A New Cheaper eMac That Is Still Too Expensive
Us Mac users know how much a Mac is worth. Heck, some of us spend 3000 bucks to get one and it is worth every penny. But the majority of computer buyers walk into Walmart like I did this weekend, and see a Compaq �fully loaded� with a 17� monitor for $449. Dell has price points in this range and so do all the PC manufacturers.
So what, you say, it�s not a Mac! Agreed. But to the consumer who is looking to buy something the difference between 400 bucks and 800 bucks is, well, double. And that is too much. If Apple wants to compete in the market for super-cheap computing why not use the G3 processor? Sure it�s slower but so are the processors that PC manufacturers are throwing in their cheap machines. A G3 running at 1GHZ is obviously capable of running OS X—Apple has been selling them with OS X in their product line up until today. And if the speed reports about Panther are correct the G3 should handle OS X even better.
Don�t get me wrong, I understand and appreciate the value of an eMac for 799. But the market will not.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
True. The depts I support have a few people that only really use basic office functions. The’ve been on iMacs for the last 4 years, but those Turqs and Tangs have started to get a bit ropey lately. Luckily, the UK still has access to G3 iMacs, through one of the major resellers. At more than �170 cheaper than a G4 eMac, they are still attractive. Strange how Apple no longer offers them when there is still clearly a market.
Try a reseller, rather than Apple.
I can only pool from my experience in Consumer Electronics sales so take this as you may.
When you purchase a Computer. You’re buying into an ideology of how computing is done. You’re not just buying a Computer…you’re purchasing a Platform. There’s the rub. While Apple notices those $499 computers they also realize that those with a budget of $500 for a computer won’t necessarily support the platform like they want.
The key to long term growth is sales and profits. Sales at the expense of profits does nothing. Shouldn’t we find it ironic that the largest group of Digital Pirates, have access to the cheapest hardware?
No I do not lament user passing on Macs for $500 PCs. What I want is a vibrant community that support things like iTMS and other new tech. Not because its Cheap but because it elevates the user experience and hence the Platform. HHM
Too expensive!?! Compared to what? A Dell? Perhaps a Gateway? Maybe even an eMachine…
The reality is, is that Apple is NOT for everyone. Just like Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Saab, and Rolls-Royce are NOT for everyone.
I’d like to buy a Mercedes. I think that Demlier ought to lower their prices to to compete with the Kias and Hundyais of the world. Parity, don’t you know.
It sounds funny when you’re talking about cars…and no less funny when you’re talking about two disparate computers.
As a 15-year Mac user and a former computer salesperson, I must agree with you. The last two Macs I bought were PowerBook G4/500 and PowerBook G4/1GHz. While I believe Macintoshes are better buys, the PC makers gained market share by selling cheap computers. I think what you are proposing is a great. Let’s just hope the decision maker(s) at Apple come across this article and look into some possiblities.
Wish us luck!
Best Regards,
George
Actually, the problem is on of marketing the eMac, not the price. If people knew it was out there, they would buy it. But they don’t…
while it is a popular thing to compare Apple to BMW or Mercedes - companies that serve upper tier markets with luxury and high-quality items: Apple is still just a computer company, quite a difference from a car company.
BMW would get squashed if it offered a sub-15k car. The Kias and Fords can out market, out price, out build, out sell BMW due to established infrastructure and flat out more experience in the market. Car development spans several years from inception to production: BMW would burn any potential profit years before realizing it, well years before they realize they just can’t compete.
One can say Apple already has the infrastructure and the products, but lacks the experience to sell to the low end market. So why not?
Steve Jobs tells the press any chance he can get how Apple is trying to convert and trojan horse the PC market… this is the way to do it! A low priced Mac is a great way. Sure, getting people to spend more money on a quality product is advantageous, but you miss the market that wants to buy what they can afford.
in response to MacHelp - I beg to differ that Macs are not for everyone. I’d bet my PowerBook that Jobs would want a Mac on every person’s desk at home and the office.
Your damn right he would, Nathan. And there’s little reason anymore not to have a Mac everywhere. So much software is popping up for OS X - It’s crawling out of the wood work, if you will!
Apple might benefit from a very inexpensive Mac model, but this is a double-edge sword. Let’s look at Universal’s decision to lower CD’s MSRP… Yes, that’s nice. $12.95 is certainly a more reasonable price than $18.95! But, a sudden $6 price drop? Doesn’t that make you wonder, “Are they offering an inferior product?”
As long- and even shorttime Mac users, we here all understand the superiority of the Mac. So, if Apple released a $500 Mac, don’t you think people might be skeptical? “Oh, it’s a piece of crap. All the other, good Macs are like $1000 and up, right?”
But then consider this (and note that I have no knowledge of practical business or education in economics, accounting and the like), if Apple - usually the pricey choice - puts out an inexpensive computer, what will the PC manufacturers do? Try to make even cheaper PCs? “Why buy a Mac for $500 when I can buy a PC for $300! With a monitor and printer!”
A lot of the problem comes from a lack of knowledge. Keep people dumb and you can make them do a lot of dumb stuff. It works for voting. We should have voting sessions at least once a year to reduce the amount of items on a ballot. Do you really think an Average Joe can mentally swallow 10 or more propositions? What about tacking two onto California’s recent recall melee? People were so busy being either apalled or ecastatic about Arnold running for Governor that they didn’t spend time learning about Propositions 53 and 54, both of which were extremely important. Fortunately, both passed in ways desirable. However, it could’ve been a lot worse.
Apple needs better marketing. Flashy ads, celebrities and proclaiming things to be something they are not just isn’t good enough. I think their best commercial was the one with Gregory Hines (spelling?) filming himself and then editing the film on his laptop. Celebrity + demonstration of model’s capabilities? 10 out 10. Of course, it opens a Pandora’s box allowing competitors to try and out-do that show with their own products. “If you think iMove is so great, check out MS’s half-assed piece of crap movie editor!”
Am I even making sense at this point? Hmm.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I have been saying the same thing for the past 10 years. They need to make their producte more attractive to the average home user. They can do this by dropping the price. People want computers, and most people don’t care about status or aesthetics. They do, however care about getting a computer for the least abount of money so the kids can type up their assignments, and so the family can use the internet. The average family would not be able to afford a mac.
MacHelp sounds rather pretentious when he compares them to BMWs, and talks about Macs not being for everyone. While I see where you are coming from, I don’t agree with you. I, like some other people who commented here, believe that Steve Jobs would love nothing more than to see an Apple or two on every desk of every family. First they will have to drop the price, establish more packages or deals - such as software or hardware bundles, and discount the various Apple myths that are in circulation. Oh yeah….ADVERTISE ADVERTISE ADVERTISE!
Apple advertises. In my opininion, though, they do not do it well. A lot of their ads rely on prior knowledge of their product are closing a sale based entirely on the size of a laptop.
Another big hurdle for Apple is the Megahertz Myth. So long as millions upon millions of casual computer users don’t understand the huge, dispairaging, difference between an x86 and a PowerPC processor, people will go for the Intel/AMD-equipped models. All it takes is for a salesman to say, “See this MHz/GHz number? The higher it is, the faster the computer is.”
And it would take a lot of effort to educate people that don’t care. Most casual techies don’t even want to know why the G5 is different than the G4 aside from that it’s “64 bit.”
And the whole 64 bit thing is a joke for now, too! I mean, OK. You’ve got a 64-bit OS and MAYBE one or two apps to go with it. But it’ll be a long time before cross-platform developers are making 64-bit Mac apps since there’s no 64-bit Windows and most Wintel machines show no sign of using 64-bit processors.
But, back to the budget Macs (or bMac as I’d like to call it). Why not make the Mac III? Put a 1 GHz G3 in a small white/grey box (desktop model) and include a cheap-as-crap 17” monitor. Make available the option to buy it with an Apple flat pannel display. Start it with 128 MB of RAM, a 20 GB hard drive, a CD-/DVD-ROM drive that can be upgraded to a Combo Drive. Wallah. The bMac/Mac III. And, if by some chance a really old G4 is FASTER than 1 GHz G3 (I wouldn’t know, personally), then put in like a 500 or 600 MHz G4. The only benefit of the 1 GHz G3 is that it’s a Gigahertz, and casual computer users like that.