Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > I think I know why iMacs are no longer popular with the public.

I think I know why iMacs are no longer popular with the public. (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 05:22 AM
 
Apple did commercials like that a really long time ago. A kid comes up to his dad (sitting at a computer) and hands him a CD and asks to see dinosaurs. The dad puts in the CD but gets an error. Several scenes go by showing the kid looking bored and the dad mumbling arcane sounding Windows/DOS terms and clicking all over. The kid then puts his jacket on and walks towards the door and the dad asks where he's going. The kid responds to the effect of "I'm going across the street, they have a Mac". This was in the Windows 3.11 days when there was a terrific desparity in the usability of MacOS and Windows.

I don't seem to understand this obsession with headless iMacs and mini-tower Powermacs and all these other strange ideas. If you've got too many products with price and capability overlaps you will sell few of all of them. I suppose some people here weren't using Macs in the early and mid 90s when there were often several Macs of slight variation all available simultaneously. There was no clear deliniation between the intended markets of two different models and there were all sorts of model numbers flying all over the place.

Since about 1998 Apple's worked to simply their products to the point where they git into a pretty generalized matrix of systems. Tean years ago you needed a spreadsheet to keep track of the various Mac families and particular models all available at any given time. For the home users there's the iMacs and eMacs which run the gamut of both capability and price. The reason these consumer systems are all AiO design is that is what most consumers want. Rarely do people buy pre-built PCs expecting to add any components to them ever. A good portion of people aren't even aware they can add or change components in their PCs. As such the only expansion available to the iMacs and eMacs is through USB and Firewire connections. It is simpler and far less error prone to only support external expansion.

The iMacs and eMacs also make good office systems because they have small desktop footprints and come standard with all of the expansion ports most office-type users need. Unless your company is very technology oriented there's probably very little in the way of computer upgrades going on in the office. A dental or law office isn't taking their PCs apart to overclock components or hosting online frag fests with them.

Then there's the vocal group crying out for cheaper Macs. Feature for features Macs aren't necessarily way more expensive than PCs. Once you equip a cheapo PC with Firewire, speakers, an optical mouse, and a decent video card you're looking at a system similar in price to a roughly equivalent Mac. Even then you're stuck with the everpresent threat of a severely damaging Windows virus/worm outbreak.

A cheaper G5 Mac be it a headless iMac or minitower PowerMac would have to either cut out features or have much smaller margins. With small margins the system would not be very profitable even with a high volume of sales. Such a system minus a few features wouldn't be very appealing to enough people to cause them to switch from their PCs. I don't think the "cheaper Mac" folks realize that switching from a PC to Mac isn't just about the up front cost of a Mac. If you've got ten years of data stored in a format readable only by some old piece of Windows software that for whatever reason won't run in VirtualPC switching outright to Macs is not an option. If you've got a thousand dollars of software licenses for every PC in an office and those aren't transferable to Mac equivalents switching to Macs is again not an option.

A sub-$1000 G5 might be right up the ally of existing Mac users wanting a bit more umph than the eMac offers but they're not necessarily going to sway PC users. While it might be however powerful and all in all a good deal people have a lot of money invested in their existing setups. Switching from PCs with Word XP to eMacs with Word 2004 means not only buying the eMacs but also buying brand new copies of Word for them all.
     
CadetStimpy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 01:49 PM
 
I don't think the public's got a problem with Apple's iMac design at all. They're flying out of the Apple store and CompUSA's expecting every shipment to be sold before they arrive - there's a waiting list 6 pages long at my local store.

Looks like another home run by Apple to me. If you remember - the iPod Mini was supposed to be a flop - and you still can't get those at the local CompUSA.

Scott
Scott :)
     
Mr Heliums
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 02:59 PM
 
Originally posted by CadetStimpy:
They're flying out of the Apple store and CompUSA's expecting every shipment to be sold before they arrive - there's a waiting list 6 pages long at my local store.

Looks like another home run by Apple to me. If you remember - the iPod Mini was supposed to be a flop - and you still can't get those at the local CompUSA.

Scott
But the waiting list is caused by the shortage of G5s, not ramped-up craving for the new iMacs. I'd wager there is nothing like the demand for these machines that there was for the iMac G4 at its introduction.

That's not all the fault of the design. I think it's ok - its only aesthetical weakness is that the design can obviously be improved (thinner, smaller bezel), whereas I couldn't really see a similar flaw in the iMac G4. That will encourage some people to wait until revision 2.

But Apple, attempting to improve on the poor sales figures of the iMac G4, hasn't solved the real reason behind the slow takeup: price. Few consumers were saying it was too slow or too ugly. They loved the look, but bought cheaper PCs. This more restrained design was an opportunity to pare prices. Apple hasn't taken it.

It can try to sell on the back of the iPod for all its worth, but it won't work: the iPod is good value compared to its competitors at a price point most consumers can afford. Much as I like the iMac - I'll buy one - and Mac OS X, you can't say the same for the iMac G5.

For the record, I thought the iPod would be a hit , but the iMac G5 in its current form won't do well.
     
Nodnarb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 03:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Mr Heliums:
But the waiting list is caused by the shortage of G5s, not ramped-up craving for the new iMacs. I'd wager there is nothing like the demand for these machines that there was for the iMac G4 at its introduction.

That's not all the fault of the design. I think it's ok - its only aesthetical weakness is that the design can obviously be improved (thinner, smaller bezel), whereas I couldn't really see a similar flaw in the iMac G4. That will encourage some people to wait until revision 2.

But Apple, attempting to improve on the poor sales figures of the iMac G4, hasn't solved the real reason behind the slow takeup: price. Few consumers were saying it was too slow or too ugly. They loved the look, but bought cheaper PCs. This more restrained design was an opportunity to pare prices. Apple hasn't taken it.

It can try to sell on the back of the iPod for all its worth, but it won't work: the iPod is good value compared to its competitors at a price point most consumers can afford. Much as I like the iMac - I'll buy one - and Mac OS X, you can't say the same for the iMac G5.

For the record, I thought the iPod would be a hit , but the iMac G5 in its current form won't do well.
People were saying the iMac was slow. You could get the same exact machine internally for hundreds cheaper by just getting an eMac. The only difference was the design. Now the iMac is ALOT faster...and you said they didn't fix the price...it's also ALOT cheaper? I don't get where your gettin your info...They arent going to ever make a $500 peice of crap computer, whats the point? The iMac is priced about where its ACTUAL competetors in the PC market are...and alot better performance, design, has OS X, etc.

And while the G5 chip issue has some validity, 6 page waiting list at ONE comp usa? I don't care what your selling, that means its good. Multiply that one Comp USA by all the others, and then the Apple store online, then the Apple retail, etc.

I just don't see where your coming from, Helium.
     
Mr Heliums
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
Originally posted by brandon420506:
And while the G5 chip issue has some validity, 6 page waiting list at ONE comp usa? I don't care what your selling, that means its good. Multiply that one Comp USA by all the others, and then the Apple store online, then the Apple retail, etc.

I just don't see where your coming from, Helium.
I'm not saying it's bad value - after all, why would I buy one if that's not the case - but neither will it be a huge commercial success, because there are plenty of ostensibly capable machines that cost less. There are a *lot* of people out there, who look at price before form factor.

(I'd debate the speed point too, particularly with its stock RAM. Nothing is fast with 256Mb)

And as for the 'waiting list', I'd be more prepared to follow your view if Apple had released details of the number of pre-orders, like it did for the iPod, original iMac and G4 iMac. So far it hasn't - you'd have thought that if the numbers were good, Apple would be shouting about it.

Only time will tell, of course, but I'm happy to wager that this design will sell no more than the iMac g4, which was written off as a commercial failure.
     
Evan_11  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 04:04 PM
 
Well my brothers eMachine is crapping out on him after only six months. The power button is failing and the damn thing has always overheated. He currently has the cover off and has a fan blowing on the internals. So much for a $500 computer.

So yes it's unfair to compare the iMac to a POS like an eMachine. I think the $1300 price is pretty damn good.

Computers are disposable though. That's how the majority of people view them. Why spend more than $500 when you can buy a newer and more powerful one in six months for the same price. The iMac should last the average computer user a good 2-3 years.
     
Evan_11  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 04:07 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
A desktop mini-tower would do fabulously. Single G5 and a standard 8x AGP slot. Maybe a PCI slot or two if they can manage, but I'd live without that.

As for price, if it hit the same price points as the iMac that would be terrific although I think they should be able to get a lower price point since it wouldn't include a monitor. But even so, I'd pay $1500 for one.

In fact, since someone mentioned it in the other thread I'm seriously considering a refurbished 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac. That's exactly what I want although a smaller enclosure would be welcome but certainly not necessary.
What the hell, dude? You would pay $1500 for a refurb 1.6 when you can buy a new 1.8 dual for $500 more?! Pony up the cash, cheapskate! Have you even done the math? That 1.8 dual will last you twice as long as the 1.6 model. Almost everything is dual processor utilized now.

Man I just don't get some of you guys.
     
Nodnarb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 04:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Mr Heliums:
There are a *lot* of people out there, who look at price before form factor.
You could use that same logic with the iPod. Yea there are a lot of shitty cheaper ones, but why is the iPod selling so much? Because its the best. The iMac is all you could ask from Apple for the price/performance. I say it's a good design and will sell a bunch.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2004, 06:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Evan_11:
What the hell, dude? You would pay $1500 for a refurb 1.6 when you can buy a new 1.8 dual for $500 more?! Pony up the cash, cheapskate! Have you even done the math? That 1.8 dual will last you twice as long as the 1.6 model. Almost everything is dual processor utilized now.

Man I just don't get some of you guys.
$500 is no small amount of money. At least not to me. Even if I had the spare $500 I'd rather spend it on upgrading the GPU, storage, RAM or perhaps even a monitor rather than another on a dual processor machine.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
LightWaver-67
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 06:50 AM
 
One thing I agree with from this thread, is that at "some" point, Apple really could & should promote the hell out of OSX. The same effort they put into iPod marketing would do wonders for the entire PLATFORM.

Microsoft (as much as I don't like them) had a couple of effective ad-campaigns the past few years. I wasn't a HUGE fan of the "Where do you want to go today" campaign... but it DID stimulate awareness... the newer ads with the white, sketchy, animated overlay on-top of video footage is pretty neat from my p.o.v. and again, I really don't like M$... but their efforts to market themselves get their OS in th prime-time mainstream.

I don't know if they are making a concerted effort to NOT publicize the OS, or if their just waiting 'till the "Right TIme" when they feel the OS is ready to call attention to itself... but either way... It's been a LONG time since we've seen a commercial on tv from Apple that was NOT about hardware.

Here's to hoping...
     
Skypat
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 07:42 AM
 
It totally agree with you.

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
I don't know if they are making a concerted effort to NOT publicize the OS, or if their just waiting 'till the "Right TIme" when they feel the OS is ready to call attention to itself...
The fact is that Apple *does not want* to explode its market share. It is a profitable business and I think that's the most important for them.

About promoting the OS ... well, we are their favourite way of advertising. We evangelize mac os x, so that's their way of communicating about a product. Happy users talk to other less happy users (like their PC friends)

I already made 3 people switch myself
S k y p a t
     
kcmac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Kansas City, Mo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 09:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Skypat:
It totally agree with you.



The fact is that Apple *does not want* to explode its market share. It is a profitable business and I think that's the most important for them.

About promoting the OS ... well, we are their favourite way of advertising. We evangelize mac os x, so that's their way of communicating about a product. Happy users talk to other less happy users (like their PC friends)

I already made 3 people switch myself
I would agree Skypat. Look at how the iPod/iTunes is being attacked from all sides. Lawsuits, reverse engineering, a new iPod killer out every day, on and on.

I think Apple with a smaller, niche market is able to have more fun, make money and keep the market on its toes is a much better position to be in. Face it, if Apple was in MS position, they could have never completely scrapped OS 9 and come up with a completely new OS. This is MS big problem with Shorthorn, one they will not overcome soon if at all.

I really like where Apple is sitting. I think there products are as good or better than ever. This iMac will do very well but they are not trying to take over market share with it.
     
mbryda
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 01:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Mr Heliums:
Only time will tell, of course, but I'm happy to wager that this design will sell no more than the iMac g4, which was written off as a commercial failure.
Who said that? Please point to a link or something that says the G4 iMac is regarded as a failure.
     
PBG4 User
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deer Crossing, CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 02:19 PM
 
Originally posted by kcmac:
I think Apple with a smaller, niche market is able to have more fun, make money and keep the market on its toes is a much better position to be in. Face it, if Apple was in MS position, they could have never completely scrapped OS 9 and come up with a completely new OS. This is MS big problem with Shorthorn, one they will not overcome soon if at all.
Ummm, you've heard of this thing that ships with OS X called Classic, correct? Because that contradicts just what I've quoted above.
20" iMac G5! :D AND MacBook 1.83GHz!
Canon Digital Rebel Kit + 75 - 300mm lens. Yum Yum! :D
Check out my OS X Musical Scales program
     
Mr Heliums
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 02:22 PM
 
Originally posted by mbryda:
Who said that? Please point to a link or something that says the G4 iMac is regarded as a failure.
Why bother with a link? Look at the facts. The CRT iMacs were selling more than 700,000 units a quarter. The G4 iMac sold, on average, little more than a third of that number. I think it struggled to sell a million over the whole of last year.
The iMac - once the machine that saved Apple from oblivion and surely the company's flagship product - represented just over a tenth of Apple's revenue last quarter - lower than any other computer product that Apple makes.

But, hey, mark it down as a commercial success if you want. It's all opinion.
     
mbryda
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 03:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Mr Heliums:
Why bother with a link? Look at the facts. The CRT iMacs were selling more than 700,000 units a quarter. The G4 iMac sold, on average, little more than a third of that number. I think it struggled to sell a million over the whole of last year.
Without going into the previous financial statements, I'm not going to comment on sales levels. But, I'd doubt that since the G4 iMac was introduced the G3 was selling well at all. It mainly drug on for another year with very poor sales.

You're also talking a machine with a 4 year span - 98-03. Or course it's going to sell a lot.

But, hey, mark it down as a commercial success if you want. It's all opinion.
It wasn't a flop like the cube or MS Bob. It sold well and was a solid machine for its time. I know - I have one - my 1st Mac. It is a great machine, even for being a Gen 1 box.
     
Mr Heliums
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 03:45 PM
 
I'm comparing quarterly sales figures, so lifespan has little to do with it.

Originally posted by mbryda:

It wasn't a flop like the cube or MS Bob. It sold well and was a solid machine for its time. I know - I have one - my 1st Mac. It is a great machine, even for being a Gen 1 box.
I didn't say it was a flop like the Cube. But it was a commercial failure - it wasn't as popular as it ought to have been, and I'm sure Apple was expecting far more from it.

And yes, it is a great machine. It's my favourite iMac design. It's timeless - which makes it all the more of a commercial failure, because it SHOULD have sold much more.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If I spend $1300-2000 in the Wintel world, I know I can swap out parts and milk that investment for years. Get the next great video card next year. Get a flashy new monitor the year after that. I can make that initial outlay of money last way beyond the lifespan of the original computer with minimal outlay for new parts in later years.
I think you and many other people are ignoring one major advantages of Macs -- high resale value. For whatever reason, used Macs usually go for much higher prices than the average Dell box. This means that you can often sell your old machine to get a new one and have it only cost you a few hundred dollars total. I would argue that this is better than upgrading, since you get a whole new computer, complete with new CPU, video card, system architecture and warranty, for a price that is may not be very different from just upgrading the video card and hard disk. Of course, some models have better returns than others, and the timing of your sale can also affect the price you get. But looking at completed auctions on eBay for the 20" iMac G4, for example, they seem to be getting at least $1500, with some getting a fair amount more. Just plug that into getting a 20" iMac G5, and you've got a whole new computer for $300-$400. It's the ultimate "upgrade"!
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 04:06 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
I think you and many other people are ignoring one major advantages of Macs -- high resale value. For whatever reason, used Macs usually go for much higher prices than the average Dell box. This means that you can often sell your old machine to get a new one and have it only cost you a few hundred dollars total. I would argue that this is better than upgrading, since you get a whole new computer, complete with new CPU, video card, system architecture and warranty, for a price that is may not be very different from just upgrading the video card and hard disk. Of course, some models have better returns than others, and the timing of your sale can also affect the price you get. But looking at completed auctions on eBay for the 20" iMac G4, for example, they seem to be getting at least $1500, with some getting a fair amount more. Just plug that into getting a 20" iMac G5, and you've got a whole new computer for $300-$400. It's the ultimate "upgrade"!
That's a very good point that I hadn't considered.

I have noticed high resale prices on used Macs but I guess I didn't consider that most of those sales were successful.

Is selling a used Mac difficult? I mean, how high are the chances of successfully unloading your old machine?

You're absolutely right that if it isn't hard to sell your old Mac to get a new that it would change the equation in a way I completely ignored.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 04:39 PM
 
I've done it a few times successfully. Timing is important, as is finding the best prices for your new equipment. For example, I sold my Lombard Powerbook G3 and bought one of the last Pismo Powerbooks for only a couple hundred extra. Apple was clearing them out for the Powerbook G4s. I got a faster machine with a much better video card and built-in firewire and airport slot out of the deal. Obviously, if I had been trying to trade up to a top-of-the-line PBG4, the upgrade wouldn't have been as good a deal.

I will soon be selling my rev A 12" powerbook for a rev C model, and I only expect to have to pay $300 or $400 out of pocket for the upgrade. And since I can deduct the expense for my work, it really works out well. Again, it really helps to be on the lookout for deals like the current Amazon.com $150 rebate when doing this kind of thing.

Anyway, I just get annoyed when people refer to iMacs as "disposable" computers when in fact you can often sell and trade up for a relatively small amount of money.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 05:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
Anyway, I just get annoyed when people refer to iMacs as "disposable" computers when in fact you can often sell and trade up for a relatively small amount of money.
Well, you're still "disposing" of the old Mac when you need an upgrade, but I see your point and I concede that it is a very good point which I had overlooked.

Thanks. You've given me a different perspective on it which might actually change my mind about some of Apple's offerings. I appreciate it.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
MacinChad
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 06:00 PM
 
I'd like to address this post to Thunder since I was impressed with many of his points and was surprised that he did not realize the depreciation value on Macs was so low.

I make this argument all the time to my PC friends who I can feel are now wavering due to all the viruses and general XP issues they have to deal with. It frustrates me that resale value is not talked about more.

The market for used Mac systems on eBay is through the roof! I just sold my dual 867mhz G4, which was over 2 years old, for $1000 ($1699 new). You would never maintain that kind of value in the PC world. Add the price I got for my 17" Samsung monitor and I'm almost to the cost of the 20" iMac G5 I purchased.

But the argument we are having here is only for the minority who (a) upgrade their pc's and macs or (b) are savvy enough to sell their used equipment and upgrade.

The average home user doesn't upgrade their machine (or even know they can, as another poster pointed out). And most would not bother selling their used equipment at a fair price.

So in the final analysis, I think that Apple is doing as much as they can for the target audience that they are gunning for - the consumer. Once they upgrade the eMac to a G5 (can't be long now) they will have two tiers of excellent offerings for Joe/Jane computer user (Mac or Switcher)

Unfortunately I think that it is very difficult to convince someone who thinks they only have enough money for a basic Dell system to spend a few bucks more for an eMac (G5 when delivered) or 17" iMac G5. That's too bad. Hopefully all those high profile Apple Stores will work their magic on the unwashed masses
iMac G5 20"
pBook 12" 1.33
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 06:18 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, you're still "disposing" of the old Mac when you need an upgrade
.
I suppose so, and I'll admit that it does take a little work to sell a computer, too. But I think most people using the word "disposable" are implying that you're throwing your money away compared to buying an upgradable computer. In fact, it is closer to being an investment that can later be capitalized on.
( Last edited by icruise; Sep 16, 2004 at 06:27 PM. )
     
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 06:33 PM
 
Originally posted by Mr Heliums:
Why bother with a link? Look at the facts. The CRT iMacs were selling more than 700,000 units a quarter. The G4 iMac sold, on average, little more than a third of that number. I think it struggled to sell a million over the whole of last year.
The iMac - once the machine that saved Apple from oblivion and surely the company's flagship product - represented just over a tenth of Apple's revenue last quarter - lower than any other computer product that Apple makes.

But, hey, mark it down as a commercial success if you want. It's all opinion.
You cannot compare the G3 iMac sales directly to the G4 iMac sales. The market that existed when the G3 iMac was released was vastly different from that of the G4 iMac. First off the G3 iMac (henceforth refered to as the G3) was the first consumer Mac to be released in a long time that wasn't seriously crippled compared to the higher-end offerings and was designed around its target market. It was marketed as an "internet computer" at a time when there were a large number of people looking to get computers and internet access who had never considered doing so previously. Once the G3s went to the "Indigo" models selling for $799 they become some of the least expensive Macs in Apple history.

The G4s on the other hand were released at a time when many people already had computers and internet access and were looking for upgrades. Also within months of the G4's introduction the eMac was released to non-education customers which effectively split the consumer market down the middle. There's no way the G4s could have sold as well as the G3s because they started at a higher price point than most of the G3s had ever sold at. You're also neglecting the impact the iBooks made on iMac sales. The iMacs really came into their own once the second iteration "600s" came out in May of 2002. They had twice the VRAM of the previous iBooks and also had twice the L2 cache which improved their performance significantly. A lot of consumer Mac buyers started looking at the nice new iBooks in lieu of the iMac desktops.

You're also not taking into account the computer buying market between the two different iMac lines. The computer sales market of 1998/9 was significantly different than the sales market of 2002/3. The two years before 2000 saw significant numbers of computer sales because those years coincided with a major upgrade cycle and people were seriously worried about Y2K compliance (legitimately or not). The years 2002 and 2003 however saw significant and serious sales declines all throughout the PC industry. It isn't justifiable to say the iMac was a commercial failure when it sold exceedingly well despite a national economic recession and the losses of hundreds of thousands of jobs. In fact I'd say the G4 iMac was actually a pretty successful product given the market it existed in.

The rest of this year and all of next year however are major upgrade cycle years. Systems bought between 1998-2000 are being phased out as their extended warranties expire and support for them becomes more expensive than replacements. The iMac is actually coming out at a very opportune period and should easily sell better than the G4 iMac. Microsoft's "Software Assurance" program is a joke right now as Longhorn is still several years off and only a single major upgrade is scheduled for Windows XP in the intervening period. This bodes well for Apple because it means companies are looking to replace their virus infested PCs with something a bit better. I think Apple's put a lot of work into setting themselves up for these Microsoft escapees with nice corporate friendly iMacs, XServes that make excellent workgroup servers with drool-worthy RAIDs, and an OS that is rock solid but extremely usable and extensible.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 06:34 PM
 
Originally posted by MacinChad:
I'd like to address this post to Thunder since I was impressed with many of his points and was surprised that he did not realize the depreciation value on Macs was so low.

I make this argument all the time to my PC friends who I can feel are now wavering due to all the viruses and general XP issues they have to deal with. It frustrates me that resale value is not talked about more.

The market for used Mac systems on eBay is through the roof! I just sold my dual 867mhz G4, which was over 2 years old, for $1000 ($1699 new). You would never maintain that kind of value in the PC world. Add the price I got for my 17" Samsung monitor and I'm almost to the cost of the 20" iMac G5 I purchased.

But the argument we are having here is only for the minority who (a) upgrade their pc's and macs or (b) are savvy enough to sell their used equipment and upgrade.

The average home user doesn't upgrade their machine (or even know they can, as another poster pointed out). And most would not bother selling their used equipment at a fair price.

So in the final analysis, I think that Apple is doing as much as they can for the target audience that they are gunning for - the consumer. Once they upgrade the eMac to a G5 (can't be long now) they will have two tiers of excellent offerings for Joe/Jane computer user (Mac or Switcher)

Unfortunately I think that it is very difficult to convince someone who thinks they only have enough money for a basic Dell system to spend a few bucks more for an eMac (G5 when delivered) or 17" iMac G5. That's too bad. Hopefully all those high profile Apple Stores will work their magic on the unwashed masses
Its funny. I have always been aware that people tried to sell used Macs for surprising high prices. I guess I never really realized that people actuall bought them.



I've seen some used prices and thought to myself, "that guy is nuts. No one will ever spend that much on an outdated Mac."

If selling your old Mac really isn't very hard, then I stand very corrected and I'll have to really rethink my stand on AIOs. I suppose it was just my egotism that made me think just because I would never spend top dollar for a outdated Mac doesn't mean others wouldn't.

So if I really bought a 20" iMac today, I'd be able to sell it for most of its original price in 3-4 years?
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 06:48 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

So if I really bought a 20" iMac today, I'd be able to sell it for most of its original price in 3-4 years?
That's probably a bit too long. I'd say 2 years is the most you'd want to wait if you really want to recover a large portion of your original investment, and 1 to 1.5 years is probably optimal. That's not to say that it would be worthless after 3 or 4 years, but I think it would be outdated enough to make it quite a bit less attractive to buyers.
     
Evan_11  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2004, 07:32 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So if I really bought a 20" iMac today, I'd be able to sell it for most of its original price in 3-4 years?
No. We're talking about computers not houses.

With that said...

I sold my 17" iMac 1ghz for $1300 about five months ago. Mine didn't even have AppleCare and was just out of warranty.

Macs especially ones with AppleCare really hold their value.
     
MacinChad
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2004, 12:32 AM
 
Thunder-

Maybe you'd get 1/2- 3/4 the original value in 3 to 4 years. That monitor will really help the machine hold its value.

And btw, I didn't ask for the outrageous price on my old Mac. I just put it up on eBay with no reserve and let the buyers decide the value.
iMac G5 20"
pBook 12" 1.33
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2004, 11:35 PM
 
Just to follow up on the "mac resale value" element of this thread, today I sold my rev a 12" powerbook for $200 less than I just paid for my new rev C powerbook. Of course, I got quite a good deal on my new powerbook, which helped. I had bought Panther and iLife '04 in the last year, and included them with the Powerbook because the new PowerBook came with them anyway.

Keep in mind, when we talk about trading up in this manner, you can't expect to get what you originally paid for the machine back. But that's not the point. What you want is to be able to get enough to offset most of the cost of its replacement. In my case, I think I paid $2500 or so for my powerbook when it originally came out (I got all of the BTO upgrades available). I only got a little more than half of the price I originally paid, but because prices for the Powerbooks have come down in the meantime, I was able to replace it with a much better machine using that money. It's the technological progress and simultaneous reduction in prices that occurs in the computer world that makes this kind of thing possible.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,