quality of the Mac's bundled software; in fact, some of that bundled software may be spyware. Does an out-of-the-box Windows PC have the same security as OS X's out-of-the-box security? Once again, if I bought a Windows PC, I have to worry about installing anti-malware tools (which is basically a high memory tax), installing Firefox, and keeping up to date with every little Windows update. And don't get me started on Windows default admin mode, lack of full multiuser support, lack of user permissions (that work the same way as Unix permissions), and other stuff.
Apple doesn't compete on the low-end scale, so that is the reason why PCs are much more common; you can buy a nice Athlon 64 box for $600 or more (depending on the specs), or a decent Celeron M laptop for the same price. They are quite capable machines, and they run Windows/*nix very well. Apple would make a big sweep if they competed on the low end (imagine a $300 Mac Mini to counter those Dell $299 specials, or a $699 MacBook with a Core Solo processor). Not everybody needs a dual core laptop, for example. However, when configured at the same price, the Mac is usually a better deal, unless you must need Windows for your job, or you are a serious gamer (I admit, I'd rather game on Windows than OS X; my favorite game, Sim City 4, costs $60 on the Mac but $20 for the exact same version for Windows. Eh?).
PCs may be more popular, but there is a reason why Mac users buy Macs. It comes with a well thought out package of software that complements each other quite nicely with no hiccups.
WMV's look identical on the Mac as they do on Windows. Its the exact same file. They can be played through QuickTime using Flip4Mac, VLC, or mplayer without problems.
WMV and Real are just as good on the Mac as they are in Windows.
For proof that this post is rubbish, look at the fact that the poster refers to "Jaguar" That was the code name for 10.2. That was many years ago.
Debunked.
Because Apple is a hardware company first and foremost, and many of Mac OS X's strengths stem from limited hardware diversity.
Read more about it.
~Philly
Sorry, is that a joke? Common your yanking our chains right? You're "stuck" with neither the OS nor the hardware config - if you want to run linux, windows, or another OS you can do so - no one's stopping you. If you want to swap out the HW components go right ahead. Really, how is that "more closed" than other Off The Shelf machines? Maybe you have other reasons, personally or ideologically, not to buy a machine from Apple - but fear of "vendor lock in" is a non-issue.
How did you get modded 'insightful'? Apple's software is nothing like as open as I'd like in an ideal world, but to claim it is "even more closed" than Windows is rather silly.
MacBook Pro. Worst name since the Bicycle
It's about the applications. I've played around with Knoppix, and set up a RedHat box a couple of years ago. And you know what...I can't do productive shit on them. Apple is the same way.
/. just covered it). Or I could pay someone (who is reliable) five figures to come in and do the testing for me. Sad part is, I can't afford either. I can't imagine a system so legacy-burdened and OS-entangled as (for example) AutoCAD running reliably, every day, without a possible hiccup, with all the little goofy add-on shit it needs to be functional, on something other than native MS. Hell, it's not completely stable in it's native environment. Is it worth losing a client worth 20% of my gross income just so I can have a pretty machine on my desktop that is slightly less likely to be totally wiped out by a virus? In 25 years of using IBM PC systems, I have yet to have an unrecoverable failure due to virus. Sorry, betting my salary, plus guaranteed loss of two years of company profits to re-buy and retrain me and my employees in new apps, against something that hasn't happened in that long doesn't make financial sense.
You see, it has nothing to do with the 10-30% price difference in an Apple, or the fact that Apple (C)Won't compete in the entry level systems (my small office runs on a $200 dell server that's three years old an hasn't so much as sneezed in all that time). I can't use Apple (or Linux) because I can't afford to (a) relearn how to manage the OS, (b) relearn all new applications for my technical work, (c) force all my clients to figure out how to interact with my non-industry-standard applications. Most of that stuff is MS only. Oh, sure, I suppose I could spend a few months figuring out if every single one of my dedicated engineering apps works with Wine, or (um, shoot, can't remember the Apple one...
I'm stuck with MS at work because most of the vendors only write for MS. I use MS at home because I use MS at work. I can't afford to re-buy my apps for home. I use the same apps both places (mostly in conformance with the EULAs, by god damned fair use if not). When that changes, we'll re-evaluate.
Tell Steve he has more work to do.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
How does flip4mac handle WMV10 files? DRM'ed WMV files?
Ok, there really is no such thing as a WMV10 file. The codecs used in even the latest Media Player 11 are still based on the Version 9 Codecs, or VC-1.
As for DRM with WMV, it probably doesn't handle it too well, considering most WMV DRM methods used by companies include Windows Based executables.
Apple will eventually 'have' to support WMV natively, or they will not be able to do the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content, which both require any HD players to support both Mpeg 4 and VC-1.
(VC-1 = WMV)
well yes I suppose if mercedes wanted my business all they'd have to do is drop a zero off the end of the price tag I suppose.
Does that mean it's sensible for them to do?
Apple, like any business, sets their price point for maximum proffit. If they drop the price 10%, they will get maybe an 8% increase in sales, which will not quite make up for the drop in price, and their net proffit drops. If they raise the price 10%, they will get maybe a 12% drop in sales, which again cuts into proffit sufficiently to drop their bottom line below where it is now. I'm sure Apple spends a lot on market research to make sure they have selected the optimal price points for their products. Your decision as to whether or not to buy based on the current price affects the optimal price point, so a Macintosh's price is not actually set by Apple, it's set by me and you, the consumers.
You just want good hardware on the cheap. There's nothing really wrong with that until you start saying it would be to anyone's benefit besides your own.
In an ideal world, if you paid more for a product it would be better, higher quality. If you paid less for it, it would be a poorer quality. It doesn't always work this way, but that is still the general idea. Keep that in mind when you want to "have your cake and eat it too". Reminds me of the production manager's motto: "fast, good, cheap, pick two."
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
From my original post:
"So really, it is the price. Apple won't beat Dell at the bottom, but in the middle and top, Apple's already got them beat."
And of course, there's the fallacious point of "Apple's computers starting at $1000". Apparently you haven't heard of the Mac Mini, coming in at $599, just $199 more than Dell's "Bottom Line" and offering a ton more features.
Price is only the deciding factor right now because Dell set that one up a couple years back. Now Dell's cut so many corners on their machines their profits are beginning to fall, they're on the other side of the price slashing curve where quality isn't beating out quantity anymore. Apple's only cut margins slightly, and completely rebuilt their platform to make their machines entirely more marketable. All they have to do is show you the differences and let you play with the machines a bit.
With 50% of new purchasers being new to the Mac, we can assert their plan is working.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
I love the way people keep trotting out the 'same price an an equivilantly specced dell machine' line.
How about you try the other way round? Go have a look at Dell's cheapest laptop, then go & find an 'equivilant' Apple notebook.
Dell's market range is huge, Apple only competes with them in a few areas - pretending otherwise is.... deluded.
Dell competes on price, Apple competes on quality (that's one of the reasons why you hear about Apple defects so much).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I am probably a typical switcher and I am not looking back. I admit, I only bought a mac since it is an Intel machine and i _could_ install Windows (my primary platform) on it if i wanted to. And I am sure I am not the nly one going this route. So i gave OS X a chance and it's probably one of the most polished OSs out there. The BSD core even satisfies the geek in me while the GUI is just tight. I have tried switching comepletly to a linux desktop but i have just not found myself to be productive in it. Too many little quirks to work out to get everything working, which just costs: time. So for now and the near future, count me in in the Apple camp. Hope i don't sound too fanboyish ;)
How are you "stuck with their hardware"? Intel processors, the same components that are currently in my Windows box.
Yes, but the point is that in future, I can't take these 3rd party components, or a 3rd party computer, and have a new machine that runs MacOS and my Mac software.
Of course there's nothing wrong using a platform if you prefer it, but it is a problem depending on a product from a single company - years ago I was happy using the Amiga, but that only worked as long as Commodore were around, and were releasing the products that I wanted. Whether it's a platform, or something like a programming language, investing time and money into a closed solution from one company does have this disadvantage, that one should always bear in mind.
I want a desktop with drive bays and expansion slots, and I don't want to spend $2,500 plus monitor and warranty. Please show me an Intel Mac that meets these specifications. I can show you hundreds of Windows machines that do.
For more information, click here.
The writer of that statement, in explaining why Apple must have dumbed-down their product announcements of late, attributes strategic genius to Steve beyond the pale. The suppositions behind such a statement is that
- Apple could never release a dud
- Steve is incapable of a less-than-stellar product introduction
Therefore, the thinking goes, it is master strategy to sell more this year so that people won't tank the stock (*ahem*) this year by not buying current inventory. Problem with this is that Apple has always led with its best foot forward: they announced the move to Intel before there was an Intel-based product offering, as a case in point.Attributing a master strategy as the reviewer in question has done is akin to Coca Cola aficionados who attribute New Coke as a masterful ploy to boost "Classic Coke" sales and loyalty over Pepsi Cola. Yeah, it turned out that CC pulled their butts out of a tight spot with the re-introduction of Coke Classic to appease the revolt, but calling it master strategy is revisionist history at best.
Let's just leave it at this: Apple has broken its string of amazing announcements (amazing in the marketing buzz generation sense) with a slight dud; expect more goodness in the future as Apple redoubles its efforts to overwhelm us with goodness.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
H.264 is an Open Standard, as a part of MPEG-4. Apple's implementation is not Open Source, but there are Open Source implementations of H.264, the most notable of which is X.264.
When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
The problem is that the "cheap crap" does what most users want, thus they buy that instead of the Apple machine that costs 2-3 times as much.
Apple isn't competing in price. In order to compete in price you have to be cheaper than the competitors lower end products. To use a car analogy, Kia competes with Honda on price. Mercedes doesn't compete with Honda on price, even though you could certainly say their lower end models featurewise are equilivent to some of Toyota's high end models at a similar cost.
Either way though, I do not think you'll be buying a Mac anytime soon then, since every one of your demands is something that just isn't going to be happening any time soon (i.e. OS X for generic Intel hardware, 3-5 year warranty standard on all devices and hardware and 1 major free OS upgrade). When you set up an impossible standard (that is, a standard that no PC companies could live up to), you have set yourself up for something where you could never be satisfied.
This is just something that's never going to change with Apple. They have a standard of quality that makes their brand quite valuable, and that's due to not stooping too low and slapping the Apple logo on a piece of crap. If you get their cheapest Mac, you can still rest assured it will be an awesome machine in its own right. You get the cheapest Dell, and you're just in for a poor experience.
Besides, remember the $100 laptop project? Steve Jobs offered OS X for free to run on those things. The project rejected the offer because they wanted it to be open source, then went with Red Hat (who just so happened to have donated to the project). So because of them, the world missed out on having a $100 Mac. Ugh.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I wish I had mod points. I have two iBooks, a G3 and a G4. The G3 had video problems and had to be sent back 2X. Then, just after the 3 year warranty ran out, it up and died. Just got a beep, and nothing else on boot. Tried everything, and nothing worked. I had to rip out the hard drive to salvage all my work. No problem there, but accessing the HDD is a 2 hour operation (or close to it) and basically fsck's up the computer. Now, the G4 has had repeated mouse problems. It's been on repair 2X and the thrid time I just said fsck it, I'll use a USB mouse. The screen also has brightness problems, sometimes getting darker. But hey, I'll deal with it because OS X is sweet. But, why haven't I bought a new MB? Very simple. I don't trust Apple hardware enough. And recent reports of all kinds of problems I think justify my hesitation. I am seriously thinking of scrounging up a good ThinkPad on ebay and installing Ubuntu.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
...since their ads focus on everything you can do with a Mac with just its included applications: Buy it, take it home, spend five minutes hooking it up, and then make a movie. Or burn a CD. Or create a song. Or make a web site. Or write a paper. Part of the message of the ads are: If that's what you can do with just what ships on the machine, imagine what else must be out there!
As for your argument that you have Windows-only stuff, part of the reason Apple is playing up virtualization is because it lets you move to a Mac and take your Windows-only stuff with you, if you must. Parallels Desktop kicks ass, runs at nearly native speed, and the VM runs all the Windows productivity apps my clients have thrown at it like a champ. I have more people asking about it every day.
~Philly
Apple positions itself as a high-end vendor, as do many other companies. Why does that concept confuse so many people only when it applies to computers?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Since 1992 when I started buying Macs for our company, the numbers are about 250 PCs and 175 Macs I've learned that the prices are about the same when you consider the add-ons to the PCs to make them the same feature-wise (VRAM, etc).
Any hard-core gamer will tell you that a tricked out PC will cost much more than a Mac. So your argument doesn't float because of varibles like usage.
Software and peripherial vendors on the other hand do charge more for Mac products in most cases because they sell fewer, supply-demand.
Each has it's place, usually software requirements/preferences. But where most people compare computers they could easily replace each other - Internet.
Reliability and ease of use goes to Mac, which means less training, and less tech support. This with the constant threats from viruses, malware, etc and the cost to install and update these puts some PCs more costly than their Mac counterpart.
Some day start reading "impartial" magazines like infoworld.com - some of the best minds in the computer business are writers there, Bob Metcalfe, the inventor of ethernet and founder of 3Com was a writer for years... read something other than PC World or Macworld to see what products do in the real world.
Our Macs can easily mount a PC on the desktop. With Bonjour (what a name?) for Windows makes them real plug-n-play, a term Microsoft started using with Windows98 but didn't deliver for years until XP.
Personally I still use my old but reliable ThinkPad PIII Win2000Pro, and love the totally silent Mac mini at home (+ Compaq TFT5000LCD), which I replaced a Wintel with and 1 more Mini on the way to be our entertainment control center - streaming wireless music etc. (ipodisfun.com) When people visit my home office they ask where is the computer? They see the old Tower sitting on the floor and assume that's it, but when they see OS X on the screen they scratch their heads, a PC running OS X? The mini is placed sideways looking more like a bookend.
So for our company, we live in harmony. PC and Mac, they both work hard to make our company work better.
'If you get too excited about what is supposed to be an incredibly amazing product you simply won't buy a new Apple this year.'
What a strange comment. Are there features of Leopard that need special hardware support, features that prevent Leopard from showing it's true potential on all Macs except 2007 models? I seriously doubt it. So buy a Mac whenever you want, then upgrade the OS when the next version is available. Sure, it will cost you $129, but that's little compared to the cost of a new Mac notebook (plus AppleCare, which is a requirement these days).
On raw specs, this is true, but my experience has been that Apple *systems* have generally been of higher quality over the years (compared with Dell). I've had several systems from each (mostly at work) over the years, and the random-crapout factor has been substantially lower on the Apple systems.
So yeah, you get better specs for the money with Dell, and if you plan on only keeping the system for short-term use, that's dandy. But in my experience the Apple price premium isn't *entirely* due to the brand-name factor; there does seems to be an overall better system quality.
I thought this was a neat trick, since I wasn't aware that Intel were shipping 2.8GHz Core Duos. The Dell site is a horrible mess, so I wasn't able to find the machine you were looking at. I did find the Dimension 9200. This was $1,574 with a 1.86GHz Core Duo. I also found the Dimension 5150c, starting at $779 with a 2.8GHz Pentium D as an option for $50 more.
The Pentium D is based on the old NetBurst microarchitecture which (in case you missed the last five years) is slower than pretty much anything else clock-for-clock. It's also very high power and hence heat, so needs more cooling, meaning it's likely to be louder.
If you are going to compare like with like, then please do so. Please post links, and please at least try to have slightly more clue than '2.8 is a bigger number than 1.8 so it must be better.'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What "current price differentials"? You mean the Mac Pro being priced $1000 less than a comparably configured Dell?
You wrote a totally false statement and repeated that statement several times with made up facts.
You facts aren't made up, just misleading. The $1200 Mac is a Core Duo with Mac OS X, the $1200 Intel is a Pentium D with Windows MCE.
So you get a faster clock, but less performance -- and the Mac can be upgraded to new chips whereas the PC is using an end-of-life architecture and a retarded version of Windows.
Fortune 500 companies buy desktops for their workers, who they shove into cube farms and treat like crops. I think a trailer park is a pretty good analogy on a lot of levels, actually.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Have you tried Vista, though? I wouldn't run that crap if it came pre-installed for free. In fact, it puts the "crap" in "cheap crap". (not the cheap, however)
libavcodec has had a competent Sorenson decoder for years.
Is anyone else tired of hearing the hardware comparisions, with umm no you are wrong attached to them? Some one please PROVE your comment. Apple computers are more expensive by Dell every time that I compare them. No matter what machine you are talking about. I just priced up a an Inspiron 6400 vs Apple MacBook Pro base model. Same basic stats except that Inspiron only would a min of 1GB RAM and 120GB HD and I upgraded the video and display so it would be closer:
Apple MacBook Pro $1999.00
Inspiron 6400 $1212.00
I don't see this Apple is cheaper with same equipment comment. Looks like I save $700 dollars with Dell. And if I don't care about the 128MB ATI video card and Ultrasharp monitor it drops to $1073. I could even throw in Windows XP Pro to really even the OS and I still save $550/$750.
Am I missing something?
Pricing as similar a machine as I can (replacing the ATI card with a quadra FX 3450, match RAM, lose monitor, add DVD-RW, add ethernet) I get $6282 before tax.
So, are Dell gouging an extra $2033 (or 47%) profit from their customers ? Or is it what the market will sustain for them ? Or is it that this time Apple managed to get a better deal on parts ? Who knows... It's pretty certain that if it were the other way around it would be Apple's "high prices".
Now my pricing includes a small discount, but since it seems Apple have to compete on price against Dell's discounts normally, I'm sure no-one will object to me using Apple's discounted prices against Dell, yes ? Even with the discount removed, it's still almost $1400 difference in Apple's favour.
My point is that you have to compare like with like. Sure there's no low-cost tower. Deal. If they don't sell it, you can't buy it - though in fact I'd be surprised if the gap wasn't filled soon enough... I'd expect Apple to launch the high-end towers first so there's a good population of high-end machines out there, and to exploit the pent-up demand. As soon as that demand starts to wane, I (if I were Apple
Simon (who can't wait for his new machine to arrive
Physicists get Hadrons!
On the high end of notebooks, Apple competes with Dell so-so. I just spec'ed an E1705 to be comparable to the standard 17" MBP in the way a Mac fanatic would (i.e. put in XP Pro, the GeForce Go 7900 GS, the 1920x1200 display -- all this because the lesser offerings don't quite compare to the MBP; never mind that the latter two are better -- and in the case of the GPU, significantly so). The price w/o the instant rebate is $2631, and the standard MBP is $2799. Ok, I didn't quite do it like a Mac fanatic. The more unreasonable ones would price it against an XPS, which is just ridiculous.
The "mid range" notebooks (which really have a CPU too expensive to be considered mid range) are similar, though the E1505 can't quite compare to the $1999 15" MBP. I don't think the Turbo Cache and Hyper Memory cards will work as well as the x1600. The RAM is also peculiarly 533 MHz... So, I think the 15" MBP would at the very least be comparable to the $1837 E1505 w/o rebates.
On the "low end" (again, CPU choice is the issue), the 13" MB looks like a steal compared to the E1405. I had to bump up the RAM and HD size on the MB this time (surprising, because Dell usually offers lower options), but the MB was $1249 compared to the E1405's $1543 w/o rebates. (Even with the instant rebate, the E1405 was $1234).
So it looks to me like Apple competes much more favorably in mid range thin and light notebooks than on the high or low ends (well, it doesn't have a low end product; if there were options to use a Core Solo or even a lower clock Core Duo, it might compete).
Perhaps Apple just needs to grow more before it can offer more competitive rates and more options. I feel like at every level the CPU is one step high and the GPU is one step low, but maybe that's because I'm a gamer, so I tend to value GPU performance over CPU. I bought the E1705 with standard display, GeForce Go 7800, 1.66 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM @ 667 MHz (alas! 2 DIMMs), and XP MCE w/ CD, and it cost me $1550. Those specs aren't fit for the enthusiast, but I think Dell still has the competitive edge for the gamer.
The desktop line is another beast, and no matter how hard someone tries, you won't be able to compare the two lines. Until I can find good benchmarks comparing Woodcrest to Conroe somehow, you won't be able to make them similar. However, one thing's for sure: there's a big gaping hole in Apple's current desktop lineup for middle range. I hope they decide to fill that gap sometime soon.
On the long run I do not think Apple's Operating Systems will survive. If the Open source community chose GNUstep instead of GNOME Apple would be history or liberated today.
You, sir, have just said that "Apple is beleaguered" and you are not the first person to do so. But I will remind you, and everyone else like you, that this is 2006 and Mac OS X (beta) debuted in 1999. Macintosh has been around since 1984.
Apple's Operating Systems will be around for a lot longer than you think.
Plagiarize detection mode on - this sounds a bit familiar
, but maybe you forgot to mention that you read it the the New York Times?Confession is good for the soul!
."Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
BMW drivers typically don't tell everyone to buy BMWs no matter their driving needs, either. It's not the machines, it's the users.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
It is far from that simple. Getting the average person to install a new OS on his or her existing machine, wiping out existing software in the process, is asking a lot. Most people just use what came on their machine and stay with that. Microsoft knows this well, as the biggest competitor for Vista by far will be Windows XP, and in that case people wouldn't even lose software compatibility when upgrading. Or think of it this way. Firefox is a free download, and there are a lot of reasons to use it over Internet Explorer. Yet, what is the browser share of Firefox? About 10%.
So I doubt that there is any immediate gain in unleasing OS X for sale to any random combination of PC components out there. Support costs would be very high, and those who install the Mac OS on their Dell are not going to get help from Dell, now are they? It is far better for Apple to just sell them a new machine with known, tested components.
As much as I loathe Apple's manufacturing and QA practices, if you bought an Intel Mac, you could easily run Windows XP without resorting to VMWare or VirtualPC to do it. So, your complaints seem largely baseless in light of the new generation Apple computers being able to run Windows natively.
If your engineering applications require hardware specifications an Apple can't offer, okay. Use Windows, please; nobody is twisting your arm. I use both Windows and Linux myself, but I can meet my Windows needs by running Windows inside of VMWare Player or QEmu, and I use Linux for my day-to-day computing. If Linux couldn't meet my day to day computing needs, I wouldn't use it; it's that simple.
You mean the Mac Pro being priced $1000 less than a comparably configured Dell?
You've apparently swallowed the Apple Kool-Aid on that one.
I saw Apple's slide of that part of their presentation. On the face, they looked like comparably equipped systems... until you spent the time to look a little closer. Among other differences, the Dell had a Quadro graphics card vs. the Apple's GeForce, and the Dell had a warranty 3 times as long as Apple's.
In other words, Apple basically configured a Dell system with the same hard drive, memory and CPU, then loaded up the Dell with a bunch of high-priced add-ons that the Mac Pro didn't have and called them "comparably configured" to make their price look better.
When MS uses these kinds of marketing tactics, they get slammed to the wall here. When Apple does it, people quote their marketing as if it's gospel without even checking whether or not it's true.
Wait a minute...
Mac Pro
dual 3.0Ghz Xeon woodcrests
16 Gigs RAM
nVidia Quadro FX 4500
23" cinema display
Mac OSX
$11,648
Dell Precision Workstation 690
dual 3.0Ghz Xeon woodcrests
16 Gigs RAM
nVidia Quadro FX 4500
24" widescreen flat panel
Windows XP x64 edition
$9,908
Guess it depends on how you configure them, doesn't it?
So you are telling Apple to f*** off because it is more difficult to get the Mac OS on your PC illegally than it is to install Windows illegally.
In case this didn't occur to you, you are not exactly a good customer. Apple doesn't give a crap if you stick with Windows.
Oh, and be careful. That place called the grocery store? They want you to pay too. I know, f*** them!
Configure a Mac Pro and Dell with the same specs including an upgrade to a more expensive Quadro which Apple does provide as an option. Notice the price? The Mac Pro is still cheaper and it includes more media software. Now add three year Apple care or Call Apple up and inquire about Procare. Is the the Dell cheaper? By how much? Is it 50 bucks or less? Is it really cheaper when you consider the bundled software?
The low end quadro is irrelevant and probably no more powerful than the gamer card even with CAD apps. I think you fell for marketing names and buzzwords.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
There has been talk of the elusive "killer app" for years on the internet but I believe that these new frameworks (Core Animation), existing frameworks (Core Image/Video, Data and Audio) will usher in a true "killer app" that developers will struggle in vain to reproduce on windows and other linux. Some may manage to create a pale copy of it but it will not be so tightly integrated into the OS and you will not be able to easily share data with other apps. I would also venture that it would take 10X as much time, money and manpower to develop.
We can all "oooh and ahhh" all we we want about the flashy features in OS X or Vista how easy it is to implement innovative applications in a particular OS will determine which one has the attention of the public and media IMO.
I think the keynote only scratched the surface of the power the collaboration features in Leopard will have on the development landscape.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
"they suggest that Steve Jobs held back on showing more Leopard features so people would not get too excited and stop buying in 2006."
Why would any one wait to buy hardware for an OS update? Its not coming for atleast 6 months.
You can run Windows on the Macs now. So, get a high end workstation, save money, get a nicer case with room for expansion/customization, still run your crap Windows stuff and just put some tape over the Apple logo. Why do you hate Apple so badly?
It's funny, because the Mac fanbois at least hate Windows because it sucks and they can give reasons. Apple haters just seem to hate Apple and the logic is missing.
... it would do all the spell-checking for you without you having to load up Word. It's a system-wide facility for any NSText-derived object...
Sometimes the small things are what make the difference.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Apple competes on price but doesn't go below a certain level of quality. I don't know why this point is difficult to grasp.
Translation: You have no counterargument, so you're going to accuse me of "trolling."
A complete load of crap. It wouldn't be "unsuitable" due to lack of source, and you don't explain why it would have. Someone buying a $100 laptop doesn't care if they don't get the friggin' source tree to Aqua. Besides, Darwin is open source.
The project simply went with Red Hat, because they made a large donation to the project. We could have had a $100 Mac, and they blew it due to unrealistic ideals that everyone in the world wants source code, when they don't.
And I'm the one trolling? Again, you have yet to prove out it would be "useless" without source. OS X is quite useful.
There was no "crack," you made this part up. I suspect the only jealousy here is coming from you.
Next.
"Sufferin' succotash."
We have Vista Beta in our office. The OS is a memory and processor hog. Now I know "but it's beta" and all that MS appologist crap, but the same box it is on screams with Linux and is quite capable with XP. All the computer pros in our office who have messed with this Vista Beta are already looking at their existing systems and deciding what all they will have to upgrade to make it Vista compatible.
Bottom line is, a > $500 desktop from Dell isn't going to run Vista for crap where as today you can buy and old Apple iMac on eBay for the same money and you can run Tiger.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Whenever I see threads like this on Slashdot, I can't help but think how sorely mislead the average Slashdot user is. The forum is overwhelmingly pro-Apple and pro-Linux, and they let their emotions cloud their vision.
Often, you see trollish headlines that state "will Apple kill Microsoft?", "Will Apple kill Dell?", "is this the iPod killer?", etc. People here seem to be a little on the artsy/emotional side rather than on the purely logical side. They can't seem to grasp the gravity of a situation; instead they get lost in the details and forget the scale of things. For a forum that loves Star Trek, they sure don't think like Spock.
First of all, people underestimate the massive advantage of being the much larger company. Dell has a huge marketshare advantage over Apple. They have $55 billion a year in revenue vs. $14 billion a year. If worst came to worst, Dell could simply buy Apple. Microsoft could also easily buy Apple, but the US Gov wouldn't allow that. Still, if it were a fight to the death, they could afford to take losses to sap away Apple's marketshare.
I think people should stop to think for a moment before they post these unrealistic headlines, because if it came down to it, the larger company would simply gobble up the smaller company. It's business 101.
I'm not trying to troll here, I'm trying to inject a dose of reality into another one of these irrational threads.