“Apple VARs said the Intel-based Macintosh computers have been selling briskly all year,” Edward F. Moltzen reports for CRN. “George Swords, marketing manager at PowerMacPac, a Portland, Ore.-based Apple specialist, said the iMacs had previously been selling ‘ridiculously hot. Really, really selling well.’ According to Swords, about 60 percent of the early adopters of the Intel-based iMacs were previous Mac users who are upgrading and ‘the rest are ex-PC people.’
Moltzen reports, “Apple’s switch to Intel and more competitive pricing are spurring sales against rivals such as Dell, Swords said. ‘Moving to Intel was a wonderful thing to do,’ he said. ‘The [Mac OS X] operating system runs better on Intel than it ever ran on PowerPC.’ Other Apple solution providers report similar response to the new Intel-based Macs, and some suggest that the Intel switch, the competitive pricing and a new route to the channel via distributor Tech Data, Clearwater, Fla., have worked to give Apple more of an edge in the SMB space.”
Moltzen reports, “Fueled by design enhancements and its switch to Intel processors, Apple has managed to cut pricing in its iMac all-in-one desktop series by an eye-popping rate over the past two years. For example, in July 2004, an iMac with a 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 processor and a 17-inch monitor could be had for $2,448. That compares with the $999 model unveiled this month, which includes a 17-inch display and the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo chip. By contrast, in July 2004, a Dell Dimension 4600c with a 2.8 GHz Intel Pentium 4 and 17-inch monitor was list-priced at $909. This summer, it was priced at $889.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Fortune compares Mac vs. Dell: ‘you’ll get more for your money with Apple’ – September 11, 2006
Thurrott pits Apple Mac Pro vs. similarly configured Dell, figures out the Mac is less expensive – August 18, 2006
Microsoft Windows five times more expensive for users than Apple’s Mac OS X – August 15, 2006
Apple Mac Pro with/ 20” Cinema Display less expensive than Dell Precision 690 sans monitor – August 10, 2006
Get a Mac: Viruses, spyware cost U.S. consumers $7.8 billion over last two years – August 08, 2006
Mossberg: Apple’s new MacBook surprisingly inexpensive, offers vastly superior Mac OS X – June 08, 2006
Computerworld: Microsoft Windows Vista a distant second-best to Apple Mac OS X – June 02, 2006
Dude, you got a Dell? What are you, stupid? Only Apple Macs run both Mac OS X and Windows! – April 05, 2006
Microsoft’s greatest trick: convincing the public that the Wintel PC platform is open – March 06, 2006
FBI: Viruses, spyware, other computer-related crimes cost U.S. businesses $67.2 billion per year – February 01, 2006
Infoworld: Microsoft’s WIndows Vista not so revolutionary after all – September 11, 2006
Defending Windows over Mac a sign of mental illness – December 20, 2003
Not exactly an even comparison. A 2.8GHz Pentium 4 is no match for the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo.
iVeritas, do you speak from experience, i.e. can you put some numbers and fac ts on your statement?
Raise your hand if you think falling LCD prices are the biggest cost differential. Nice happy feely article and all, but I don’t think the switch to Intel means what he think it means.
Are you serious? The Pentium 4 is widely known as a POS. Google any comparison and you will see that the P4(even higher clocked than one referenced) gets stomped by all new Core 2 Duo’s. Just googe Core 2 Duo vs. and you will find some info. Netburst Technology was not as fast as everyone thought.
Two years later, and Dell is still selling the exact same model with the exact same processor!!!
No wonder people say they don’t innovate!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
I stand by my prediction of months’ ago that the October quarterly report session with Jobs and the analysts will blow the lid off any doubts about the Macintosh’s market growth. I only wonder how extreme was Apple’s sandbagging in the last guidance session.
Core Solo is MUCH faster per GHz than Pentium 4. Core *2* is faster still.
But we’re also talking DUO–TWO processors in one. So yes, a Core 2 Duo beats a single Pentium 4 with a stick. See Tom’s Hardware to see just how badly!
Re BootCamp… only a beta, but 1.2 will come!
Guys, he said “A 2.8GHz Pentium 4 is no match
for the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo.”, which I take to
mean that he knows the Core 2 Duo smokes the
Pentium 4, so it is not an even comparison.
He’s being positive, but you guys are so damn
defensive that you missed his meaning. Shame on
you.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
“iVeritas, do you speak from experience, i.e. can you put some numbers and fac ts on your statement?”
Jimbo,
Though I cannot give you numbers I can tell you that in my company we have lots of 2.8GHz P4 Dells and my MacBook Pro 15 with a 1.83GHz Core Duo runs Windows WAY faster than the Dells. I can only imagine that the Core 2 Duo leaves an even wider gap.
This guy is way off base. To read this, the author is giving the impression that moving to Intel kit has saved Apple money, and thus that is why their average iMac prices have come down recently. Not even close.
In fact, the Intel hardware is more expensive than what Apple was using before. The average iMac price has only come down b/c Apple introduced an additional low end $999 version w/integrated graphics to the line up. Take that out, and iMac prices are about the same. Mac Mini prices are actually higher – as are MacBook (vs iBook) prices. The higher up the product line you go, the less you see price increases, but that’s only b/c the margins are typically greater for the high end stuff – i.e. there’s more cushion to soften the higher unit cost blow.
Think about it: Everything in these machines that doesn’t relate to Intel (or some propriatary technology Intel is pushing, like FBDIMMs) has GONE DOWN in price since 2005. Serial ATA controllers & drives, DDR2 memory, PCIe buses & cards … you name it. So what would account for static to rising prices on the hardware for Apple? Intel made CPUs and mobos, of course.
The PC making world long ago learned to keep Intel at arms length for anything other than their CPUs, UNLESS they were willing to give steep discounts (which Intel was until their recent cash crunch). Without the discounts, DELL, HP, pretty much everybody is running – not walking – to AMD and other mobo makers in order to keep their prices from going up.
Only Apple did the opposite.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool cheese” style=”border:0;” />
The cheap iMac was introduced in order to kickstart sales with Apple’s most famous brand. It’s a totally great idea, long overdue in fact, but don’t for one minute think they did it b/c Intel parts made it possible. Higher priced Intel parts, utilized across the entire product line, made developing a ‘loss leader’ necessary.