[NeoMac]

For the price of the low-end PowerMac, $1700, you think you would be able to get a damn GeForce 2mx in it! (let us ignore the CPU speeds, please)

I was hoping to get the new iMac with 16mb 3D card, but according to the results at Bare Feats, it gives 24 FPS in Normal mode (at 800x600, 32bit) in Quake 3. http://www.barefeats.com/iMac8.html

Christ! If they can't afford to put a 32mb GeForce2mx in the iMacs, then just put a 16mb!

I look at the $500 more G4 466, and it has the same stinky 3D card! What the hell!

This is just upsetting. Can't even get a modest gaming machine from these systems (mainly due to crappy ATI 3D cards), unless you put down $2200 for the 533. And still, you don't get a monitor!

How the hell does Apple survive?! It's absolutely mind numbing. I'm really upset.

[Monkeymike]

I guess if I was into gaming as much as you are I would just be using a playstation 2 or something!!
Macs are for everything. They dont specialize at being only one thing except simple to use and beatifully designed.

[NeoMac]

I'm not a gaming nut. If I was, I would be a PC user by now.

But the GeForce 2mx sells RETAIL for $100. Would it have killed Apple to at least put it in the $1700 PowerMac.

The recent price slashing in PCs has Apple pricing more than double for the same equipment.

[olePigeon]

Often you pay more for the best on the market. It's like puting a spare tire on a Porsche. You can't go faster than 50 Mph, but the darn car goes 40 in 1st gear.

Quake 3 is a terrible item to base results on. I get about 20 fps with UT on my 233 G3 with a VooDoo 3. Quake 3, however, is unplayable on it. Quake 3 is just a hog and doesn't even look 1/2 as good as UT in my opinion. Gameplay isn't as fun either.

Plus, you may not have to rely on those results for long anyway. id is finally puting out an AltiVec enhanced version of Quake 3. You'll probably pull 40 or 50 fps even with the 16MB card.

[marc]

The Apple Store will sell you a 466Mhz ($1700) G4 with either a 32 Mb GeForce2 MX or a 32MB Radeon card for $100 extra. If you are not really a gamer, either of these cards should be fine. If you you are a gamer, and do not want to spend the extra $450 for a 64 MB GeForce3, wait awhile. The prices will probably come down. HTH

[Mrmac]

By the way, olePigeon, altivec enhanced will only affect G4 performance, not iMacs...



------------------
Sebastien Richard
Senior Mac Technician
SRS Technologie
[email protected]

[xenu]

I agree with the original poster. For what we get, macs simply are not worth the money.

I would hope that come July, dual GHz machines (or close to it) are available, for a decent price - or at least for the current price.

[NeoMac]

I didn't say they are not worth the money. Merely, that we should get more for our money.

[Rickag]

NeoMac
I sympathize with you. I have been saving for well over 4 years to buy a new computer. I have accumulated $1440.
If the low end tower had a 533 Mhz 7450 G4 and the Geforce graphics board, I'd have chipped in the extra $$$ and bought one.
But sadly no. So I'll wait.

It may be possible the low end tower still has the ATI Rage Pro graphics board is so Apple can use all the remaining boards in stock???? Just a thought. Here's hoping they replace it with a Geforce soon.

[DoctorGonzo]

It's all about the margins.

Steve said in the last investor conference call that Apple was going to try and increase its margins more and more over the next year. They are already the highest in the business - 27.7% on average and now they are going to try and bring them up even higher.

To bring up the margins, Apple offers a poor price/performance ratio and makes up for the gap between Macs and PCs with clever marketing. Right now, the video cards on Macs are a complete joke. The Rage 128 was bad when it came to the Mac in 1999. The RAM compliment would be considered good 3 years ago, as well.

As it stands, Apple's marketshare is 2.92%, the lowest it has been since the mid-eighties. Every year Mac sales are down over the past years, despite the propaganda, they are not increasing. Other computer makers are dealing with increasing sales and sacrificing margins for marketshare.

The economy is in trouble, Mac marketshare is down to a new low, sales are down - desktop sales in January were down 62% over the previous year alone, Apple is switching to a brand-new OS.

Raising prices to keep up the margins does not make any sense.

They need to bring in more customers, not make more money off of the customers they have. Marketshare brings them the developer support they need, lower marketshare brings fewer ports, less hardware, etc.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 03-18-2001).]

[SpeedRacer]

Originally posted by NeoMac:

For the price of the low-end PowerMac, $1700, you think you would be able to get a damn GeForce 2mx in it! (let us ignore the CPU speeds, please)

How the hell does Apple survive?! It's absolutely mind numbing. I'm really upset.

Ironic that the computer company that revolutionized computers by using a graphical user interface has had (up until recently) absolutely horrendous graphics support. But it's all relative as well. Within the past 6 months we have seen ATi release a killer card in the Radeon and nVidia sign on board with a computer company that constitutes only a very small percentage of the total market. That's exponentially better than we were 6 mo - 1 year ago today. I imagine that as Apple has milked the nVidia technology as long as they can on their professional lines that they will filter it down to the consumer models as well.

In a way i agree that Apple should offer more for the price of their products - particularly in their professional lines which are the ones with the highest profit margins. But at the same time who buys a Mac based entirely on the cost? If you're looking for the cheapest computer you're not ever going to get it from Apple. People looking for a $499 computer buy a "Sam's Choice" PC from Wal-Mart or custom-build their 1200mHz Athlon box for the ultimate gaming machine.

The route to Apple's "survival" is their gamble on the future of digital video/media authoring and the need (just as with graphics arts in the 80s) that such authoring will eventually evolve into an ever more complex array of hardware and software products. Thus creating a pent-up consumer demand for an easy to use out-of-the-box media authoring solution - much as every Macintosh from the iBook to G4 Tower no provides. Therefore, the "value" of a Macintosh and premium you pay for it are directly linked to the increase in value that a Macintosh can provide you when working with digital video/audio/media.

I can guarantee you that being the fastest manufacturer in Quake 3 is not on Apple's top priorities list.


Speed

[This message has been edited by SpeedRacer (edited 03-18-2001).]

[DoctorGonzo]

I can guarantee you that being the fastest manufacturer in Quake 3 is not on Apple's top priorities list.

Yes, but forcing customers to shell out what they are asking for a decent gaming system sends many people over to the PC side. Right now, I could go out and pick up a better gaming system than the $1700 tower with DVD and CD-R, and a 19" monitor for much less.

Apple wants to keep its margins sky-high, by offering ancient (and cheap) hardware, but charging more than a decently equipped PC. Their strategy is to give you a crappy box, but free software that won't run on a PC. Margins on software are incredibly high. There is no per-unit cost, except for recouping R&D.

However, a major flaw in this, is that Apple is mostly offering software products that require a significant secondary investment (iMovie, for example) while driving away many non-affluent customers and not addressing the needs and wants of a large portion of the computer buying public. This only serves to severly limit their market.

Apple has been trying to give the customers as little as possible for as much as possible, by doing the following:

- Selling poor hardware at ever-increasing premiums.

- Offering propritary software at low cost to the company, to attract customers.

- Providing no upgrade path to the majority of its customers to drive up hardware sales.

- Using selective benchmarks to give the illusion of hardware superiority.

- Restricting modern hardware to the ultra-high-end.

- Selling the platform on its intangible qualities.

- Touting features that incur nearly zero per-unit cost after initial R&D to attract customers. No fans, and the use of inexpensive industrial design to repackage uncompetitive hardware in an attractive case and provide a justiifcation for a higher premium are good examples.

[Scott_H]

Please stop bitching and buy something else.

[clifhirtle]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Yes, but forcing customers to shell out what they are asking for a decent gaming system sends many people over to the PC side. Right now, I could go out and pick up a better gaming system than the $1700 tower with DVD and CD-R, and a 19" monitor for much less.

Mac = gaming computer?! You're asking a Pinto to be a Corvette. If you're into racing you buy a sports car. If you're into gaming you buy a PC or Dreamcast or PS2. This is not rocket science.

Apple wants to keep its margins sky-high, by offering ancient (and cheap) hardware, but charging more than a decently equipped PC. Their strategy is to give you a crappy box, but free software that won't run on a PC. Margins on software are incredibly high. There is no per-unit cost, except for recouping R&D.

Apple's strategy is to push their proprietary hardware product monopoly by packaging them with alluring (free) software products. Microsoft's strategy is to push their proprietary productivity product monopoly by packaging them with their OS packaged with every new PC sold. What's the difference? It's the same game either way - use the bread to sell the butter. By your terms, you're duped either way.

However, a major flaw in this, is that Apple is mostly offering software products that require a significant secondary investment (iMovie, for example) while driving away many non-affluent customers and not addressing the needs and wants of a large portion of the computer buying public. This only serves to severly limit their market.

Non-affluent customers can go down and see 2000 model iMac and iMac refurbs on the shelves of any Circuit City or CompUSA selling for $500 which, with a 3 year ISP contract, nets them a total of $100. The argument that Macs price out non-affluent customers is BS. There's a &*%$ of a lot more things that have created the digital divide than merely Mac vs. Wintel.

Apple has been trying to give the customers as little as possible for as much as possible, by doing the following...

-Premiums keep a company alive.

-The proprietary software you mention (iMovie/iTunes/iDVD) benefit a lot more than just Apple - they allow ordinary people to create some amazing things.

- Upgradability is offered to those products whose market reflects a desire to upgrade - eg: professional/techies who want an easy-open tower/Cube design to begin with (you don't buy into a machine with a 13.8 in display permanently married to its CPU if you're looking at maximum upgradeabilty).

- Every benchmark is subjective. Show me 1 universal benchmark and i'll show you 50 other subjective tests used by companies other than Apple. It's marketing. It happens (P4 demo several months ago anyone?!).

- What is "modern hardware?" Everything Apple makes filters down. You want to pay $2500 for an iMac SE with Superdrive (the drive itself is $1k!) Video and CDRW-wise Apple is behind. They've said that themselves. They're working on it. What do you want?

- Quantify the love of you're pet dog. Quantify the cool factor of a new Powerbook G4. Quantify what it is about this Cube in front of me that is so alluring. I can't. It's intangible.

- And yes, i will pay extra $$$ to a company that figure out how to use the same principles that cook meat in a Wok to cool my computer. How many computer companies do you know that would even think about the fact that people might not like to have a fan buzzing in their ears all day long? How many companies would give a &*%$ enough about something so small as that? Something as tiny as a handle attached to a consumer laptop. Something that matters to me, as a consumer. Not Apple. Me.

A friend of mine once said, "I feel like someone who really loved what they do made my computer." And all i can say to that is, "true, true."

- C

[This message has been edited by clifhirtle (edited 03-19-2001).]

[clifhirtle]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Yes, but forcing customers to shell out what they are asking for a decent gaming system sends many people over to the PC side. Right now, I could go out and pick up a better gaming system than the $1700 tower with DVD and CD-R, and a 19" monitor for much less.

Mac = gaming computer?! You're asking a Pinto to be a Corvette. If you're into racing you buy a sports car. If you're into gaming you buy a PC or Dreamcast or PS2. This is not rocket science.

Apple wants to keep its margins sky-high, by offering ancient (and cheap) hardware, but charging more than a decently equipped PC. Their strategy is to give you a crappy box, but free software that won't run on a PC. Margins on software are incredibly high. There is no per-unit cost, except for recouping R&D.

Apple's strategy is to push their proprietary hardware product monopoly by packaging them with alluring (free) software products. Microsoft's strategy is to push their proprietary productivity product monopoly by packaging them with their OS packaged with every new PC sold. What's the difference? It's the same game either way - use the bread to sell the butter. By your terms, you're duped either way.

However, a major flaw in this, is that Apple is mostly offering software products that require a significant secondary investment (iMovie, for example) while driving away many non-affluent customers and not addressing the needs and wants of a large portion of the computer buying public. This only serves to severly limit their market.

Non-affluent customers can go down and see 2000 model iMac and iMac refurbs on the shelves of any Circuit City or CompUSA selling for $500 which, with a 3 year ISP contract, nets them a total of $100. The argument that Macs price out non-affluent customers is BS. There's a &*%$ of a lot more things that have created the digital divide than merely Mac vs. Wintel.

Apple has been trying to give the customers as little as possible for as much as possible, by doing the following...

-Premiums keep a company alive.

-Proprietary software (iMovie/iTunes/iDVD) benefit a lot more than just Apple - they allow ordinary people to create some amazing things.

- Upgradability is offered to those products whose market reflects a desire to upgrade - eg: professional/techies who want an easy-open tower/Cube design to begin with (you don't buy into a machine with a 13.8 in display permanently married to its CPU if you're looking at maximum upgradeabilty).

- Every benchmark is subjective. Show me 1 universal benchmark and i'll show you 50 other subjective tests used by companies other than Apple. It's marketing. It happens (P4 demo several months ago anyone?!).

- What is "modern hardware?" Everything Apple makes filters down. You want to pay $2500 for an iMac SE with Superdrive (the drive itself is $1k!) Video and CDRW-wise Apple is behind. They've said that themselves. They're working on it. What do you want?

- Quantify the love of you're pet dog. Quantify the cool factor of a new Powerbook G4. Quantify what it is about this Cube in front of me that is so alluring. I can't. It's intangible.

- And yes, i will pay extra $$$ to a company that figure out how to use the same principles that cook meat in a Wok to cool my computer. How many computer companies do you know that would even THINK about the fact that people might not like to have a fan buzzing in their ears all day long? How many companies would give a &*%$ enough about something so small as that? Something that matters to me, as a consumer. Not Apple. Me. A friend of mine once said, "I feel like someone who really loved what they do made my computer." And all i can say to that is, "true, true."

- C

[ariella]

it's not quite a pinto.

[Duo]

Everything posted here is true. Some of Apples low end computers lack hardware or upgraded hardware. Apples computers cost more then a low to mid dell or gateway. I think Apple should cut prices, I would buy a mac but I can't spend $1600 and I don't want an imac. So I have to upgrade my PC which would cost me under $900 for a P4 and 128 megs of rambus. Everyone knows Intel charges too much for their hardware. So when you look at it apple is cutting out a chunk of consumers with its prices on the Towers. Lower prices is the best way to get custormers and market share.

Duo