Quote:
Now, if only apple weren't so interested in overpriced hardware, Microsoft might get some proper competition.......
I don't think it is overpriced. It is expensive, however. The price reflects the cost of design (including robustness and ease of use).
A few years ago, Sun Microsystems kit was rock solid (both from software and hardware points of view) and very efficient, but rather expensive. Then they had a big push to get new models out of the door that were much more competitive with prices from (principally) Dell. They incorporated PCI expansion and selected drives and memory from a larger number of suppliers to encourage competition for business. Their low-end workstations and servers now use cases that are basically PC cases. They also changed the way the CPU modules were manufactured and and assembled.
Perhaps unsurprisingly in hindsight, they saw an increase in disk and memory problems and a very nasty problem with certain CPU modules. They have recovered from the problems and their processes are probably better for it.
The result is a low-end range that is better able to compete with the likes of Dell but with a quality and reliability that is closer to Dell kit, too. From a financial point of view, it makes sense: reduce quality, reduce costs and sell more kit. But this misses the point that the brand has been weakened - there is now less value to choosing Sun over any other brand at the low-end.
It is a similar story with HP - once the brand stood for premium product, not they are just another box shifter.
Personally, I'd like to see Apple stay with its high innovation, strong design and reassuringly expensive prices.
Edited by mdavey (25/11/2004 20:29)
Previous Topic
Index
