As was said earlier if you base the cost on the business model of a pc laptop
and compare it spec by spec to a MBP their rendition of a business model you
would find the price not to far off plus you get the wonderful OSX system.
As was said earlier if you base the cost on the business model of a pc laptop
and compare it spec by spec to a MBP their rendition of a business model you
would find the price not to far off plus you get the wonderful OSX system.
I posted a nice "build" of a loaded 17" Dell. 2.66ghz processor, fast video card, blu ray player, 8GB of memory. It was $2000. Not half the price of a 17" MBP, but better specs.
And as what's been said before, not everyone wants or need a computer than costs more than $1000. If I was browsing the internet and checking e-mail, I wouldn't own my MBP. $2000 just to do that when a $500 computer would have worked just fine.
How many people in this thread that own at least one new Apple computer are hurting for money? If you're not and you were, would that change your outlook on this topic?
Well Microsoft doesn't make the machine its just the software, huge difference. You can put that crappy OS on anything that will run it. So I agree with several of the other posts here that its just another Best Buy or Circuit City. With the current economy I would also agree that a lot of people will buy out of need and not want. I would love a MBP but it will wait and I will continue with my G5 until I can afford to get what I want and not settle anymore..
right - kind of like the Zune beating the iPod, right?
+1
There's a reason why people save money and buy Mac. I've gone through 3 pcs in 4 years. And as much as I'd like to say it's because I'm rough on my machines, it's not it. I babied all of them and kept them up to date with anti-virus software, etc. For some reason that no one could seem to explain, they just dumped out on me. One of them had a motherboard failure. One stopped recognizing more than 256 MB of RAM (in November of 2008), and the most recent one, a Dell XPS laptop had more faulty parts than a Pinto.
I've had my MacBook since 2007 and I haven't had one single problem with it. Not one. I spent an accumulated 4300 dollars on my previous 3 PC's, and I've spent about 1650 on my MacBook so far after the upgrades. It's weird how the argument that a Mac costs more just goes out the window when you get down to splitting hairs.
While I agree in general, I have yet to find a PC with nearly identical specs that is half the price. You generally get what you pay for in PCs. Apple may be about 20% inflated over a comparable PC, but it's certainly not double the price.
Apple needs to drive home the point in their advertising that you don't get a Mercedes with Yugo money. The general public has a bad perception that computers cost $500 or less, and that's just not true if we're talking about state-of-the-art, modern components.
I see your point but the concern would be to drive away potential customers. You don't see college kids going to a MB dealership often. Its a slippery slope to get on if they get too 'elitest'. Case in point Pioneer and their Plasma TV division. Hands down the best TV I have ever seen and owned but a very high price. They knew they were the best and everyone agreed but they priced themselves out of existence. Even when the prices tumbled it was too late they had built a brand known as super pricey and ppl had stopped even considering them.
As far as actual pricing take a 13inch MBP comes that comes in at 1200. 2.26Ghz, 2Gb ram, 160Gb HD Nvidia graphics.
Dell studio 14z 2.2Ghz, 2Gb ram, 250HD 14inch screen Nvidia graphics $749
I will concede its not half the price but it is 38% cheaper which is significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa107
It all depends on how it's marketed. Windows 7 is a great release from Microsoft, no doubt - but what's the killer app? The killer app is that they "fixed" Vista. But how do you market that? If Apple were smart, they'd play up the fact that Microsoft finally fixed Vista, and for that you get to pay them yet again.
On technical merits alone, W7 is very much a refined version of Vista. There are no great technical leaps here. Snow Leopard is a different story. OpenCL, Grand Central and other, numerous technical innovations set SL apart from Leopard. Microsoft has yet to provide any avenue for developers to easily capitalize on multiprocessing capabilities of modern machines.
Trust me I am not saying W7 is perfect by any stretch and I cannot comment on the developers POV. The killer app though is a bit confusing to me in this situation. I would say the same about any OS, none are a killer app including SL. Its not a must have killer app its a stable, quick and reliable OS. As far as paying twice for Vista IDK anyone that actually bought it, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa107
Me too, but I think you give W7 way more credit than it deserves. If I wanted a more refined, stable and compatible version of Vista, I could always just go back to Windows XP (and save some resources to boot!).
True u could but the old saying is true, familiarity breeds contempt and XP has been around for a long time.....
Mac Specs: 13" MacBook, iPod Touch 1st gen, iPod nano 5 gen
Ok, now I am 12 and I SAVED AND WORKED for my MB. I knew that a mac was overall a better OS and was willing to pay a premium for that. I just find Mac a whole lot more simpler and it has lots of cool features. Now, I know I could have got a PC for 900 and had a 500gb HD and lots of RAM, but Mucrosoft has not gained any trust in me, and I know lots of my classmates would trade a PC for a Mac in an instant. I think Apple targets people who realize that a Mac is realible and simple, not cheap.
W7 is a good piece of software I agree with you. But MS still have multiple versions of it in store just like Vista was. A bad idea in my opinion. A mistake they never learned on.
W7 is a good piece of software I agree with you. But MS still have multiple versions of it in store just like Vista was. A bad idea in my opinion. A mistake they never learned on.
But why would some one pay for Vista Ultimate when they don't need any of the extra features?
W7 home premium is going to be the average home user's version. Why buy something labeled as Windows 7 Business for regular home computing? The only one I could see causing confusion would be w7 ultimate...until the people see the $200 price difference between it and home.
Home premium, business, and ultimate are the three that are mostly going to end up on shelves anywhere.
I mean, if Apple put drive encryption and security software into it's OS that only corporate people would actually need and charged everyone $400 for it without offering a cheaper alternative, would you not be miffed?
But why would some one pay for Vista Ultimate when they don't need any of the extra features?
W7 home premium is going to be the average home user's version. Why buy something labeled as Windows 7 Business for regular home computing? The only one I could see causing confusion would be w7 ultimate...until the people see the $200 price difference between it and home.
Home premium, business, and ultimate are the three that are mostly going to end up on shelves anywhere.
I mean, if Apple put drive encryption and security software into it's OS that only corporate people would actually need and charged everyone $400 for it without offering a cheaper alternative, would you not be miffed?
I think what he was getting at is that there are multiple layers of features in the different versions that just aren't necessary and ultimately end up confusing the customer.
Microsoft did it right with Windows XP - a 'Pro' and 'Home' version are exactly what's needed. And if they really want people to upgrade, price both versions reasonably - $99 for Home and $199 for Pro. That would go a long way both to curbing piracy and encouraging adoption.
I really don't understand why the marketing geniuses at Microsoft think a user will pay $400 for an OS - that's just absurd.
I really don't understand why the marketing geniuses at Microsoft think a user will pay $400 for an OS - that's just absurd.
And they claim Apple has a premium for their products. You know, the company where you can walk in to any Apple Store and buy a full retail version of an OS for $129...That Apple.
Yep, I can see how their premium prices are out of control.
I think what he was getting at is that there are multiple layers of features in the different versions that just aren't necessary and ultimately end up confusing the customer.
Microsoft did it right with Windows XP - a 'Pro' and 'Home' version are exactly what's needed. And if they really want people to upgrade, price both versions reasonably - $99 for Home and $199 for Pro. That would go a long way both to curbing piracy and encouraging adoption.
I really don't understand why the marketing geniuses at Microsoft think a user will pay $400 for an OS - that's just absurd.
Remember, Microsoft's target audience is much larger than Apple's. They have to cater to the people that want the bare minimum as well as the people that need everything that MS offers.
I mean, most basic users don't need the admin tool panel where you can setup user account and machine policies as well as tweak pretty much every single aspect of the OS from there. Plus they don't need drive encryption. Two features that distinguish home premium from business and ultimate.
Mac Specs: Macbook Pro 15", 2.4ghz, 4GB, 9400m+9600m GT. iPhone 3G. iPods:-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa107
I really don't understand why the marketing geniuses at Microsoft think a user will pay $400 for an OS - that's just absurd.
You hit the nail right in the head! I always wondered that, It makes no sense to argue about being able to buy a computer for half the price of a mac, but then turn around and pretty much pay more than 3 times more for an OS that, in my opinion, aghhh..aghh...aghmmmm...isn't worth it at all!
