Apple Intel Switch

[Martin]

I was thinking about this, and here are some things that I think could be problems for Apple.

1. Speed comparisons. Right now, comparing the speed of OSX with the speed of Windows XP is impossible, as one ends up simply comparing the speed of the G5 vs. that of the Intel/AMD processor. With the Intel switch, more direct comparisons will be possible. This could work against Apple, this could work for them. Windows XP is fast, dispite its flaws.

2. Piracy. Cracked versions of OSX will be available for non-Apple computers. There is no way to avoid this. A lot of people want to try OSX, and before this, the only way to do it was to buy a Mac. Apple realized this, and released the Mac Mini. Although there are sketchy x86 OSX builds floating around the net, this would give people the opportunity to use a real, release quality build of the operating system.

3. Lifespan. When does the G4/G5 get old? When Apple says it gets old. Apple wouldn't have this control any more. As a result, Apple's products prices would go down a lot faster than they do right now.

So those are the most obvious observations. I don't think that Apple will go into selling its OS for generic PC's any time soon, if only because Microsoft has such a firm grasp of the OEM OS market. A lot more people are willing to say 'Hey, I need a new computer, let's try a Mac' than 'I have a computer, let's dish out another $200 for a new OS.'

So yeah. Discuss.

[wtd]

The key issue to understanding why Apple would switch is quite simply: supply.

Imagine you're Steve Jobs. You announce a fancy new computer, and then you can ship it 2 months later because IBM couldn't ship enough chips. Sucks, doesn't it? I mean, there's nothing else you could do. You have to keep the faith by making the announcement, but doing so wreaks havoc on sales for the next few months.

Now, you partner with a company that has supply coming out the wazoo, like Intel. All of a sudden you never have to make an announcement like that again. You can do a lot more "shipping today" announcements.

Heck, you can even have regular once a month updates, and just toss in whatever Intel can give you at the time. You can sell the older machines that haven't yet sold at a discount, thus filling the desire for less expensive Macs.

Oh, and it might be happening a lot sooner than anyone expects.

http://thinksecret.com/news/0511intelibook.html

[Martin]

I understand the need to switch, and I think it's generally a good idea (actually, that's the article that I read that made me post this).

The other thing that'll happen will be price comparisons. 1.9GHz G5 compares to what on the intel side? The average consumer doesn't know - they know it's faster than a 1.9GHz P4, so they're willing to pay more for it, but they don't know much beyond that.

This switch'll draw more direct comparisons. Although I doubt Apple'll try to compete in price with Dell or HP, it'll still put a bar on their prices. Good for the consumers though.

[wtd]

Martin wrote:

I understand the need to switch, and I think it's generally a good idea (actually, that's the article that I read that made me post this).

The other thing that'll happen will be price comparisons. 1.9GHz G5 compares to what on the intel side? The average consumer doesn't know - they know it's faster than a 1.9GHz P4, so they're willing to pay more for it, but they don't know much beyond that.

This switch'll draw more direct comparisons. Although I doubt Apple'll try to compete in price with Dell or HP, it'll still put a bar on their prices. Good for the consumers though.

I think most of Apple's customers don't care.

They care about software. Apple or a third party Mac software developer has the software they need, so they buy a Mac.

If this means that the only consideration is software, then I think that works in Apple's favor.

[codemage]

I think a lot of Apple's potential customers would care.

More transparency with prices and specs would mean fewer users frightened off.

For instance, I've never even considered a Mac, because I've never wanted to spend more than about $1500 on a computer, including monitor, etc.

[Martin]

iMac! iMac!

But yeah, I know the feeling. Apple's slowly figuring things out.

[md]

I think apple will keep their current customer base no problem. But they still have the same problem they've always had: competing with significantly cheeper PCs. Unless they can make a compelling argument that their software (the only difference now) is better people just aren't going to switch.

Of course if they can get their hardware down to the $1000-$1400 range then I think a lot of people would be willing to give it a try (especially if they include a 30" Cinema display ).

[wtd]

Cornflake wrote:

I think apple will keep their current customer base no problem. But they still have the same problem they've always had: competing with significantly cheeper PCs. Unless they can make a compelling argument that their software (the only difference now) is better people just aren't going to switch.

Of course if they can get their hardware down to the $1000-$1400 range then I think a lot of people would be willing to give it a try (especially if they include a 30" Cinema display ).

A full computer system, plus a 30" display in the $1000-1400 range? How cheap do you think computers are?

Apple's prices are, averaged out, pretty competitive. There are of course some issues with Apple's long update cycles. Their prices tend to be quite competitive when products are launched, and then progressively less so as they age.

[md]

I was joking about the display

But since an apple machine will now be an x86 machine it'll get compared to other x86s; and when you at it the only difference between and apple and a Dell will be that the apple comes with slightly more (perhaps better) software. However the difference between MacOS and Windows is probably not enough of one for people to pay 1.5+ times the price (Dell @~800 US, Mac @~1200-1400US).

[wtd]

Care to show us these two machines?

[md]

Well, I know you can find a dell machine for ~800 US (search their site... they had a bare-bones computer for < 800 a short while ago); as for hte mac I'm entirely guessing at prices. I never claimed to know anything about how muich a mac would cost, but I certainly don't expect to get one for under $1000.

/me backs out of the debate now...

[Martin]

Mac Mini 1.42GHz 80GB Combo Driv - $599.00 US
Wired Mighty Mouse & Keyboard - $78.00 US
1024MB ram upgrade - $100.00 US
17" Dell Flat Panel Monitor - $276.25 US
Total: $1053.25 US

Dell XPS 400 w/ 17" LCD - $1028.00 US
3.2GHz P4, 1GB ram, 128MB x300, 80GB HD, XP MCE, yadda yadda

The Dell wins with a much better video card and a much faster processor (for $25 cheaper).

Apple's catching up, but they're not there yet.

[wtd]

$25 to not have to worry about viruses, spyware, etc? Are you so sure that's not an appealing deal?

[wtd]

And no, I'm not saying Macs are necessarily immune to such things, but so far, there haven't been problems.

Car analogies are old and tired, but here's one: why do people buy Honda Civics instead of Chevy Cavaliers? I mean, the Honda certainly can break down and it has the potential to be just as unreliable as the Chevy.

They do so because they like the odds on the Honda side better.

Reputation counts for a lot when it comes to purchasing patterns. I think the only reason that this hasn't been a huge advantage is a lack of awareness of what Apple had to offer. Much of this problem I lay squarely at Apple's door, for doing such a craptacular job of advertising the Mac.

[Martin]

The XPS 400 comes with anti-virus/spyware software. And it's $25 for a much slower computer that you don't have to worry about viruses and spyware. If that's worth the switch, yeah, get the Mac. But the thing is, most people look at it in terms of speed, not software quality. The software thing is kind of an 'oh shit' thing you realize afterwards.

Apple has a bad reputation too in some regards though. Apple users are seen as being overly zealous and Apple computers seen by the general public as computers for stupid people. Apple computers are known for their bad hardware support (in terms of printers, scanners, mp3 players, etc.)

It's like this. Imagine you just put down $200 - $300 on a new (non-apple) mp3 player. You look at the Mac and say 'hey, that looks cool, I'd really like to try that.' But wait. Your mp3 player won't work with it. Neither will your scanner. Chances are, you're not going to buy a Mac.

Admittedly, it's getting better, but it's not there yet. Apple needs to do something about it.

I'm buying an iMac (if I ever get paid...). Fortunately, the only mp3 player that I own is an iPod shuffle. If I had another brand's player, I don't think I'd even consider making the switch, even if the iMac was 15,000 yen cheaper.