Google| Subject | Re: mac sales down |
| From | Glorb |
| Date | 05/14/2008 17:36 (05/14/2008 10:36) |
| Message-ID | <9d3ba$482b0713$7863@news.teranews.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | ZnU |
| Followups | ZnU (3h & 39m) |
ZnU wrote:
ZnUWhy are you going to the "sub-$400 range?" Why not look at the $400 - $600 range, that gives the same or better processors than the mini, and lots more other hardware, for the same price as a Mini or less?
In article <0001HW.C44E0B6D0013A539F01846D8@news.comcast.net>, George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net>wrote:George Graves
On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:18:23 -0700, ZnU wrote (in article <znu-5B168E.16182312052008@news.individual.net>):ZnU
In article <0001HW.C44DEAC5000BFDC2F01846D8@news.comcast.net>, George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net>wrote:ZnUWill they do it? I don't see them having much interest, at the moment. But who anticipated the Mac mini, introduced as a $500 Mac when the cheapest Mac was previously nearly twice that price, or the Xserve, a product targeted at a market in which Apple had previously shown no interest at all?George Graves
The thing is that any computer designed to compete in that space would have to be more computer than the Mini.
Most customers in the market for a $300 or $400 computer aren't what we might call "performance enthusiasts". They want a basic computer for web browsing and other simple tasks. This is basically what the Mac mini is... it just costs more because it has a somewhat better processor than many machines in the sub-$400 range, and there are costs associated with making it so small.
[snip]** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
05/08/2008
