Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

krillbee · Jun 17, 2006, 08:06 AM

If there is one thing that I dont understand about Apple's computers, it is their pricing strategy. This is a serious thread, I'm not trying to bring down Apple or anything, and I like many things about them as a company, I just dont understand some things about them.

When they release a new product the price stays where its at for about 6 months at least before dropping, and many times they never lower the price, but they just add new features, or wait for another model to come out to replace it.

Also, they have large gaps in price for certain items which only have marginally better features. The best example is with their laptops.

-Their black macbook is $200 more than their middle priced one, and only has 20 gb more hd space and is the color black.

-Their best 15" macbook pro is $500 more than their base model, and has 128 mb more video ram, is .16 ghz faster, 512 mb more ram, and 20 gb more hd space. It would be nice if they let you choose more individual upgrades (vid ram, processor speed, etc), but they dont, so its a 500 dollar difference.

Also their powermacs also have extremely high price gaps between configurations.
I think in general with Macs it seems like the best deal is to go with their lowest priced model of whatever machine they have, and then do all the upgrades yourself. (and deal with the slightly lower mhz) And why are all their products always priced in $100 intervals?

Sometimes I wonder if they really even sell that many higher end macbookpros, or powermacs.

Don't worry, I'm not complaining. afterall, I have no need for a fancy notebook and am content with the one I have. But I just don't understand how/why apple does things the way they do.

Do you think they may be doing something wrong? I wonder if their small marketshare could be related to their pricing strategy.
Its a shame because I want to see this company do better and get more sales, because they have a lot of things I like and have a lot of potential, but neither their marketshare nor their pricing strategy seems to change

Mastrap · Jun 17, 2006, 08:33 AM

I've said this before - market share is of little interest. Installed user base is far more important.

The Godfather · Jun 17, 2006, 08:41 AM

You can always buy last year's model in Amazon.

mduell · Jun 17, 2006, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by krillbee

Sometimes I wonder if they really even sell that many higher end macbookpros, or powermacs.

Look at the average selling price.
A few quarters ago (for Q1 and Q2 2005), before they combined desktop and portable lines into one line item, the average PowerBook price was $1983 and the average PowerMac price was $2275.

krillbee · Jun 17, 2006, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

You can always buy last year's model in Amazon.

but by then its a year old

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I've said this before - market share is of little interest. Installed user base is far more important.

arent the two very related? you cant have a user base if you dont sell stuff. granted people may use macs for longer than they use pcs, before discarding them.

the computer market share for apple is about 3.5-4% ? What is their installed user base?

krillbee · Jun 17, 2006, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Look at the average selling price.
A few quarters ago (for Q1 and Q2 2005), before they combined desktop and portable lines into one line item, the average PowerBook price was $1983 and the average PowerMac price was $2275.

I wonder what the average macbook pro price is now. Does apple release this data?
$1983 is still less than today's cheapest macbook pro though. and $2275 is much less than apple's high end powermac ($3300).

Mastrap · Jun 17, 2006, 09:25 PM

Re, installed user base, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs.

mduell · Jun 18, 2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by krillbee

I wonder what the average macbook pro price is now. Does apple release this data?
$1983 is still less than today's cheapest macbook pro though. and $2275 is much less than apple's high end powermac ($3300).

After Q2 2005, Apple combined iBook/PowerBook/MacBook/MacBook Pro into one line item, portables. The average portable price last quarter was $1484.

krillbee · Jun 18, 2006, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

After Q2 2005, Apple combined iBook/PowerBook/MacBook/MacBook Pro into one line item, portables. The average portable price last quarter was $1484.

they put the ibook into the portables category? lol. I suppose the mac mini is a portable then too theoretically

I'd be curious to know the exact numbers of macbook and macbook pro sales, and in what configurations (white, black, ie 15" screen, 17" screen, etc) The gaps between certain items just seem very far apart in price.

I think I'd be more okay with apple if they at least didnt charge through the roof for minor upgrades and itd be nice if they offered more variations in their product line.

I guess the reason Apple doesnt offer much variation is because they really love the principle "keep it simple" and apply that even to the # of products they have and their price scheme. ($1100, $1300, $1500 for macbooks, and $2000, $2500, $2800 for mbps)

But for the consumers who can think and can keep track of prices and are able to choose within a variety of choices, apple's 'simple' product line can become annoying.

And I sure wish that Apple would update their prices more often (instead of something dropping $200 at all once in one year or something)
I mean a few months later a product isnt worth what it was was when it first came out.

Person Man · Jun 18, 2006, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by krillbee

I guess the reason Apple doesnt offer much variation is because they really love the principle "keep it simple" and apply that even to the # of products they have and their price scheme. ($1100, $1300, $1500 for macbooks, and $2000, $2500, $2800 for mbps)

But for the consumers who can think and can keep track of prices and are able to choose within a variety of choices, apple's 'simple' product line can become annoying.

When Steve Jobs came back to Apple they had multiple products/configurations. Too many, in fact. They really simplified it to the point where it works. I sure don't want to go back to the confusing product matrix.

Power Macintosh 7200? 7300? 7600? 8500? 8600? 9600? Now throw speeds into the mix:
Power Macintosh 7200/90? 7200/100? 7300/180? 7300/200? 7600/120? 7600/132? etc.

Get the idea?

krillbee · Jun 18, 2006, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

When Steve Jobs came back to Apple they had multiple products/configurations. Too many, in fact. They really simplified it to the point where it works. I sure don't want to go back to the confusing product matrix.

Power Macintosh 7200? 7300? 7600? 8500? 8600? 9600? Now throw speeds into the mix:
Power Macintosh 7200/90? 7200/100? 7300/180? 7300/200? 7600/120? 7600/132? etc.

Get the idea?

I'm fine with them not using as many numbers to define their models, but they could offer more products and more variations of products. Like for the macbook variations could include upgrading the video for a fee less than 500 dollars, or offering differing processor speed variations in the customizer, like what Dell does.

For products they they could offer a sub $1000 notebook? and a sub $2000 tower?

Nodnarb · Jun 18, 2006, 10:42 PM

The fact is that Apple is doing extremely well with their current line up. I'm sure if the company starts suffering, Steve will change anything necessary, but right now they are slowly gaining more switchers and are convincing more and more with the current set up.

Agreed, it gets annoying sometimes, but they're making money and that's all that matters...(to them).

Goldfinger · Jun 19, 2006, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Nodnarb

The fact is that Apple is doing extremely well with their current line up. I'm sure if the company starts suffering, Steve will change anything necessary, but right now they are slowly gaining more switchers and are convincing more and more with the current set up.

Agreed, it gets annoying sometimes, but they're making money and that's all that matters...(to them).

And they could make even more money by introducing a headless Mac positioned under the PowerMac and above the Mac mini. A headless iMac. It IS a serious gap in the lineup.

But, I believe that such a new for factor can become reality pretty soon thanks to: Woodcrest. If they are going to put woodcrests in the powermacs then they'll probably have to up the price on them because Apple will probably not go with the low end Woodcrests. And the high end ones are $$$$. So a Conroe based headless Mac IS really necessary.

For me the Mac mini is useless and a Quad Woodcrest Mac Pro would be too much and certainly waaaay to expensive. The iMac is all in one and I really don't care for all in one computers and nor do a LOT of people.

Starting at $1099, bring back the Cube at a reasonable price point. Conroe CPU, real graphics card, 1 or 2 PCI slots and room for 2 HDs.

But then again, it would sacrifice "simplicity". Whatever Apple, the "complicatedness" of other PC manafacturers' lineups doesn't seem to cost them sales. Au contraire.

Gossamer · Jun 19, 2006, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by krillbee

I'm fine with them not using as many numbers to define their models, but they could offer more products and more variations of products. Like for the macbook variations could include upgrading the video for a fee less than 500 dollars, or offering differing processor speed variations in the customizer, like what Dell does.

For products they they could offer a sub $1000 notebook? and a sub $2000 tower?

His point was not that they used too many numbers. His point was that they had...well... they offered more products and more variations of products, and it just got really confusing. It's true that they do have product gaps, but I don't think the solution is offered tons of variations. I think the key is offering a reasonably priced, many optioned built-to-order section.