Forums | MacLife

user wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Exactly.

In my opinion, it may be sufficient for many, but it's ideal for very few.  If given the choice between an expandable tower with significantly better specs (double the cores, faster bus, ram, vastly superior video card, expansion slots, etc...), and a slim-form iMac, very few would choose the iMac.  Most current iMac owners are very likely more peeved at Windows than they are at the iMac's specs; or are unaware of the situation; or simply prefer the style of the case, and don't really care about the rest.  But most people in general would not pick the iMac.

What?

I'd say that most people in general want a compact good-looking system that handles the simple tasks. Most computer users would buy a new machine rather than trying to upgrade what they have.

I see these responses as indicative of a massive generation gap in how people use computers. For example, I know in the past most people have defined the "simple tasks" as e-mailing, surfing, chatting and word processing. While this may be true of an older generation, my experiences with my peers (~21 - 25 years old) would suggest otherwise.

A vast majority of the people I know now use their computers not just for chatting or surfing, but so many are hobbyist graphic designers, film makers, tinker with flash or are music producers. All of these activities require substantial processing power and HDD storage.

Not only that, but we are moving away from physical storage or consumption of pop culture. There are a glut of us using P2P software or internet services to acquire multimedia content and yeah, we stream it to our TVs. In a very short time span that "good enough" iMac or Mac Mini has turned many peoples' work space into a mess of cables, dongles and external devices.

Of course there is the risk that my sample is biased. My peers are generally university or higher educated and in the field of communications, mass media, film, computer science or economics. However, the trend towards many companies releasing YouTube or Facebook ready cameras, the explosion of self-publishing music sites and the massive popularity of online media sharing sites has to say something.

In the end, I think it's pretty hilarious that Apple's current desktop offerings so poorly serve the digital lifestyle that they market.

::adds Macskeeball to The List::

There computers have always been better looking and sturdy to me than a PC.

And that makes them better computers? Seriously, when are we gonna stop treating Macs like a #$%^& fashion statement?

No computers look like dung

Apple computers cost more because Apple is selling an image. Slapping a logo on something and giving it a fancy ad campaign is nothing more than the illusion of quality/value/whateveryouwanttocallit.

They're selling us a Mercedes that's got a Ford Taurus engine.

Welcome to Marketing/Advertising 101 everybody

(you're right though sturdy is legit)

Last edited by thumbprint (2008-07-01 5:04 pm)

The dung computer was a theoretical example.

There is more to Apple's pricing than just marketing but there is definitely a branding aspect to the price. There's a certain logic and toughness to the design. I'd hate to see my power bill if I was running a non mobility chip (kind costs extra for mobility) and then there is the whole hardware/software integration aspect. Tack branding on that and you're a bit more accurate with the costs.

ScifiterX wrote:

The dung computer was a theoretical example.

There is more to Apple's pricing than just marketing but there is definitely a branding aspect to the price. There's a certain logic and toughness to the design. I'd hate to see my power bill if I was running a non mobility chip (kind costs extra for mobility) and then there is the whole hardware/software integration aspect. Tack branding on that and you're a bit more accurate with the costs.

I like Apple's case styles.  I'm using a G5 Power Mac case.  The Mac Pro case is even better -- heavy, too.

As far as power, where I live, a few extra watts will have only a negligible impact on my bill.  Like maybe $2 or something.  The typical wattage for my PC (with monitor) is around 300 Watts; it probably goes up to 500 in games.  Not a big deal.  My projector is 400W, but even that's insignificant compared to a typical sound system.  Even a cheap-ass sound system will use way more power than your computer.  Even running everything at once has some effect on my bill, but still nothing worth caring about.  Stay away from those hair-dryers though; those things'll put a dent in your electric bill for sure.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-07-01 5:32 pm)

I wonder if the laptops chips power savings might not be offset by the extra time it takes to finish tasks like burning a DVD or ripping a CD?
Using less power for a longer period of time..

ScifiterX wrote:

I doubt I make as much money as you and my power company just got approval to raise their rates so 300-500 watts is a lot to me. (I also upgraded to LCD monitors and CFL bulbs to reduce my power usage. Oh and hair dryers, don't even own one.)

Just saying.

I have all CFL bulbs too, and it does make a bit of a difference in the bill.  When you get the light output of a 100W bulb at only 20W, that makes a difference. 

But the iMac doesn't really save much (if any) power over a conventional system.  The iMac uses 200W-280W depending on the model.  I have an 80+ certified PSU (more efficient than the imac's PSU) and I'm pulling around 300W (at the wall) including the 24" monitor, under a fair amount of CPU stress (not much stress on the GPU, which is typical).  That's pretty good considering I have an old power-hungry CPU.  I've looked on-line and found people with more modern chips (like the Q9300) are drawing even less power from beefier systems.  It's kinda strange considering a typical laptop will draw around 70W -- it doesn't seem like Apple's getting much mileage out of those laptop parts.

A little point of interest.. It probably seems a little counterintuitive that systems running 700W PSUs are drawing so little power in the real world.  But remember that the 700W is divided into 4-6 power rails -- most of which are typically very underutilized.  You need to provide lots of power on each rail simply to account for the possibility that someone might actually add 10 Raptor drives, or something along those lines, but there's no practical configuration that would come close to maxing out every rail.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-07-01 11:56 pm)

Mr. T wrote:

The iPhone, for example, holds 0.14% of the cell phone market, and only 5.3% of the smartphone market.  According to Gartner, Nokia was dominant because its smartphone portfolio covered a variety of price points.  I'm NOT saying that Apple's iPhone strategy isn't maximizing profit.  But should Apple decide to switch gears and go after the rest of the market, it would have to expand its offerings to do so (like it did with the iPod).

That isn't a fair comparison that you are making. You are comparing Apple to the worldwide market share of Nokia when the iPhone isn't yet available worldwide. Perhaps it will be fair to check the percentages at the end of this year, after the iPhone has been available in dozens of countries for six months. A more fair comparison is their percentage of smart phone sales in the US, where Apple is in second place and Nokia isn't even ranked.

Frank

Bat wrote:

With computer forums largely populated by techies, tho, it's natural a goodly proportion don't cotton to the 'good enuff' solution.

Except that I'm a "techie" and my MacBook Pro is plenty fast for everything I do. Most of the things "techies" do don't require a quad-core processor. It is the creative people that require the top of the line technology.

Seriously, text editors, IDEs, compilers, SFTP, SlingPlayer, iTunes, iChat, Pages, Keynote, Email, my web browser, and even VMWare don't need that much horsepower.

This idea that Apple's products (like the iMac) should have a quad-core processor just because one is available don't really fly.

I agree that there are some people that want more but good enough should not be used in a derogatory manner. Good enough means that it does what you need it to do. Should it be more than enough? Should we have processors that suck down more power just because we want to know that our computers could do more if we wanted them to?

I agree that there are some people that want more but good enough should not be used in a derogatory manner. Good enough means that it does what you need it to do. Should it be more than enough? Should we have processors that suck down more power just because we want to know that our computers could do more if we wanted them to?

The problem is that Apple's "good enough" is overpriced by about 25-50% when compared to comparable PCs, hence the desire to put OS X on a PC.

frankly wrote:

Bat wrote:

With computer forums largely populated by techies, tho, it's natural a goodly proportion don't cotton to the 'good enuff' solution.

Except that I'm a "techie" and my MacBook Pro is plenty fast for everything I do. Most of the things "techies" do don't require a quad-core processor. It is the creative people that require the top of the line technology.

Seriously, text editors, IDEs, compilers, SFTP, SlingPlayer, iTunes, iChat, Pages, Keynote, Email, my web browser, and even VMWare don't need that much horsepower.

This idea that Apple's products (like the iMac) should have a quad-core processor just because one is available don't really fly.

I agree that there are some people that want more but good enough should not be used in a derogatory manner. Good enough means that it does what you need it to do. Should it be more than enough? Should we have processors that suck down more power just because we want to know that our computers could do more if we wanted them to?

"Good Enough" should be derogatory when you are referring to an ultra premium priced computer. At $2300 an iMac should be much more than simply good enough.
On the other hand "good enough" can be a good thing. My wife's $300 eMachine is good enough for what she needs. "Good Enough" is what you settle for when you can't afford excellent.
If I spend $2000+ for a computer I expect excellence. Apple fails to deliver that.

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

The iPhone, for example, holds 0.14% of the cell phone market, and only 5.3% of the smartphone market.  According to Gartner, Nokia was dominant because its smartphone portfolio covered a variety of price points.  I'm NOT saying that Apple's iPhone strategy isn't maximizing profit.  But should Apple decide to switch gears and go after the rest of the market, it would have to expand its offerings to do so (like it did with the iPod).

That isn't a fair comparison that you are making. You are comparing Apple to the worldwide market share of Nokia when the iPhone isn't yet available worldwide. Perhaps it will be fair to check the percentages at the end of this year, after the iPhone has been available in dozens of countries for six months. A more fair comparison is their percentage of smart phone sales in the US, where Apple is in second place and Nokia isn't even ranked. Frank

That's not the point.  Fine, look at US --19.2% of the smartphone market-- great.  Ignoring the percentage of these phones that were shipped overseas, you'd be absolutely insane if you thought Apple can possibly get the majority of the smartphone market without introducing lower-priced models.  Apple doesn't think so either -- hence the new half-price 3G iPhone.

frankly wrote:

Is it available?

Yes, not yet in the US though.  Why? How many were you looking to buy?

The new iPhone isn't actually lower priced. Sure, the up front price is less but it actually will cost you more over the life of the contract.

I'm not looking to buy but since that was the topic of the thread and I hadn't seen it mentioned again I was wondering if it was more vaporware.