Apple taking its focus off of the computer industry?

[ByzantineRemnant]

Many of friends cannot comprehend why I purchased an ibook over a regular PC. I am going to try my best to make them believers, they have an arugument for everything.

 

[alejandrico]

Well, when people ask me why I bought a mac instead of a PC, I don't try to convince them that it was the best option
I just tell I needed a machine running something better than Windows or Linux because I was tired of working with inferior Operating Systems

 

[Macman]

EXACTLY:mac:

 

[Arleban]

a lot of people i talk to feel that macs are too expensive. EVERYONE i talk to mentions the DELL as the best bang for your buck computer. I think the iMac G5 starting at $1300 is a good deal for what you get (and the iBook 12" is even a better deal!)but i can't convince anyone in the office or many of my friends that it is a good deal. Most scoff at Macs and how they can purchase a DELL for $500 and claim it is a decent PeeCee. ...

Hi all. New here, and pretty new to Macs. I just wanted to say that I personally, not having a lot of money, do think that Macs are a bit expensive. If you look at your above example, $500 for a Dell and add around $400 for a 17' flat panel and you get $900 bucks. That right there is cheaper than a new iMac. Eventually, you will replace your computer whatever brand that is. At this point with the Dell I'm replacing the computer, but with the iMac I'm replacing the computer and monitor. So to replace it's ~$500 vs. $1300.

Having said all that though, I am impressed with the amount of time that the Mac hardware stays viable. The powermac g4's are still considered great machines and the older ones are still big $$$. I think that I will be trying to get an older one and just stay behind the curve a bit. I've never had the money to stay on the bleeding edge of hardware anyway.

 

[the_New_guy]

what every the do it is working
there share has gone from 25$ to 65$

 

[iPod]

Apple's stock has jumped because of the iPods plus the holiday season. Major retailors have run out of them!
And yes, Macs are expensive. But these machines are are built for performance, PC's are the standard in the business world, thats what they are built for. Large corperations have the the time, people and effort to mange and maintain them.

 

[Avalon]

Hi all. New here, and pretty new to Macs. I just wanted to say that I personally, not having a lot of money, do think that Macs are a bit expensive. If you look at your above example, $500 for a Dell and add around $400 for a 17' flat panel and you get $900 bucks. That right there is cheaper than a new iMac. Eventually, you will replace your computer whatever brand that is. At this point with the Dell I'm replacing the computer, but with the iMac I'm replacing the computer and monitor. So to replace it's ~$500 vs. $1300.

Having said all that though, I am impressed with the amount of time that the Mac hardware stays viable. The powermac g4's are still considered great machines and the older ones are still big $$$. I think that I will be trying to get an older one and just stay behind the curve a bit. I've never had the money to stay on the bleeding edge of hardware anyway.

A 500,-$ PC has nothing in common with the iMac's performance, not even mentioning the better design. And the iMac comes with a complete software solution, including a way better OS. It's not cheap, and it lacks a reasonable amount of RAM, but it always has been more expensive to be exclusive, hasn't it?

Why old Mac hardware is still viable? Quite simple, you take one of the first PowerMac G4 (let's say a 450MHz from 1999), ad some RAM (let's say about 768MB), install the latest OS release (10.3). And you can work just fine with that 5 year old computer. Now try the same with a 5year old PC, put in the same ammount of RAM, and install Windows XP SP2...it will run...but that's all. You can't really work with it.

You would be quite astonished how many people in the graphic department still use old Macs, you will find lots of them working on 4-5year old Macs, depending for which purpose even older ones still work.

Your 500,-$ PC will be outdated and unable to run actual software at latest in one year...

So being a Mac user definitely isn't cheap at the beginning, but you don't need the latest cutting-edge hardware to work comfortably.

 

[code777]

I agree with the above statement as I know of a graphics shop in town that still uses a QuickSilver PowerMac from 2001 and when I asked them if they considered switching to a Powermac G5 they looked at me and said, "If it 'aint broke don't fix" and the guy told me it has 10.3.6 running on it!

So in the long run it might be a worth while investment over a "cost-effective" DELL selling at $500. Besides, if you look at the specs of that $500 DELL well, you get the pic. the DELL will be outdated within 2yrs or less unless you get one of their higher end models.

 

[Cloudane]

All the general public understand is price, so IMO that's one of the main reasons Macs aren't taking over the world or whatever.

Case in point, I've worked in a couple of computer shops in the past and 99 customers out of 100 would always say the 3 magic words: "what's. your. cheapest."
What kind of mouse would you like? "What's your cheapest?"
You need a new power supply? Do you want a good one or a cheap one? "What's your cheapest?"
Okay, you want to buy a computer. What would you use it for.. your requirements will change depending on if you want it for games, word processing, graphics work etc? "What's your cheapest?"
What kind of case would you like? "What's your cheapest?"
....

I wouldn't really like to see a cheap Mac - because they're so carefully crafted, the only way they could offer them cheaper would be to *make* them cheaper with less care and poorer quality components.

It's a different market. I'm not even convinced Macs can be marketed in conventional ways, as people have suggested above it just raises more questions "But what about my..." and "Wow they're expensive"
It's more of a machine that sells itself. Those who don't desire for one in their own minds would be very, very difficult to sell to. IMO it's more for entheusiasts or people who understand the concepts of quality and getting what you pay for - there aren't many such people around. There are also a lot put off by other companies hiking prices for what I'd call "fake quality" - designer labels, Rolex etc.

 

[Arleban]

A 500,-$ PC has nothing in common with the iMac's performance, not even mentioning the better design. And the iMac comes with a complete software solution, including a way better OS. It's not cheap, and it lacks a reasonable amount of RAM, but it always has been more expensive to be exclusive, hasn't it?

Why old Mac hardware is still viable? Quite simple, you take one of the first PowerMac G4 (let's say a 450MHz from 1999), ad some RAM (let's say about 768MB), install the latest OS release (10.3). And you can work just fine with that 5 year old computer. Now try the same with a 5year old PC, put in the same ammount of RAM, and install Windows XP SP2...it will run...but that's all. You can't really work with it.

You would be quite astonished how many people in the graphic department still use old Macs, you will find lots of them working on 4-5year old Macs, depending for which purpose even older ones still work.

Your 500,-$ PC will be outdated and unable to run actual software at latest in one year...

So being a Mac user definitely isn't cheap at the beginning, but you don't need the latest cutting-edge hardware to work comfortably.

I understand your point, but I disagree with you on some of your PC assumptions. My 1.3 ghz Athlon PC I built myself is at least 3-4 years old and it is nowhere near outdated. Gaming of course is always the Great Outdater of computers and so I have updated my video card, but everything has stayed the same. Every other piece of software, including XP SP2 works just fine and no real issues with time/work. I also bought budget, I don't have the cash to get top of line parts when I built it.

As for the iMac, I don't want to buy a new monitor just because I'm buying a new computer. I bought a PowerMac so I won't have that problem. I just don't see the point of spending more money than you have to. I must not want to be exclusive enough.

 

[Avalon]

I understand your point, but I disagree with you on some of your PC assumptions. My 1.3 ghz Athlon PC I built myself is at least 3-4 years old and it is nowhere near outdated. Gaming of course is always the Great Outdater of computers and so I have updated my video card, but everything has stayed the same. Every other piece of software, including XP SP2 works just fine and no real issues with time/work. I also bought budget, I don't have the cash to get top of line parts when I built it.

As for the iMac, I don't want to buy a new monitor just because I'm buying a new computer. I bought a PowerMac so I won't have that problem. I just don't see the point of spending more money than you have to. I must not want to be exclusive enough.

I guess I exaggerated a little by telling it would be outdated in one year...that mostly depends on your needs and what you're using it for, of course. Gaming is a special branch anyway, and in that the Macs do have a lack... :yinyang:

I see your point on not spending more money than necessary, but with a Mac, you not only get a nice looking, reliable computer, but also a bunch of software right out of the box, and an operating system that is way ahead of XP.
XP is the best Windows ever, without a doubt, but it still has too many flaws coming from the way it's made up (the vulnerable registry being the worst).
Apple is, always was, and always will be more expensive, because of being more exclusive...that's a fact. neye:

To comment your choice for the PowerMac, I think it was the right choice.I bought a 1.25GHz G4 PowerMac last year, because I couldn't afford a G5 a t that time, and the iMac G4, allthough a nice machine, was just too unflexible for me, with it's built-in screen and limited upgradability. It's just simply more flexible not to have all-in-one, and having an expandable computer. But that's just my personal opinion. :biohazard

 

[Arleban]

It's cool. I understand what you are saying. I just have had enough from all sides of the OS wars, so I like to keep the facts as factual as possible.

I agree that the Macs are some fantastic machines and I am a bit disappointed that I did not bother to see this sooner. I was happy with my G3 (that I had for a year and barely did anything with...stupid me.), but when I saw that I could nab a G4 for $350...I had to go for it. The fact that the G3 even would run Panther relatively smoothly was impressive. Doubly impressive is the OS. It comes with full featured extras like mail programs and such, not half-@$$ed "lite" versions. It is a lot to start with a mac, but I agree that an average Dell vs. an average Powermac, the time of use and resell value are not a contest.

I am happy to be getting the mac, but for more useful reasons than exclusivity or cool factor. I just have had to deal with to many elitist mac-holes over the years that the attitude is a bit annoying. It's just me. I'm definitely a function over form geek, so when the ads started towards the "look at me, I'm cute and cool!", I tuned them out. My bad.

 

[dygmy]

For those who are bagging on OS9, please remember what versions of Windows were current at the time too. I'd stick with OS8 over Windows 95 and OS9 over Windows 2000 any day of the week! Yeah, XP is a big improvement but it ain't OSX. From my POV, it's always been that way. Windows has always been one or two versions behind Apple in terms of functionality and a long way behind in intuivity and ease of use. I've used Windows and Macs at work since 1988. I'll NEVER buy a Windows machine for myself.

I pig a dig me

 

[dygmy]

Oh yeah...and to answer the original question. I see it as an opportunity for Apple to be even more creative, since they're more profitable.

 

[Meyvn]

My personal opinion as far as OS's are concerned is that XP was NOT a big improvement. Especially not as big an improvement as OS X was. The only place I really see any significant difference at all is in appearance. I've been a Windows user most of my existence except for the occasional foray into my mother's PowerMac 9600, which I never liked because its keyboard had the little dots for your fingers in the wrong places (See, PC users care about seemingly insignificant things sometimes, too). It had OS 8.1 and I was not at all fond of it. The thing about Windows, though, is, ever since 95, it's been basically the same. They've added a few things here and there since 95, but the interface has been virtually completely identical the enter time. Now, given that I've now seen the error of my ways and gone Mac, what I WILL say is that Macs have always had Windows in terms of machine power, but my preference of OSes are as follows, on how their interface was mainly and secondarily how their registry was programmed, from worst to best: OS 8, Win 95/98/Me, Windows XP/OS 9 tied, Windows 2000 (more secure and much more well designed than XP), OS X.

 

[Cloudane]

The interface is the same, but 95 and XP are like chalk and cheese. They're completely different code bases - one DOS, one NT. NT4 or so was the revolutionary in stability, Win2000 in all-round stability, starting to converge with the home market and XP is just Win2000 with a (quite ugly) new look.

To compare any of them to Mac OSes though, seems daft / impossible. I wonder which one matches Win Millennium the closest - that was the worst version of Windows ever created.

 

[shaun89]

Back to the beginning... IMO, i think apple just made something unlike any other like the iPod to get them noticed for something alot of people like. And if PC people say "hey apple makes some pretty cool stuff" they might consider switching just from their previous product experiences. It's like an indirect switch to mac. They probably are still focussing alot on the computer industry jsut because they are working hard on new machines, and new OS's. They will just blow everyone away with one big update and some cool new products to just hit everyone at once..to realize that apple desn't suck. Just what i think.

 

[shaun89]

I wonder which one matches Win Millennium the closest - that was the worst version of Windows ever created.

Oh yeah. But how was it the worst OS ever? My dad has been running it for 3 years and he has never had any big crashes or lost any data to windows? It's jsut kind of a more visual appealing of windows 98.

 

[johnnyluu]

I don't know whether other people feel this way, but I have noticed that in recent years apple has taken its eye off of the computer industry and focused more on the music industry. They were talking about it on NPR about six months ago but I don't really recall what they were talking about. I also heard something about apple losing rather then gaining their place in the computer industry (5%, or something).

Comments? Opinions?

Lord of the Rings was primarily edited and composited on Macs, using iPods for Data transfer, Final Cut Pro and Shake. With power macs, xserves and apple developed software fast becoming the standard in the creative industries, I think Apple has a very focused eye on the computer industry!

 

[shaun89]

Yeah. Alot of movies are edited on a mac. Also in alot of recording studios they use macs.