backtop

Hardware Apple Makes Some Major Price Cuts
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - August 8, 2006 5:14 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 63 comment(s) - last by mtnmanak.. on Aug 10 at 7:54 PM
Says its products being more expensive than other competitors' products is a big myth

Apple this week made some significant adjustments to its pricing for LCD displays. The company made price cuts to its entire line of Cinema Displays, ranging from the 20-inch model all the way up to the large 30-inch behemoth. Apple also made a number of changes to the displays themselves. All three Cinema Displays received upgraded specifications.
Cinema Display 20-inch:
Now $699 from $799
Now 300cd/m2 from 250cd/m2 brightness
Now 700:1 from 400:1 contrast ratio

Cinema Display 23-inch:
Now $999 from $1299
Now 400cd/m2 from 270cd/m2 brightness
Now 700:1 from 400:1 contrast ratio

Cinema Display 30-inch:
Now $1999 from $2499:
Now 400cd/m2 from 270cd/m2 brightness
Now 700:1 from 400:1 contrast ratio
The price cuts are so significant in fact that Apple's 30-inch Cinema Display is now less expensive than Dell's 30-inch 3007WFP which is selling for $2199. Dell's 24-inch 2407WFP is still cheaper at $747.15 and is an inch larger. The 2407WFP also has better specifications than Apple's 23-inch display: 450cd/m2 brightness and 1000:1 contrast ratio. Dell's comparable 20.1-inch 2007WFP is currently priced at $459.00.

Apple talked a great deal about pricing at its keynote presentation yesterday at WWDC. The company compared itself to Dell on a number of products including workstations and servers. According to Apple, a similarly configured workstation from Dell is several hundred dollars more than its new Mac Pro. Apple says that it's systems are more expensive than other's is simply a myth.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What about the DIY'ers
By phatboye on 8/8/2006 5:41:32 PM , Rating: 1
If Apple would open it's OS to work on computers by Dell, HP, Gateway and, most importanly, the Do-It-Yourselfers Apple would completly dominate the OS business but until Apple gets its head out of its ass I think I will stick to windows/linux/bsd/ect. I build my own computers so Apple can cut prices all they want but it won't affect me much.




RE: What about the DIY'ers
By retrospooty on 8/8/2006 5:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know if tehy would "dominate" but I agree, tehy need to do that. I for one, would buy OSX and put it on my AMD system in the 2nd partition and have a dual boot. I am sure millions of others sould as well.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By R Nilla on 8/8/2006 5:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
especially since they now use Intel hardware, it seems like it should naturally follow that you can at least run OS X on a new Intel system, DIY or not, without having to go through any fuss...

I would love to be able to run OS X or even dual boot, but as long as I have to buy a Mac to do so, count me out.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By bozilla on 8/8/2006 6:17:11 PM , Rating: 3
And why exactly would Apple do that? So you can run their OS on a non mac system and cut their profit while giving someone else your money? That ain't gonna happen.

I'll tell you what's gonna happen.

Eventually more and more people will start buying macs due to great ability to run both Windows & OSX, linux, bsd, pretty much everything as you would with PC, when people realize that the price point from now on is not a problem, when they realize that they are safer, when they realize they are getting an OS that's far ahead of anything Microsoft can come up with.

When they realize it's nice and easier way of computing, the mac computers are much more stable and faster due to unified components and cleaned up drivers etc you will see Apple skyrocketing and completely reversing the market share in their adventage.

I've never bought a Mac before simply because it was too expensive, too different (read compatibility with components etc) and OSX was still not there, but now you can bet your ass that there's absolutely no reason not to buy a Mac and my next machine is Mac Pro with Woodcrest 3.0ghz and packed to the tooth.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By darkfoon on 8/8/2006 6:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Beat me to what I was going to say ;)


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By yxalitis on 8/8/2006 7:01:31 PM , Rating: 3
You know, people have been saying that for the better part of 10 years, and you knwo what? It won't happen. Why, because, despite all the windows bashing you read here, all the comments of "instability" of Windows, and the wonder that is Linux/MAC OS/Etc, Windows enables any PC, from a lowly Pentium, all the way to a top-of-the-line Core 2 Duo wiht $2,000 worth of graphics cards to run, and run well, with whatever the hell people want to run on it.
When I want a new PC, I decide exactly what i want to put in it, who's motherboard, who's graphics card, how much and what type of RAM, how many and what capacity of hard drive, in RAIDs array config, or single drive. I then stick in one CD, and install Microsoft's flavour of the month, and bingo! A STABLE (Yes goddam it, STABLE) OS that gives me the flexibility to do whatever I want with that PC.

I don't give 2 hoots for OS bells and whistles, be that MAC, or Windows, I run XP SP2, but turn off the stupid "enhancements". I don't spend a great deal of time working wiht the OS per se, but rather applications that I run under it, so whether the windows all rotate in 3D splendor or not makes no difference to me.

People who whinge about Windows instability, almost always have themselves to blame! Windows flexibility means that you can easily stuff things up, install unsigned drivers, apps from God knows where, and end up with a mess. Linux, like all UNIX based OS's, also has this inherint risk (of being so flexibel, that if you say "load the gun, point it at your head, and pull the trigger" Linux will say "Sure, no probs!"), but 99% of Linux users know exactly what they are doing, so you never see them complaining about Linux's "instability" but give Linux to Joe Citizen, and watch the system crash and burn.
so good luck Mac, I am sure you'll maintain that massive 3% market share!


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By bozilla on 8/8/2006 9:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry to dissapoint you, I usually don't get into PC/Mac discussion, but you are wrong on all points, so I have to respond.

First of all, I never owned a Mac except for Mac Mini for testing purposes in my web development process. That's it. I'm a designer and kept using PC because of many applications that were supported on PC and not on Mac.

People never said that Mac or Apple in general will grab a huge market share. This is simply untrue. Steve Jobs was very satisfied with holding much much smaller market share because of exclusivity and easier development cycles.

But times have changed and he saw it. They needed to do something, one of the major things being Intel/AMD wars that led to great progress in micro-processor technology. IBM or Motorola were severely unmotivated.

Starting off with iPod, among great revenue and pioneering digital music distribution Apple realized that they can handle huge market share. So, the plan was made (always existed, but they were not ready) to open up to great market. So here it comes.

Apple has never had technology nor software so much better then PC alternative to justify the switch. But OSX, Intel switch, iPod, iTunes pushed them in a place they were never at before. They saw that they don't have to invent computers, they can build them and use their design and detail-oriented skills to make something spectacular. By that time they already had a huge market share among PC crowd with iTunes and iPods and of course a super polished OSX. It was time to do something about it.

Mac Pro is officially a true measurement of Apple expanding. I can't even imagine how many people will buy new Mac Pros and new iMacs. The ability to run Windows and OSX at the same time is also huge because it bridged that gap with compatibility that Apple has always struggled with.

It is by no means the same Apple it was only last year. It's much stronger, ready to serve much bigger crowd and things just work.

To dissapoint you, since Intel transition, Apple's market share grew to 15%. You can expect this number to jump significantly since the introduction of Mac Pros simply because there is absolutely 0 reasons for a regular programmer or designer or just an average Joe not to make a switch. They get beautiful OSX for day to day things and at the moment (with a reboot) you have a PC. PCs don't have that ace up their sleeves. You just can't run OSX at the easy you can run XP on a Mac. Price is on Apple's side too. They are being supplied directly by Intel, that is already starting to show incredibly competitive pricing.

So in conclusion, Apple is nothing it was only a year ago and by the time Leopard comes out you can bet your ass that even the most hesitant will make a switch since OSX is indeed a wonderful system. Something Vista was suppose to be, but turned out to be nothing more then makeup and a copy of Apple's efforts. It just shows you, you can copy, but you can't replace the brain behind the true talent.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By phatboye on 8/8/2006 9:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To dissapoint you, since Intel transition, Apple's market share grew to 15%.


Please links us to where you got this 15% number from.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By bozilla on 8/8/2006 9:35:42 PM , Rating: 3
You are right I stand corrected..I wanted to say Apple's market share grew "by" not "to" 15%.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By Xavian on 8/9/2006 4:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
so 15% of 3% marketshare...

what is that 0.5% marketshare?

Seriously that means the new Intel Hardware hasn't made a dent in Windows Dominance. Personally to be frank ill never buy a Mac (or an iPod) because Steve Jobbs has his head too far up his ass. Thier advertsing compaigns are based purely on lies (look at the difference of ads between microsoft and apple, notice how microsoft is sorta 'you can do this with our OS' and apples is 'other OS's are crap we can do better with ours'?). Plus the inflexibility of a Mac, is a massive minus for me, then you have hardly any decent games on OSX and you have a recipe for a company which will never creep out of 5% marketshare.

TBH, Linux has more chance of being universally accepted and competiting with Microsoft then Apple's Macintosh.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By rushfan2006 on 8/9/2006 9:43:22 AM , Rating: 1
Whatever Bozilla....

I agree with the fella above that you are replying too..the flexibility hardware-wise alone is an EXTREMELY compelling advantage that the PC has had and ALWAYS had over Apple...this alone will always keep the PC industry with the larger marketshare - -- even with all your FUD.

I for one would never buy a Mac for myself, because they are crappy enthusiast game boxes....can't do any customizations worth while -- and you damn sure don't have the game selection that PC's do.



RE: What about the DIY'ers
By retrospooty on 8/9/2006 9:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
I have t agree with you and your disagreement with Bozilla. For that and that alone I would never buy a MAC... But I would love to pay for OSX and install it on my home built.

No worries, at some point it will be cracked, and I will have it, since I cany PAY for it, I will have to pirate it. Eat that.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By cgrecu77 on 8/8/2006 9:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
most people buy $300 computers do you honestly think that anybody would pay $400 alone just to have a dual boot? People will go one way or another but not both. Until Apple comes with an entry level computer in the $300 range and a laptop in the $600 range they have absolutely no chance of competing with pcs. Enthusiasts will never buy apple, they might try it but not stick to it because games are slowe or not available on macs.
Vista will be comparable with MAC OSX, fanboys will debate forever which one's better, but the truth is for the average Joe they will look and feel the same way.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By bozilla on 8/8/2006 10:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well you see that's where the key is. Macs can play PC games now. That's the whole point and one of the biggest reasons Apple never penetrated the PC market. Now there's absolutely no reason not to own a mac and on top of all PC good stuff have the great stuff from OSX. That's where you fail to see the advantage Apple has over the rest of the PC industry.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By Scrogneugneu on 8/8/2006 10:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
No reason not to own a Mac?

How about "I already have my PC and I won't shell out 2000$ just to get a possibility I won't use"?

Or maybe "I want to choose what's in my computer, and I want to be able to upgrade it myself"?

I won't ever use a OS that can't use a left/right click mouse. If it's too stubborn to learn and get it when it's been so long, then I'll be as stubborn and I won't get him.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By Scott66 on 8/8/2006 11:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Mac has supported 2 button mice since 10.1 and you can plug that microsoft mouse right in. Apple makes it so easy for you to come to the light. Resistance is useless


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By Xavian on 8/9/2006 4:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
yet when they only supply you with crappy graphics cards, that is going to seriously hinder any form of PC gaming on a Mac, regardless of the functionality or not.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By retrospooty on 8/9/2006 3:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... they can NOT play them at any decent speed compared to a PC, even an older model PC. Apple is NOT up to the job.

Sorry to spoil your fantasy.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By blckgrffn on 8/10/2006 1:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Even booted into windows?!?

Sorry to ruin YOUR fantasy...


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By darkfoon on 8/8/2006 6:24:18 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with you that OS X on non-Apples would be awesome, however, Apple should NEVER open it's OS to non-Apple computers.
The reason OS X is so stable right now, among other reasons, is because Apple knows (and controls for the most part) the hardware it is going to run on, and therefore they can concentrate on those specific drivers and support that hardware. They can also test the configurations better because there are fewer "what-if" configurations that may cause instability.
Windows, on the other hand, must support trillions of hardware combinations, some of which should have never been (how many different combinations of CPU, GPU, RAM, and motherboard can you count? How many work together flawlessly?) and this contributes to its instability. I am not saying this is the only reason that Windows is unstable and OS X is stable, but it is a large one.
If OS X were opened up, it would ruin Apple. Imagine the negative publicity from opening up OS X and Apple being unable to deal with all the support issues. Sure, DIY'ers could probably fix the problem, but Joe and Jane Average would forever see Apple in a negative light.
If Apple were a larger company who could offer the support (or have the resources to write and test all the drivers) and take the negative publicity, it wouldn't be such a problem.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By Suomynona on 8/8/2006 6:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's the whole point, Apple can't keep masquerading as an upscale hardware company if they open their OS to other computers. They have to sell it on only their computers so people keep thinking that they are getting better hardware for the premium they're paying.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By phatboye on 8/8/2006 7:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason OS X is so stable right now, among other reasons, is because Apple knows (and controls for the most part) the hardware it is going to run on, and therefore they can concentrate on those specific drivers and support that hardware. They can also test the configurations better because there are fewer "what-if" configurations that may cause instability.

There are tons of stable OSes out there that can run on any number of computer configurations so please don’t use that excuse. By opening up the OS to more hardware configurations it would just mean that Apple would have to stop sitting on their hands and actually do some work to keep the OS stable.
quote:
And why exactly would Apple do that? So you can run their OS on a non Mac system and cut their profit while giving someone else your money? That ain't gonna happen.

Yes that is an interesting point. I just have this feeling that apple would make so much more money if they would stop being a hardware company like they are and focus more on selling the OS like MS does. Yes they would lose a few bucks from there hardware business but they would make a ton from their OS. Think about it how many people would switch to OSX when you bought a Dell/HP/etc they got an option for either Windows or OSX.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By ksherman on 8/8/2006 9:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes that is an interesting point. I just have this feeling that apple would make so much more money if they would stop being a hardware company like they are and focus more on selling the OS like MS does. Yes they would lose a few bucks from there hardware business but they would make a ton from their OS. Think about it how many people would switch to OSX when you bought a Dell/HP/etc they got an option for either Windows or OSX.


while I agree that Apple could make a ton of money off of selling their OS, I highly doubt Apple would ever give up their hardware buisness. They will continue to sell computers because OSX is in someways better than Windows, or rather, it is not Windows. They will continue to gain market share, and sell more hardware. I think they have too much fun designing and selling some of the sexiest hardware on the market (speaking mostly to the MacBook Pro, nothing even remotly likeit out there...)


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By Scott66 on 8/8/2006 11:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft makes little money on the Operating system. They sell it to OEM's like Dell at about $30.00 a copy. Microsoft makes it on the applications such as Office. If you can control the OS on customers's computer, s/he has to buy the apps that run on the operating system.

Microsoft wants everybody to use office. That is why they made a superior (and newer than windows 2003)version of office to run on OSX ( except they didn't port their database app)


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By jconan on 8/9/2006 1:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
yeah to OEMs but for the average joe buying at costco or bestbuy xp costs 100+/- 20 to 30$... it's still expensive unless they buy a system from dell with dell's specification, only just recently did dell go with amd


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By mendocinosummit on 8/8/2006 7:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. They are too diverse in too many markets to be competitive overall. If they want to compete with MS they need to focus more on their OS, now is the time. If i were Apple I would not wait for Linux to take off.


RE: What about the DIY'ers
By korbin43 on 8/8/2006 7:52:07 PM , Rating: 1
Has anyone thought of why Apple really doesn't open their OS to major PC manufacturer's? It's not about the money. Apple makes enough money from iTunes and iPod. It's becuase the OS performs so poorly on lower end CPU's and hardware. You have to have the fastest and most expensive hardware to run the OS properly. Windows runs great on just about any system within any budget. I've run OS X on budget hardware and it's not that great, performance wise.


hmm...
By R Nilla on 8/8/2006 5:26:56 PM , Rating: 4
Samsung 215TW can be had for under $480 at e-tailers, $500 at retailers. 1000:1 contrast ration, 21" screen, its HDCP, and has DVI, VGA, RCA and Component ports. A 20" Mac screen with a 700:1 contrast ratio and 20" screen is $699. Pardon me if I don't jump out of my seat...

Also, am I reading this correctly that the Mac LCDs' used to be $100 more with half the contrast ratios when compared to the new price cut models? I feel sorry for anyone who bought the first batch... Otherwise, please excuse my misinformation.




RE: hmm...
By epsilonparadox on 8/8/2006 5:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
On that list, the only one of "value" is the 30" lcd. The other two are still overpriced for what they offer.


RE: hmm...
By R Nilla on 8/8/2006 5:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
also, excuse my spelling errors and repetition...


RE: hmm...
By retrospooty on 8/8/2006 5:47:27 PM , Rating: 3
This should not be a surprise... Apple has been putting out lesser products at a higher price for years... This is why they have gone from being a dominant player, to a non-contender in the personal computer market. They now have less than 3% of the market.


RE: hmm...
By BZDTemp on 8/9/2006 4:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
Apple had 12% of the laptop market in June and overall they are gaining market shares by growing faster than the PC vendors.

Sure with some items they are still over priced but with others it's actually Apple offering most for the money spend. And even more so if you include their OS + Apps in the equation. This is all across the line from laptops to servers.

I've been a PC guy since the 80486 but last year I bought a Mac Mini just for fun and I must say that the next computer I buy is very likely to be an Apple.


RE: hmm...
By retrospooty on 8/9/2006 9:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
12% in June? OK, thats one month, and one segement of the market. Why dont you look for some figures one total market share by year. Yes, I do beleive they might be growing a bit now after the new Intel chips release, but that too will fade.


RE: hmm...
By michael2k on 8/9/2006 9:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
Why will that fade?

Affordable, if not cheap, powerful, relatively immune to viruses and spyware, pretty, easy to use, looks nice, and can run Windows.

It's got everything a Compaq has, plus more. Why should sales start to fade?


RE: hmm...
By michael2k on 8/9/2006 1:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
Can we trust those numbers?

I have a Dell LCD at work and I have seen similarly specced LCDs at stores... but I can't say that the Apple LCD is somehow "inferior".

Is this a case of specmanship, rather than real "performance"?


What pisses me off...
By bozilla on 8/8/2006 5:41:31 PM , Rating: 5
What pisses me off is that Apple always does this. They simply lie in general. You can call it advertising but it's still a lie. Because, Apple being more expensive then PCs a big myth? Yeah it's a myth now when they lowered prices, but it wasn't a myth before WWDC. They are really funny about this.

Though I have to admit they do have some incredible things and my next computer is a Mac for sure, I just have hard time dealing with their BS marketing tactics. They were more expensive always and now when they lowered the price they are screaming about some myths or something. Very funny.

I have to agree with the poster above, the only deal here is the 30" display, but to be honest Dell 30" can be bought for $1600 due to coupons, wholesale pricing and people selling them, you could probably even call Dell directly and get it for that price. 20" and 23" are stil more expensive, I agree.




RE: What pisses me off...
By egrefen on 8/8/2006 8:24:06 PM , Rating: 1
"Because, Apple being more expensive then PCs a big myth? Yeah it's a myth now when they lowered prices, but it wasn't a myth before WWDC. They are really funny about this."

Yo, Moron: wake up call! Equally configured PCs, in terms of performance, have been more expensive or roughly the same price as Apple hardware since the intel transition (and probably even before, but it's harder to compare processors).

I mean, take a Dell on their web site, remove the screen in the customization menu, add two dual core Xeons, upgrade the hard disk and ram, add wireless, remove cost of windows, and you get pretty much, piece for piece, the same components as the new Mac Pro (except for motherboard), at its most basic configuration.

The Mac Pro (basic) costs around 2.4k.
This equally configured dell costs $5,349.

Dude... that's TWICE the price. Don't believe me? Check config below and try it out yourself:

Dell Precision Workstation
690n - 750W
$5,349

Dell Precision Workstation 690n - 750W
Date 8/8/2006 11:07:41 AM Central Standard Time
Catalog Number 5 Retail 555
Catalog Number / Description Product Code SKU Id
Dell Precision Workstation 690n - 750W:
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 3.00GHz, 4MB
L2,1333 T3074N [222-3859] 1
Operating System:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS v4 for EM64T 64bit system
w/ 1 YR RHN, w/ Media RH6441Y [420-5980] 11
2nd Processor:
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 3.00GHz, 4MB
L2,1333 PR304 [311-6279] 2
Graphic Cards:
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 3500, Dual DVI or
Dual VGA or DVI + VGA FX3500 [320-4817] 6
Memory:
1GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (2
DIMMS) 1G2E6 [311-6402] 3
Hard Drive Configuration:
C1 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 1 or 2 drive total
configuration SATA12 [341-3378] 9
Boot Hard Drive:
250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB
DataBurst CacheTM 250ST [341-3729] 8
Hard Drive Internal Controller Option:
SATA/SAS Integrated Card - For Connecting Internal Hard
Drives SASCTL [341-3435] 24
CD-ROM, DVD, and Read-Write Devices:
16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW, Data Only RM16DVD [313-4251] 16
Floppy Drive Options:
3.5 inch 1.44MB Floppy Drive FD [341-3690] 10
Monitors:
No Monitor Option NMN [320-3316] 5
Keyboard:
U [310-7949] 4
USB Entry Quietkey, No Hot Keys U [310-7949] 4
Mouse:
Dell USB 2-Button Mechanical Mouse with Scroll ELD [310-7959] 12
Speakers:
Internal Chassis Speaker,Dell INTSPK [313-3417] 18

08/08/2006 06:08 PMThe Dell Online Store: Build Your System
Page 2 of 2http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/print_summa...


RE: What pisses me off...
By bozilla on 8/8/06, Rating: 0
RE: What pisses me off...
By peternelson on 8/9/2006 1:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think even the Mac Pro is expensive.

After you upgrade components (WHO would want to run a NV7300 GPU???) and decent amount of RAM I got my price up to about $10,000, and that was BEFORE adding a fiber channel card!

Admittedly, it was the FBDIMM modules that were the killer on pricing.

If you compare the UK pricing to US, we get ripped off even more.


RE: What pisses me off...
By kelmon on 8/9/2006 2:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
In fairness, everyone with a Mac knows that if you buy memory from Apple you need your head seeing to. This is a trap that a new buyer can fall into and it really does suck that Apple charges so much for memory that can be bought and installed much more cheaply yourself. Once you take the additional memory out of the equation then the prices aren't bad.

With respect to the default graphics card, please bare in mind that these systems aren't targeting gamers (for one thing, Macs aren't exactly flush with titles) so gaming isn't the focus of these systems. For work like video editing, audio and photography applications and the like the default graphics card is fine. Most people don't need a bad-ass graphics card so Apple sensibly doesn't install one by default. I have no idea whether the ATI option is worth knowing about for gaming, mind.


RE: What pisses me off...
By rrsurfer1 on 8/9/2006 8:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, I used to make money on eBay just by upgrading the hard drive and RAM. Apple charges so much the buyers saved money, AND I made a killing...


By Fenixgoon on 8/8/2006 6:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
As great and mighty the holy grail of computer Mac may be, in the end it's just a rebadged PC, just like a freakin GM/Ford/Chrysler vehicle is. What do you have under the hood? Oh right, an INTEL PROCESSOR that I can go and buy. What OS do you run? AN X86! Macs are no longer unique - they're simply a PC with a pretty case and a lot of hype, which supposedly makes them superior in the end. And yes, the G5 desktop was an amazing bargain, superior to an A64 setup :disgust;

This news article is about monitors. Apple monitors still cannot compete with Dell's offerings. Price cuts are nice, but it's like Core2 vs. the A64 right now. There's no point to buying an A64 if there's a superior Core2 CPU at the same price point. So until Apple redesigns the monitor and/or reduces prices further, Dell >> Apple as far as monitors go.




By ksherman on 8/8/2006 8:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
I still maintain that OSX really seperates a PC and a Mac that this point. They may now run similiar/identicle hardware, it is really the software you are buying into. And their software is great. Go watch the WWDC keynote address, specificaly the 10 new features they highlighted. Many of them are quite sweet, and where added to my list of reason to jump into OSX. It is a great OS, running tons of software that I have a real need for. Sure, it cant play a lot of games, but I find my self doing that less and less lately... Sure it doesnt run AutoCAD, which I do need a lot, but I have a PC at work and at home on which that can be acomplished.

OSX and XP/Vista are miles apart. When you dive into/purchase a Mac, you get more than just a x86 box, you get OSX and a backstage pass to everything that entails.


By Fenixgoon on 8/8/2006 8:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
a backstage pass? i've used OSX extensively as a daily computer and it was hardly a fun experience. firefox crashed all the bloody time, among other things. itunes is a horrid music player, quicktime is (realplayer aside) the WORST MEDIA PLAYER EVER. there is nothing on a mac that i couldn't do faster and less expensive on my PC.


By ksherman on 8/8/2006 9:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
while i too agree that iTunes sucks, Quicktime is pretty bad too. There is a whole host of other software that doesnt suck quite so much, ie: iLife is a easy way to do a lot of content creation quickly and easily. Their pro apps are second to only Adobe (Debatible) but thier software is SIGNIFIGANTLY easier to use, Aperature, Final Cut Pro, Logic, Motion, Shake all industry standard software that is the huge driving force behind much of the Apple conversion. True, OSX is not perfect, but neither is Windows. Windows cost more to purchase (talking Pro, Home is a joke) than OSX is (I believe that OSX is $150ish, whilst Pro is closer to $200) is a lot less user friendly and the like. What I did miss in OSX from windows was home much easier it is to find/tweak settings. Maybe thats just becuase I have used windows WAY WAY WAY more than OSX, and only have OSX on an extra HD, making my compy one of those "Hackintosh"es.

I choose the lesser of two evils. And hey, if I need to run somthing in windows, such as AutoCAD, thats no problem.


Apple...
By AppaYipYip on 8/8/2006 6:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has been, and always will be, a superior company with superior products. However, I still have to build a gaming machine to run windows to play games. Not a big deal though, it's fun.

I do all of my important things and business work on Macs. My WinDoze machine is just for games.




RE: Apple...
By INeedCache on 8/8/2006 8:58:43 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks. I am having a rough day and needed a good laugh.


RE: Apple...
By Xavian on 8/9/2006 4:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
indeed, you guys do realise the components are exactly the same in a Mac as they are in a PC?

Buy the exact same parts as one of the macintosh's (i dont care which one) and build it yourself, now you wont get the sleek design but i garuntee that you will have spent atleast $200 less to get the same specs with the same speed and the same quality.

Are you really that brainwashed? i find it difficult to believe :(


fire
By Wwhat on 8/8/2006 9:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Peripheral Vision
Your Apple display includes two FireWire 400 ports and a self-powered, two-port USB 2.0 hub."

Firewire eh, I thought apple was dumping that technology.




RE: fire
By Scott66 on 8/8/2006 11:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
firewire 400 is still popular with Macs as it is much superior to USB2 for external Hard drives. They did drop it for the ipods due to many Wintel computers not having it. Also it doesn't help that XP SP2 crippled firewire 800.

I was seriously dissappointed when my Gigabyte board had transfer rates on my firewire 800 at slower than 100Mbps


RE: fire
By peternelson on 8/9/2006 1:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
Firewire 400 is ubiquitous for DV camcorders.

Firewire may be faster than USB2 for drives, but SATA and ESATA are faster than all (ie ESATA300) and you can stick raid on that using SI Steelvine tech eg from Lacie.

I was VERY disappointed that although the Mac Pro had 4 internal sata drivebays, it has not any ESATA.

They seem to suggest Fiber channel card for external storage arrays.

Apple should keep FW400 for camcorder importing, but should drop 800 and the idea of using it to interface drives.

On the OS question, XP/Vista/MACOS need paying for, and buying an upgrade every so often to keep updated if you keep your PC a long time. Plus you need to pay for every machine you have. With Linux there are no such costs.

Anyway as for Cinema 30" display they are very nice. Apple could quite easily sell me one for use with a PC if they tried.

However they seem intent on retaining the exclusivity of their fanbase by just promoting it for use with macs.

Mac hardware and OS will likely remain a minority but IPOD has show, they could for example grab large market share in LCD panels if they (for instance) convinced me it would work smoothly on a pc (my concern is the button for power on/off) which seems linked to OS support. Anyone used Cinema on a PC? Why are Apple not trying to sell it to me?




Apple Needs a high profile partner
By mtnmanak on 8/10/2006 1:03:34 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, no one seems to really understand the problem with Apple’s current strategy.

First. They do not have a mainstream desktop offering. They have a really cheap computer (the mini), the have a computer for the web browsing illiterate (iMac) and they have a workstation (Mac Pro). Where is the desktop for the average computer user? Where is the $1000-$1500 solid offering that the middle-class crowd wants? I agree that the Mac Pro is absolutely priced right online with its PC counterparts, but that is not even a relevant issue. Who cares if they sell a workstation class computer that the average guy can’t afford? Your only option then is to buy a dumbed down iMac that is virtually un-upgradable and can’t be customized – you’re stuck with the all-in-one components. Until Apple sells a good middle of the road desktop (with a monitor!), it won’t even be competing on the same ball field.

Second, in order to truly compete, Apple needs to get a couple other big sellers to build and sell Macs. Instead of COMPETING against Dell, they should CO-OPT them!!!! Apple has tried in the past to allow other companies to produce Apple "clones" and the machines were actually quite good. If no one remembers, Power Computing did a pretty good business selling official Mac clones until Jobs killed the program (see the following wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#The_f...

As noted in the wiki article, many industry big sellers (such as Dell) would jump at the chance to make and sell Apple clones. This would be a win-win for Apple. If Dell started making Apple clones, Apple would still have the say over the specs of the machines, so they wouldn't have to worry about quality control and unsupported hardware. Truthfully, I don’t think it would hurt Apples hardware sales either – Apple currently sells computers primarily to the web browser crowd (iMac series) and the true power user crowd (Mac Pro series). Dell would definitely be shooting for the middle-ground, which is currently unsupported. I agree that Apple needs much larger economies of scale in order to turn a profit, but Dell can easily provide that. As was noted earlier, Microsoft’s big money comes from the OS being bundled on OEM machines. Apple needs to tap into that.

Incidentally, Apple probably isn’t afraid of the reputation hit the OS would take from being run on unsupported hardware, they are more afraid of the associated tech support costs they would incur by releasing an open Intel version of OS X. Right now, they enjoy a much, much lower cost of tech support per copy of OS X than Microsoft incurs per copy of Windows. If Apple released a truly open version of OS X, they would have to sell millions of copies just to break even from the new tech support costs they would incur.




RE: Apple Needs a high profile partner
By blwest on 8/10/2006 9:13:13 AM , Rating: 2
All I have to say to your wall of text is:
___
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?

Let me ask you a question. What do you upgrade on your system now? I'm talking about besides the mainbord and graphics card and possibly a sound card? Everything else is built into mainboards these days. What you want sir, is Apple to give you a case to put the same mainboard, processor, memory, video card and (possibly) sound that's presently in the Mac Pro.

Many times when you replace one thing, you ahve to repalce another, ie. new mobo with pcie, ddr2 and socket AM2 processor. Well you've just upgraded the processor memory and graphics card to replace the mobo--new system.

In Apple's eyes you're either a professional, mid-range user or entry level user. There is no "enthusiast" level for macs. I really dislike it when people say ZOMG it's not upgradeable. It is, just get a new system. If you don't like it, go somewhere else and keep running Microsoft, WE WANT YOU TO!!!

Professional: Mac Pro, Mac book Pro
Middle-Class: Imac, Mac book
Economy: mac-mini

As I stated earlier, presently Apple does NOT offer what you want, and I doubt they ever will.

I have a new philosophy for you: save up your money until you can afford ALL the parts in your system, then build it; Rather than hiding yourself from the fact that computers are not cheap and wallet shock when you plop down 2000 in parts for your next rig. (some people prefer to make 2 purchases, one of most of the key parts for one expense then to hide the total amount *wallet shock* they'll add a $600 video card later)

</end my wall of text> :)


By mtnmanak on 8/10/2006 7:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I have owned a number of Macs and I am really looking forward to getting a Mac Pro. In my house right now, I have 5 Windows PCs, a Windows server, 2 Macs, 2 Windows laptops, and 1 Powerbook (looking to upgrade to a Macbook). A couple also dual-boot as Linux boxes. I am definitely Apple’s target market.

Unfortunately, I also represent an incredibly small percentage of the user community.

Microsoft did not become the largest computer company in the world by selling hardware. They got there by making sure virtually all the hardware makers sold their software.

What do most people upgrade? I would argue that one of the most important choices the mid-range folks want to make is monitor selection. With an iMac, there is no choice. I also would argue with your choice of classification of Apple’s lineup. The iMac is definitely not a mid-range computer – it is squarely in the entry level – maybe not in price, but in function.

My point is that Apple NEEDS to broaden its computer product line in order to grow. They need to give people more and better choices across the board. It does no good for them to market computers that most people don’t want to buy – regardless of price.

Perhaps you believe Apple is happy to remain in their small niche and never grow. Perhaps Steve Jobs even believes that. I am confident his shareholders, however, would disagree. If Jobs didn’t want the company to grow, he should have never gone public. He no longer has the luxury of living in a world of isolationism – he sold his company to the public, now he has to perform. iPods are great, but they now that they have saturated the market, they don’t give Apple much growth potential anymore. Anyone who doesn’t believe a public company needs to grow is living in a dream world. Besides, it sure would be nice to see some truly mid-range and enthusiast machines from Apple.


By asicdude on 8/8/2006 10:17:26 PM , Rating: 4

Mac versus PC fanboyism is so annoying. If you want a $300 PC, Apple doesn't WANT your business. They'll be running at a loss if you call up with a single question, and they ARE NOT interested in going the "Dell Route" for tech support.

I use a Mac, and PC, and Linux, daily. They all have their place.

Linux scales higher (I run 64-bit apps). Windows is required for some applications -- and usually there are Windows boxes sitting around all over the place that can be used to do most things (browsing, running a terminal to a Linux machine, etc).

The Powerbook is my dream machine.

The Powerbook does almost everything. It is Unix. Out of the box it is *real* developers machine. Meanwhile it painlessly does MS Office, and multi-media wise it kicks ass. Yes the PC can be made to work. I've built 50+ DVDs, about half on Mac and half on PC, and given the choice I'll take the Mac in a heartbeat. Because it does it almost as well as the best PC apps, with two clicks, RIGHT OUT OF THE FREAKIN BOX.

All you clowns who arrogantly imply that people can keep Windows stable "if they know what they are doing"... that is just lame, people who "know what they are doing" should have better things to do.

Another unfortunate factor is that too many of you guys compare Macs (which come with all the development tools and iLife apps) against PCs -- assuming you've pirated a bunch of software. Add the costs of all that software you need on the PC, and suddenly the Mac aint so expensive.

I don't know what is going to happen in the future -- predictions are almost useless, and guess what, there's no prize. So just stop it.

If any company deserved to win based on technology, which is supposedly what we all love, it is Apple. What they have done to leverage open source code is very smart. They are simultaneously more powerful, and easier to use, than Windows.

Linux is even more powerful but unfortunately it is ridiculously hard to use. I am a fan of Linux, but that is the plain truth.

P.S. As a hardware designer I can attest that much PC hardware is absolute CRAP and I absolutely support Apple's decision not to try to support everything. They should continue to support what they can test (and test well!).

P.P.S. Just to prove I'm not an Apple fan-boy, why doesn't anyone mention that XP cost $150 five plus years ago and has been upgraded for free? Apple has charged users that much every 1-2 years for incremental updates. A legit Apple user has spent $500-$750 for their OS in the same timeframe. This is probably a larger delta than the hardware price in most cases.





Apple Market Share
By ProfJohn on 8/9/2006 12:35:25 AM , Rating: 3
Apples market share for the 2nd quarter of 2006 was up to 4.6%, over 4.3% last year. This is up from a low point of around 2%. There are those who beleive that market share could rise to as much as 6%.

Also, their capitalization now higher than Dells. $56 billion for Apple and $50 billion for Dell.

Maybe Michael Dell should follow his own 1997 advice "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders".

Market share
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6359970.html
Capitalization
http://hardware.seekingalpha.com/article/14613




yuh
By matthewcaudle on 8/8/2006 8:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
honestly, aesthetics should count for something. and in my book, they are almost as important as whatever spec you want to throw at me. honestly you could go through 10 different lcd manufacturers and find 'better' products im sure, but id much rather have an acd or two sitting on my desk than any other lcd available.




.....
By cciesquare on 8/8/2006 9:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Major? Hmmmm I think the word there is inaccurate. More like "Apple made some price cuts". To me those cuts are not major, they are still extremely high, like all apple products.




Buy Sceptre anyway
By rupaniii on 8/8/2006 11:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
All I have to say is that FOR YEARS i've been picky about my displays. I've sent back Samsung and Dell in favor of Cornerstone, Sony back for Hitachi... but sofar, evertime I open a box with a Sceptre monitor in it, i'm really satisfied. Build quality and incredible screens. I use it now and NEVER seen an LCD with this black level. No one else seems to be using these panels, or have tuned this one so well.

My2Cent.




Thats competition
By crystal clear on 8/9/2006 2:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
Do they have a choice-if they got to stay in the market & beat the competion,no choice but to cut prices.
The buying season is on-Back to school.
Make your product affordable is the logic & price cuts
also make good publicity.
The timing is also right-others should follow this move.




Funny,
By therealnickdanger on 8/9/2006 9:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the headline said something about "major" price cuts... When I see the word "major", I think 40% off and higher. 12% off, 23% off, and 20% off, respectively... Wow, don't strain yourself, Apple.




Apple 25" diplay anyone?
By lemonadesoda on 8/9/2006 9:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I'm waiting for

Cinema Display 25-inch:
Resolution WQXGA=2560x1600
Price $1299
Brightness 400cd/m2
Contrast 1000:1

I want the WQXGA for these reasons:

1./ Graphics design and photoediting
2./ Having a PDF on one page and being able to read it!
3./ Ultra-cleartype on 120 DPI display settings

Why I don't buy the 30" cinema display
1./ Too big for the desk
2./ Too much eye scan needed, left to right, top to bottom




Apple vs Dell
By blwest on 8/9/2006 9:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
I just spec'd a dell workstation that has the same parts as the apple system. It's a precision 490, workstation class machine. The Mac Pro is also a workstation class machine. Apple $2499, Dell $3260. The Mac Pro can boot windows, linux or osX. Also with a well designed and high quality case, I choose you Apple.
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx...

Remember to select two of the 5100 series processors @ 2.66ghz, upgrade your CD drive, etc. The video card options don't exactly match up, but the difference is very little (read: NOT $1000)

Dell may make cheap..but that's exactly what you get..cheap.




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki