New and Improved iMacs, but the Price???
Steve White
(SSBTract) wrote:
> I fail to understand why Apple cannot be price competitive with
> the other PC manufacturers, ...
It's called a market economy, stupid.
Apple sells every iMac they make at $1299 retail. They are constrained
from making more by the supply of parts and manufactoring capacity.
Since they are selling each one at $1299, why in the world would they sell
them for less?
When the iMac market begins to cool, and Apple sees that they are no
longer selling every one they make at that price (or a little before, if
their forecasting improves), they will:
1) cut the price
2) come out with the iMac Pro, a better iMac at a price determined by
market.
That is what one does in a market economy.
Geez: take an economics class sometime.
steve
Reply to: stevewhite at ce dot mediaone dot net
SSBTract
computer users out there that demanded the addition of a better graphics card
and more memory for the 3D engine to make the iMac a possibility for gamers.
The fact of the matter is that when you look at software sales, in terms of
numbers of units sold, games are by far the greatest selling type of computer
software (business software has more in total revenues, but far fewer units,
due to the higher prices).
And that is a very good thing. A consumer machine has to be good at
playing games. That should be obvious to almost everyone. But the price of
similar PCs has fallen greatly since the iMac was originally announced, and yet
the price of the iMac remains constant. It should be apparent to all that
although the iMac is a very good alternative for consumers to higher priced
Power Macs, the iMac is now selling for more than it should given current
market conditions.
G3 chips are less expensive per unit than comparable Pentium II
processors. The components of the iMac are relatively limited compared to other
PCs in its price class. The all-in-one design should serve to further cut costs
by reducing total material used in construction of the machine. And yet it
remains uncompetitive with current PCs that offer similar performance and are
equipped with far better components, and is nowhere near being ready to deal
with the impending flood of $600 PCs that is only months away, if that.
On the cover of the CompUSA circular this Sunday, you will see a Packard
Bell AMD K6-2/333 with 64 MB SDRAM, 8.0 GB hard drive, and Canon BJC-250 color
inkjet printer, complete with an admittedly fairly cheap CompUSA 14" .28dp
CompUSA monitor, all for $999.95, after a $130 instant rebate, and $30 mail-in
rebate. Even if you figure in that the monitor included with the system is not
15" and not of the same quality as the iMac, the gap that remains is still
extraordinary. And that's just one quick example, as there many other machines
that look very good compared to iMac, or any Mac, for that matter. And that is
to say nothing of mail order, where far better deals can be found.
I fail to understand why Apple cannot be price competitive with the other
PC manufacturers, given that they own the OS themselves and so do not have to
pay licensing fees as the other PC clones do, and have a cheaper supply of
processors at their disposal, and have stripped the iMac down to cut costs as
far as possible. How is it that with all these advantages, and actually owning
AppleWorks, so they don't have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for Works or
Home Essentials, that Apple still fundamentally fails to compete with the horde
of PC companies on a price/performance basis. And before the whiners out there
complain that a G3/233 is faster than a K6-2/333, which I would argue the point
about (especially with 3D-related tasks), consider that ProGen offers a Pentium
II/400, with 64 MB 100 MHz SDRAM, 6.4 GB Ultra ATA HD, 17" monitor, STB nVidia
Riva 128-ZX 8MB 3D 2x AGP card, stereo speakers w/subwoofer, microphone, Works,
Bookshelf, and Money all for $1389. And Dell offers a PowerBook G3-killing
notebook with Pentium II/300, 15" XGA Active Matrix, 128 MB SDRAM, 8 GB Ultra
ATA HD, combo 2x DVD-ROM drive/floppy drive, 2x AGP 8 MB 3D video, 56K modem,
and Microsoft Office 97 Small Business Edition for $3849. Compare that to a
PowerBook....
I believe that the reason for Apple's inability to compete with the
Wintel world is due to Apple's monopoly of its own architecture. In short,
Apple is a victim of its own monopoly.
Chad Irby
> On the cover of the CompUSA circular this Sunday, you will see a Packard
> Bell
<snip>
Packard-Bell?
The absolute *worst* of the "name brand" PC clones, with reliability and
support straight from the pits of Hell.
And you can get one for a whole $300 less than an iMac.
What a deal...
You know, you can get a really good deal on used Yugos now, too...
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
John Caravagio
[snipped to save wear and tear on my ISP's news server]
> Apple finally listened to the complaints of many of the well-informed
> computer users out there that demanded the addition of a better graphics card
> and more memory for the 3D engine to make the iMac a possibility for gamers.
> The fact of the matter is that when you look at software sales, in terms of
> numbers of units sold, games are by far the greatest selling type of computer
> software (business software has more in total revenues, but far fewer units,
> due to the higher prices).
> I fail to understand why Apple cannot be price competitive with
the other
> PC manufacturers, given that they own the OS themselves and so do not have to
> pay licensing fees as the other PC clones do, and have a cheaper supply of
> processors at their disposal, and have stripped the iMac down to cut costs as
> far as possible. How is it that with all these advantages, and actually owning
> AppleWorks, so they don't have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for Works or
> Home Essentials, that Apple still fundamentally fails to compete with
the horde
> of PC companies on a price/performance basis. And before the whiners out there
>
> I believe that the reason for Apple's inability to compete with the
> Wintel world is due to Apple's monopoly of its own architecture. In short,
> Apple is a victim of its own monopoly.
Nice post. An apparently earnest attempt at justifying PC over Mac
purchase. Unfortunately the thrust of your thesis is that Macs cost too
much over their PC counterparts.
Bad approach -- Here's at least a few reasons why;
1). Dyed-in-the-wool Mac fans, especially those who've used a Windows
machine, are more than happy to pay extra for the ease of use of the Mac
OS. For me personally, as well as a lot of other Mac users, price is not
paramount. I can't show you empirical evidence to support same, but I
strongly suspect, while not necessarily happy about it, Mac users are
willing to pay those extra greenbacks just for the user experience and
ease of the OS. I know I am!
2). You, as well as many others, cite excellent game performance as a
vital component of retail computer sales. No doubt that's a partially
valid argument. I'm a graphics professional, as are many thousands
(millions?) of my Mac using colleagues. Game play is a non-issue for many
of us. I could care less. However, for those Mac gamers out there, there
are any number of video accelerators, including Voodoo II, to augment a
Macs game play. Yes, the iMac isn't a gamers dream machine. So what? the
i in iMac is ostensibly for Internet. As the first --kinda/sorta Mac NC--
it's a dream come true for a lot of Mac users and first time computer
buyers as well as for corporations lusting after a dedicated web machine.
Fast processor, gorgeous monitor, fast modem, built in ethernet (in two
flavors!) All this for $1200! To many a Mac user that's a gift! Even
PCweek has nominated the iMac as one of the best new machines this year.
I don't know why this threatens so many PC advocates. I guess job security
issues or some inane desire to validate their (often poor and misinformed)
decisions.
3). You paint Apple as a victim of it's own closed architecture. Indeed.
Apple will do something on the order of $6 BILLION this year in gross
revenue with an after tax profit of over $250 million (projected). Those
numbers are met or exceeded by only a handful of PC manufacturers. Apple
is today a healthy company, doing more business than 90% of all American
Companies. That's hardly the portrait of a victim. If it is, please
victimize me!
4). You blather on (no offense) about why Macs should be less than or
equal to the cost of their PC counterparts, but miss several key issues
here. The first is that PC manufacturers are under enormous price
pressures as they attempt to compete against each other for a slice of
that PC computer pie. Comparing the specs of a Compaq to a Dell or a
Gateway is just a lot easier for a consumer. Whereas with the Mac, and its
proprietary subsystems, it's quite a bit more difficult to separate the
wheat from the chafe -- even amongst Mac users! I could also mention the
economies of scale when it comes to OEM purchases. Clearly, better
discounts are to be had with larger purchases by many PC manufacturers. We
could also go on about Apples margin being higher than most PC
manufacturers and while that may be bad news for consumers, investors
aren't complaining...but I digress..
5). Initial purchase price fools a lot of consumers -- ask anyone who
bought a $3995 Yugo if they got a good value. Study after study has
demonstrated that the support costs of a Mac are lower than a PC's.
That's partly because the OS is so comparatively intuitive. Furthermore,
when you factor in time as a cost of ownership, and time spent installing
peripherals, debugging software
conflicts and even simple steps like installing new software, again the
cost of Mac ownership shines against the PC.
Yes, it's true, sometimes, though not always, the initial cost of a Mac
may exceed that of a comparatively equipped PC, but first and foremost,
PC's don't offer the Mac OS -- a big knock against them IMO -- and in the
long term, when factoring in the ancillary support and downtime costs,
Macs are indeed a far better value than PC's.
Just like buying a car, that initial sticker price is just one part of
overall ownership costs.
And finally (thank goodness) if you can't afford a Mac, don't buy one or
get a better job, and in the words of my assistant, "quit yer b*tch*n".
Thank you for your time and consideration, gentle reader.
Have a GREAT Day!
-John
--
To reply via e-mail remove "*spambites**" from the return address.
Some men see the glass as half empty.
Bob Dole see's it as a great place for his teeth.
Gennica Hamilton
>
> I fail to understand why Apple cannot be price competitive with the other
> PC manufacturers, given that they own the OS themselves and so do not have to
> pay licensing fees as the other PC clones do, and have a cheaper supply of
> processors at their disposal, and have stripped the iMac down to cut costs as
> far as possible. How is it that with all these advantages, and actually owning
> AppleWorks, so they don't have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for Works or
> Home Essentials, that Apple still fundamentally fails to compete with
the horde
> of PC companies on a price/performance basis.
Nice post ssbtract... your really thinking here... The part you are having
trouble with is the term "price". Sure you get more buzz words for the
dollar with a wintel machine... but savvy customers aren't easily
tricked... the market is saying $1,299 is the correct "price" for the
iMac... in other words, the "value" given the customer is around $1,299.
Sure if sales started to slow, Apple could lower the "price", and make
inroads into the wintel space... (that comes next year) but at the moment,
I think steve jobs is correct in being concerned about christmas and
having enough machines to keep them on the shelves...
So, Apple is competitive if you remember to include the "value" dollar
amount into your equation... my guess the iMac has about $250 worth of
"value" over a comparible pc clone at this point and time...
Gennica
Andy Walton
: And that is a very good thing. A consumer machine has to be good at
:playing games. That should be obvious to almost everyone.
I'd rephrase that: a consumer machine should be good at running
entertainment software.
That differs from the above statement in two important ways: first,
entertainment != games; it may mean high-speed Web surfing, DVD movies, or
MP3 audio. My computer-based entertainment tends to run toward Web
surfing, audio CDs and MP3s -- call me a luddite, but I still like to read
and listen to music.
Second, "games" does not necessarily mean 3-D, real-time, arcade-style
shoot-em-ups. I have MacQuake installed, and haven't run it in weeks. I
play strategy games like Risk every day or two. Those games don't require
the latest whiz-bang graphics chipset or a gig of SGRAM.
The widespread assumption among Wintel advocates is that people buy home
computers to play Unreal. It's just as widespread, and just as misguided,
as the belief by soem Mac advocates that every computer user needs
Photoshop. The vast majority of users prize reliability, stability, ease
of use, and even shallow and esoteric factors of style over raw power --
that's why the Honda Civic and Toyota Camry are the best-selling cars in
America.
:On the cover of the CompUSA circular this Sunday, you will see a Packard
:Bell
Say no more.
Shoddy is cheaper than good. That doesn't surprise anyone. The initial
numbers indicate that a sizeable number of iMac buyers are new to the Mac;
it wouldn't surprise me if many of them had bought the
bargain-PC-o'-the-week, and are now willing to spend a few more bucks to
avoid a similar experience. General Motors (not to belabor the car
analogy) became the world's largest corporation in part because people
were willing to pay more for a more elegant, polished solution than Ford's
"industry standard" Model T.
--
"Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings.
Every time the microwave beeps, I get a hot burrito."
-- The Vent column, Atlanta Journal/Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Gennica Hamilton
1984... it sums up the Wintel / iMac price issue perfectly...
--------------
"Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have a cheap thing
that is no good, or wait for a cheap thing that is good?
The problem is that people have found out that they can make
money, partly because the public is so unsophisticated that people
don't even understand that the IBM PC is really an eight-bit machine.
It's basically an enormous con game."
Alan Kay -
--------------
Chris L Clement
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>ssbt...@aol.com (SSBTract) wrote:
>
>> On the cover of the CompUSA circular this Sunday, you will see a Packard
>> Bell
>
>
>Packard-Bell?
>
>The absolute *worst* of the "name brand" PC clones, with reliability and
>support straight from the pits of Hell.
>
>And you can get one for a whole $300 less than an iMac.
>
>What a deal...
Gee, you can get a quality Gateway 350 Mhz with a real video card, 6GB HD,
and 17"monitor along with the other standard features for a whole $129 more
than the iMac.
Chris
R. Tang
Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <19981026190913...@ng125.aol.com>, ssbt...@aol.com
>(SSBTract) wrote:
> : And that is a very good thing. A consumer machine has to be good at
> :playing games. That should be obvious to almost everyone.
>
>I'd rephrase that: a consumer machine should be good at running
>entertainment software.
>
>That differs from the above statement in two important ways: first,
>entertainment != games; it may mean high-speed Web surfing, DVD movies, or
>MP3 audio.
<snip>
>Second, "games" does not necessarily mean 3-D, real-time, arcade-style
>shoot-em-ups.
<snip>
>The widespread assumption among Wintel advocates is that people buy home
>computers to play Unreal. It's just as widespread, and just as misguided,
>as the belief by soem Mac advocates that every computer user needs
>Photoshop. The vast majority of users prize reliability, stability, ease
>of use, and even shallow and esoteric factors of style over raw power --
Ahhh....at least someone gets it.
What confuses folks is that the 3-D gaming segment is a LUCRATIVE
market segment; "capture" that and you can make a lot of money. But, as I
keep pointing out, there's more than one market segment in the consumer
market (think older, think female, think computer-is-a-tool segment), and
companies can make a very good living serving those underserved markets
(and please remember...a product aimed at the hot gaming market may NOT
appeal to these underserved markets).
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/aatr.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
SSBTractor
IBM-PCs are 8-bit machines, who seems to be stuck in an early 90's time
distortion, but you all failed to adress my main issue. And that issue is that
Macs are more expensive than similarly priced PCs WITHOUT ADEQUATE REASON. The
hardware is not more expensive, and Apple actually saves money by owning the OS
and other apsects of the software. If Apple was matching the pricing of its
competitors they should actually be able to offer LESS EXPENSIVE machines than
the Wintel companies. But since this is not so, it is clear that Apple either
suffers from a higher expense structure or makes significantly greater profit
margins than the other PC companies, in which case it is not competitive and is
doomed to remain a niche player, which is almost certainly true in any event.
The MacOS is not superior in any significant way to Windows. If you
disagree with this statement, show me evidence to support your arguement,
(which I have never seen). Any ease of use advantages it had in the past were
eroded to almost nothing with Windows 95. And the true measure of how useful
any OS is, is this:
HOW MUCH DOES IT LET YOU DO?
In this question, I think if you were really to answer it honestly, you
would have to admit that Windows, with its infinitely greater selection of
software, provides a better solution for the MAJORITY of people, in that it
lets them do more. All the people that want to run the latest 3D games, or any
other new games, would be BETTER served by Windows, since those games come out
on that platform first. People that want to use speech-recognition software
would be better served by Windows, as would those that like to use map programs
to plan trips, and those that need sophisticated accounting programs, and many
other specialized purposes, all of which Windows would serve better.
I defy anyone to name a major software package that is available on the
MacOS without an equivalent for Windows. Graphics programs, desktop publishing,
for a long time this would be true, but it is no more. Nearly all the major
graphics programs, if not all, have Windows versions now. I still don't see Mac
versions of Dragon Naturally Speaking, with its continual speech recognition
(not discrete recognition, which is bad to say the least), almost all the
newest games, which when they do come, are months and months behind Windows.
Back to the point, the MacOS does not cost more than Windows, is less
sophisticated in many regards, (no true multitasking, memory has to be
allocated manually!!!, ancient), has some advantages (is somewhat easier to
use, Sherlock is pretty cool, though does not have the power of Windows
Explorer), and DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE HIGHER PRICES OF MACS as compared to
similarly performing PCs.
That all having been said, Apple is not dying. I do not pretend to make
such a foolish statement. To do so would be foolish. But nor is Apple gaining
significant market share, or is likely to do so until Apple opens the
architecture up. I am not a Windows advocate, indeed I hate Microsoft with a
passion and hope that it burns forever in corporate hell under the heel of
Linux, but I hate monopolies as well. Microsoft is a monopoly, and so is Apple.
Let me say that again. APPLE IS A MONOPOLY. They make the OS, the hardware, and
share in making the chips. I say we are better off with PCs, which at least
offer choice in hardware and processor (AMD and Cyrix are viable alternatives
to Intel), because the architecture is open. If Apple had won the computer
wars, it would be them running the entire computer industry, and innovation
would suffer.
I would only consider buying a Mac when Apple freely licenses out the OS
and hardware designs. Until then, in my book, they are worse than Microsoft.
Eric Bennett
> On the cover of the CompUSA circular this Sunday, you will see a Packard
> Bell AMD K6-2/333 with 64 MB SDRAM, 8.0 GB hard drive, and Canon BJC-250 color
> inkjet printer, complete with an admittedly fairly cheap CompUSA 14" .28dp
> CompUSA monitor, all for $999.95, after a $130 instant rebate, and $30 mail-in
> rebate. Even if you figure in that the monitor included with the system is not
> 15" and not of the same quality as the iMac, the gap that remains is still
> extraordinary. And that's just one quick example, as there many other machines
> that look very good compared to iMac, or any Mac, for that matter. And that is
> to say nothing of mail order, where far better deals can be found.
It's a freaking PACKARD BELL!
And in case you've forgotten that PB is *still* the lowest-quality PC you
can buy, here's an article to refresh your memory:
http://cnnfn.com/digitaljam/9809/28/pcs_pkg/
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
Subversion has always been our best tactic.
- John Ludwig, Microsoft Vice President for Java Development
Chad Irby
> Gee, you can get a quality Gateway 350 Mhz with a real video card, 6GB HD,
> and 17"monitor along with the other standard features for a whole $129 more
> than the iMac.
...a gateway that is, at best, "average" quality for a PC.
In other words, not that good to begin with.
One of the companies I work for won't deal with Gateway at *all* now,
after getting a shipment of 24 computers, six of which had monitors that
were DOA...
Chad Irby
Alan Kay, incidentally, has a very nice G3 laptop that he uses for
presentations. It's loaded with something called Squeak (which is
interesting in its own way, and available on other platforms). See also:
SMALLTALK.
Steve White
ssbtr...@aol.com (SSBTractor) wrote:
> The MacOS is not superior in any significant way to Windows.d
Gads, you're a knucklehead.
> HOW MUCH DOES IT LET YOU DO?
Everything that I want to do.
> Back to the point, the MacOS does not cost more than Windows, is less
> sophisticated in many regards, (no true multitasking, memory has to be
> allocated manually!!!, ancient), ...
The point is that you're a troll.
> Let me say that again. APPLE IS A MONOPOLY. They make the OS, the hardware,
> and share in making the chips.
That's right. They're a LAWFUL monopoly.
MS is a lawful monopoly in the OS market. The problem is that they're
using that monopoly to create new monopolies (in browsers, in enterprise
operating systems, etc). But as long as MS obeys the law, they're entitled
to their monopoly in OS.
Monopolies aren't wrong. Illegal use of them is. Blathering stupidities
should be.
> I would only consider buying a Mac when Apple freely licenses out the OS
> and hardware designs. Until then, in my book, they are worse than Microsoft.
Guess that means you're leaving.
Lance Togar
genny-27109...@ppp14.ccms.net...
>This is a good time to post one of my favorite quotes from Alan Kay, circa
>1984... it sums up the Wintel / iMac price issue perfectly...
>
>--------------
>
>"Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have a cheap thing
>that is no good, or wait for a cheap thing that is good?
Nice summation except:
iMac isn't cheap.
iMac isn't technologically current or particularly "good".
..
>The problem is that people have found out that they can make
>money, partly because the public is so unsophisticated that people
>don't even understand that the IBM PC is really an eight-bit machine.
Didn't take Alan long to forget about "Apple II forever", did it?
..
>It's basically an enormous con game."
He was right about this, just conveniently forgot that Apple was a player in
this game.
..
..
>Alan Kay -
>
Chris L Clement
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>
>> Gee, you can get a quality Gateway 350 Mhz with a real video card, 6GB
HD,
>> and 17"monitor along with the other standard features for a whole $129
more
>> than the iMac.
>
>...a gateway that is, at best, "average" quality for a PC.
>
>In other words, not that good to begin with.
>
>One of the companies I work for won't deal with Gateway at *all* now,
>after getting a shipment of 24 computers, six of which had monitors that
>were DOA...
You are wrong. Gateway is consistently ranked as one of the top PCs in
quality. Dell is number one consistently. Your DOA numbers are pure
propaganda which, conveniently, you cannot prove.
Chris
Jeffrey S. Dutky
>
> One of the companies I work for won't deal with Gateway at
> *all* now, after getting a shipment of 24 computers, six of
> which had monitors that were DOA...
to which Chris L Clement responded:
>
> You are wrong. Gateway is consistently ranked as one of the
> top PCs in quality. Dell is number one consistently. Your DOA
> numbers are pure propaganda which, conveniently, you cannot prove.
>
I can offer some backup for thoses numbers, however. At the college
computer lab where I worked last year, we got 30 new Dell PII's.
Out of those thirty machines we had two dead monitors, three dead
floppy drives and one machine that just wouldn't power up. That's
a 20% failure rate.
If we assume that these two cases are outliers, and that the other
end of the normal distribution is down at 0%, we can see that the
average failure rate for Dell products is in the range of 10%.
However, these two cases may NOT be outliers (and are far more
likely to be in the average range) so that you can expect that
there are some cases of 40% failure rates!
- Jeff Dutky
Mark Hulme-Jones
SSBTractor wrote:
>
> All of you made very interesting points, except for that guy that said
> IBM-PCs are 8-bit machines, who seems to be stuck in an early 90's time
> distortion, but you all failed to adress my main issue. And that issue is that
> Macs are more expensive than similarly priced PCs WITHOUT ADEQUATE REASON. The
> hardware is not more expensive, and Apple actually saves money by owning the OS
> and other apsects of the software. If Apple was matching the pricing of its
> competitors they should actually be able to offer LESS EXPENSIVE machines than
> the Wintel companies. But since this is not so, it is clear that Apple either
> suffers from a higher expense structure or makes significantly greater profit
> margins than the other PC companies, in which case it is not competitive and is
> doomed to remain a niche player, which is almost certainly true in any event.
>
> The MacOS is not superior in any significant way to Windows. If you
> disagree with this statement, show me evidence to support your arguement,
> (which I have never seen). Any ease of use advantages it had in the past were
> eroded to almost nothing with Windows 95. And the true measure of how useful
> any OS is, is this:
If these ease of use advantages have been eroded away to nothing, then
why is that companies which employ both the Mac and Windows platforms
report significantly lower support costs/time spent on support for their Macs?
>
> HOW MUCH DOES IT LET YOU DO?
>
> In this question, I think if you were really to answer it honestly, you
> would have to admit that Windows, with its infinitely greater selection of
> software,
Infinitely greater? Come on, a machine which has over 10,000 pieces of
software available for it must enable you to do *something*, surely. In
fact, it seems to be anabling me to do somehting siginificantly more
than something, else I'd be typing this on a PC...
> provides a better solution for the MAJORITY of people, in that it
> lets them do more. All the people that want to run the latest 3D games, or any
> other new games, would be BETTER served by Windows, since those games come out
> on that platform first.
The games market, whilst accounting for a significant proportion of
software sales (especially in the Wintel world), is not the be all and
end all of a platform's software availability (although Wintel users
seem to think so). In fact, if all you want to dod is play games, then
you can buy a games console. Computers (both Macs and PCs) allow you
both to play games and run other software. For that majority of us who
do other things than play games, the Mac is more than adequate.
<snip>
>
> That all having been said, Apple is not dying. I do not pretend to make
> such a foolish statement. To do so would be foolish. But nor is Apple gaining
> significant market share, or is likely to do so until Apple opens the
> architecture up. I am not a Windows advocate, indeed I hate Microsoft with a
> passion and hope that it burns forever in corporate hell under the heel of
> Linux, but I hate monopolies as well. Microsoft is a monopoly, and so is Apple.
> Let me say that again. APPLE IS A MONOPOLY. They make the OS, the hardware, and
> share in making the chips. I say we are better off with PCs, which at least
> offer choice in hardware and processor (AMD and Cyrix are viable alternatives
> to Intel), because the architecture is open.
It really is only slightly more open. Apple uses 'open' technologies
like PCI and USB, allowing peripheral manufacturers a significant amount
of leeway for profiting from the Mac industry. The fact that pretty much
anyone can cobble together PCs doesn't make the industry that much more
open when the vast majority of the chipsets used on PC motherboards
originate with Intel.
> If Apple had won the computer
> wars, it would be them running the entire computer industry, and innovation
> would suffer.
>
> I would only consider buying a Mac when Apple freely licenses out the OS
> and hardware designs.
How much more open licensing do you need? Anyone can extend the MacOS
through system extensions, and anyone can provide expansion cards and
peripherals. Unless you want Linux-style licensing, which would
admittedly be nice.
> Until then, in my book, they are worse than Microsoft.
The reason (in my book at least) why Microsoft are so 'bad', is that
they are both a monopoly, and they produce software which lives up to to
my high standards. At least the Apple monopoly keeps pleasing me with
its innovations (Rhapsody/MacOS X/Sherlock =), rather than Microsoft,
who seem to enjoy irritating my with their predatory business tactics
and annoying bloatware additions to their OS (Active Desktop)...
*dons asbestos trousers*
Mark
--
Mark Hulme-Jones <cee...@cee.hw.ac.uk> --- http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/~ceemahj
Earl Malmrose
And it would also be correct that there are some cases of 100% failure
rates. All it takes is a single DOA on a single unit order to fulfill that.
An order of 30 units from a company that ships hundreds of thousands of
units is not a valid estimate of overall failure rates.
Chris L. Clement
Jeffrey S. Dutky wrote in message <36374C...@bellatlantic.net>...
>Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> One of the companies I work for won't deal with Gateway at
>> *all* now, after getting a shipment of 24 computers, six of
>> which had monitors that were DOA...
>
>to which Chris L Clement responded:
>>
>> You are wrong. Gateway is consistently ranked as one of the
>> top PCs in quality. Dell is number one consistently. Your DOA
>> numbers are pure propaganda which, conveniently, you cannot prove.
>>
>
>I can offer some backup for thoses numbers, however. At the college
>computer lab where I worked last year, we got 30 new Dell PII's.
>Out of those thirty machines we had two dead monitors, three dead
>floppy drives and one machine that just wouldn't power up. That's
>a 20% failure rate.
>
>If we assume that these two cases are outliers, and that the other
>end of the normal distribution is down at 0%, we can see that the
>average failure rate for Dell products is in the range of 10%.
>However, these two cases may NOT be outliers (and are far more
>likely to be in the average range) so that you can expect that
>there are some cases of 40% failure rates!
This is pure nonsense. I have purchased 6 Gateways the past year for my
office and NONE of them have had the first problem. Do I ignorantly suggest
that this MUST be the case for everyone else? No. And neither should you.
This data is totally unreliable and limited in scope. National ratings have
given Dell and Gateway very high marks in service, reliability, and customer
satisfaction. No amount of ridiculous Mac propaganda is going to change
that.
Chris
Richard Kuo
(Steve White) wrote:
>In article <19981027155239...@ng105.aol.com>,
>ssbtr...@aol.com (SSBTractor) wrote:
>
>> The MacOS is not superior in any significant way to Windows.d
>
>
>Gads, you're a knucklehead.
>
>
>> HOW MUCH DOES IT LET YOU DO?
>
>
>Everything that I want to do.
>
>
>> Back to the point, the MacOS does not cost more than Windows, is less
>> sophisticated in many regards, (no true multitasking, memory has to be
>> allocated manually!!!, ancient), ...
>
>
>The point is that you're a troll.
>
I'm trying to figure out why you deleted all the very good and
coherent points he made and called him a troll.
>> Let me say that again. APPLE IS A MONOPOLY. They make the OS, the hardware,
>> and share in making the chips.
>
>
>That's right. They're a LAWFUL monopoly.
>
>MS is a lawful monopoly in the OS market. The problem is that they're
>using that monopoly to create new monopolies (in browsers, in enterprise
>operating systems, etc). But as long as MS obeys the law, they're entitled
>to their monopoly in OS.
>
>Monopolies aren't wrong. Illegal use of them is. Blathering stupidities
>should be.
>
Just because a monopoly is legal doesn't make it good for the
consumer. There are plenty of examples of how Apple milks its
"captive" audience for money.
>> I would only consider buying a Mac when Apple freely licenses out the OS
>> and hardware designs. Until then, in my book, they are worse than Microsoft.
>
>
>Guess that means you're leaving.
>
>
>steve
>
>
>
>Reply to: stevewhite at ce dot mediaone dot net
============================================
Visit The Silicon Edge at:
http://siliconedge.ml.org
Comprehensive reviews of computer hardware and software,
plus daily updates with the best and the latest news!
Pascal Haakmat
> The MacOS is not superior in any significant way to Windows.
The Mac OS Sound Manager API provides functions for audio
playback/recording/manipulation that on Windows are sold as seperate
programs.
Pascal.
Veit Jacob
> This is pure nonsense. I have purchased 6 Gateways the past year for my
> office and NONE of them have had the first problem. Do I ignorantly suggest
> that this MUST be the case for everyone else? No. And neither should you.
> This data is totally unreliable and limited in scope. National ratings have
> given Dell and Gateway very high marks in service, reliability, and customer
> satisfaction. No amount of ridiculous Mac propaganda is going to change
> that.
The company I work for ordered over 1500 HP Omnibook 4100 and nearly
500 HP 45 and HP 50 servers and over 30% of it are DOA.
I cant imagine Apple could beat this!
And don`t tell me HP is a well known `low quality` company.
>
>
> Chris
Veit
Chad Irby
> The company I work for ordered over 1500 HP Omnibook 4100 and nearly
> 500 HP 45 and HP 50 servers and over 30% of it are DOA.
> I cant imagine Apple could beat this!
> And don`t tell me HP is a well known `low quality` company.
Up until HP tried to jump on the cheapass computer bandwagon, they used to
be the only PC manufacturer that was anywhere *near* Apple in DOA rates
and overall hardware quality.
Chris L. Clement
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>
>> The company I work for ordered over 1500 HP Omnibook 4100 and nearly
>> 500 HP 45 and HP 50 servers and over 30% of it are DOA.
>> I cant imagine Apple could beat this!
>> And don`t tell me HP is a well known `low quality` company.
>
>Up until HP tried to jump on the cheapass computer bandwagon, they used to
>be the only PC manufacturer that was anywhere *near* Apple in DOA rates
>and overall hardware quality.
>
Of course, if I ever ask a Mac user where they found these phantom DOA
rates, they run and hide. Any chance you will be different?
Chris
Nobody
<chrisc...@clementcontracting.com> wrote:
Windows Magazine.
http://www.winmag.com/library/1998/1001/Fea0044c.htm
% of users reporting that everything worked at startup: PC average--only
87%. HP was the best at 92%.
% of users reporting no problems requiring tech support: PC average--37%.
AST was best at 56%.
Hmmmm. Only about 1/3 of PCs worked with no problems. THAT is really
something to be proud of.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Page at its new location:
http://www.taylor-design.com/cMacindex.html
Chad Irby
> Of course, if I ever ask a Mac user where they found these phantom DOA
> rates, they run and hide. Any chance you will be different?
http://www2.pcworld.com/hardware/desktop_pcs/articles/jun97/1506p152k.html
Represents last year's numbers, the most recent I can find with Apple
represented in the numbers. The numbers haven't changed much (the changes
at Apple have reduced the DOA/problem rate, according to the dealers I've
spoken to). The historical DOA/problem rate from Apple has been less than
2%, peaking at 4% or so during the "bad times" a few years back. For a
comparison, a friend of mine at a local CompUSA says they've had *one* DOA
Mac in the last two months...
Some PCs also have about the same rate of "dead in box," but showstopping
problems that keep the user from actually using the machine catch up to
them really fast...
If you find the current issue of PC World, you'll notice that Dell
(formerly topping the category) has dropped a bit since last year. That
seems to happen every time a new PC manufacturer hits a big growth
spurt...
Chris L Clement
Nobody wrote in message ...
>In article <71aogj$9s2$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Chris L. Clement"
><chrisc...@clementcontracting.com> wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>> >Veit.J...@ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Veit Jacob) wrote:
>> >
>> >> The company I work for ordered over 1500 HP Omnibook 4100 and nearly
>> >> 500 HP 45 and HP 50 servers and over 30% of it are DOA.
>> >> I cant imagine Apple could beat this!
>> >> And don`t tell me HP is a well known `low quality` company.
>> >
>> >Up until HP tried to jump on the cheapass computer bandwagon, they used
to
>> >be the only PC manufacturer that was anywhere *near* Apple in DOA rates
>> >and overall hardware quality.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> rates, they run and hide. Any chance you will be different?
>
>http://www.winmag.com/library/1998/1001/Fea0044c.htm
>
>% of users reporting that everything worked at startup: PC average--only
>87%. HP was the best at 92%.
>
>% of users reporting no problems requiring tech support: PC average--37%.
>AST was best at 56%.
>
>Hmmmm. Only about 1/3 of PCs worked with no problems. THAT is really
>something to be proud of.
There were no DOA numbers in that survey. This survey asked if
*everything* worked. Either way, I do appreciate you in helping me to
dismiss some of these bogus claims of DOA rates of 30% for Gateway. This
survey clearly shows only 9% had a problem at all, much less *dead on
arrival*.
But isn't it interesting how Mac folk, such as yourself, can only form an
arguement when lumping all PCs together and pretending they are all the
same. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There are a number of crappy PC
vendors. But the quality PC manufacturers equal or exceed Apple's quality.
Just the facts.
Chris
Chris L Clement
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>"Chris L. Clement" <chrisc...@clementcontracting.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course, if I ever ask a Mac user where they found these phantom DOA
>> rates, they run and hide. Any chance you will be different?
>
>
>Represents last year's numbers, the most recent I can find with Apple
>represented in the numbers. The numbers haven't changed much (the changes
>at Apple have reduced the DOA/problem rate, according to the dealers I've
>spoken to). The historical DOA/problem rate from Apple has been less than
>2%, peaking at 4% or so during the "bad times" a few years back. For a
>comparison, a friend of mine at a local CompUSA says they've had *one* DOA
>Mac in the last two months...
Apple dealers? Now there is a reliable source of info. (geesh) And where
is the link for Apple's "historical DOA/problem rate"?
>Some PCs also have about the same rate of "dead in box," but showstopping
>problems that keep the user from actually using the machine catch up to
>them really fast...
Info based on..................?
>If you find the current issue of PC World, you'll notice that Dell
>(formerly topping the category) has dropped a bit since last year. That
>seems to happen every time a new PC manufacturer hits a big growth
>spurt...
Dropped? As in dropped out of first place? Or just not as good as before?
Is someone else in first?
Chris
Edward P Scholl
: Windows Magazine.
: http://www.winmag.com/library/1998/1001/Fea0044c.htm
: % of users reporting no problems requiring tech support: PC average--37%.
: AST was best at 56%.
: Hmmmm. Only about 1/3 of PCs worked with no problems. THAT is really
: something to be proud of.
uhhh, just cause they called tech support doesn't mean the pc had a problem-
a tech support could include "how do i turn my computer on".
-ed
Eric Remy
(Nobody) wrote:
<snip>
>Regards,
>
>Joe Ragosta
Late night feeding there Joe? :^)
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"Any desired property can be computed from the Schrodinger equation for the
system. The solution is left as an exercise for the reader." JIR, 3rd Ed.
Chad Irby
> uhhh, just cause they called tech support doesn't mean the pc had a problem-
> a tech support could include "how do i turn my computer on".
You really think that's it?
Or is it more like "My new Packard-Bell came without a keyboard. How do I
type <Return>?"
Steve Hix
sch...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu (Edward P Scholl) wrote:
> Nobody (nob...@nowhere.net) wrote:
> : Windows Magazine.
> : http://www.winmag.com/library/1998/1001/Fea0044c.htm
> : % of users reporting no problems requiring tech support: PC average--37%.
> : AST was best at 56%.
> : Hmmmm. Only about 1/3 of PCs worked with no problems. THAT is really
> : something to be proud of.
>
> uhhh, just cause they called tech support doesn't mean the pc had a problem-
> a tech support could include "how do i turn my computer on".
I'd rate that as a problem with the product.
Either in documentation or design.
Anthony D. Tribelli
: Nobody (nob...@nowhere.net) wrote:
: : Windows Magazine.
: : http://www.winmag.com/library/1998/1001/Fea0044c.htm
: : % of users reporting no problems requiring tech support: PC average--37%.
: : AST was best at 56%.
: : Hmmmm. Only about 1/3 of PCs worked with no problems. THAT is really
: : something to be proud of.
:
: uhhh, just cause they called tech support doesn't mean the pc had a problem-
: a tech support could include "how do i turn my computer on".
Don't forget the infamous: The manual says to press the "any" key, which
one is that?
I'm sure there were hardware problems as well, like: The cupholder broke
off and I need a replacement.
Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtri...@acm.org
Chris L. Clement
Steve Hix wrote in message ...
>In article <71cgst$l6a$1...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>sch...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu (Edward P Scholl) wrote:
>
>> Nobody (nob...@nowhere.net) wrote:
>> : Windows Magazine.
>> : http://www.winmag.com/library/1998/1001/Fea0044c.htm
>> : % of users reporting no problems requiring tech support: PC
average--37%.
>> : AST was best at 56%.
>> : Hmmmm. Only about 1/3 of PCs worked with no problems. THAT is really
>> : something to be proud of.
>>
>> uhhh, just cause they called tech support doesn't mean the pc had a
problem-
>> a tech support could include "how do i turn my computer on".
>
>
>Either in documentation or design.
I don't think so. More likely a problem with the user's intelligence.
Chris
Steve Hix
> >> uhhh, just cause they called tech support doesn't mean the pc had a
> >> problem- a tech support could include "how do i turn my computer on".
> >I'd rate that as a problem with the product.
> >Either in documentation or design.
> I don't think so. More likely a problem with the user's intelligence.
Don't bet on it. (You'd lose the bet most times.)
I've been in the business of documenting software and hardware
for 22 years now.
There are *innumerable* instances of products being difficult
for users due to bad assumptions by the writers about their
audience or poor design of product, etc.
How many different power switch types and locations have been
used on various computers over the past couple decades? They're
not always obvious, sometimes even to someone who's not a novice.
Documentation and ergonomics aren't often as obvious and simple
as a well-designed product can make them seem.
Assuming "a problem with the user's intelligence" is the lazy
way out.
It isn't necessarily the way to making things better. (Whether
your product or your long-term bottom line.)
Jeff
>
> All of you made very interesting points, except
> for that guy that said IBM-PCs are 8-bit machines,
> who seems to be stuck in an early 90's time distortion,
.................
Actually, the IBM-PC's were NEVER 8-bit machines.
The old 8088's were 16-bit processors with a data
bus that was 16-bits multiplexed onto an external
8-bit bus.
-- Jeff
Gennica Hamilton
> >"Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have a cheap thing
> >that is no good, or wait for a cheap thing that is good?
>
> iMac isn't cheap.
> iMac isn't technologically current or particularly "good".
I'd beg to differ that the price of an iMacintosh would not be considered
"cheap". There is no machine on the market with this high of quality
monitor, bundled software, incredible speed, which takes up very little
desktop space... It's a true gem in the marketplace.
It is also much more modern than typical pcs... iMacs even running System
8.1 are two to three years ahead of Windows 98 in stablity, ease of use,
consistancy of interface, internet intergration, color management... I use
both... the PC is not competitive with the Macintosh. Trust me...
> >The problem is that people have found out that they can make
> >money, partly because the public is so unsophisticated that people
> >don't even understand that the IBM PC is really an eight-bit machine.
>
> Didn't take Alan long to forget about "Apple II forever", did it?
You mean "Atari Forever" don't you? Alan, wasn't a big Apple II fan...
but its interesting to know that the Apple II runs fine on current day
Macs, even the Apple IIgs running at 2.9 MHz runs fine... so the "forever"
ideal is still valid... check out www.emulation.net and you can run Apple
II, Atari programs along with 30 or so other operating systems...
> >It's basically an enormous con game."
> ..
> He was right about this, just conveniently forgot that Apple was a player in
> this game.
Yes, but not to the extent the wintel space is engaged in... Apple
hardware has been built to last... and the software base is stronger
because of it... there are 100's of thousands of Apple II's running in
schools this very day... How many 1981 vintage PC's are running at this
very moment?
Gennica
-
Jared Hay
(SSBTract) wrote:
> Apple finally listened to the complaints of many of the well-informed
>computer users out there that demanded the addition of a better graphics card
>and more memory for the 3D engine to make the iMac a possibility for gamers.
>The fact of the matter is that when you look at software sales, in terms of
>numbers of units sold, games are by far the greatest selling type of computer
>software (business software has more in total revenues, but far fewer units,
>due to the higher prices).
>
> And that is a very good thing. A consumer machine has to be good at
>playing games. That should be obvious to almost everyone. But the price of
>similar PCs has fallen greatly since the iMac was originally announced, and yet
>the price of the iMac remains constant. It should be apparent to all that
>although the iMac is a very good alternative for consumers to higher priced
>Power Macs, the iMac is now selling for more than it should given current
>market conditions.
>
> G3 chips are less expensive per unit than comparable Pentium II
>processors. The components of the iMac are relatively limited compared to other
>PCs in its price class. The all-in-one design should serve to further cut costs
>by reducing total material used in construction of the machine. And yet it
>remains uncompetitive with current PCs that offer similar performance and are
>equipped with far better components, and is nowhere near being ready to deal
>with the impending flood of $600 PCs that is only months away, if that.
>
> On the cover of the CompUSA circular this Sunday, you will see a Packard
>Bell AMD K6-2/333 with 64 MB SDRAM, 8.0 GB hard drive, and Canon BJC-250 color
>inkjet printer, complete with an admittedly fairly cheap CompUSA 14" .28dp
>CompUSA monitor, all for $999.95, after a $130 instant rebate, and $30 mail-in
>rebate. Even if you figure in that the monitor included with the system is not
>15" and not of the same quality as the iMac, the gap that remains is still
>extraordinary. And that's just one quick example, as there many other machines
>that look very good compared to iMac, or any Mac, for that matter. And that is
>to say nothing of mail order, where far better deals can be found.
>
> I fail to understand why Apple cannot be price competitive with the other
>PC manufacturers, given that they own the OS themselves and so do not have to
The reason that "Apple cannot be price competitive with the other PC
manufacturers", is that Apple is not a PC Manufacturer... Never has been,
Never will be... Which part of that is so hard to understand?
the JarHead
>pay licensing fees as the other PC clones do, and have a cheaper supply of
>processors at their disposal, and have stripped the iMac down to cut costs as
>far as possible. How is it that with all these advantages, and actually owning
>AppleWorks, so they don't have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for Works or
>Home Essentials, that Apple still fundamentally fails to compete with the horde
>of PC companies on a price/performance basis. And before the whiners out there
>complain that a G3/233 is faster than a K6-2/333, which I would argue the point
>about (especially with 3D-related tasks), consider that ProGen offers a Pentium
>II/400, with 64 MB 100 MHz SDRAM, 6.4 GB Ultra ATA HD, 17" monitor, STB nVidia
>Riva 128-ZX 8MB 3D 2x AGP card, stereo speakers w/subwoofer, microphone, Works,
>Bookshelf, and Money all for $1389. And Dell offers a PowerBook G3-killing
>notebook with Pentium II/300, 15" XGA Active Matrix, 128 MB SDRAM, 8 GB Ultra
>ATA HD, combo 2x DVD-ROM drive/floppy drive, 2x AGP 8 MB 3D video, 56K modem,
>and Microsoft Office 97 Small Business Edition for $3849. Compare that to a
>PowerBook....
>
> I believe that the reason for Apple's inability to compete with the
>Wintel world is due to Apple's monopoly of its own architecture. In short,
>Apple is a victim of its own monopoly.
--
J & J Consulting Jared & Jamie Hay
Edmonton, AB Canada **remove the wackbard "nospam" to reply**
Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.
Keep HTML where it belongs, on the Web and out of UseNet!
jongarmpark
> I'd beg to differ that the price of an iMacintosh would not be considered
> "cheap". There is no machine on the market with this high of quality
> monitor, bundled software, incredible speed, which takes up very little
> desktop space... It's a true gem in the marketplace.
Hello.
But isn't the monitor which is built in the iMac the GoldStar monitor?
You can see lots of GoldStar monitor here in Korea.
I can't determine which one is better Goldstar or Hansole.
And.. I don't think iMac is fast "incredibly".
I've also used Macs, but one of the problem of Macs is that it feels
slow, although sometimes it is actually faster than comparable PCs.
( with comparable features/CPU power, not comparable price. )
> It is also much more modern than typical pcs... iMacs even running System
> 8.1 are two to three years ahead of Windows 98 in stablity, ease of use,
> consistancy of interface, internet intergration, color management... I use
> both... the PC is not competitive with the Macintosh. Trust me...
I also like Macs. I especially like the clearly engineered OS parts.
With Linux, it is very hard to figure out if libraries you have working
correctly or necessary..etc. Windows is almost same. ( but easier than
the Linux ) But.. although Macintosh seems to be better machine in some
sense, it is not accepted as widely as the Windows platform.
The real strength of Windows 95 is not how good it is, but the market dominance
of it.
In that sense, Windows PC is competitive.