backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 317 comment(s) - last by Narbo.. on Mar 27 at 12:06 PM
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had some tough words for rival Apple in a recent interview

Microsoft and Apple have been going at each other ever since Bill Gates and Steve Jobs trade jabs back in the DOS/Apple IIe days.  Since then, the competition between two of the electronics industry's biggest players has been no less heated.

For much of the last decade, Apple has been on a comeback campaign gaining a virtual monopoly in the MP3 player market, and seeing resurgence in computer and OS sales.  Microsoft, meanwhile, after seeing a ringing success with Windows XP, struggled due to perception problems with Vista, much of which were influenced largely by misconceptions and misinformation -- some of which was spread by Apple.

Now, the tables have turned.  In the face of a new recession, Microsoft's Windows 7 is looking increasingly good, as are the $500 netbook systems that are planned for it.  Meanwhile Apple, whose CEO Steve Jobs recently said that his firm didn't know how to make a $500 computer that wasn't "a piece of junk" has seen the sales for some of its pricey products fall.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, known for his candid, if at times outspoken comments, was fast to attack Apple in a recent interview.  He blasts in a recently released webcast, "Apple gained about one point, but now I think the tide has really turned back the other direction.  The economy is helpful. Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be."

The comment, which suggests the difference between PC and Macs is as superficial as a logo is sure to have more than a few Apple supporters riled. 

Mr. Ballmer has a history of taking jabs at Apple, whether deserved or undeserved.  He once famously commented in 2007 that the iPhone had "no chance" of gaining a significant market share.  Of course, history shows that about a year later, the iPhone became the best-selling smartphone in America and continues to be a top seller. 

While it certainly seems Mr. Ballmer is onto something when it comes to Apple's slumping sales, it might be a bit early to count them out just yet.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
he's right
By Moishe on 3/20/2009 1:40:15 PM , Rating: 5
The figure may not be exactly $500, but Apple customers pay more for a product that has similar features.

They do this because it's cool or stylish, and rarely because the PC just won't do the job. I know some mac users and their excuse it "well, it does better at professional artist work" (or garageband or whatever...)

People may prefer a program that runs only on a Mac but I've never seen a Mac program that didn't have a PC counterpart that was as good, if a bit different.




RE: he's right
By biggsjm on 3/20/2009 2:08:47 PM , Rating: 1
This article is ridiculous. Balmer can say what he wants.

First of all Garage Band is not a professional app.

Second of all, sure I can get a cheap Windows PC. But to compare a bottom-of-the-market PC to a MacBook is like comparing an entry level Honda Civic to a Toyota Camry and saying the only difference is that Camry's have that cool Toyota logo. Its nonsense.

Both are fine cars, but some people prefer the Camry. They are both cars, both do the same thing, have similar internals, but the Camry might offer a more automated interface (i.e. power windows, cruise control, A/C, seat-position memory, tire pressure gage in dash, etc.).

The Mac experience offers the user a tightly integrated solution that appeals to some people. If they are willing to pay for that, let them. I don't see why we can't have competition. . . why does one platform have to pwn?


RE: he's right
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 2:17:59 PM , Rating: 5
You totally miss the point. Comparing midrange or better systems, you get the same thing in a PC for hundreds less. It's not low-end this versus higher-end that, it's the logo, or perhaps arguably the economy of scale since Apple likes a closed market.

There is no Apple system which can't be bettered for same or lower cost. "Tightly integrated" means nothing, if we eliminated all the millions of possible PC combinations (which are a GOOD thing), leaving only one possible combination, we could as quickly call that tight integration. Choice is good.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By Mitch101 on 3/20/2009 2:53:42 PM , Rating: 5
There are people willing to overpay on both sides of the fence if it comes with a shiny wrapper or you can convince them that somehow its better.

I think George Carlins rant on words comes into play to a degree. That somehow by changing the name of the condition you are somehow changing the condition itself. Apple slaps thier logo on the same piece of kit and instantly people believe it must be better because Apple tells you its better. Apple has programmed their fans into believing so. While they do make a nice piece of kit you can certainly find equally good items for significantly less.

Apple is really successful marketing.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By WTFiSJuiCE on 3/20/2009 4:57:06 PM , Rating: 5
Shiny wrappers can cost anything and be anything in the individual's mind, its the marketing that sells it at Apple's price. What they are selling is not the shiny wrapper per se, but the admission into a group that sports the same logo as you now do if you so choose to buy into it.

The logo itself IS the shiny wrapper.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 5:22:25 PM , Rating: 5
You're arbitrarily trying to contrast what you think are the best mainstream OEM models, when they are superior products.

Shiney case doesn't have to mean exotic components inside, and in the case of Apple it's even more true per dollar. Geeze, we all know this and you're still arguing about it? Some things don't even need be written like the sun is in the sky, dogs bark, and Apple is overpriced.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By niva on 3/20/2009 11:45:17 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know the exact specs of what's in the Adamo and what's in the Macbook but I've seen the specs of the Macbook itself and it wasn't impressive... other than the shiny logo.

Just because Dell and other companies are trying to compete with the Macbook's shiny factor doesn't mean it isn't stupid. I think Steve Ballmer was right on the money with his comment, the Apple backlash is just starting now that they've become a bit bigger and stronger.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By quiksilvr on 3/22/2009 4:17:31 PM , Rating: 5
Let's all give michael2k a round of applause for sacrificing his rating to help others boost theirs.


RE: he's right
By Penti on 3/21/2009 7:21:27 AM , Rating: 5
They have the same manufacturer too the worlds largest electronics company Foxconn.


RE: he's right
By djc208 on 3/21/2009 6:51:37 PM , Rating: 3
Well I'm pretty sure the Adamo comes with an Ethernet port, but regardless it is basically the same as (and competes with) the MacBook Air.

That said, it's not going to be a huge seller for Dell for exactly the same reason people don't like the Air. Lots of money for a shiny wrapper and little substance.

The real market for the Adamo is people who want the shine of a Macbook Air but can't or don't want to use OS X.


RE: he's right
By WTFiSJuiCE on 3/20/2009 5:31:24 PM , Rating: 3
The cases are a "trend" and yes that is part of it. But would there be as large of a following buying these without the logo? I think not.

Both of the companies in PC land (Asus and Dell) that are trying to cash in on this "trend" are well-known and Dell has a loyal enough user base of consumers that do not build their own PCs but will spend to have "high quality".

Apple could make something that isn't so trendy and costs less, but why would they when they can get their loyal userbase to justify paying the extra costs so that they can have the latest and greatest from "Apple". You think if there was a Chinese knock-off that looked and sported the exact same specs but cost half of what the Macs do, that loyal Apple fans would buy it?

The case is an extra, it's the logo they care about.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By WTFiSJuiCE on 3/20/2009 6:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was not implying that Apple users aren't PC users as well and Apple Tv sales have tripled in comparison of quarters to this time last year mainly because media streaming has really caught steam and the addition to compatibility w/ iTunes further boosts iTV's value. Does the logo help? Absolutely in terms of marketability.

Perhaps you're correct and the logo isn't the only thing that they care about.

Looking at the Dell products that you mentioned, it looks as though in concept, Dell has made a machine "like" Apple albeit not "exactly" as they wish to profit from the trend and maybe even entice those Apple/PC fans to buy from them instead and that is where the case comes in.

So if both have said "trend" products then why is the Mac winning out?

What is it that makes the Mac case better? Although this is speculation, it would seem that these users are choosing their PC products for one reason and their Mac products for another despite having the option on both sides of the table.

And no I don't personally follow Apple because I build my own PCs and have no real use for Macs.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By mindless1 on 3/21/2009 12:04:22 AM , Rating: 2
So basically you are contrasting a product still in it's new-to-market, premium price phase. We do know Dell commonly knocks hundreds of dollars off their higher end systems on a regular basis, to the point where it would be madness to think their regular list price is what anyone is paying when it comes time to buy, except right at launch.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By xsilver on 3/22/2009 8:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
You've replied multiple times trying to compare a macbook to a uber high end windows pcs but the way I see it is only the PC companies trying to cash in on this very apple phenomenon.
What I mean is that dell hp could very well discount these high end pc's, they just choose not to. That is to say that both the macbooks AND hp envy etc are overpriced.

What would find interesting is if there was a clone of a macbook with similar high quality materials but not made by apple co but banana co. Only a hypothetical, but would people still buy it?


RE: he's right
By Targon on 3/23/2009 7:14:32 AM , Rating: 2
There are three tiers of computers, the bargain range, the consumer/mainstream range, and the high end. There is a price premium on the highest end products, always has been, and always will be. The problem is that brand names like VoodooPC, Alienware, and Apple attach a MUCH higher cost than the price of the components(in comparison to the low to mid range systems which are not marked up nearly as much).

When the cost of the i940 by itself is $550(give or take), but works in the same system as a i920($250ish), but systems with the i940 cost $500-$700 more than those with an i920, you KNOW someone is trying to take advantage of those wanting the high end products.

What I find sad is that you see these super-expensive systems paired with a Radeon 4850, so people pay a LOT more for the highest end processor in these premium systems, and don't even get the fastest video cards to go with them. If you are a gamer and are going to pay the price premium, why would you go with anything other than a high end video card?


RE: he's right
By 7Enigma on 3/23/2009 2:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, because they may be using it for something other than gaming?


RE: he's right
By 7Enigma on 3/23/2009 2:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
Or because they may have a <24" monitor?


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/23/2009 12:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's not an Apple phenomenon; it's a product phenomenon. Rolex is fundamentally the same product as Swatch, no?

The problem you face when you try to clone a MacBook Air and aim for high quality, is that there is no incentive to do so without also trying to get the margins. Dell would be stupid to sell the Adamo for $999 when it has the Latitude for $999; better to offer a $1999 Adamo and a $999 Latitude and charge what the market will bear.


RE: he's right
By HammerStrike on 3/22/2009 4:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
LoL - I don't think I have ever a longer string of -1 comments from one poster before.

Might want to move on to greener pastures.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/23/2009 12:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
I know, maybe I should. Someone here doesn't like what I say, and I'm not even being a prick or anything.


RE: he's right
By niva on 3/21/2009 3:42:03 AM , Rating: 5
Back in the day of the G3 it was completely different hardware if memory serves me right. Also back in those days powerPC architecture was indeed better than what intel/amd offered.

These days the mac is just a PC, in a pretty case, that runs OSX. You can make a much cheaper hakintosh with the same platform and the only thing you'll lose is the pretty logo but you'll probably pay $500 less.

The truth is that you're paying for a sticker. It's obviously your choice to do this, cheers!


RE: he's right
By Penti on 3/22/2009 3:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
The driving force for Apple is to create a whole platform, so it's not about a sticker or brand. OS X wouldn't still exist if they'd continued the route to sell licenses for a lot of different architectures. Neither would it had anything to do with Apple. You'd pay more for a 13" Sony Vaio or Asus than a Macbook any how. A HP workstation got way higher markups too.


RE: he's right
By afkrotch on 3/23/2009 9:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Psystar. Same platform, lower price.

HP workstation with higher markups. Did you actually look at specs. There's a reason. They didn't put in a trash vidcard, seeing as it's a WORKSTATION

Aside from that, I can't configure them to be the same. HP doesn't use the new Xeons in their workstations yet.


RE: he's right
By Penti on 3/27/2009 5:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
No they got a Opteron for much lower cost.

The graphics card in the base model is NVIDIA Quadro FX1700 which is hardly impressive as it's basically a 8500GT. Not very useful, definitely not more so then a GT120. You can buy one without a graphics card for 2800 dollars though and buy your own HD4870 but you get a HD4870 in the Mac Pro for $2699 USD. Both are workstations and that's my point.

A psystar don't got the same chipset, graphics or processors. There's nothing valuable about there hackint0sh's. If you want semi-functional retail parts then buy them yourself. It would cost 500 dollars less...


RE: he's right
By ChickenMcTest on 3/26/2009 4:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
No the logo its self is not the the shiny wrapper.

MacBook Pros have a very expensive and very nice aluminum case and lots of other features. The iMac has a very nice and very expensive LG Philips LCD IPS panel. The Mac Pros has a very expensive all aluminum case the same quality as a high end Silverstone or Lian Li case.

quote:
Shiny wrappers can cost anything and be anything in the individual's mind,

Apple sells most of its products in very high quality cases, which cost real money. If you want to compare the cost an Apple computer to another computer manufacturer you have to take the case into consideration.


RE: he's right
By ReligiousScience on 3/20/2009 3:01:37 PM , Rating: 5
Logo aside, the only thing unique about a Mac is the OS and some software. The problem I have is you can't buy just the OS.

Windows, *nix and MacOS can usually achieve the same basic functionality. The devil is in the details.

The few people I've met that are savvy and adamant about Macs just prefer the way the software works. They also don't mind buying all of their systems pre-built.

Aside from that, Mac users really are paying a good amount more for average hardware and a certain "flavor" of software.


RE: he's right
By GeorgeH on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: he's right
By GeorgeH on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: he's right
By afkrotch on 3/20/2009 4:05:22 PM , Rating: 5
What else is there to a computer aside internals and the OS? Only thing aside from that is looks. I'm not paying $500 for looks.

Internals - Same stuff as PCs

OS - Apple crap does the same crap as on PC. Most PC crap doesn't work on OSX. Unless you do bootcamp, then that's more money buying Windows.

Looks - Debateable. Wouldn't catch my ass with an ugly iMac or Mac Mini. The Mac Pro looks nice on the outside, terrible mess on the inside. Close to the same horrid layout as the Dell Precision 490.

Also shipped with higher quality peripherals and components? Such as what? You get zero monitor (unless you want to spend more), the keyboard is too simplistic for most, and the mouse is a horrible piece of trash.

The mobo is gonna be built to be cheap, so they can maximize profits. Like any other OEM. So it'll lack great cooling, onboard features, and advanced bios settings.

The memory is gonna be your value type ram. Again, maximize profits. We aren't getting memory with the highest speeds at the lowest timings.

Hard drives will probably be the low cost, average performance Samsung, Fujitsu, or Hitachi kind.

Nothing from an OEM is ever high quality, unless it's from a boutique OEM. They of course way overcharge for what they're giving you.


RE: he's right
By GeorgeH on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By afkrotch on 3/20/2009 4:55:15 PM , Rating: 5
Not exactly sure what that's suppose to show me. It's pretty obvious that you went for the most expensive parts you could find for the 2nd one, while not even paying much attention to what your getting.

DVD 1 is IDE, while DVD 2 is SATA.

Power supply one is total trash, while Power supply 2 is much higher quality. Course way higher than anything you'd ever see in an Apple or all OEMs (minus Boutique). Go ahead, crack open your Apple and show me that $50 PSU in there.

The cases. One's overpriced and gaudy looking as hell, while the other does the exact same thing. I'd be more inclined to just buy Lian Li for 1/2 the cost and have better quality at the same time.

Do you really think you're getting high end parts in your Apple? High end parts for customers, means lower profits for Apple. Giving the feeling of high end parts with sleek exterior is what Apple's all about.

Many ppl do find value in more than just benchmarks. Those ppl build their own PCs. Those who want to think they do, buy Apple.


RE: he's right
By WTFiSJuiCE on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: he's right
By Felofasofa on 3/21/2009 9:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also I still can't get over why people love Lian Li so much. Can anyone tell me what supporters see in their cases to justify those prices?

They are very stylish from a minimalist perspective, well built, all aluminium making them light, and well ventilated. You got to see them in the flesh to really appreciate them.

You've only got to look at the build threads on forums to know that Enthusiasts are putting together superb PC's with top quality bits for very affordable money. Overclocking Mbs, after-market cooling, uber quiet fans, there never has been a better time for custom rigs which are so far beyond what Apple or the OEM's are offering it's not funny.

Corsair VX-450
Silverstone TJ08
Gigbyte/Asus mATX Mb
Team/Corsair/Mushkin ram

A build I've repeated many times for friends/relatives, it's cheap, but excellent quality.


RE: he's right
By GeorgeH on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 5:36:29 PM , Rating: 5
You're crazed. A Mac Pro, even the base version w/o upgrades, is nowhere near as high quality as a $2000 PC (Mac Pro lists for $2500). You could even use that overpriced case and PSU you linked to to build the PC and still come in under $2000 for equivalent specs and component quality.


RE: he's right
By GeorgeH on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By bohhad on 3/20/2009 6:59:11 PM , Rating: 3
vista ultimate goes for $180, and you can't seriously say the mouse and keyboard that comes with a mac pro is comparable to a $100 mouse/keyboard set. does apple even ship a two button mouse without having to pay for an upgrade? (not being sarcastic, i don't know)


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By GeorgeH on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By Penti on 3/21/2009 5:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Keyboard + mighty mouse costs 98 dollars extra on the Mac Mini, 129 dollars for the wireless, more if you buy both separate. That's why the white Macbook has much more value. It's gonna cost as much if you need some peripherals.


RE: he's right
By StevoLincolnite on 3/20/2009 9:19:19 PM , Rating: 3
You don't need Vista Ultimate for starters, Vitsa Home Premium is good enough.

What I find funny is how you have all these High-End parts but it's paired with such a pathetic GPU, gamer or not, if you are spending that much money throw something decent in!

I would also pass up the Xeon, Motherboard and DDR3 memory for: A Q9550 ~ 2.83ghz 12mb of Cache and a 1333mhz FSB, a decent Gigabyte motherboard and 4gb of DDR2 memory which will net more performance at a lower cost.

I think what your missing here is the fact that the PC is highly customizable, It's cheaper to upgrade a PC than it is for a Mac, especially in the Video card department, Unless you intend to get in the realm of messy BIOS mods.


RE: he's right
By GeorgeH on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 11:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
The prices for what you listed would buy a PC that stomps a Mac Pro in every possible way.

You keep getting confused as if you think they are filled with gold and blessed by angels or something. They don't have $350 motherboards, nor even $150 PSUs.

You claim more performance but you're still not getting it. For LESS money you can buy a FASTER system because it has a FASTER XEON IN IT.

A Mac Pro is a money pit with a designer label. Not higher quality, not faster, and not nearly as useful.


RE: he's right
By StevoLincolnite on 3/21/2009 10:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not about need or what's "best", it's about establishing a comparison.


Comparison or not, If you had upgraded your PC consistently over the ages it would work out cheaper than buying a new Mac every time to keep up.

Apple has large profits on everything they sell, if they could they would sell you a $2 toothbrush for $100, which is no different from any other company where they want profits.

However the PC is a little different, the reasons for the pricing difference is simple, there is competition in every single segment of the PC market.

So I can firmly say that the Mac is just a PC with a different case and a different Operating system, the hardware is the same stuff you can find on the shelves where ever you look just with a different BIOS most of the time.
You get less choice in hardware, less upgrade ability, and less software availability unless you decide to run Bootcamp, those have always been factual points for the Mac even when I was a kid and they were using PowerPC processors, which Apple claimed they were significantly faster than an Intel x86 processor. (Looks like they were wrong?)

Also what about overclocking? ;)


RE: he's right
By Penti on 3/21/2009 5:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
And that wouldn't be a workstation, desktops are different and Apple only do them one way - the iMac. You might need Ultimate if your a professional user. Macs and other workstations would pretty much be used until they are replace years later as is the whole time. The GT120 is just the lowest part available, you can have your HD4870 for 200 dollars extra.


RE: he's right
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 11:52:22 PM , Rating: 4
Once again you're confused, thinking the Mac has parts equivalent to these listed prices.

Right now I can buy that CPU in their $2500 configuration for under $350. FIRST ITEM on your list and already off by $650.

You are out of your mind if you think for one second that an Apple case and PSU are worth more than $180, if that, but to randomly throw on another $500?

Become friends with math.


RE: he's right
By Kalessian on 3/21/2009 1:07:39 AM , Rating: 5
LoL, you listed a 2.66ghz quad-core for $1000. Stop trolling.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

That's what I would buy with your $1000, and overclock it to 4ghz or so. If I had that I would just smile as you told me your 2.66ghz Xeon is better.

mindless1 is right, btw, average run-of-the-mill enthusiast hardware is better than Apple's OEM stuff they peddle around.


RE: he's right
By GeorgeH on 3/21/2009 1:29:19 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, you're right. Just double-checked, and when I looked it up the first time I accidentally priced Gainestown and not Bloomfield.

Apologies all around, I'm a moron. *sigh*


RE: he's right
By mindless1 on 3/21/2009 4:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
You have my respect, most people would resort to troll mode.


RE: he's right
By Penti on 3/21/2009 8:21:03 AM , Rating: 2
No other workstation uses Nehalems right now though, but the W3520 is retarded by Apple.

You can get two E5520 for 750 dollars. I.e. $500 motherboard, $300 DDR3 ECC/Reg 1GBx6, $150 PSU, $150 case, $70 drive, $150 videocard, $50 for burner that's 2120 dollars. Although cooling costs at least $150 on top of that. Macbook is not at a premium though, the Dell Adamo made with the same processes by the same manufacturer will cost just as much. Mind you a HP xw9400 workstation starts at $2599. That's with a 185 dollar processor.


RE: he's right
By Narbo on 3/27/2009 12:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
People who buy a Mac Pro to run single threaded apps bought the wrong computer. You can easily buy an equivalent PC or a cheaper Mac to do this.

The only reason to buy a Mac Pro is because they excel at multithreaded apps. Try to price out an 8 core Xeon/Nehalem based PC which will do rendering/encoding as fast as a Mac Pro. Good luck with that. The CPUs alone are 1K each.

For the tasks they are designed for (high end A/V work) Mac Pros are excellent and good value for money. For the general computing tasks being discussed in this thread I fully agree, buy something else.


RE: he's right
By wallijonn on 3/25/2009 6:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really think you're getting high end parts in your Apple?


Yes. It all depends on reliability and the warranty. If the number of returns for Apple products are 1/10th that of a PC then the Apple is more reliable. If the product doesn't die a week or two after the warranty expires (like it does with a certain major OEM company,) then yes, it is more reliable. The difference between Apple and a PC is probably in the Quality Assurance, stuff like making sure that the PC is over engineered, things like using quality capacitors and doing etch layout "correctly".

I have XP, Ubuntu and OSX at home. I haven't turned on my XP box in over two years.


RE: he's right
By Alexstarfire on 3/21/2009 2:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly is your point in showing us this? That different brands/models are more expensive than others even though they may offer the same stuff. Different PSU models/brands can widely vary on quality which is why no one in their right mind would purposefully buy an Ultra-X model to use. The same can even be said of optical drives. Some models offer features that others don't. Granted if you're just looking into basic reading and burning capabilities that they will be the same. Cases....... I don't really know what to say. Looks and style determine price for most of these. Some are more expensive due to having more space and features, but that's usually only part of it.

Show me an Apple product where I even have the option to choose a different brand of ANYTHING. Ohh that's right, YOU CAN'T. You have ONE choice for any specific part, save different batches of CPUs which isn't anyone's choice anyway. Don't like the case, ohh well that's all you got. Don't like the PSU, ohh well, that's the only brand. Customizing a Mac is like customizing concrete.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 5:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
They are much cheaper. Your examples were ridiculous, Apple is not using a $250 PSU for example, we are talking about the same quality of components, if not then it's more than $500 difference.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/2009 3:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
Well, logo aside, the only unique things about a Mac is the OS, some software, AND the case.

Once you throw in the software and case you have pretty much matched the Mac in terms of price, too:
Dell Adamo, for example
HP Envy 13, as another
Dell XPS One as another

The difference there is that the only difference between a Dell Adamo and a Dell Latitude is the case!


RE: he's right
By Flunk on 3/21/2009 2:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's not even close, Apple doesn't really have anything that matches the Voodoo Envy 13 in performance and form factor. Also, the XPS One can be had for less than an equivalent iMac, although only the 20inch one is close to equivalent because the others all have quad cores.

True, the Adamo is priced equivalently to the Macbook Air but internally does not resemble a Latitude at all, it uses ULV processors and a lot of shrunken components. It's also smaller than an Air.

My point is that yes, you can buy a high end system that's as overpriced as a Mac but these companies all offer more affordable options. The Dell XPS m1330 starts are $699 where the MacBook starts at... $1,399.00.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: he's right
By Penti on 3/22/2009 3:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Dell Adamo will be made in the same factory. The Dell XPS m1330 is the best match actually, Sony Vaio's and Asus notebooks are way less competitive. I have no problem comparing m1330 with Macbook white. OEMs just buy stuff from the ODMs/EMS's any how so they might have markups there. They are not wallmart when it comes to sourcing. Companies don't go under when Apple stops making a model at their company. Not owning the factories means money for assembling the electronics and products don't go to them too. There's a reason everything costs about the same.


RE: he's right
By someguy123 on 3/20/2009 4:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
I believe this is ballmers point. the difference here is you don't see BMW and Mercedes commenting on a Toyota with the exact same parts as being inferior, and making outrageous claims against it like it constantly breaks down or is hard to control.

At the same time, those systems you listed are FASTER than their apple counterparts, which actually kind of just emphasizes the point that apple systems are overpriced.

Fact of the matter is, you are paying a substantial amount more for the apple logo. there is nothing else to it. is there something wrong with this? not necessarily, people do it all the time with everything, but you can't claim these are somehow superior or PCs. With the economy the way it is, there is no way apple can keep such a high premium and still increase or even maintain sales until the economy picks back up.


RE: he's right
By DigitalFreak on 3/20/2009 8:51:46 PM , Rating: 5
Bingo!

For that extra $500+, you don't get just the Apple logo. You get:

Warping notebook cases
Discolored notebook cases due to excessive heat
Shoddy notebook LCD screens
Melted power adapters (which may or may not burst into flame)
Melted MagSafe power connectors
... and the list goes on.

Definitely worth the extra money an Apple system costs! /sarcasm


RE: he's right
By Moishe on 3/20/2009 3:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
You'd be more accurate if you compared a Civic and a Camry and then added $5-10k (50%-100% increase) to the price of the Camry.

Sure the cars are different but they are in the same class as far as power, size, MPG, etc.

In other words, a $500 PC will do everything a $750-$1000 Mac will do and have similar hardware specs (it's be just as fast and juse as usable but it will be slightly different).

Get it?


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By Pirks on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By Moishe on 3/20/2009 3:33:19 PM , Rating: 3
You will always find points on both sides of this aisle. One side is always behind. What you're talking about is usually is not a matter of Mac will do X and PC will not. It's a matter of Mac will do X easier/more intuitive than a PC.

Mac users like the Mac style of interface and they're used to it. It doesn't mean that the interface is *necessarily* better. Generally we can do the same things.


RE: he's right
By someguy123 on 3/20/2009 4:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
you can't really argue about better programs here. as much as i love final cut pro, that is a single program for a specific market. on PC, you can find a program for damn near anything, and multiple different programs that essentially do the exact same thing. not only that, you can find tons of these programs free and open sourced.

the only argument for mac is the much more simplified, user friendly design. if you constantly use your computer, though, the design is quite annoying compared to the PC, because there are many times where you'll be required to go through multiple steps to achieve something, whereas on the PC the overall interface may be more complex and bloated, you'd be able to achieve something much more quickly once you've learned it.


RE: he's right
By DigitalFreak on 3/20/2009 8:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so now that you've had to concede that the hardware-that-matters (ie: not the case) is no different than what you find in a regular old PC, you're down to arguing software. LOL


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/2009 11:27:05 PM , Rating: 1
Huh? When was there ever a discussion that said hardware matters?

Hardware is a platform, software actually does stuff. In other words a box with parts is meaningless without an OS and software.

The case is important because it lends itself towards use. A 15" notebook is portable, a minitower with the same specs, but a separate monitor and a 25lb UPS isn't portable. The example is extreme but it showcases how the form factor and case is important.

In the same way a Mac mini and iMac are both SFF systems, and thus comparable to a Asus Nova or XPS One, and you know what?

They aren't cheaper.


RE: he's right
By Reclaimer77 on 3/21/2009 8:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But oft-times Apple will release software on the Mac for which there is no real PC counterpart


Uhh wrong, Apple will BUY OUT a software company or product that has a working PC version, and promptly cancel the PC version after the purchase. They have done this again, and again, and again.

Apple rarely 'releases' software anyone gives a crap about. They buy companies who already wrote it.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/22/2009 12:03:09 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, with one more caveat:
Buy a company with both Mac and PC versions
Cancel PC version
Improve Mac version

This process requires them to improve the Mac version.

In any case, they did that to Final Cut (which they turned into iMovie, so that's one example that breaks your model but fits mine), iTunes (which also breaks your model but fits mine), iDVD (which fits your model and mine), etc.


RE: he's right
By Iger on 3/23/2009 10:05:58 AM , Rating: 2
Did you just imply iTunes was ever WORSE?


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/23/2009 11:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it was.

When it was Mac OS 9 only.


RE: he's right
By VaultDweller on 3/20/2009 2:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
... except Final Cut. The Mac users definitely have us trumped on that one.


RE: he's right
By rudolphna on 3/20/2009 8:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
I have used both, and while Windows movie maker is not anywhere close to Final cut pro, for the vast majority of people, it will work just fine. (im speaking of the Vista version, the XP version was very very bare bones)


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/20/2009 11:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but that reiterates my point that PC software has to catch up. iMovie was released in 1999, and Vista Movie Maker was released in 2005; by 2005 iMovie was more or less as capable as FCE 1.0 from 2003.


RE: he's right
By someguy123 on 3/21/2009 12:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
1-2 good programs on the mac = windows must catch up?

you're not making much sense here. again, pretty good program, but you can't denounce an entire operating system's compatibility with millions of free programs just because it doesn't come with a good movie maker.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/21/2009 12:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
Um, who is denouncing the OS? I'm talking specific software packages here.


RE: he's right
By someguy123 on 3/21/2009 12:57:51 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, ok. I just read it as denouncing, since you kept saying windows must "catch up". I was merely pointing out that windows vast compatibility makes up for the lack of a prebuilt movie maker, even though mac's is pretty good.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/21/2009 11:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
Um, reread again, I said "PC software has to catch up", not "Windows must catch up".


RE: he's right
By noirsoft on 3/22/2009 12:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
For the $500 I save buying a PC, I can get a copy of Vegas Movie Studio, which is better than iMovie or Premiere Elements.


RE: he's right
By michael2k on 3/22/2009 11:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
So you can buy a $100 PC?

The Mac mini, at $599, comes with iMovie.


RE: he's right
By Moishe on 3/22/2009 5:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think more accurate would be the "free" software that Microsoft includes with Windows (and suubsequently gets sued for by the EU) needs to catch up.

This is by no means a good generalization about "PC" software.
On the other hand, some of the "free" "included with" software is better on the PC, like IE 7 and Media Center.

Like I said before there are winners on each side of the aisle when it comes to software. Not sure why Apple has to charge so much more for what balances out to be the same quality stuff. Certainly nobody here has presented a good reason.


RE: he's right
By mondo1234 on 3/20/2009 5:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you to a certain extent, Balmer is right in regards to the price point analogy. I will bet that Balmer doesn't drive a Corolla does he? Why not? It gets the job done - doesn't it? I am sure he could get a chauffeur for it as easily as his limo. I am sure he could get a corolla with a shelf for his "GREY POUPON"!

He doesn't drive a Corolla because he wants some thing else, or he can afford something else..case closed. And who cares! Good for Steve. He's a ga-zillionaire.....and thats all I got to say 'bout that......


RE: he's right
By DigitalFreak on 3/20/2009 8:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Bill Gates drives a Ford Focus, and Steve Ballmer drives a 1998 Lincoln Continental and was planning on getting a Lincoln Zephyer (as of June 2007).


RE: he's right
By Scott66 on 3/20/2009 11:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Kickbacks for the Microsoft sync partnership. Sync is one of the cool things Microsoft is involved in.


RE: he's right
By mondo1234 on 3/21/2009 1:36:07 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, Gates is best known for his Porsches. I will also bet that Ballmer has more than one vehicle. The point is, why dont they just get basic transportation, instead of "wasting" money on a vehicle that does the same thing. You dont hear Toyota saying these guys are "wasting" their money by not buying a Corolla. The reason is, Toyota knows they are secure with their sales, reliability, and customer service.
I will bet that Gates likes the Porsche label on his vehicles. I just dont get why Ballmer cares if people want to throw extra money at a Mac.


RE: he's right
By niva on 3/21/2009 3:51:38 AM , Rating: 2
Because they are competitors perhaps?

Every time someone buys a mac that's a PC they just didn't buy, and that's money out of Ballmer's pocket.

It is a highly competitive industry and Apple has made HUGE cuts into the market. Obviously Microsoft was a bit peeved at that but I agree with Ballmer's comments 100% in this case.


RE: he's right
By Yaron on 3/20/2009 5:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree.

I bought my Mac because I wanted OS X. It is the only big difference between Apple & Windows. It's not the Logo, nor the case, it is the operating system.

The only time I care about the hardware is before I buy the computer - will it service my needs today and in the next few years.

OS X is much better then windows XP/Vista in so many ways. It is by far the best operating system I have ever used, and I have used many in my almost 27 years of computer geeking.

We'll see what happens with Win7 - I installed the beta on one of my PCs and it looks and feels pretty good, but until they release it, OS X rules.


RE: he's right
By StevoLincolnite on 3/20/2009 9:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OS X is much better then windows XP/Vista in so many ways. It is by far the best operating system I have ever used, and I have used many in my almost 27 years of computer geeking.


That's your opinion many would Agree and Disagree with such an opinion.

However I grew up in the days of the Commodore 64 and the Sony MSX, Saw the rise and fall of DOS, saw the advent of Windows 95 and the consistent evolution between each OS iteration, from both Mac and Windows.

The -best- Operating System for -me- is: Windows XP, it has the Compatibility of all Windows Versions prior to it, it's a familiar operating system, millions of different pieces of software (Which includes Games and Applications), great driver support, small and efficient and does everything I require it to.

There is only one problem I have if I moved to the Mac systems and that would be gaming, more specifically upgrading the video card whenever I need/want to, I cannot just buy any PC Graphics card and drop it in, they require a certain BIOS to be functional and to be honest I can't be bothered with messing around with that kind of thing anymore.

PC/Mac both have there fan-bases, but I'm not ready to give up my PC gaming life just yet.


RE: he's right
By Yaron on 3/21/2009 2:25:26 PM , Rating: 1
I guess your point is valid.

Nevertheless, according to what I know and regarding -my- experience, Mac OS X is the best OS I have ever used. Win XP is a good OS, but i do not think it is as polished as OS X.
Gaming wise, there is no question - Windows trumps OS X. I for one, have two computers - a Mac for my day to day stuff and a PC for gaming. That's how I enjoy both worlds.
From time to time I also install on a third PC (an older one), a new linux distro (usually ubuntu) so I can check out what's going on.

I agree that bottom line this is a subjective opinion and an OS / Platform needs to serve the user needs. But I also think that there are differences between the platforms and that these differences - as of today- favor Mac OS X.

P.S
I am too old and too experienced to be a fan boy of any company or product ;)


RE: he's right
By someguy123 on 3/21/2009 12:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
you may love OSX, there is no one that can necessarily tell you otherwise since it's really just personal preference when it comes down to it, but really, that's not what you're paying for. you're paying for the logo. OSX does not add such a high price to the final product.


RE: he's right
By Yaron on 3/21/2009 2:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
As a rule of thumb I do not pay for the logo.
The logo does not interest me. For me, it was always about the OS.

However, I understand what you are saying and I do agree that Apple's pricing is outrageous. Mac OS X or not, the price for a brand new Mac Pro (for example) is not justified. I also think that with the current financial situation, Apple is going to be hit hard. This will be a good thing. Exactly like MS got slapped in the face with Vista and they woke up (to some extent with Win7), Apple is going to get slapped in the face with the pricing scheme and I can't wait for that to happen! :)


RE: he's right
By Pirks on 3/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: he's right
By Yaron on 3/21/2009 6:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Totally.
So what's the point?


RE: he's right
By Pirks on 3/21/2009 7:45:07 PM , Rating: 1
Dual socket machines were and always will be more expensive than single socket ones. For the reason of being DUAL socket. Hence I'm not sure "overpriced" is the correct word here.

You don't call powerful big Honda Ridgeline truck overpriced compared to small and not powerfull Honda Fit, do you? More expensive != overpriced in this case. Same with dual socket computers.


RE: he's right
By chick0n on 3/22/2009 8:49:02 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong

I can find a Dual Socket board today that can run Latest and greatest CPU for less than 80 bux.

A "average" quality mobo cost more than that. and the 80 bux dual board came from Tyan, Quality stuff.

You failed again.


RE: he's right
By Pirks on 3/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By taber on 3/22/2009 9:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
280 dual socket xeon mobo:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

2 x 480 2.66 ghz xeons:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

6 x 17 for 12 GB RAM:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

that takes care of the server parts. I'll be lazy and say $400 for a nice PSU and case. $200 for Vista ultimate (although you'd be smarter to wait for 7's release). $70 for 640 GB HD. $50 for a nice DVD burner. $200 for a nice graphics card.

That's 2262 and you could make it cheaper if you really wanted. Scratch Windows and use Linux or OpenSolaris or whatever. Configure the same machine for on the apple store and it's 4999.

So, yeah, I think overpriced IS the right word here. You're too ignorant to listen to any reasoning. I'm sure you'll come up with some asinine response to say I'm wrong without providing a single link as to why.

The ironic thing is you were actually badmouthing a person who likes OS X in this thread.


RE: he's right
By Pirks on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: he's right
By taber on 3/23/2009 1:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
My bad, they were recently updated. Only ones from a few months ago qualify for the specs I just shot off. Go get an i7 and you can still easily beat the price of the quad core. In a month or two you can price out a dual socket one. The fact still stands mac hardware IS more expensive. Why don't you think so?

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_conte...

Why don't you cough up some statistics and links to justify all these costs? Grow up and learn how to argue with facts and not silly retorts.

For the record, the only nehalem I know you can get now isn't tagged with the xeon moniker. In the past that mostly meant there was more cache normally. Is there actually any difference between what Apple puts in their machines and this? I don't see it in a quick comparison of the specs.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

Knowing about computer hardware isn't the same thing as knowing the current generation apple mac pro specs genius. Good luck with prying your lips from Steve's ass.


RE: he's right
By Pirks on 3/23/2009 2:24:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The fact still stands mac hardware IS more expensive. Why don't you think so?
Who said I don't think so? Stop selling me your fantasies. I'm not interested.
quote:
Why don't you cough up some statistics and links to justify all these costs?
Why don't YOU cough up some statistics and links first? Where's your hard proof that Mac Pro is overpriced, huh? Haven't seen any yet ;) Why should I believe your words?
quote:
Is there actually any difference between what Apple puts in their machines and this? I don't see it in a quick comparison of the specs.
Aha, so you don't KNOW for a fact what is the difference, but you still make claims and pretend it to be a final truth. Standard dumb Apple basher's way, I've seen people like you before, many many times. DT is swarming with those.

Anyway, come back when you have hard proof for yor claims. I'm not interested in your beliefs, sorry.


RE: he's right
By FaceMaster on 3/20/2009 9:13:07 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds like somebody's jealous that Apple is doing so well. So what if their products are sub-par? People are buying them. They're successful.


RE: he's right
By DigitalFreak on 3/20/2009 9:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
I say that if they can sucker idiots into buying their stuff, more power to 'em.


RE: he's right
By Pirks on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By DigitalFreak on 3/20/2009 9:38:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
By your logic the world population consists mostly of idiots because most people buy iPods. Right?


The world's population consisting of mostly idiots is a discussion for another topic.

I'll give Apple credit for the iPod. However, this discussion is about PCs, not gadgets. Even the retarded kid gets one right once in awhile.


RE: he's right
By someguy123 on 3/21/2009 12:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
that's some circular reasoning right there. ipod doesn't really have anything to do with Mac computers. Same company does not mean same thing, i.e. you can't say Honda is pushing the industry technology forward because by creating a robot.


RE: he's right
By someguy123 on 3/21/2009 12:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
whoops, get that because out of there.

"you can't say honda is pushing the car industry technology forward by pushing robot technology."


RE: he's right
By Pirks on 3/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: he's right
By someguy123 on 3/21/2009 1:05:49 AM , Rating: 2
obviously that wasn't his intention....because single post later he says he was referring to PCs and Macs.


RE: he's right
By FaceMaster on 3/22/2009 3:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By your logic the world population consists mostly of idiots because most people buy iPods. Right?


Well, duh...


RE: he's right
By silversound on 3/21/2009 1:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
But Apple do have a nice exterior design and better materials like use of aluminum than regular branded PC, mostly use steel or plastic


RE: he's right
By PhoenixKnight on 3/21/2009 3:05:14 AM , Rating: 2
That's why those of us who like the style of Macs and build our own PCs go for Lian-Li cases. Definitely worth the extra money. Unfortunately, that's not really an option for people who buy pre-built PCs, unless they go with one of the very high-end boutique PCs that are even more overpriced than Macs.


RE: he's right
By Penti on 3/21/2009 3:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
Well they aren't buy an equivalent Windows PC from the same ODM like Foxconn, Quanta, Asustek and brands like Asus, Sony, Dell etc who uses them. And it will cost you about the same. There are no Microsoft PCs but there's 120 dollars going to them any how when buying a Windows PC, but I guess Apple can't charge for the development/use of their software and can't offer there services and support as an OEM to their customers and thus get paid for it. I wish the Mac Mini would be cheaper and buyable though. Like it was when it was a G4.

The White MacBook has great value though. An Asus can't compete, neither can a Sony Vaio. Dell is pretty much spot on. But neither is a business laptop. It really depends on what you have to use it for.


RE: he's right
By stimudent on 3/21/2009 7:46:00 AM , Rating: 1
He's accusing Apple of this.
He probably shouldn't be accusing anyone of anything given Microsoft's history.
When was the last time Apple was investigated for unethical conduct in the marketplace?


RE: he's right
By vcolon on 3/22/2009 1:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
The average consumer didn't need Ballmer to tell us what we already knew. This is why worldwide, the PC is still king.


RE: he's right
By Quiescent on 3/22/2009 3:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
Rofl, I feel insulted but this finalizes my hate for Apple.

Here I am, sitting with an EeePC 4G Surf.

I have it hooked up to a monitor, and with the use of Google Chrome, I have averaged around 40-50 processes.

I can lightly use Fruity Loops Studio. I can use Photoshop CS3 for a lot of uses, just not a lot at once.

And I can have an uptime of 8 weeks without any stability issues, mind you I have a 4GB SSD, 4GB SDHC, and 4GB flash drive.

I have been using this constantly since my desktop died 4 months ago, meaning that I have used this far beyond it's expectations.

And this is just a Celly M OC'd to 1008.11mhz, with a 1GB of RAM upgrade.

Don't think I really can run photoshop without an overall performance degrade?

http://i41.tinypic.com/nlsax4.jpg

and I can only imagine what I am going to be able to do with a 1000HE with the HDD replaced with an OCZ Vertex SSD, and a RAM upgrade.

Definitely not any work in Fruity Loops Studio, but I already average 15-30 tabs in Google Chrome.

It really upsets me that he is calling netbooks a piece of crap. They really can give it your all, especially if they have a decent SSD. I have had mine for over a year, and that's how long my nLited XP install has been on here too. And I have had nothing but seeing the light being shed on a celly I was at first skeptical that it could do anything.

But then it finalizes my outlook on Apple, how shady of a company they are, and it's users, or it's target market, I should say.


RE: he's right
By wvh on 3/22/2009 10:15:19 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of people buy Apple because it's about the only way not to pay for a laptop running Windows. My girlfriend wanted something different; I'm a long-term Linux user, but she's not very technical and hardly going to get a laptop and install Linux herself... So there was Apple with a polished ready-to-use end-user product where the hardware and software cooperate nicely.

I think a lot of people are willing to pay even up to $500 for an Apple logo because it's not the Microsoft logo. Which is how I interpret what Ballmer says.


RE: he's right
By jmurbank on 3/23/2009 7:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
What Apple notebooks have that many manufactures have not yet included or think they should never include because it might increase the price of the system.

16.7 million LCD monitor. Sure other companies does advertise but are they telling the truth. In fact they are not. The Macbook and Macbook Pro have no dithering.

LED back light. Sony and few Dell models have this but the prices are the same of the Macbook and Macbook Pro.

Power connector is connected by magnets, so the connector does not break as easily over time.

Moving away from plastic to metal casing is good. Metal is easier to recycle compared to plastic with out releasing too many toxicins.

Mac OS X is superior to any Windows version that I have used. Mac OS X has better memory management and it is damn stable.

If you compare the prices of a Macbook and Macbook Pro to Sony and Dell models of equal features, the price will be just about the same.

I agree with Steve Jobs that a quality notebook computer can not be built for $500. A pieces of crap notebook computer can be built for $500.


that's the idea.
By Mr Perfect on 3/20/2009 1:44:49 PM , Rating: 5
"Paying $500 for a Logo."

Yes, that's the idea. Apple is targeting themselves as a a premium product, or what the marketeers seem to be calling a "Lifestyle brand" these days. People pay a premium for the logo, because the logo says "I bought a premium product."

Weather you think that's a makes sense is up to the individual.




RE: that's the idea.
By spread on 3/20/2009 1:56:24 PM , Rating: 5
Apple Stickers FOR SALE! Only $500.


RE: that's the idea.
By ghost03 on 3/20/2009 1:58:47 PM , Rating: 5
While I'm sure some people purchase Apple products for the logo (or whatever "stigma" they think is attached), there's a lot of good reasons people are willing to pay the price premium too. Don't get me wrong, I've got my share of gripes with Apple, but for the extra coin you really do get a solid, functional OS wrapped in a shiny piece of hardware.


RE: that's the idea.
By mindless1 on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: that's the idea.
By ReligiousScience on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: that's the idea.
By Proxes on 3/20/2009 3:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
It won't break my heart or the world of PC gaming to see a few FPS companies move to console only. Most are doing it because of pirating.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/20/2009 3:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, if it were some drappy casual shooter company I wouldn't bother, but Crytek?! The last standing provider of the big-budget ultra-high-quality-3D-rendering PC-only blockbusters? That's kinda serious. I wonder who nVidia will sell their GPUs to when there's no demanding 3D games to use their GPUs' rendering power. Console makers maybe? But they are not interested in ultra-high-end 3D like in Crysis. A puzzling question to me...


RE: that's the idea.
By theapparition on 3/20/2009 6:18:32 PM , Rating: 3
Spoken just like.....well, Pirks. If you believe everything you read, then you'd also be inclined to believe that all game companies are going to devote 50% of developement towards the Wii, and every other console and PC would be left with scraps.

The reality is that while the Wii has a large market, there are very few serious games, and companies that place large bets on the Wii are bound to be disappointed. Same with PC Gaming, it's not going anywhere. Even FPS won't go anywhere and even if it's true (which I don't believe rumors) that Crytek isn't developing for the PC, other companies will step into thier place. Id is still around, after all.

There's far more to life (and computers) than just games, and 3D accelerated hardware will always have a place in future computer architectures. Intel wouldn't be heavily investing into new architectures like Larabee if there wasn't.

This is an old argument that you've always made. Who needs more powerful graphics than what's in a Macbook Pro. Well, for one, I do......and it's not for games. But we've been over this ground before, so no need to bring it up again.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/20/2009 7:12:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Id is still around
Ah, that console game producing company? The console game called Rage, right? Yep, they are still around, together with console game makers Valve and others. Crytek recently joined the gang too ;)
quote:
other companies will step into their place
I wish I were able to predict the future as well as you do. Oh wait...


RE: that's the idea.
By theapparition on 3/21/2009 1:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
So just because a company makes something for consoles, that's it for PC gaming.

Id's currently developing next gen engine developed for PC only, to funnel down to console at a later date. Oops, someone developing for PC first.....better start the end of console tripe. Of course not, for the forseeable future, both platforms will be developed.

Better stay away from predicting the future.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: that's the idea.
By afkrotch on 3/20/2009 5:09:19 PM , Rating: 3
Can't kill PC gaming til you kill MMOs and RTS. They both play like crap on a console.

I'm an avid gamer with all the current gen consoles (minus Wii. Got rid of that stupid thing). Out of all of them, my PC is the one I play most. It's also the one that can play every single PC game that has ever come out. Talk about backwards compatibility there.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: that's the idea.
By WTFiSJuiCE on 3/20/2009 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 5
That's ridiculous to consider Crysis the factor by which all PC gaming and its future will be judged.

Look at valve and steam and its userbase, its easier to say that Crysis itself was almost a freak of nature when it came out since it took the hardware a little time in order to really play it well and even now on the upper echelon of screen resolutions it can be troubling still.

PC gaming isn't dying anytime soon nor is it being isolated by the attractive console platforms. What is going to most likely happen since we're seeing more and more preparation for it is the attempts to further build games for cross platform compatibility like some games already sport where people on the PC and a console, for my example i'll say the Xbox 360, can play multiplayer mode together.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/20/2009 11:03:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
all PC gaming
Not all of course, just the big budget PC exclusive blockbusters, the cream of the crop of PC gaming.
quote:
PC gaming isn't dying
PC gaming isn't, exclusive PC-only big budget gaming is.


RE: that's the idea.
By Noliving on 3/21/2009 1:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
Same is true for the big budget console gaming, there are less and less big budget games being released that are exclusives to only one console.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/21/2009 3:18:09 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is there are such big budget exclusives for consoles and there is none for PCs. No more. Crysis was the swan song of blockbuster PC-only gaming.

You know why? Because Xbox 360 is pushed and promoted by MS, and PS3 has the backing of Sony. Both consoles have no problems with piracy.

PC, on the other hand, has a big problem with piracy and only has backing of a few honest paying PC gamers, and that's it. Piracy killed big budget PC-only gaming. Crytek guys already told the story last year when they announced "no more PC exclusives", I'm just repeating the old news.


RE: that's the idea.
By Captain828 on 3/21/2009 5:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
ORLY??

News flash: Blizzard is PC only! Valve was PC only for a very long time as well.

Piracy? all X360 games HAVE been pirated even a week before launch! Some names: GTAIV, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, GoW2 etc.
Sure, the PS3 hasn't been hacked yet, but X360's are easily hacked.

And about Crytek, their problem didn't reside to bad sale because of piracy, but because you couldn't play the damn game with higher graphical settings on pretty much nothing, but 3x 8800 Ultra systems.
Do you know when games sell the best? in the first weeks.

It took Crysis the whole Christmas season to sell 1mil copies, selling a meager 86000 copies is the first few weeks.
While that's not a very good start, given the fact that you required a high end PC (read: what few people have), 1mil in 3 months is not something to cough at.

I remember a rumor in June '08 saying they sold 3mil copies... I'd say that's pretty darn profitable. Wonder how many they sold till this day, given a GTX260 can play the game well?


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/21/2009 5:54:06 AM , Rating: 1
Blizzard is MMORPG and I never said MMORPG on PC is going to die soon.

Valve was a PC studio. Key word here is "was".

Piracy is much harder technically on a console compared to PC. Besides you can't hack new Xboxes with unerasable DVD firmware so your point is moot.

quote:
I'd say that's pretty darn profitable
If it were, they would stay PC-only. But they didn't.


RE: that's the idea.
By Captain828 on 3/22/2009 8:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
Point taken for Valve, but Blizzard is MMORPG?!

Have you heard of StarCraft, WarCraft or Diablo?!
EACH ONE is a series of it's own, and ALL on the PC!

Hell, even StarCraft II and Diablo 3 are going to be PC exclusive (Blizzard said it out loud).

Also, Crytek in fact will stay PC only, yet that PC only is "ultra high end graphics" (as you call it) only.
They clearly stated that CryEngine 3 will be a lot more scalable, being able to be have both console versions (current and next-gen!) and PC versions.

Also, that 3mil is for June '08, before the GT200 and HD4800 series were launched. They probably sold a crap-load more afterwards, given they also gave away bundles with GPU's.
3mil x $50 = $150M; Crysis' development costs were ~$25M.
Let's say an extra 25 went on publishing & marketing costs...
Do you think $100M is not a good amount of profit?!

They used the PC piracy and gave some numbers of Crysis torrents just to have an excuse for Crytek's PC only fans and develop console versions in the future.

Do YOU really believe everything the game devs and publishers tell us?!
Why do you think we don't have the exact number of sold Crysis copies up to this date?!

Just think for a second... if they made so much money with Crysis on the PC, why the hell would they not release it (or the next series) to the consoles as well??
More money doesn't hurt anyone! ;)

Wonder what you'll say now...

Some references:
- <url=http://www.techspot.com/news/33888-crytek-announce...
- <url=http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790148p1.html>IG... for PC</url>


RE: that's the idea.
By Captain828 on 3/22/2009 8:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Stupid tags...
http://www.techspot.com/news/33888-crytek-announce...
http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790148p1.html

Also, I wasn't referring to the firmware flash on the X360's... that indeed doesn't work for a while.
You change the damn optical drive ;)
Hell, I even know guys that did that from retailers directly and STILL have their warranty.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/22/2009 8:34:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Have you heard of StarCraft, WarCraft or Diablo?
Yeah, they will be released for Mac OS X, so no need to buy a PC for them either :P Just like with any other major modern game anyway. See my posts above, I won't repeat what I've said. Big budget PC exclusives are dead and Blizzard making Mac version of their new gaimes is ANOTHER PROOF OF THAT. Is that clear?
quote:
Why do you think we don't have the exact number of sold Crysis copies up to this date?
Because the number is too low and Crytek is too ashamed to reveal it ;-)
quote:
if they made so much money with Crysis on the PC, why the hell would they not release it or the next series to the consoles as well?
Exactly. They just stopped making PC exclusives, that's all, nothing else to say about it. Big budget PC exclusives are dead. Thanks for repeating what I've said above ;-)

P.S. just to avoid misunderstanding: when I say PC I mean Windows PC (or "WinPC", that's how I call it ;-)


RE: that's the idea.
By Noliving on 3/22/2009 2:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ok how about starcraft 2, diablo 3, and warcraft 3? Those are not mmorpg.


RE: that's the idea.
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 5:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't mean to suggest many would switch to 'nix overnight. Consider that typically a person plays fewer complex games as they grow older. Those who were raised on Windows gaming in their youth, also become more PC savvy after that period.

More technical knowledge and less gaming translates into a person more likely to see the use of 'nix as reasonable, set up computers that way, and their children are exposed to and learn 'nix just as the prior generation did windows.

Again this is not going to be some massive movement, but the truth is that each successive version of windows, OSX, (or whatever other OS, take your pick) will have fewer and fewer features a prospective buyer considers valuable, price will become a more significant factor in the future particularly with lower cost computing devices other than one's main PC or server.


RE: that's the idea.
By bohhad on 3/20/2009 6:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
i hardly think the lack of crysis 2 for pc will be the death knell of PC gaming. this happens with every new generation of consoles, people cry pc gaming will soon be dead. it won't.


RE: that's the idea.
By DigitalFreak on 3/20/2009 9:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Crytek moving to consoles with no Crysis 2 for PC in sight


You have a link to back that up?

They have said they are no longer going to be PC exclusive. For that matter, the Crytek 3 engine that was just announced runs on the PC as well as consoles.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: that's the idea.
By DigitalFreak on 3/20/2009 9:47:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Crytek moving to consoles with no Crysis 2 for PC in sight.


This is what I was replying to, and that was quite clear in my post. Seriously, are you mentally retarded? I have yet to see you from a logical thought, much less a logical argument.

If you are retarded, it's OK. I'll cut you some slack.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/20/2009 11:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is what I was replying to, and that was quite clear in my post
Yeah, and I agreed with you. They definitely are not going to be PC exclusive because they moved to consoles. Anything else to discuss?


RE: that's the idea.
By Noliving on 3/20/2009 11:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
No what you were implying was that crytek was moving to being a console only company and not making pc games at all. There is nothing wrong with increasing your market in which your games are sold. Just because a game is no longer a pc exclusive doesn't mean the pc game industry is bad or that its situation is deteriorating or declining.

The PC game market is very healthy.

The truth of the matter is that the days of exclusives on a gameconsole themselves are gone, there are less and less games that are only available on one console and only one console.

Why is having a game pc exclusive such a big deal? You still have the game availalbe for the pc so what difference does it make?


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/20/2009 11:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what you were implying was that crytek was moving to being a console only company
Nope, I didn't imply that. _You_ did, but I didn't. I meant Crytek became cross platform, or "moved from PC-only to consoles-as-well" as I put it above. Not literally but this is what I meant
quote:
The truth of the matter is that the days of exclusives on a gameconsole themselves are gone
Tell me these fairy tales again when I see such big budget console exclusives as GeoW 2, Halo 3, Uncharted and The Darkness on a PC. Until then - I'm not buying your fantasy stories, sell 'em to Stevo here, he's a diehard PC gaming lover, he'll buy it ALL :))
quote:
You still have the game availalbe for the pc so what difference does it make?
When the game is available for a console there's no need to buy Windows if you're an average person and/or a tech illiterate gamer. Got it?


RE: that's the idea.
By Kalessian on 3/21/2009 1:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the game is available for a console there's no need to buy Windows if you're an average person and/or a tech illiterate gamer. Got it?


So what you're implying is that Apple users are tech illiterate and need to use consoles? That sounds about right.


RE: that's the idea.
By michael2k on 3/22/2009 12:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
80% of PC users are also tech illiterate and should be using Macs... but they don't.


RE: that's the idea.
By Noliving on 3/21/2009 1:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Crytek moving to consoles with no Crysis 2 for PC in sight


That right there is you implying they are moving to console only and not releasing games for the pc.

quote:
Tell me these fairy tales again when I see such big budget console exclusives as GeoW 2, Halo 3, Uncharted and The Darkness on a PC. Until then - I'm not buying your fantasy stories, sell 'em to Stevo here, he's a diehard PC gaming lover, he'll buy it ALL :))


finalfantasy, metalgearsolid, residentevil, grandtheftauto, are all franchises that at one point or another use to be on a single console or system and were exclusives too those consoles/systems for that generation and then went too be released on other consoles/systems in that generation or in the next generation. So yes the days of consoles themselves maintaining exclusives are going away.

quote:
When the game is available for a console there's no need to buy Windows if you're an average person and/or a tech illiterate gamer. Got it?


Why buy the game on a ps3 when you can get it on a xbox360 right? Got it? The point being is that it doesn't matter, as long as your a pc gamer and the game is released on the pc does it really matter if the game is released on other consoles, if your a ps3 gamer does it really matter too you if its released on the 360? Didn't stop ps3 or pc gamers froming buying gta4 when you look at the dlc that the 360 version got. The average person plays a game on a pc or a mac, those internet flashed based games count, so what if your tech illiterate doesn't stop you from buying a pc and then playing games on it.


RE: that's the idea.
By OwnedYou on 3/23/2009 8:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bye bye big budget blockbuster PC exclusives


Umm... Red Alert has always been 'big budget' and is a PC exclusive. Try again.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/24/2009 2:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Red Alert 3 is a console and Mac game as well as PC one. Try harder next time, dumb liar :P


RE: that's the idea.
By Penti on 3/26/2009 8:02:05 AM , Rating: 2
Almost every game engine now days are cross platform and bought that way, so why wouldn't games be cross platform? Before the major game engines where, there were still companies around who ported games.


RE: that's the idea.
By Pirks on 3/26/2009 12:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Almost every game engine now days are cross platform
OwnedYou is too dumb to understand that.


RE: that's the idea.
By retrospooty on 3/20/2009 3:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
True... The correct statement should have been you are paying a few hundred extra for the logo. Its not JUST a logo, its also a computer. As long as its not in an enterprise/workplace environment, or to be used for games, its a perfectly functional computer.


RE: that's the idea.
By xti on 3/20/2009 2:00:32 PM , Rating: 3
im ok with paying a premium to things they have shown they have a good product. aka, then Ipod and/or Iphone. $200 bucks for the iphone isnt even that bad.

the desktop & notebook...not so much...


RE: that's the idea.
By Sazar on 3/20/2009 2:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

I am perfectly satisfied with my iPhone but am unlikely to feel the same about a desktop or notebook from Apple.


RE: that's the idea.
By invidious on 3/20/2009 2:51:44 PM , Rating: 1
Just because something makes sense to someone doesnt mean it isnt a bad decision and that you cant belittle them for it.

The world being flat made sense to some, as did global warming, hybrid cars, and investing in beanie babies...

It certainly makes sense for apple to take their money, I will give them credit for that.


By Scott66 on 3/20/2009 2:31:12 PM , Rating: 5
....Microsoft builds a computer and tries to make money selling it.




By Scott66 on 3/20/2009 2:52:25 PM , Rating: 5
Please finish the "When Apple sells their OS to be installed on PC hardware I will listen to Steve Jobs...." line.

You just proved my point. Steve has no valid comments on selling OS to non Apple computers because Apple chooses not to. Microsoft chooses not to make and market computer hardware (except for peripherals) so Balmer has no credentials to comment on hardware.

Since Apple does put their software on the same PC hardware as Microsoft, Steve Jobs just might have some valuable input.


By Whaaambulance on 3/20/2009 3:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since Apple does put their software on the same PC hardware as Microsoft


Wrong. If you think you can toss any Asus, Gigab