Forums | MacLife

Czachorski wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

It's an interesting conundrum your POV puts you in - people are willing to do amazing things to get Apple products because they provide so much value, except for pay for them in the manner in which Apple desires to sell them.  Which is it?

Or that people see potential value in Apple products. But potential value that only exists if it can be had contrary to Apple's way, which reduces vale.
It really depends on how much post sale control you think a company is entitled to. You think someone should have total control even after a sale while many think companies should have little to no control once that ownership transfer has taken place.

The way I see it is that it is worth what it is worth to people.  Right now, a lot of people are willing to pay the "Apple way", and they are making a mint.  If someone or something changes that game, making it cheaper to get an Apple product, then Apple will just react and change their strategy.  The market will always find "what it is worth".  Both sides in the transaction have a very strong incentive to do so.

That is why people seeking the Psystar / OSX86 option does not really bother me  - people seeking that solution are only doing what you would expect a consumer to do.  They are lucky right now because they are getting an artificial "good deal" because they are exploiting a loophole in Apple's current strategy.  What bothers me is the lack of understanding that Apple has proven that people will buy products "the Apple way" and that if OSX86 or Psystar ever represented a serous threat Apple could easily make changes to continue selling it "there way", because Apple has a strong incentive to do so.  That's the way the market works.

The day I see an acknowledgement here of that, is the day I will stop feeling like this place has lost all hope.

I dont give a damn what Apple does to respond to Paystar or this new dongle thing.
Sure there are lots of things they could do, most of which would cause greater inconvenience to their customers. Let them go ahead and go all Microsoft-esque with some sort of product activation or some absurd shrink wrapped retail price.
If they want to risk the "cool factor" that has been crucial to their success let them have at it. Apple's boat rises or falls on whether they can stay fashionable or not.
I'm sure they want more than anything not to come off looking just like Microsoft except at a higher price.

Czachorski wrote:

better product = higher price.  What's so bad about that?

That's just it. Apple isn't making a better product anymore, now that the OS will run on other hardware. After the downward trend in build quality and the move away from PowerPC, they didn't have anything left to stand out besides the OS, and now they don't even have that.

Czachorski wrote:

..What bothers me is the lack of understanding that Apple has proven that people will buy products "the Apple way" and that if OSX86 or Psystar ever represented a serous threat Apple could easily make changes to continue selling it "there way", because Apple has a strong incentive to do so.  That's the way the market works.

You're ignoring larger macroeconomic factors and only addressing the last decade or so. Apple's resurgence took place over mostly favorable economic times. As fuel prices continue to rise, the credit crunch continues, foreclosures increase ad nauseum in a general economic downturn, Apple's reliance on pricey, high-margin lifestyle gadgets is going to bite them as people spend less. I see fewer fantastic quarters in Apple's future over the next few years.

The day I see an acknowledgement here of that, is the day I will stop feeling like this place has lost all hope.

Don't blame the forums if Apple's fortunes decline for not planning for the rainy day.

Popularity ≠ Quality.

Czachorski wrote:

The switch to intel did not change the value at all.  Those who claim otherwise are playing games with themselves and their own thinking.

I think the switch made the made the hardware value even better, but that's just my opinion.  The intel chips spanked the crap out of the G4, and to some extent, the G5.  And as much as I dislike integrated graphics, the GMA950 was quite a bit faster than the Radeon 9200 used in PPC iBooks and minis (even with software T&L). 

The problem is that being better than the previous generation isn't good enough, when the competition is offering so much more.  As I've mentioned before, desktop C2Q's cost half as much as the iMac's C2D, and the situation is far worse for video cards (desktop vs. mobile).  Meanwhile, the mini delivers far less oomph for the money than even the iMac.  But the iMac isn't the problem, and neither is the mini.  The problem is that over the past 6-7 years, these exotic niche machines have gradually become central to Apple's desktop strategy, while their conventional brethren have dwindled to zero.  Regardless of whether this choice was ideal, or whether Apple could've done even better by siding with convention is irrelevant.  The point is that there's a lot more people interested in OS X now than at any point in Apple's history -- Simultaneously, the hardware offerings have grown more fragmented than ever.  This set of circumstances presents a golden opportunity for the hackintosh, and it doesn't surprise me one bit, that commercial efforts are starting to cash in on the tremendous void left by Apple.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-06-28 7:37 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

That I will not deny. I do however think a number of people degrade "mobile" technology with an unnecessary zeal. For some of us a neither a laptop nor a tower are appropriate choices. If mobile tech can provide desktop solutions for us, I've no prejudice against it even if it does cost more than the non-mobile equivalent.

I wouldn't suggest Apple drop the iMac or Mini, well maybe the Mini. The Mini as it is remains ludicrously under powered for it's price point.
But I have nothing against Apple offering it's niche machines, clearly there is a market for such.
The "zeal" you see is primarily motivated by the ridiculous assertion that is so often made that an iMac is suitable for any desktop situation. Or the assertion that iMacs/Minis offer anything close to a decent value for the money compared to other desktop offerings.
Heck, you can get a computer from Sun, hardly a bargain brand, with a Core2Quad 3ghz for $500 less than the top of the line Core2dual 3ghz iMac. If you want to go with a home brew you can build a tower that would kick an iMacs ass for under $1000.
At first the iMac value wasnt quite this bad but now with the quads coming on strong in the consumer desktop space, the Apple line, shackled as it is to the mobile line of chips, falls further and further behind.
Apple insisting on using chips from the mobile line exclusively means that their "desktop" products will always be second rate in terms of performance. Personally I don't really think Apple can maintain it's current position as media golden boy indefinitely with such hardware.
Right now Apple is enjoying the adulation of the press that Microsoft used to get, along with the same non-critical commentary  that Microsoft used to get. But that tide changed and writers began to expose MS's weaknesses.
That exact thing could happen to Apple and since their primary marketing is based on style rather than substance Apple is pretty wide open should reviewers start taking an honest look at their products like they did with MS.
Lousy security was MS' Achile's heal in the popular press, lack of hardware value is Apple's weakness.

Last edited by Pariah (2008-06-29 4:07 am)

ScifiterX wrote:

I'd say the iMac is suitable for a vast majority of desktop situations but far from ideal for many of them. There is a difference there.

Lowest common denominator solutions are like that. They excel at nothing but can be shoe horned into many situations.
Kinda goes with the territory when your user base shifts from people who are smart enough not to use Windows to your new target of people too stupid to make Windows work.

ScifiterX wrote:

I'd say the iMac is suitable for a vast majority of desktop situations but far from ideal for many of them. There is a difference there.

Exactly.

However it's good to remember the techies form a mere fraction of computer users.

True that and people like myself and Cza have said it'd be better for many customers but since Apple is a company so they'll at best work best for company then best for customer.

The trouble with said scenario is the companies that are currently taking that first step are finding step two shifting enough that step 3 is a lot harder to reach.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-N … ess-Model/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h … _n19914286

You know?

Farmerkev wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

I'd say the iMac is suitable for a vast majority of desktop situations but far from ideal for many of them. There is a difference there.

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.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-06-29 6:24 pm)