Megahertz Myth...

[phatsharpie]

Originally posted by solrac
Yes, Apple makes much higher margins selling Jaguar than ANY hardware they'll ever make.

Now that Jaguar is done, and on store shelves, apple's profit margin is like 99.99999999999%. That's the beauty of software. (The only overhead is packing / printing / boxes.)

...

So once apple has more computers out there, they will start to make more money on software, than hardware.

But today, they are still a hardware company mainly.

That is why microsoft is bigger and richer than apple. Microsoft = software. Apple = hardware.

Microsoft sells software to everyone that bought a computer from dell, compaq, gateway, etc, and they don't even sell any hardware. They just make pure profits.

I think your argument is essentially true, but a little simplistic. Software does lend itself to have a higher profit margin, but in your descriptions, you left out developmental and licensing costs. When NeXTSTEP for Intel was released, it was prohibitively expensive as a consumer OS because NeXT had to pay royalties for Display PostScript, BSD, etc. Also, because NeXTSTEP had a relatively small market, they had to jack up their prices to recoup the developmental cost.

So Windows and other commercial OS's do cost money to develop and test, so usually it takes a bit of time for the costs to be recouped. So it's not like all software can have a 99.99999% profit margin right out of the bat! It also depends on how big your market is.

I think MS's ingenuity (or evilness), is that they charge hardware manufacturers a Windows tax. All the Windows licensee (or most of them) has to pay for a copy of Windows with every PC they sell, even if the user plans to load Linux on it. Now that's what made Bill Gates the richest man on Earth.

 

[solrac]

Yes but windows has none of these developmental costs. Every element of their OS is owned by microsoft.

and i don't believe mac os x has any other costs either. I think it's all pure profit at this point, just like windows is.

Software only costs money to make the first time. Once its done, it's all pure profit.....

 

[fryke]

Hmm... The last time I checked, Apple hadn't stopped developing Mac OS X. I heard a version 10.2.4 is in the works and 10.3 should be available in Summer...

 

[AdmiralAK]

nice
I hope greek is fully supported because the whole issue of greek on carbon and the attitude of raibow (the greek reseller) is drivin' me insane

I hope I dont have to shell out a lot of $$$ for 10.3...well if it has A LOT of updates then no prob, but for minor stuff and nothing "noticeable" i will be pysed

 

[phatsharpie]

Originally posted by solrac
i don't believe mac os x has any other costs either. I think it's all pure profit at this point, just like windows is.

Software only costs money to make the first time. Once its done, it's all pure profit.....

Uh... Then why does Apple and MS hire developers to work on their OSes?

It's a basic rule in software development life cycle that majority of costs (70+%) is actually in support and bug fixes. Software development is actually a never-ending process.

 

[f_h_petrone]

do you want profit?
tell apple to go fully international
I live in Argentina, we have only "Macintosh Authorized Resellers" only and the cost of a new Mac here is more than 140% the cost of the same mac in the US, and they even come 3 or 4 months late. The cost of a Mac here is fixed by Apple in Cupertino (more than 10000 kms away) ant they even FINE the resellers if they catch them selling macs at lower prices.
Argentina is a PC country i think that apple's market sahre here is less than 1%. That is because EVERYTHING is difficult to get (not talking about the exchange, because if I did I should tell you that to buy a thing that costs 1000 U$S we have to pay 3500 of our "pesos" BUT our salaries don't keep the same difference. A guy here working 40 hours a week can get between 1000 and 1500 "pesos" per month (that is about 300-500 U$S dollars) doing the same job for wich a Northamerican guy is paid 1000-1500 U$S dollars.

That is to say that for us is five or six times as difficult to buy a Mac. and it is only 2 or 3 times as difficult to buy a PC (because we have thousands of PC resellers and they fierecely compete wich each other so the price of a PC here is only 105% the price of the same PC bought un the US and they are released at the same time.

I'm writing this in a G3/366 upgraded from a 233.
I had to SMUGGLE the ZIF processor because I could not find it here anywhere.

My first Mac (I was 9 years old) was an SE that was also smuggled by my grandfather back in 1987. he payed more than 5000 dollars for it....

if apple realized that putting a mac here at the same price it puts it in the US would open a very unexplored territory here (and in many other countries in similar situation) I think a big sales boost would be seen

 

[solrac]

wow that's crazy. There must be some reason apple hasn't hit the south american market correctly.

As for software costs, I meant that once a version is released, that version is pure profit. Bug fixes and developers are costs associated with making a new version.

Tech support is not a software cost. That is a customer support cost.

Smuggling mac stuff to argentina is super cool in my book! :-D :-D (Although low salaries are not cool)

 

[Cat]

The whole debate about the MHz Myth should take two issues into account:

1) What do you need to do with your computer?
2) What do you want to spend?

There are loads of people who don't need more MHz. Everything is working quite fine, thank you. To them (mostly consumers) the debate is completely uninteresting.

If I don't have the money, I don't really have a choice. If can only affoord a $ 400, - computer, I cannot buy a (new) Mac, but must look into PC's.

The point of "a $399,- Dell beats a $ 3000,- PowerMac" is a bit beside the point, if you get my point.

The MHz myth is not "MHz are not important" but "MHz are not all-important".

There are loads of things the $ 3000,- PM can do which the Dell can't, so they cannot really be compared.

Macs aren't cheap, but you definitely get something for your money's worth. Maybe not MHz, but design, innovation, connectivity, the Brand, style etc.

Judging a computer only by the MHz is like judging a car only by the maximum speed listed on the speed-dial.

P.S. Note that this debate is not about which OS feels "snappier". MHz is about hardware. besides MHz also the FSB, the different cache's, type of RAM etc. etc. etc. should be considered before deciding which OS runs faster on which hardware. Just wanted to point that out, again...

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by Cat


Judging a computer only by the MHz is like judging a car only by the maximum speed listed on the speed-dial.

Actually, it's more like judging a car by its 0-60 time.

Which is the main selling point of fast cars.

Which mhz is also the main selling point of PCs. Although consumers don't need crap of mhz to send emails and surf the web, that's all they see when they go to the store, and that's how they make their buying decision.

Apple has great ads that say "everything is easier on a mac", but those ads need to say that "everything feels just as fast on a mac even though the megahertz is slower".

But the whole mhz argument is primarily for pro-users, like me. (I do a lot of photoshop, web design, programming, flash, and video.)

 

[Cat]

Actually, it's more like judging a car by its 0-60 time.
Which is the main selling point of fast cars.

You're probably right there... but my point is that the average consumers doesn't want the fastest car on the block, but simply get to work, do shopping, pick up the kids from school... so he will look too whether it's comfy, has a good radio/cd player & boxes, what the looks are etc... so MHz are important but not all-important.

But the whole mhz argument is primarily for pro-users, like me. (I do a lot of photoshop, web design, programming, flash, and video.)

I couldn't agree more! And this is precisely why you couldn't / wouldn't use the $ 400,- Dell, because beside the highest MHz, you need good display capabilities (video card & screen), a lot of HD space, quite some RAM etc. All these features will raise the price of the Dell to the level of a PowerMac, IF they can be built into it at all.

So what you need is a quad 6 GHz G5 Tower! (Don't we all ...?)

Is someone (besides M$ users) still actually believing the MHz Myth, or are we preaching to the converted here?

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by Cat
I couldn't agree more! And this is precisely why you couldn't / wouldn't use the $ 400,- Dell, because beside the highest MHz, you need good display capabilities (video card & screen), a lot of HD space, quite some RAM etc. All these features will raise the price of the Dell to the level of a PowerMac, IF they can be built into it at all.

But that's precisely wrong!!!

If you add a bigger hard drive, video card, and good monitor, it goes way higher than $400, but still WAYYYY lower than a power mac.

I built a 1.8 ghz celeron computer, with GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video card, and a used but great LCD screen, with 100 GB hard drive .... all for $700!!

I got some really good deals, but the same could easily be built for $1000 without ANY price cuts.

A powermac with those features start closer to $2000.

Really the only thing better about a mac is OS X, and the design of the hardware, and the overall quality of software on OS X.

Apple doesn't really have anything better hardware wise. That's why I hope to see apple become a software company one day, not mainly a hardware company. I hope they always offer awesome hardware and cool computers, but I want to see their main revenue be software sales, and their smaller revenue being hardware. This will happen when apple gains more marketshare.

But today, everything that makes apple special is software. If OS X never came out I would've ditched mac a long time ago. The only thing that kept me on the mac was Mac OS X public beta. And OS X was not a viable option for over a year, and I stayed just because of it.

There's no other reason to own a mac other than OS X. (Unless you're rich and you really don't care.)

 

[Cat]

I built a 1.8 ghz celeron computer, with GeForce 4 Ti 4200 video card, and a used but great LCD screen, with 100 GB hard drive .... all for $700!!

But is this the computer you use for work or privately (gaming, etc.)?

Whereas I do not contend the dual 1.25 is slower that the fastest P4, I think it is faster than a celeron 1.8 GHz.
I cannot compare second-hand / refurbished / older computers and parts to a new system, but did those $ 700,- buy you really something so close to this:

Dual 867MHz G4 (256K L2 & 1MB L3)
133MHz System Bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX

This is all new for $ 1600,- . Go to Dell's site, build something as close as you can get (no duals) and watch the price soar. OK: PM's are overpriced and too slow, but I do think they can beat what you described above, and not just MHz wise, so the comparison isn't exactly fair. Again, take into account what you do with your Mac and what you do with your PC. Then look at how much you can / want to spend. If you cannot spend the $ 1600,- for a PM, buy an iMac/iBook/eMac or a Dell. But you cannot complain that there exist computers that are cheaper without looking at what you can/cannot do with them. You always pay for what you could do with a computer: the PM can host 4 120 GB drives. You pay for this kind of thing even if you don't use it.

Really the only thing better about a mac is OS X, and the design of the hardware, and the overall quality of software on OS X.

This should be a great incentive to spend a bit more on your Mac and would account for the higher price. IMHO Apple makes great hardware too: not only the 12" and 17" PB's, but also the fruity iMacs and the FP iMacs.

Still, we all could use the 970@1.8 GHz to make us feel a bit more comfortable with the prices we pay for our Macs...

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by Cat
Dual 867MHz G4 (256K L2 & 1MB L3)
133MHz System Bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX

This is all new for $ 1600,- . Go to Dell's site, build something as close as you can get (no duals) and watch the price soar.

Forget buying new. The one fact that you can build a used computer in the windows world is what makes apple such a small market share. People who don't have a lot of money are the GREAT GREAT GREAT majority in this world.

Forget the mhz and system bus. The PCs are way faster as is, and the macs faster system bus is not gonna help.

Basically, my thing is:
684 MB SDRAM (DDR Ram would've been a couple hundred bucks more, including the motherboard)
100 GB HD
Combo Drive would've been a couple hundred more, or less.
I have an Nvidia GeForce Ti 4200, way better than MX.

So, for $400 more I could've got the DDR ram (which works twice as fast in intel architecture than currrently in mac architecture), and also the combo drive. Making my purchase $1100 - $1300, depending on deals.

But if you buy a mac, your generally stuck with your configuration. Although it's not so true anymore if you get a tower. You can switch out HDs, Video card, RAM, most anything.

The mac just plain needs to go twice as fast or more. Then it will start to make real sense to get an apple.

 

[fryke]

It makes real sense to get an Apple already. At least to me. TiBook: Power, Battery life, Ease of Use, I Can Work With It. OtherBook: Speed, Windows. I choose the Mac of them.

 

[solrac]

it makes sense to get an apple for me too, just because os x is so much better, and the powerbooks are so much better.

BUt I'm talking about making sense to the mass market, the general public who doesn't really care about anything but price / performance.

 

[Cat]

Price / performance is mostly focused on hardware features like MHz, hence the MHz Myth, while it should be also concerned about software features.
The fact I can run OS X on my hardware is something I am willing to pay for and account for in the price / performance calculation.

Software features as OS X enhance the machine: stability, optimal combination between intuitively easy-to-understand GUI and maximum control through Terminal/Unix Underneath (Instead of Intel Inside Appl ecould make an ad with "UNIX Underneath" ...)

This can account for a few hundred $ IMHO. OK we're still not there with the price. Moreover there are such things as second hand Macs, so there are cheap Macs. The fruity iMacs still sell in the second hand market for € 400,- to € 600,-. Take € = $ for sake of simplicity, and voilá: cheap Macs.

The masses won't buy a PowerMac anyhow .... abd that's why Apple has separate consumer / professional lines. In price / performance, nothing out there beats the iBook!

 

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by Cat
But is this the computer you use for work or privately (gaming, etc.)?
Dual 867MHz G4 (256K L2 & 1MB L3)
133MHz System Bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX

This is all new for $ 1600,- . Go to Dell's site, build something as close as you can get (no duals) and watch the price soar.

From Dell.com:

2.4 GHz P4
256 MB DDR RAM
533MHz FSB
17" CRT Monitor
NVIDIA GeForce MX 64 MB
60GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive
48x /24x/40x Max CD-RW/DVD Combo Drive

Price: $1,188, Note that this includes a 17" CRT monitor.

 

[Cat]

Thanks GulGnu! You have proven my points exactly.

$ 1,188 is almost three times the price we were talking about in the beginning ("A $ 399,- Dell beats a $ 3k PM").

Yes the Dell is cheaper and probably equally fast. Nonetheless I repeat that they differ a lot in features, both hardware and software, which has to be taken into account.

Moreover for work I would never depend on a second-hand custum built computer (unless spending a lot of time in checking whether everyting is compatible, if it is supported by the OS, etc.). I don't think I can get AppleCare on a second-hand custom built Mac ...

The 'power'Macs (as they are beginning to be called) are probably Apple's worst product at the moment. So whereas it is correct to point this out and hope for improvements, bashing them into the ground is pointless. Taking them as a representative of overall Apple products is unfair. I think a comparison between the iMac and the Dell would be better, even if the iMac too is nearly due for an update.

 

[hulkaros]

Originally posted by GulGnu
From Dell.com:

2.4 GHz P4
256 MB DDR RAM
533MHz FSB
17" CRT Monitor
NVIDIA GeForce MX 64 MB
60GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive
48x /24x/40x Max CD-RW/DVD Combo Drive

Price: $1,188, Note that this includes a 17" CRT monitor.

Now, add to the above stuff the following:
-2xFirewire
-64bit PCI slots
-DVI output
-Support for 4 internal Hard Disks
-Apple pro speakers mini-jack
-An awesome designed mini tower box which opens with just a simple trick
-Mac OS X.x.x with its iApps and ANY other possible Apple software one might need

Oh, and that 17" monitor is just a plain CRT stuff... I would never buy such a basic stuff! I would go for the best 17" money can buy instead because computers can change a lot easier than monitors...

Now, check again those prices with the above stuff and let us know which one is actually cheaper...

PS. What is the installed OS in that Dull system? My guess is that el cheapo, el crapo XP Home However, I really hope that I'm wrong on this one because then you have to add to the price the Windows XP Pro version which is closer to OS X.x.x features...

 

[GulGnu]

"Now, add to the above stuff the following:
-2xFirewire
-64bit PCI slots
-DVI output
-Support for 4 internal Hard Disks
-Apple pro speakers mini-jack
-An awesome designed mini tower box which opens with just a simple trick
-Mac OS X.x.x with its iApps and ANY other possible Apple software one might need"

True, didn't notice there was a no monitor option - that's why I went with the 17 CRT =P Reconfigured w/o monitor and Win XP Pro, the whole thing sells for $1,089.00$. The GeForce MX in the Dell has 64 megs of VRAM though, compared to the 32 in the PowerMac, and you get a couple of speakers and a subwoofer with the Dell, as well as assorted productivity software. If you want 2xFirewire + USB 1.0 or 8x USB 2.0, well, not a big diff in speed between Firewire 1 and USB 2.0, and the Dell packs more ports... Now, I could probably shave the processor down to 2 GHz without pushing it when compared to the 2X867 MHz of the Mac.

Bottom line? I'd like for Apple to shave PowerMac prices, or give em a decent upgrade =P

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!