[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Seriously, Intel processors have no relation to the value of the computer. I can't even fight the stupidity of this argument unless you explain the rationale behind your argument.

If you don't understand my point then you apparenly didn't bother to read the first sentence you quoted of mine.

Commodity hardware doesn't hold value anywhere near as well as specialized and proprietary hardware. It's as simple as that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Isn't this a no-brainer? We're still using G4s after 7 years. They held their value because nothing faster ever came along. Why buy a new computer full price when you can buy last year's model for a bit less at the same speed with only a few features not found. Same thing happened with the G5. How long have most models that came out sat at the same speed before maybe getting a 66 or 133Mhz boost?

Exactly.

Sure, if Apple halted development, then the value of older computers would also stand still a lot longer. But that’s a pretty silly expectation.

And a computer is not a long-term investment of the type that accrues value with age. If it’s an investment at all, it’s a short term one. IE: one buys it to do a task or job, which generally in a very short time nets the user a profitable return on investment. It either pays for itself literally, or provides value of use greater to the owner than the price of purchase. But the idea of wanting it to physically retain its purchase value over a long period (let alone return a profit based on this) is pretty silly.

It seems to me an example of how having later/greater syndrome spoils people anyway. Anything you could do with say, a 5 year old G4 years ago, you can still do with it now- just not with the latest/greatest software, nor with the speed to match the latest/greatest G5. A laptop retains its intrinsic value as a portable computer for its entire lifetime. Realistically though, people don’t pay for intrinsic value when the new is constantly getting faster/cheaper.

It was only Apple’s failings to keep moving steadily forward for a number of years, that fostered the illusion of Macs retaining abnormally high resale value for long periods of time.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

$130 copy of Mac OS - maybe $100 profit
$1299 iMac (midrange computer) - $250-400 profit
Apple would have to sell two and a half, maybe four, copies of Mac OS X to equal one Macintosh. It would be very risky.

Not at all that risky. There's a big difference between a $130 software and $1299 computer. Most consumers don't upgrade their computer for 3 to 4 years. Most consumers aren't going to risk spending $1299 for a Mac just to tried it out. They go for what's safe. Apple might be doing well selling computers to the consumer space. However, they are having major problems in the corporate space.

Apple sells about 4-5 million computers a year. Lots of PC computer companies are struggling. Gateway isn't doing so well. Compaq got bought HP. E-machines got bought out by Gateway. Packard Bell got bought out by Gateway I think. Computer makers margins are really thin. Apple's margin are high, but that's the reason they are only 2-3% marketshare. They can't break into the corporate space and they are loosing the education institutional space by keeping margins so high. Apple has to realize they'll never increase their marketshare if they continue doing what they are doing. Schools and companies have to decide between a $400 dell that comes with a monitor, or a $1299 Mac.

There are hundreds of millions of PC out there already. MacOS X has the potential to sell to a good percentage of them. Apple will basically be competing with Microsoft on a level playing field once Vista comes out. Vista will be a new OS that emulates Windows XP in order to run older apps. OSX will too. Apple has the potential to make a lot more from OSX than trying to push their hardware.

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Yep. Intel processors kill values, slow things down, are incompatible, are inefficient, and they kill chickens. I even heard Mr. John Intel (inventor of the Intel 4004) had an illicit baby and was an illegal immigrant!


Seriously, Intel processors have no relation to the value of the computer. I can't even fight the stupidity of this argument unless you explain the rationale behind your argument.

edit: Oh I see the old PPC macs will lose value. Well, the same thing happened with OS X-incapable Macs when we upgraded to OS X and this can't be much worse. After all PPC computers will still be supported probably in much software through 2009-2011.

Its pretty simple, if macs were still using PPC, say a new G6 coming up, they would retain a smaller marketshare that would have to distribute their enourmous operational and technological costs into a smaller number of users - unless they could run Win natively but thats out of the question - as you know Apple has expanded, and will expand even more in the years to come creating more demand and therefore dropping prices, which are also brought down by the research and development part that Intel is doing for EVERY PC manufacturer, not just Apple alone, where they can focus in marketing their machines and music (iPod being their milking cow) and not have to worry about custom chips that are twice the price AND need custom hardware that redundant or not, cost more to manufacture.

In plain simple theory, a PPC G4 or G5 is a "custom" desktop computer for a market that barely complements the 94% of Windows users using branded or generic PC's. The price would drop down even if Apple used gold and diamonds on their cases, they will retain a higer value than your average dell, but you have to face the fact that a generic chip, on a generic PC that only runs a custom OS is nothing but that, a generic PC.... it will look like a charm, but is nothing more, nothing less.

Good'ol times are gone man, wait and see a couple years down the road, Apple can either completely dissapear from the computer market (i highly doubt it) or it will become a huge-er PC making machine where profit will be obtained by selling quantity to keep a competitive marketshare in a field where rules are being re-written with every single machine released, from Dells to Alienwares, from iPods to Toshibas. Technology will crumble from the elite to the working class.

PPC machines, to the new-buyer market are obsolete and even if supported till 2020, they will be aging machines with a left-behind architecture for the desktop market. They aren't worth much.... trust me, i rather be wrong, id like to get a coin or two back from my G5. I am just glad i have gotten my money back several times while making it work for me.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Commodity hardware doesn't hold value anywhere near as well as specialized and proprietary hardware. It's as simple as that.

Apple intel boxes do not = off the shelf Intel boxes.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

$130 copy of Mac OS - maybe $100 profit
$1299 iMac (midrange computer) - $250-400 profit
Apple would have to sell two and a half, maybe four, copies of Mac OS X to equal one Macintosh. It would be very risky.

Apple certainly doesn't make $100 profit off each copy of OS X.

Factor in development costs, and it's probably a lot closer to $20.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

If you don't understand my point then you apparenly didn't bother to read the first sentence you quoted of mine.

Commodity hardware doesn't hold value anywhere near as well as specialized and proprietary hardware. It's as simple as that.

Just because Apple switched chips does not make them commodity hardware designers. (IMHO)

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Most consumers don't upgrade their computer for 3 to 4 years.

Hyteckit, most consumers don't upgrade their software for two to three years, and many (very many) not at all.

Most consumers aren't going to risk spending $1299 for a Mac just to tried it out. They go for what's safe.

In my opinion an OS is not much more safe then a computer. Most people simply don't install their own OS. This is a major reason why Linux is not doing well. Furthermore, if they don't like the Mac they can always run Windows on it.

Apple might be doing well selling computers to the consumer space. However, they are having major problems in the corporate space.

They don't really want to be corporate customers, other then in the high-margin Design & Movie Editing fields. As a general MS Office and QuickBooks computer, Macs are simply not very attractive, and Apple really doesn't care. Use Linux, even Windows, they say. Unless you're willing to spend a premium on a far better computer (most corporate customers aren't,) Apple says, we're NOT INTERESTED.

Apple sells about 4-5 million computers a year. Lots of PC computer companies are struggling. Gateway isn't doing so well. Compaq got bought HP. E-machines got bought out by Gateway. Packard Bell got bought out by Gateway I think.

And your point is? Apple is the only computer maker that isn't having issues - other then maybe (MAYBE) Dell. That is an indicator, in my mind, that Apple is doing something right.

Computer makers margins are really thin. Apple's margin are high, but that's the reason they are only 2-3% marketshare.

Does Apple want higher then say 5% market share, or maybe 8%? I mean they would love it if it magically happened, but I don't think Apple is going for marketshare. They're going for quality over quantity.

They can't break into the corporate space and they are loosing the education institutional space by keeping margins so high.

Again, do they want to?

Apple has to realize they'll never increase their marketshare if they continue doing what they are doing. Schools and companies have to decide between a $400 dell that comes with a monitor, or a $1299 Mac.

The Dell is no match for the iMac. I configured a comparable Dell, and it cost $1079 (subtract $66 if you don't want the basically essential 15-month subscription to McAfee.) Not as much as the iMac, but not $400.

There are hundreds of millions of PC out there already. MacOS X has the potential to sell to a good percentage of them. Apple will basically be competing with Microsoft on a level playing field once Vista comes out. Vista will be a new OS that emulates Windows XP in order to run older apps.

Would like to note that Vista is based off NT core, no emulation involved.

OSX will too. Apple has the potential to make a lot more from OSX than trying to push their hardware.

As I've said, I disagree.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by analogika

Apple certainly doesn't make $100 profit off each copy of OS X.

Factor in development costs, and it's probably a lot closer to $20.

OK. Cool with me.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika

Apple certainly doesn't make $100 profit off each copy of OS X.

Factor in development costs, and it's probably a lot closer to $20.

The marginal profit on a boxed copy of OSX is easily $100. Don't confuse that with the average profit (which could well be $20 for the current number of units they're selling).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell

The marginal profit on a boxed copy of OSX is easily $100. Don't confuse that with the average profit (which could well be $20 for the current number of units they're selling).

I'm sorry - what does that mean?

Doesn't that mean that the bottom line, after all expenses, is still closer to $20 (or whatever it actually is)?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika

I'm sorry - what does that mean?

Doesn't that mean that the bottom line, after all expenses, is still closer to $20 (or whatever it actually is)?

The marginal profit is the profit from selling another box.

Assume OSX cost $800,000 to develop and each set of CD/manual/box costs them $20. If they sell 10,000 copies at $120 each, their total cost is $1,000,000 ($800,000 + $20*10,000) and their total revenue is $1,200,000 ($120*10,000), so their profit is $200,000 or $20 per copy ($200,000/10,000).
But selling another copy of OSX (the 10,001st copy) earns them $120, while only costing $20, for a marginal profit of $100 on that 10,001st copy of OSX.

[qnxde]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

To me, OS X is the #1 selling point for the Mac platform. I just whish I could choose the hardware to install it on.

Well here, knock yourself out.

And for the record, I think you're nuts. (And i'm a service engineer)