Comments on: SF Chronicle’s Andrew S. Ross is unintentionally funny on Macs

By: Boycott Novell » IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: October 25th, 2008

Boycott Novell » IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: October 25th, 2008 — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:33:05 +0000

[...] Consider the time *nix users save on reboots and security headaches… http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/10/22/sf-chronicles…; [...]

By: nomoremsbs

nomoremsbs — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:25:36 +0000

If Ross really means what he wrote, then he truly is a pitiful man, and if he is writing this for another reason ($) as I suspect, then he is a more pitiful man.

By: mjtomlin

mjtomlin — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:27:42 +0000

Why does Dell sell “expensive” computers? Sure they may sell a $400 laptop, but they also sell laptops that reach as high as almost $3000, depending on model and options. The only one reason for this is up-selling. Dell knows there’s no money to be made on cheap laptops. The only segment of the market that makes any kind of money is on the middle-to-higher end, exactly where Apple sits and can in fact compete with the rest of the industry on price, and surpass them on quality. Most Apple customers aren’t going to settle for a $400 PC, if they can’t afford a new Mac, instead they’ll just wait and save. Why? Because of the reason they use Macs in the first place, OS X and Apple’s attention to detail.

All of these so called analysts overlook the bigger picture as well. If Apple did sell cheaper computers and more of their customers bought those instead of the higher margin systems, Apple wouldn’t be in the position it is right now heading into this “recession”; with a huge freaken stock pile of cash that it can coast on until people start buying again. (Personally, I’d like to see Apple buy its baby back, ARM Holdings. Along with the engineers from PA Semi it would make Apple a formidable player in the mobile and embedded space and of course guarantee them a clear advantage over everyone else in the mobile space.)

By: daGUY

daGUY — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:46:40 +0000

@hodari: “Secondly, why should I buy a 900$ laptop when a 400$ laptop can do the same thing if not better?”

You shouldn’t. If the $400 laptop does what you need, then by all means, get it.

I’m just saying this guy’s argument doesn’t make much sense. If you’re already willing to spend $899, then the difference between $899 and $999 is minimal (relatively). But if you’re concerned about price above anything else, then you’re going to opt for the $400 Dell anyway – it doesn’t matter if the MacBook is $899 or $999.

The thing that’s so comical about this is that analysts have been saying for YEARS that Macs are too expensive – and yet during that whole time, Apple’s market share keeps going up, so obviously price is not the negative factor that pundits keep insisting it is.

Just this past quarter Apple sold 2.6 million Macs. That’s approaching what they were selling in an entire *year* four or five years ago. How do you explain this while also insisting that Macs are too expensive?

By: benlewis

benlewis — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:16:33 +0000

While most of the Chon is garbage, I personally feel that Mark Morford is one of the funniest, most insightful columnists at any paper.

By: gus2000

gus2000 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:13:41 +0000

Wordpress keeps eating my comments. It makes me sad.

By: rosko

rosko — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:02:24 +0000

@hodari

you ask “why should I buy a 900$ laptop when a 400$ laptop can do the same thing if not better? ”

If for you personally, the $400 laptop will meet your needs, then by all means buy it. But I think the point of the article was not to say that you SHOULD spend the money on a mac, but rather to point out the SFC’s folly in reporting that Apple is doomed to fail by not addressing the low-price markets.

By: hodari

hodari — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:27:23 +0000

daGuy – 100$ is still 100$ and 100$ in a consumers pocket is better than 100$ in Apples coffer. Secondly, why should I buy a 900$ laptop when a 400$ laptop can do the same thing if not better? I guess it helps when consumers have a choice.

By: gus2000

gus2000 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:58:32 +0000

Yahoo! posted a story in their tech section today about how the new Macbooks were overpriced, and that comparable PCs were half the price. Sadly, the tech media lazily uses the Big Three (CPU Speed, RAM size, and HD size) to determine “comparable”. If only it were that simple.

I love the internet. But I really miss the press.

By: daGUY

daGUY — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:30:42 +0000

FTA:

“I had been gearing up eagerly to buy one of Apple’s new, sub-$1,000 MacBooks the world had been told to expect. As we know, that price point didn’t transpire. The low-end model costs $1,299…”

What about that $999 MacBook? True, the $999 is for the white plastic model and not the new aluminum one, but this same computer was selling for $1099 *last week*, and I didn’t hear anyone complaining about the price. Certainly, Apple’s ever-increasing market share shows that this isn’t really an issue.

“How many people out there are like me is the multimillion-dollar question as Christmas approaches…May we yet see, after the next quarter’s results, Apple swallowing its hubris? How does $899 sound?”

What exactly makes $899 the magic number? If you’re already willing to spend $900 on a computer, why is the additional $100 a dealbreaker that would send you over to a $400 Dell?

I think pundits will just always complain about the price of Apple’s computers. It’s just a law of the universe.