A cheaper Mac?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 3:59AM The fact that Apple hardware, namely laptops and desktops, are expensive in comparison to their peers has been discussed countless times for many years. Some use it as an argument to suggest that Apple computers are merely good looking products that are overpriced whereas others view the combination of hardware and software as the reason why Macs are so fantastic to use every day.
I used to be in the former camp, but eventually moved to a Mac Mini and now an iMac. I can’t imagine using a Windows PC at home to get stuff done. I really can’t.
I won’t get all snobby about it and denigrate Windows, but from a personal preference I find that the iMac suits me much better than any Windows PC I have used in the past. I am also much more loyal to my Mac than I am to iOS; I can use any smartphone, but my iMac is staying and there is no reason for me to change.
I do believe that the £999 I paid for my iMac is good value for the day to day reliability, the way it saves me lots of time and the fact that it will have a high resell value should I come to upgrade in the future. I use it enough to justify the purchase. The problem for Apple is that most people do not use their home computers enough to justify paying so much. They will walk into PC World, see a nice looking desktop or laptop that does what they need for half the price and they are sold on it. I understand that for the majority.
iOS device sales are growing exponentially and the iPad and iPhone are now where the money is for Apple. As the company pushes for convergence and tried to make iCloud the centre of everything it does, the desktops and laptops feel somehow left out in terms of numbers. Mac sales are growing, they have for the past 6 years, and the profits are still large in this area, but not to the level of iOS devices. As time goes by, iOS devices will continue to sale in bigger numbers and the disparity will reach a point where the laptops and desktops are seen as poor relations in terms of profit, volume and users.
Is it finally time for a cheaper Mac?
I must admit that I am torn on that question, but am leaning towards a ‘yes’. I would personally still buy the high-end Macs and I am sure that many current Mac users would also, but there are some valid arguments in favour of opening up Mac hardware to the wider population. The plain fact is that the average person will not buy a Mac for £1,000. Why would they move operating systems, learn something new and pay such a large amount of money for the privilege? They may, however, buy a Mac for £450.
And then I think that my answer should be ‘no’ because Apple has little reason to consider such a price drop. The company is hardly struggling, profits rise every quarter and they probably see all of their product ranges as gradually falling into place and slowly merging with one another. Apple does baby steps well and they seem to have little desire to sell their Mac hardware to billions of people.
I have changed my mind. Despite part of me believing that a cheaper Mac can only benefit Apple, there is of course the huge risk that it would bring the entire product range down to the level of every other computing product out there. Whether people agree that Apple hardware is superior or not, the perception that it is for so many people is what ultimately drives their growth. And price happens to be a part of that perception.
Reader Comments (9)
A "cheaper" Mac could certainly be produced if they sensibly licenced out MacOS and the BIOS. This was tried once before, but it failed for reasons I cannot remember, although I think that Apple's fees may have rendered the arrangement non-viable.
Certainly the hardware differences between Windows and Mac have narrowed considerably since Mac #1 was built.
If they could make it work, then more players could lead to increase in market share.
And maybe like Windows users "skinning" their OS to look like MacOS, Mac OS could be "skinned" to look more like Windows, which could lessen the transition bump.
MacOS makes a claim that it is more stable than Windows, although I am uncertain is this is fact or propaganda, but if it was fact, then having to support a wider range of hardware could diminish that stability. Windows has a lot of work to do in providing an interface between lots of 3rd party applications, and a range of hardware options almost without end, and poorly written device drivers can bring an OS down.
When macs run the same software as iPads that's when we'll see Apple produce a cheaper Mac that everybody can afford.
David G - The original OS licensing programme failed for a couple of reasons: the clones only ate into Apple sales (no growth in users) and Jobs returned to Apple and chose not to licence the next generation OS to the cloners. I think it's extremely unlikely that Apple will ever go down this road again.
@ Brian, could the lack of growth have been related to the unit price of the computers? Failure to be competitive would certainly stump growth. And Jobs is no longer with Apple, so who knows what strategic direction Apple could head in...
With the GFC retarding sales in many products, although not phones apparently, maybe the computer division may look into alternatives to draw more people away from Windows.
I am not sure why Apple would want to launch a cheaper Mac, frankly. It's not struggling to sell stuff at its current prices. I don't see Apple wanting to be involved in a race to the bottom.
David G - possibly... The original clones were about when Apple was really in the doldrums (95/96) and even the clone prices were high compared to a PC. But I agree with Neil - Apple have a solid and desirable product at the moment, I can't see them seriously considering the bottom end of the computer market
Apple and cheap just don't go together. But you get what you pay for.
I have a 250€ netbook. I upgraded the RAM to 2GB and it runs Windows 7 Starter. It does the job I want it to do well enough it's very stable the way I have it set up. But if I could afford a nice 13" powerbook, I.would hesitate!
The Mac Mini WAS the cheaper Mac, coming in at a price point that most could afford. The price tag has ballooned a little since the launch of sucessive generations, suggesting that Apple didn't feel the product was all that price sensitive.
Apple doesn't look to be number one in volumes, they look to be number one in profitability and they have class-leading margins that deliver the lion's share of profits into their already-bursting coffers.
I can't see that making a low-margin Mac any time soon.
I'm considering a 13" Macbook Air for software development, despite much preferring Windows to MacOS and it can be bought online for around £920, a considerable discount on the £1100 list price.
With all due respect, I admit Windows is not perfect, but if we care to run a maintenance software every 15 days/month it runs pretty fast and clean. I have my laptop since the end of 2008 and it still runs as fast as the day I bought it and I'm not fouling around. Secret? Don't ever install garbage and run maintenance software. I don't remember my last crash (only IE).
Mac and Lion are fantastic, they say... but I often see software intended for the Lion to clean it... cache, etc, etc. They say it speeds up the system. So... is Lion OS not different from Windows?