Thu, Mar 5, 2015, 11:18 AM EST - U.S. Markets close in 4 hrs 42 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Apple Inc. Message Board

  • SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • imac 5 is really ugly.

    • Most reviewers praise Apple for the simple yet elegant functional design of the iMac but are quick to point out that Dell is cheaper (we all know that) and that it should have 512MB of RAM (add $25). The point is although Dell is cheaper it still runs Windows and always will.

      Some reviewers point out the features inside the iMac, the OS and praise it for not being like Windows which is intrusive, prone to failure from viruses and all around a clunky system.

      "Mac OS X is the best personal-computer operating system today by a fair margin, and the iMac comes preloaded with Apple's very good suite of iLife programs, including iPhoto and iTunes for picture and music management, respectively, and the Garage Band music composition and recording system."

      And he goes on to write:

      "Considering the excellence of the software, Apple deserves a larger share of the market than the low single digits it has been able to garner, and consumers deserve more access to Apple products. The average selling price of a desktop PC is below $750, and few go for more than $1,000. But Apple's only sub-$1,000 computers are two dated eMacs, bulbous all-in-ones with 17-in. CRT displays."

      The point is Apple does have a $799 eMac. Why do people consistently try to compare a great product like the iMac which would be the equivalent to a well appointed luxury automobile at a higher price tag to less expensive Ford pickup truck and then expect Apple to sell at the same price as the Ford pickup? Again, critics like that have what I will call a "commodity mentality".

      "With any real improvement in Windows at least two years away, I think Apple could shake the industry by offering, for $700 or less, a PC-like Mac box for which consumers would provide their own displays. The company wouldn't have to scrimp on features or quality; the unit would lack the elegant design of the iMac G5, but it would still be a Mac. Given Apple's obsession with beautiful but expensive industrial design, there is almost no chance we'll ever see such a product. And that's a shame, both for Apple and for its prospective customers."

      Again, critics don't seem to appreciate the benefits of a all-in-one designed computer like the iMac. Sure, Apple sells the PowerMac line (and sold the Cube before) that would give the user a choice of monitors and theoretically would permit purchasing a lower cost monitor.

      We have discussed the need for Apple to provide a system that somehow would fit between the eMac ($799) and the iMac ($1,299). Essentially what Apple would have to look at against is something along the line that the Cube offered. But at the end of the day if a user wants to have the beautiful and functionality of the iMac with a great LCD monitor they would end up probably paying more in the end.

      The way I look at it if price is the only consideration, then a customer should buy on price. If the best price is a Dell let them buy that. Then they will be happy? Well, maybe about the price, but I doubt they can compare that Dell experience to an Apple experience. We all know from experience that what appears to be a bargain in the beginning may turn out to be a headache later on.

      When I make a purchase decision like that for a computer I don't buy the cheapest machine, nor do I buy the most expensive, I buy in between, a machine that has all of the functionality that I need (in my case a PowerBook DVI model Titanium) at an affordable price (in my case $2,500 two years ago). Sure I could have waited to purchase one of the newer Aluminum models with more features at a lower price, but I have had the use of that Titanium for two years, and the experience is priceless. Buy when you need it, why wait? Newer Macs will always be better than what they offer today, or at least that is what the trend has been in the past.

    • Most reviewers praise Apple for the simple yet elegant functional design of the iMac but are quick to point out that Dell is cheaper (we all know that) and that it should have 512MB of RAM (add $25). The point is although Dell is cheaper it still runs Windows and always will.

      Some reviewers point out the features inside the iMac, the OS and praise it for not being like Windows which is intrusive, prone to failure from viruses and all around a clunky system.

      "Mac OS X is the best personal-computer operating system today by a fair margin, and the iMac comes preloaded with Apple's very good suite of iLife programs, including iPhoto and iTunes for picture and music management, respectively, and the Garage Band music composition and recording system."

      And he goes on to write:

      "Considering the excellence of the software, Apple deserves a larger share of the market than the low single digits it has been able to garner, and consumers deserve more access to Apple products. The average selling price of a desktop PC is below $750, and few go for more than $1,000. But Apple's only sub-$1,000 computers are two dated eMacs, bulbous all-in-ones with 17-in. CRT displays."

      The point is Apple does have a $799 eMac. Why do people consistently try to compare a great product like the iMac which would be the equivalent to a well appointed luxury automobile at a higher price tag to less expensive Ford pickup truck and then expect Apple to sell at the same price as the Ford pickup? Again, critics like that have what I will call a "commodity mentality".

      "With any real improvement in Windows at least two years away, I think Apple could shake the industry by offering, for $700 or less, a PC-like Mac box for which consumers would provide their own displays. The company wouldn't have to scrimp on features or quality; the unit would lack the elegant design of the iMac G5, but it would still be a Mac. Given Apple's obsession with beautiful but expensive industrial design, there is almost no chance we'll ever see such a product. And that's a shame, both for Apple and for its prospective customers."

      Again, critics don't seem to appreciate the benefits of a all-in-one designed computer like the iMac. Sure, Apple sells the PowerMac line (and sold the Cube before) that would give the user a choice of monitors and theoretically would permit purchasing a lower cost monitor.

      We have discussed the need for Apple to provide a system that somehow would fit between the eMac ($799) and the iMac ($1,299). Essentially what Apple would have to look at against is something along the line that the Cube offered. But at the end of the day if a user wants to have the beautiful and functionality of the iMac with a great LCD monitor they would end up probably paying more in the end.

      The way I look at it if price is the only consideration, then a customer should buy on price. If the best price is a Dell let them buy that. Then they will be happy? Well, maybe about the price, but I doubt they can compare that Dell experience to an Apple experience. We all know from experience that what appears to be a bargain in the beginning may turn out to be a headache later on.

      When I make a purchase decision like that for a computer I don't buy the cheapest machine, nor do I buy the most expensive, I buy in between, a machine that has all of the functionality that I need (in my case a PowerBook DVI model Titanium) at an affordable price (in my case $2,500 two years ago). Sure I could have waited to purchase one of the newer Aluminum models with more features at a lower price, but I have had the use of that Titanium for two years, and the experience is priceless. Buy when you need it, why wait? Newer Macs will always be better than what they offer today, or at least that is what the trend has been in the past.

    • Most reviewers praise Apple for the simple yet elegant functional design of the iMac but are quick to point out that Dell is cheaper (we all know that) and that it should have 512MB of RAM (add $25). The point is although Dell is cheaper it still runs Windows and always will.

      Some reviewers point out the features inside the iMac, the OS and praise it for not being like Windows which is intrusive, prone to failure from viruses and all around a clunky system.

      "Mac OS X is the best personal-computer operating system today by a fair margin, and the iMac comes preloaded with Apple's very good suite of iLife programs, including iPhoto and iTunes for picture and music management, respectively, and the Garage Band music composition and recording system."

      And he goes on to write:

      "Considering the excellence of the software, Apple deserves a larger share of the market than the low single digits it has been able to garner, and consumers deserve more access to Apple products. The average selling price of a desktop PC is below $750, and few go for more than $1,000. But Apple's only sub-$1,000 computers are two dated eMacs, bulbous all-in-ones with 17-in. CRT displays."

      The point is Apple does have a $799 eMac. Why do people consistently try to compare a great product like the iMac which would be the equivalent to a well appointed luxury automobile at a higher price tag to less expensive Ford pickup truck and then expect Apple to sell at the same price as the Ford pickup? Again, critics like that have what I will call a "commodity mentality".

      "With any real improvement in Windows at least two years away, I think Apple could shake the industry by offering, for $700 or less, a PC-like Mac box for which consumers would provide their own displays. The company wouldn't have to scrimp on features or quality; the unit would lack the elegant design of the iMac G5, but it would still be a Mac. Given Apple's obsession with beautiful but expensive industrial design, there is almost no chance we'll ever see such a product. And that's a shame, both for Apple and for its prospective customers."

      Again, critics don't seem to appreciate the benefits of a all-in-one designed computer like the iMac. Sure, Apple sells the PowerMac line (and sold the Cube before) that would give the user a choice of monitors and theoretically would permit purchasing a lower cost monitor.

      We have discussed the need for Apple to provide a system that somehow would fit between the eMac ($799) and the iMac ($1,299). Essentially what Apple would have to look at against is something along the line that the Cube offered. But at the end of the day if a user wants to have the beautiful and functionality of the iMac with a great LCD monitor they would end up probably paying more in the end.

      The way I look at it if price is the only consideration, then a customer should buy on price. If the best price is a Dell let them buy that. Then they will be happy? Well, maybe about the price, but I doubt they can compare that Dell experience to an Apple experience. We all know from experience that what appears to be a bargain in the beginning may turn out to be a headache later on.

      When I make a purchase decision like that for a computer I don't buy the cheapest machine, nor do I buy the most expensive, I buy in between, a machine that has all of the functionality that I need (in my case a PowerBook DVI model Titanium) at an affordable price (in my case $2,500 two years ago). Sure I could have waited to purchase one of the newer Aluminum models with more features at a lower price, but I have had the use of that Titanium for two years, and the experience is priceless. Buy when you need it, why wait? Newer Macs will always be better than what they offer today, or at least that is what the trend has been in the past.

    • Most reviewers praise Apple for the simple yet elegant functional design of the iMac but are quick to point out that Dell is cheaper (we all know that) and that it should have 512MB of RAM (add $25). The point is although Dell is cheaper it still runs Windows and always will.

      Some reviewers point out the features inside the iMac, the OS and praise it for not being like Windows which is intrusive, prone to failure from viruses and all around a clunky system.

      "Mac OS X is the best personal-computer operating system today by a fair margin, and the iMac comes preloaded with Apple's very good suite of iLife programs, including iPhoto and iTunes for picture and music management, respectively, and the Garage Band music composition and recording system."

      And he goes on to write:

      "Considering the excellence of the software, Apple deserves a larger share of the market than the low single digits it has been able to garner, and consumers deserve more access to Apple products. The average selling price of a desktop PC is below $750, and few go for more than $1,000. But Apple's only sub-$1,000 computers are two dated eMacs, bulbous all-in-ones with 17-in. CRT displays."

      The point is Apple does have a $799 eMac. Why do people consistently try to compare a great product like the iMac which would be the equivalent to a well appointed luxury automobile at a higher price tag to less expensive Ford pickup truck and then expect Apple to sell at the same price as the Ford pickup? Again, critics like that have what I will call a "commodity mentality".

      "With any real improvement in Windows at least two years away, I think Apple could shake the industry by offering, for $700 or less, a PC-like Mac box for which consumers would provide their own displays. The company wouldn't have to scrimp on features or quality; the unit would lack the elegant design of the iMac G5, but it would still be a Mac. Given Apple's obsession with beautiful but expensive industrial design, there is almost no chance we'll ever see such a product. And that's a shame, both for Apple and for its prospective customers."

      Again, critics don't seem to appreciate the benefits of a all-in-one designed computer like the iMac. Sure, Apple sells the PowerMac line (and sold the Cube before) that would give the user a choice of monitors and theoretically would permit purchasing a lower cost monitor.

      We have discussed the need for Apple to provide a system that somehow would fit between the eMac ($799) and the iMac ($1,299). Essentially what Apple would have to look at against is something along the line that the Cube offered. But at the end of the day if a user wants to have the beautiful and functionality of the iMac with a great LCD monitor they would end up probably paying more in the end.

      The way I look at it if price is the only consideration, then a customer should buy on price. If the best price is a Dell let them buy that. Then they will be happy? Well, maybe about the price, but I doubt they can compare that Dell experience to an Apple experience. We all know from experience that what appears to be a bargain in the beginning may turn out to be a headache later on.

      When I make a purchase decision like that for a computer I don't buy the cheapest machine, nor do I buy the most expensive, I buy in between, a machine that has all of the functionality that I need (in my case a PowerBook DVI model Titanium) at an affordable price (in my case $2,500 two years ago). Sure I could have waited to purchase one of the newer Aluminum models with more features at a lower price, but I have had the use of that Titanium for two years, and the experience is priceless. Buy when you need it, why wait? Newer Macs will always be better than what they offer today, or at least that is what the trend has been in the past.

 
AAPL
126.8799-1.6601(-1.29%)11:18 AMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.