Microsoft had a monopoly, but they did something different.
They threatened to raise the license fees or cancel the Windows licenses on Compaq if Compaq bundled Netscape on the desktop.
Apple has done nothing similar. It would be like Apple refusing to sell iPods to stores that also sold PCs, or raising the price of iPods to stores that also sold other MP3 players. Apple has done neither.
There are trade offs mostly; larger words mean bigger caches, but there are no (known to me) performance improvements that don't also apply to 32 bit CPUs. Even if AMD has a 256bit vector unit, like Altivec, that would still be a working unit on a 32 bit CPU. Motorola's 32 bit G4 had a 128 bit Altivec unit, after all.
Uh, someone who doesn't expect to install 16TB of ram in their notebook?
Maybe I'll want 2 or 4GB of RAM, but that doesn't require 64bit support. Of course if I expect to pump up the systems to 6GB of ram... I'd want a 64bit or enhanced 32bit system.
I can think of three things actually: 1) Convenience; the learning curve for bittorrent, to an average Joe, is slightly higher than the learning curve for the iTMS 2) Speed; the download from the iTMS is much shorter, at 10 to 15 minutes, than the average bittorrent. Of course YMMV 3) Presentation; If you download The Office, you know it's NBC. Bittorrent does not have this feature.
Almost right! Jobsians would be tasty to beasts too, if only the beasts developed the hunting tactics to capture them; because right now, for the last six years, not a single Jobsian has been even rumored to have been attacked and killed by the beasts. The Jobsians walk right by piles of Gatesians being devoured without a care because the beasts are too busy filling themselves on Gatesians.
Eventually Gatesians will wise up; marry into Jobsian households, live Jobsian lives, and starving beasts will start looking at the increasing Jobsian populations as food sources. Until then, however, Jobsians can walk by piles of dying Gatesians without a worry because the beasts are too busy eating Gatesians to even bother expending effort in slaying a Jobsian.
Apple sells 1TB for $6k, 3.5T for $8.5k, and 7TB for $13k, so as long as you aim under them you can do fine:) You get dual 2gb fibre channel in a 3U enclosure, remote monitoring and management, and redundant power supplies for that.
Of course I don't know what you mean by "modest" markup either.
HP sells a HP ProLiant DL100 G2 1 TB Data for $5,883, and 6TB for $19,383; in those lights, Apple doesn't look so overpriced does it? If you want to make any money, I would see what the "major" OEMs offer, see what it is you don't or can't offer, and price accordingly. It's not as simple as "I can build my own storage systems!", because you also have to offer supports, software, backup solutions, network solutions, and management solutions.
For Apple's $6k, you get all of that in an easier to use GUI; how much time/effort/skill would it take for you to offer the same with your product for the Soho? With Apple you get the promise of "plug in, turn on, use", which is very tempting for the average Soho without the tech skills to actually properly administrate a system; that, and it is effectively cheaper than HP!
Is DRM bad only because it is a technological means of enforcing a license? In other words, the GPL is okay because it's a social mechanism, with the threat of law and legal action, while Fairplay isn't okay because it's a technical mechanism?
In other words, if technology existed that enforced the GPL, isn't that DRM? Or isn't the GPL another type of "digital rights/restrictions management", since it covers source code?
"And Apple has been trying hard to keep me from copying any of those songs my friends purchase from iTunes."
Do your friends not have CD burners? Heck, 'copying' wise, do you not have ethernet? The raw files you can copy as many times as you want. The music, however, requires you to burn to a CD first before you can give them to friends.
"And now OSX will only run on Apple x86 hardware, even though it may have drivers for another PC and be able to run just find on it."
Now, only? OS X has ALWAYS only ran on Apple hardware.
"Some people might even be willing to pay the $130 retail price to be able to use it. But that's not for me."
Because you're cheap and stingy?
"I'd love to see Microsoft or Apple compete with that. But I know they won't. They can't. Capitalism won't let them. Not until its too late."
How about this?" Which of course means this is possible. Or the fact that Apple has generously donated time to these.
You see, the same reason YOU like Open Source is why Apple uses Open Source.
The difference is that Apple believes there are some things better for Apple to remain closed; which is why they don't release the source to everything. You can feel free to disagree with Apple, of course, but imagine what would happen if the GPL were enforced via technology, instead of just via licenses?
So that people who distributed modified binaries without source to their customers would find their software would automatically stop working; or perhaps by compilers automatically including source along with the binaries in compressed but human readable form.
See, even open source has licenses that LIMIT the way people use their software; sometimes the license is simple, attribution of copyright, and sometimes it isn't, like the release of full source code.
The better iPod would require a better iTunes (not iTMS, but iTunes); right now they use Creative for their music player... and Music Match for their jukebox.
Apple used to use Music Match too; then they ported over iTunes and left Music Match behind.
Either they drive everyone else out of business, or the only remaining companies are those that can match Dell... and when they can match Dell, there is no more "price disincentive" to buy Dell over any other company. Which means Dell, and the other companies, have to go back to being innovative to gain market.
In other words, the existence of companies like Apple are required for Dell to thrive; as soon as Apple "figures out" Dell's market innovations, Apple can play both markets, creating cheap systems to sell to customers who would rather not pay for the expensive systems. On the flip side, if Dell can figure out Apple's design strategy, they can create the luxury computers that would normally be Macs...
Dell employs roughly 63,000 people, where Apple employs roughly 75,000 (from Wikipedia) Dell's profits were $4.2b, while Apple's was $2.3b; so Dell isn't quite twice as profitable. Dell's revenue was $49b while Apple's was $14b; so Dell's raw income is a little more than three times bigger than Apple.
If trends continue, there is reason to believe that in 2006 Apple will continue growing and be just as profitable as Dell, with probably half as much income.
They are, mathematically speaking, in the same order of magnitude:D
"All that Apple managed to do was make them stylish, friendly to non-geeks, and brilliantly marketed them - it had very little to do with the technical merits of the device."
You make it sound so casual, but that really was the heart of their success and "advantage". Until the iPod, MP3 players weren't easy to use to the casual consumer, which arguably means MP3 players were too hard to use for 80% of the population.
That in itself is the technical merit of the generation; MP3 players may have well shipped unassembled in a cardboard box with solder and wire, that was how useable they were to the casual person in 2001. Even in 2005 I have inlaws who have problems using "modern" mp3 players because they think, "Oh, it's $30 cheaper than an iPod, and they're all the same anyway."
I got the first and second gen iPods when a co-worker of mine had a 6gb Nomad Jukebox. In that year, 2001, Creative lagged tremendously. Their Nomad required two hands to use; had 11 buttons, to the iPods five. The Nomad was the size of a hefty CD player or a Mac mini, while the iPod was the size of a deck of cards.
Creative would not release a 1.8" drive based model, the same form factor as the iPod, until 2004, three years after Apple released the iPod: See here. So for three years Apple had an undeniably smaller device; was it drastically smaller? So after 2003 Creative 'caught up' in terms of size. Was this a big advantage? It was certainly ONE advantage for three years. By the time Creative launched the Zen Touch, Apple had launched the much smaller iPod mini using the 1" microdrive.
As for "ease of use", Apple did have the initial advantage in 2001; 11 buttons and two hands vs 5 button and one hand; this was largely erased by 2004, but again that gave Apple three years. There was one other advantage Apple had in terms of ease of use: Apple iTunes, which allowed the casual untrained user a simple way to rip, organize, manage, and store their music, with a "no button" approach to synching the iPod to the computer. Now, several years later, everyone enjoys this advantage, but for a short while everyone, including owners of Creative Nomads, could use iTunes (only available on Mac, and later ported to PC) to their advantage.
You can argue that the window was actually two years, because Apple didn't release a Windows compatible iPod until 2002.
AMDs are seen as "clones", or knock-offs, or "cheapie CPUs", much like Kia, Daewoo, or Geely.
If AMD CPUs, in common parlance, really were the bees knees, why are they cheaper?.
People commonly accept that quality costs more, not less! Double the prices, and AMD can say, "2x as fast, and only 1.5x as expensive! What a deal!"
Actually, some of their CPUs are expensive... but they are seen as a cheap CPU supplier, more than a high performance supplier... FOR NOW. I expect that to change, but I do expect it to take another three years. Can AMD keep it up for three years?
"Ipods aren't significantly smaller then their competition, and according to my non-geek friends they aren't significantly easier to use either."
Let me fix that for you.
iPods aren't significantly smaller than their competition anymore, and according to my non-geek friends, they aren't signficantly easier to use now. At the time when the iPods were released, however, they were easily a quarter the size and weight, 10x as fast, and much more usable than the competition. Now five years later (actually three years later) the competition caught up, but that three year window "cemented" Apple in the lead.
Isn't that like the CEO of Hertz saying, "We will now give our customers the choice of using Kia, Daewoo, and Geely cars!"
AMD has no cachet amongst the general populace! AMD has not undertaken the kind of branding and mindshare building that Apple has, for example. A much better announcement would be:
Dell announces new systems, partnering with Apple, the creators of the wildly successful iPod, that can dual boot into both Windows and Mac OS X. Declares that customers should be able to run the best of everything..
At least that way they get to throw in "Apple" and "iPod".
That's funny; when I went to the Gateway site, I actually saw a lower resolution, lower video card spec than yours. I'm not sure what you've done to your order...
But yes, actually, I have taken apart PowerBooks (previous models) and I own an iBook, so I can attest to their build quality, and my friend has owned an old Gateway pre eMachines, while at work we routinely work with Gateways; we haven't taken apart the laptops, but we have taken apart desktops, and we do get to measure their stability and reliability; they are better than Acer laptops and desktops, at least, but below IBM and Fujitsu.
So I tried again; evidently I started with the wrong basic model and didn't select the right components. When I attempted to match both the hardware and software, my Gateway NX560XL cost $2023 on top of the base $1299, and it was still lacking in terms of size, video camera, DVI (it's not just the dual link that it's missing, it can't power ANY LCDs using DVI output), backlit keyboard, and it still probably is of lower build quality.
You can of course choose to remove options to get a lower price, but if you get everything that the PowerBook offers, such as iLife, which includes iWeb (ne Frontpage), iMovie (ne Pinnacle Dazzle), choose a lower specced HD, CPU, LCD, remove bluetooth, etc, to get a cheaper laptop.
So I would believe that the systems are actually comparable, and that Apple may charge you slightly more, you are also receiving slightly more, and that Gateway just does you the service of offering a lower specced initial system than Apple does, without actually providing a better built system. Really, we do use Gateways at work, and I think they've improved slightly since being taken over by eMachines, but I wouldn't put them in the same arena as Apple; I would reserve that for Fujitsu and IBM, at least.
You forgot something. The MacBook is 1" and 5.6lb, your Gateway is 1.3" and 6.3lb. It' also missing a backlit keyboard, magnetic power plug, magnetic screen latch, no dual link DVI (goodbye 30" LCD), lower resolution (1280x800), the integrated video card, the increased build quality, and integrated Intel graphics.
Then there is the software: iLife, OS X, iChat, etc.
Size and weight matter to some people; it's why some people fret at being 120lb, and some don't care if they're 150lb.
As for the DVI; it's not only two specific displays, it is ALL DVI displays. The Gateway can only power VGA and s-video; only LCD displays with VGA can be powered by the Gateway.
As per the reliability, we have the past five years of PowerBooks and Gateways as indicators of the reliability... and so far Apple is ahead of Gateway.
I'd rather have the Apple machine; I'd get several things I'd want, that Gateway doesn't sell: OS X Firewire built in webcam (standalone these kinds of webcams cost $100) size and weight Battery life (60WHr, while the Gateway doesn't say) Better QA iLife, iChat, etc
That extra $550 can be measured in five things: Size and weight(which translates to engineering and design), since the Gateway is 1.3" thick and 6lb and the MacBook is 1" thick and 5.6lb Dual link DVI; the Gateway only has VGA and s-video, while the MacBook can power the new Dell or the old Apple 30" LCD. Software: The MacBook comes with iLife, OS X, iChat, etc Hardware: The MacBook comes with a 640x480 30fps build in video camera QA: I think Apple notebooks are slightly more reliable than Gateway... but feel free to buy the Gateway if that extra $100 savings means that much to you
All five things together work to roughly $110 per point, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft had a monopoly, but they did something different.
They threatened to raise the license fees or cancel the Windows licenses on Compaq if Compaq bundled Netscape on the desktop.
Apple has done nothing similar. It would be like Apple refusing to sell iPods to stores that also sold PCs, or raising the price of iPods to stores that also sold other MP3 players. Apple has done neither.
Why? They're doing a fine job of destroying themselves. Worry about your own house before you worry about your neighbors :D
There are trade offs mostly; larger words mean bigger caches, but there are no (known to me) performance improvements that don't also apply to 32 bit CPUs. Even if AMD has a 256bit vector unit, like Altivec, that would still be a working unit on a 32 bit CPU. Motorola's 32 bit G4 had a 128 bit Altivec unit, after all.
Uh, someone who doesn't expect to install 16TB of ram in their notebook?
Maybe I'll want 2 or 4GB of RAM, but that doesn't require 64bit support. Of course if I expect to pump up the systems to 6GB of ram... I'd want a 64bit or enhanced 32bit system.
So it's okay to chat with people while you are playing a game, but not otherwise?
I can think of three things actually:
1) Convenience; the learning curve for bittorrent, to an average Joe, is slightly higher than the learning curve for the iTMS
2) Speed; the download from the iTMS is much shorter, at 10 to 15 minutes, than the average bittorrent. Of course YMMV
3) Presentation; If you download The Office, you know it's NBC. Bittorrent does not have this feature.
Almost right! Jobsians would be tasty to beasts too, if only the beasts developed the hunting tactics to capture them; because right now, for the last six years, not a single Jobsian has been even rumored to have been attacked and killed by the beasts. The Jobsians walk right by piles of Gatesians being devoured without a care because the beasts are too busy filling themselves on Gatesians.
Eventually Gatesians will wise up; marry into Jobsian households, live Jobsian lives, and starving beasts will start looking at the increasing Jobsian populations as food sources. Until then, however, Jobsians can walk by piles of dying Gatesians without a worry because the beasts are too busy eating Gatesians to even bother expending effort in slaying a Jobsian.
As long as you know your target market.
Apple charges what they do because it's often times cheaper than the competition and easier to use.
You're definitely aiming for cheaper, but is it going to be easier to use? Usability is a feature people do pay for.
Apple sells 1TB for $6k, 3.5T for $8.5k, and 7TB for $13k, so as long as you aim under them you can do fine :)
You get dual 2gb fibre channel in a 3U enclosure, remote monitoring and management, and redundant power supplies for that.
Of course I don't know what you mean by "modest" markup either.
HP sells a HP ProLiant DL100 G2 1 TB Data for $5,883, and 6TB for $19,383; in those lights, Apple doesn't look so overpriced does it? If you want to make any money, I would see what the "major" OEMs offer, see what it is you don't or can't offer, and price accordingly. It's not as simple as "I can build my own storage systems!", because you also have to offer supports, software, backup solutions, network solutions, and management solutions.
For Apple's $6k, you get all of that in an easier to use GUI; how much time/effort/skill would it take for you to offer the same with your product for the Soho? With Apple you get the promise of "plug in, turn on, use", which is very tempting for the average Soho without the tech skills to actually properly administrate a system; that, and it is effectively cheaper than HP!
Here's the interesting bit then.
Is DRM bad only because it is a technological means of enforcing a license?
In other words, the GPL is okay because it's a social mechanism, with the threat of law and legal action, while Fairplay isn't okay because it's a technical mechanism?
In other words, if technology existed that enforced the GPL, isn't that DRM?
Or isn't the GPL another type of "digital rights/restrictions management", since it covers source code?
Why should governments run search engines?
Why should the users trust that the government will provide fair search results free of bias?
Why should a government run search engine be better than a private run search engine?
What are you talking about?
"And Apple has been trying hard to keep me from copying any of those songs my friends purchase from iTunes."
Do your friends not have CD burners? Heck, 'copying' wise, do you not have ethernet? The raw files you can copy as many times as you want. The music, however, requires you to burn to a CD first before you can give them to friends.
"And now OSX will only run on Apple x86 hardware, even though it may have drivers for another PC and be able to run just find on it."
Now, only? OS X has ALWAYS only ran on Apple hardware.
"Some people might even be willing to pay the $130 retail price to be able to use it. But that's not for me."
Because you're cheap and stingy?
"I'd love to see Microsoft or Apple compete with that. But I know they won't. They can't. Capitalism won't let them. Not until its too late."
How about this?"
Which of course means this is possible.
Or the fact that Apple has generously donated time to these.
You see, the same reason YOU like Open Source is why Apple uses Open Source.
The difference is that Apple believes there are some things better for Apple to remain closed; which is why they don't release the source to everything. You can feel free to disagree with Apple, of course, but imagine what would happen if the GPL were enforced via technology, instead of just via licenses?
So that people who distributed modified binaries without source to their customers would find their software would automatically stop working; or perhaps by compilers automatically including source along with the binaries in compressed but human readable form.
See, even open source has licenses that LIMIT the way people use their software; sometimes the license is simple, attribution of copyright, and sometimes it isn't, like the release of full source code.
Oops. Well, 1/4 the employees, but 1/2 the profits. If that isn't "efficient", what is? :)
The better iPod would require a better iTunes (not iTMS, but iTunes); right now they use Creative for their music player... and Music Match for their jukebox.
Apple used to use Music Match too; then they ported over iTunes and left Music Match behind.
So there is a problem with Dell's model:
Either they drive everyone else out of business, or the only remaining companies are those that can match Dell... and when they can match Dell, there is no more "price disincentive" to buy Dell over any other company. Which means Dell, and the other companies, have to go back to being innovative to gain market.
In other words, the existence of companies like Apple are required for Dell to thrive; as soon as Apple "figures out" Dell's market innovations, Apple can play both markets, creating cheap systems to sell to customers who would rather not pay for the expensive systems. On the flip side, if Dell can figure out Apple's design strategy, they can create the luxury computers that would normally be Macs...
What do you mean by "dissimilar sized"?
:D
Dell employs roughly 63,000 people, where Apple employs roughly 75,000 (from Wikipedia)
Dell's profits were $4.2b, while Apple's was $2.3b; so Dell isn't quite twice as profitable.
Dell's revenue was $49b while Apple's was $14b; so Dell's raw income is a little more than three times bigger than Apple.
If trends continue, there is reason to believe that in 2006 Apple will continue growing and be just as profitable as Dell, with probably half as much income.
They are, mathematically speaking, in the same order of magnitude
"All that Apple managed to do was make them stylish, friendly to non-geeks, and brilliantly marketed them - it had very little to do with the technical merits of the device."
You make it sound so casual, but that really was the heart of their success and "advantage". Until the iPod, MP3 players weren't easy to use to the casual consumer, which arguably means MP3 players were too hard to use for 80% of the population.
That in itself is the technical merit of the generation; MP3 players may have well shipped unassembled in a cardboard box with solder and wire, that was how useable they were to the casual person in 2001. Even in 2005 I have inlaws who have problems using "modern" mp3 players because they think, "Oh, it's $30 cheaper than an iPod, and they're all the same anyway."
I got the first and second gen iPods when a co-worker of mine had a 6gb Nomad Jukebox. In that year, 2001, Creative lagged tremendously. Their Nomad required two hands to use; had 11 buttons, to the iPods five. The Nomad was the size of a hefty CD player or a Mac mini, while the iPod was the size of a deck of cards.
Creative would not release a 1.8" drive based model, the same form factor as the iPod, until 2004, three years after Apple released the iPod: See here. So for three years Apple had an undeniably smaller device; was it drastically smaller? So after 2003 Creative 'caught up' in terms of size. Was this a big advantage? It was certainly ONE advantage for three years. By the time Creative launched the Zen Touch, Apple had launched the much smaller iPod mini using the 1" microdrive.
As for "ease of use", Apple did have the initial advantage in 2001; 11 buttons and two hands vs 5 button and one hand; this was largely erased by 2004, but again that gave Apple three years. There was one other advantage Apple had in terms of ease of use: Apple iTunes, which allowed the casual untrained user a simple way to rip, organize, manage, and store their music, with a "no button" approach to synching the iPod to the computer. Now, several years later, everyone enjoys this advantage, but for a short while everyone, including owners of Creative Nomads, could use iTunes (only available on Mac, and later ported to PC) to their advantage.
You can argue that the window was actually two years, because Apple didn't release a Windows compatible iPod until 2002.
Geeks have different perspectives than non geeks.
AMDs are seen as "clones", or knock-offs, or "cheapie CPUs", much like Kia, Daewoo, or Geely.
If AMD CPUs, in common parlance, really were the bees knees, why are they cheaper?.
People commonly accept that quality costs more, not less! Double the prices, and AMD can say, "2x as fast, and only 1.5x as expensive! What a deal!"
Actually, some of their CPUs are expensive... but they are seen as a cheap CPU supplier, more than a high performance supplier... FOR NOW. I expect that to change, but I do expect it to take another three years. Can AMD keep it up for three years?
"Ipods aren't significantly smaller then their competition, and according to my non-geek friends they aren't significantly easier to use either."
Let me fix that for you.
iPods aren't significantly smaller than their competition anymore, and according to my non-geek friends, they aren't signficantly easier to use now. At the time when the iPods were released, however, they were easily a quarter the size and weight, 10x as fast, and much more usable than the competition. Now five years later (actually three years later) the competition caught up, but that three year window "cemented" Apple in the lead.
Isn't that like the CEO of Hertz saying, "We will now give our customers the choice of using Kia, Daewoo, and Geely cars!"
AMD has no cachet amongst the general populace! AMD has not undertaken the kind of branding and mindshare building that Apple has, for example. A much better announcement would be:
Dell announces new systems, partnering with Apple, the creators of the wildly successful iPod, that can dual boot into both Windows and Mac OS X. Declares that customers should be able to run the best of everything..
At least that way they get to throw in "Apple" and "iPod".
That's funny; when I went to the Gateway site, I actually saw a lower resolution, lower video card spec than yours. I'm not sure what you've done to your order...
But yes, actually, I have taken apart PowerBooks (previous models) and I own an iBook, so I can attest to their build quality, and my friend has owned an old Gateway pre eMachines, while at work we routinely work with Gateways; we haven't taken apart the laptops, but we have taken apart desktops, and we do get to measure their stability and reliability; they are better than Acer laptops and desktops, at least, but below IBM and Fujitsu.
So I tried again; evidently I started with the wrong basic model and didn't select the right components. When I attempted to match both the hardware and software, my Gateway NX560XL cost $2023 on top of the base $1299, and it was still lacking in terms of size, video camera, DVI (it's not just the dual link that it's missing, it can't power ANY LCDs using DVI output), backlit keyboard, and it still probably is of lower build quality.
You can of course choose to remove options to get a lower price, but if you get everything that the PowerBook offers, such as iLife, which includes iWeb (ne Frontpage), iMovie (ne Pinnacle Dazzle), choose a lower specced HD, CPU, LCD, remove bluetooth, etc, to get a cheaper laptop.
So I would believe that the systems are actually comparable, and that Apple may charge you slightly more, you are also receiving slightly more, and that Gateway just does you the service of offering a lower specced initial system than Apple does, without actually providing a better built system. Really, we do use Gateways at work, and I think they've improved slightly since being taken over by eMachines, but I wouldn't put them in the same arena as Apple; I would reserve that for Fujitsu and IBM, at least.
You forgot something. The MacBook is 1" and 5.6lb, your Gateway is 1.3" and 6.3lb. It' also missing a backlit keyboard, magnetic power plug, magnetic screen latch, no dual link DVI (goodbye 30" LCD), lower resolution (1280x800), the integrated video card, the increased build quality, and integrated Intel graphics.
Then there is the software: iLife, OS X, iChat, etc.
Is that worth $450? For some people, definitely.
Size and weight matter to some people; it's why some people fret at being 120lb, and some don't care if they're 150lb.
As for the DVI; it's not only two specific displays, it is ALL DVI displays. The Gateway can only power VGA and s-video; only LCD displays with VGA can be powered by the Gateway.
As per the reliability, we have the past five years of PowerBooks and Gateways as indicators of the reliability... and so far Apple is ahead of Gateway.
I'd rather have the Apple machine; I'd get several things I'd want, that Gateway doesn't sell:
OS X
Firewire
built in webcam (standalone these kinds of webcams cost $100)
size and weight
Battery life (60WHr, while the Gateway doesn't say)
Better QA
iLife, iChat, etc
That extra $550 can be measured in five things:
Size and weight(which translates to engineering and design), since the Gateway is 1.3" thick and 6lb and the MacBook is 1" thick and 5.6lb
Dual link DVI; the Gateway only has VGA and s-video, while the MacBook can power the new Dell or the old Apple 30" LCD.
Software: The MacBook comes with iLife, OS X, iChat, etc
Hardware: The MacBook comes with a 640x480 30fps build in video camera
QA: I think Apple notebooks are slightly more reliable than Gateway... but feel free to buy the Gateway if that extra $100 savings means that much to you
All five things together work to roughly $110 per point, don't you think?
Apple's is also 18 months older. Where were you when it was first announced? You couldn't get a Dell 30" LCD two months ago!
Of course Apple is going to be having a Macworld Expo this week too, so I wouldn't expect Apple's LCD to be more expensive much longer either.