Apple's next act: Changing PC buying habits

People are you kidding me? Sometimes I swear no one actully reads past the word in these articles. He's not saying go out and buy that $1500 labtop if you can't afford it. He's saying if people who could afford it bought more of them the price would drop. This means everyone even the people who can't drop $1500 on a labtop, will be able to get a good quality computer. Plus I don't understand why people hate companies so much. Every company does the same thing, it's called marketing. Plus, not everyone who owns an apple product is stuck up. This is obviously true due to the fact MILLIONS of people buy there products every year. Sorry one compay in the United States is actully succeding. If you don't like their products thats fine but don't take it out on the hard working employees who rely on a pay check from this company

Because most PC are junk, most people choose not to invest a lot of money in their computers. Within 3 years, the computer is either obsolete or stops working. I buy an Apple computer and get many years of usage but trying to convince anyone that they are worth the extra bucks is like screaming in a padded room.

wow! jimmy, san diego: you're illiterate. i won't point out all the errors in your post, but what you meant to say is "more than." and, in another place, "better than." really, really sad. the warehouse manager where i work, a grown man with a mortgage, spelled the word "until" i-n-t-e-l-l the other day. what can be done with our education system to ensure people are getting educations rather than just diplomas? beats me!

Apple is a waste of money. I can build a PC/Laptop for $900-1000.00 and put the extra savings into some good German beer and extra memory. Besides, when I want to upgrade I won't be beholden to Apple and their fixed prices.

Throw in Linux 64 bit version for fee, and that is one bang for the buck system that will rival Apple any day. $1 for $1 one can build a system that will smoke anything Apple has to offer.

Reading this made me want to punch a baby. =|

Seriously.

Instead of encouraging people to go buy a mac, why not encourage them to actually learn how to use a computer?

OSX is basically for old people who can't run Linux or Windows, or elitist pricks who think it will help them design better.

If you know what you're doing, you can easily get a machine the blows any mac away for the same price.

You're pretty much just paying that much for a Mac for looks, not for power.

I admit though, I'd get a Macbook for looks, seeing as a Laptop doesn't need to be powerful; nor would I run any important tasks on it.

But I wouldn't be caught dead using a Mac desktop.

Who cares about all the specs, processors, or whatever, if you do not even have $1500 for a laptop, then keep spending time building your $500 super box. For some people like me, I rather spend the time to get some work done and make some money, which will be more then paying for the Mac/PC price difference anyway. BTW, the bottom of the new Macbook looks better then ALL other laptops out there. And yes, I am a design so I like to carry a looking laptop with me, and also date good looking women too.

iLife is not free, it seems you pay about us$500 for it. iWeb and iPhoto can easily be replaced by more powerful free apps, and I bet that less than 5% of all Mac users have ever used garageband.

Apple is great for selling you an all in one solution, but there is no way to delete things you don't need to save money.

All you young whippersnappers that are looking at buying

these new fangled graphic computers. And Apple will lead the charge again.

The point is that apple has been innovating here for over 8 years now. OSX was the first OS to do GUI on the video card (Quartz Extreme). Apple is number one at taking things like this that "have been done before" and making them work solid as a rock for everybody.

I'm sorry. Not everyone has $1500+ (CAD) to spend on a new laptop. By the way, modern integrated graphics are fine and will do for the vast majority of consumers. Buying a $1500+ computer in order to utilize the graphics for word processing, web browsing, web surfing, etc is OVERKILL. Do not speak of gaming on a laptop. For ~$500 you can build a quad core computer with an 9800gt that will outperform these new apple laptops by a third or more. I know i'm comparing a desktop to a laptop but the author of this article is making high-end graphics cards in laptops sound necessary when it is not.

Hey Mike

My Dell and my custom built can run all that faster than you can and I didnt pay the apple tax

+ I can use linux and windows and yea

I work with macs everyday, but they are overpriced fanboi, get over it

Matthias (Toronto, ON):

Your $900 ASUS F8S didn't come with:

OS X

GarageBand

iPhoto

iWeb

and all the other software apps that make Apple computers what they are: an enjoyable easy to use computing experience that doesn't get in the way of your productivity.

Your Asus came with Windows. If I were you, I'd ask for my money back.

This article seems to assume that underpowered, cheap machines are somehow detrimental to the industry. The fact is that the proliferation of these types of machine has allowed computers to grow in leaps and bounds — where once they occupied entire buildings and cost a fortune, now everyone can carry one in their back pocket.

The author failed to mention, and a lot of sneering commenters are not realizing, that the new Macbook Pro has TWO graphics chips in addition to the Intel graphics: it has BOTH the GeForce 9600M and the GeForce 9600M GS onboard. Plenty of power there. This does change the game.

From Jon Fortt: What you're not factoring in is the fact that you can add discrete graphics on top of the 9400M. It's not either-or, it's both and.

To John Fortt:

If you haven't researched, the 9400M is a much slower GPU compared to the now common 9600M GS, found in many $1000-1300 laptops.

Yes it's dramatically faster then integrated… but in such an expensive laptop I'd expect an even better GPU, and more RAM.

My $900 ASUS F8S came with an ATi 3650.

Nvidia has tried to release some chipsets with unified graphics processing before, with little avail; the performance gains from integrated chipset/GPU is not great. Usually these kind of architectures are overlooked and a bit gimmicky. Apple's attempt makes me especially skeptical because of that "M" behind 9400 – "M"obile components are generally slower (consuming less power) than their desktop counterparts.

What will be interesting now, thanks to Apple, is Intel's response. Intel, like the author wrote, is working on some kind of unified CPU/GPU! Now that is exciting news. Hopefully, losing some of Apple's business has Intel scrambling to prove Apple wrong, thus giving us end consumers a totally revolutionary and powerful PC (and Apple) architecture.

It's all meaningless until Mac can run ANSYS and Pro/E. Thats the only software I use. Call me when Mac gets it.

Reason #7,546 why non-techies shouldn't write articles about computers.

I love how, when Apple does something, even if it's something that's been done a bazillion times before, everyone raves about it. (rolls eyes.)

Ever heard of a little company (and now Dell brand) called Alienware?

Oh, and, for the record, movie playback and photo editing typically have very little to do with the video chip. So certain Adobe products are programmed to use the GPU as a coprocessor. This does NOT affect most people.

So, this is an Apple computer with commodity Intel hardware, using one of nVidia's suckier chipsets, and people are "gushing" about it? Puh-leeze.

Who cares?

"I don’t think you understand how easy and transparent the OpenCL framework makes it to write certain classes of algorithms."

That's not the point. OpenCL looks to be something very nice and should provide a nice performance boost under certain circumstances, but it is something not released yet with no concrete numbers to back it up.

The point is, time and time again Apple or its customer base tends to claim "FIRST" at something when it is anything but and then has a ton of qualifiers after the fact to try to justify the claim in the first place. Spin at its finest. General computing on a GPU has been done before. Apple is pushing for an open API to take advantage of that (in concert with other companies), but THAT is their claim to fame. We have yet to see if their efforts will actually product anything of value until the next version of OSX comes out.

Also, just as much of the kudos need to go to the likes of Nvidia since without CUDA in the first place, the OpenCl framework would have nothing to hang on. It's nice that Apple is pushing for a toolset to make all the various GPU APIs easy to use, but don't forget that the heavy lifting, so to speak, is being done by the hardware manufacturers themselves and are freely available for anyone to take advantage of.

Lets call a spade a spade and not try to hype everything to the nth degree.

Long time Mac user as well. Bought a computer for a relative that formerly had a PC…. and didn't think she would use a Mac for much more than she did with Windows. What a wrong assumption. Now she is editing her own photo slideshows to music, making DVDs, creating soundtracks, etc. and all because of the superior software Apple makes for its systems. She never thought she would be doing more than surfing the internet and now I have to replace her low-end Mac with a juicier one because she's now addicted. The ease of use promotes new uses, not the stagnant minimal use of a PC. She even can even make her own website now, and RIP her DVDs onto her ipod touch. She is 58 and is able to do this. There is no way she would be able to do all of that with the available software/system on a PC.

I think this is a classic case of Young Frankenstein. First of all, if I read this correctly, Apple/Nvidia is targeting the consumer mainstream. Which means NOT software developers or really tech people (and yes you guys are really really smart!) BUT, are people really going to fork up extra money so they can see the background of a game clearer? Or the clock in the background? It's like BlueRay, it's neat to have but when people do the cost benefit analysis in their head, they really don't see value in purchasing BlueRay at $300-$500. Same goes for this new processor/Apple computer. The only way it will be accepted is if the prices comes way down to the $400-$500 levels which traditionally Apple has steered clear because they've always priced their products at a premium.

London, have you tried calling iTunes technical support and asking to be able to download your content. I've heard you can do this once. Next time back everything up.

Again, you're wrong here. What Apple is offering isn't discrete graphics. It's a GPU built into the chipset. Totally different.

Jon Fortt, Sir from the hundred or so comments below I am sure by now you know that following.

1. A discrete graphics processor is old old news.

2. Apple is not doing something new.

3. There are PCs out there that perform much better than a apple in graphics without the hefty price tag.

Could you at least comment or make a correction to state your reasoning behind this article.

Thanks

Adam,

I don't think you understand how easy and transparent the OpenCL framework makes it to write certain classes of algorithms. The programmer doesn't have to special case things for different GPUs or CPUs, the framework will distribute the code to whatever processing unit is available. If you have an algorithm that can be parallelized, which has a small input set, you can see massive (100x and more) speed ups over running it on a single core of a CPU, with very little effort. Much easier than what it took to write folding@home. So easy, just about any large, feature packed program will have some slow function which will be sped up by this technique.

Also, I don't think you understand that Apple is actually going to take the most popular applications on its platform, and the core OS, and going to take anything slow which can be made fast by OpenCL. Making the OS faster is the entire point of OS X 10.6.

Obviously, MS could do this, and I think there are competing general purpose GPU frameworks from the major video card manufacturers, or their own. Or heck, they could use OpenCL itself. But the thing is, because Apple only has to support a small set of GPUs, it is much easier for them to optimize the framework; and they will know that the bulk of their user base will be able to benefit from it. My Core Duo MacBook with integrated graphics from 3 years ago will not benefit much from OpenCL (although it will probably get some boost from making it easier to use both cores), these new MacBooks will see huge performance increases.

And most of this won't actually matter to the typical user, as computers have been fast enough for quite a while. But people will be impressed by the demos, and want to have these impressive machines. In my own case, I can't say I need a new machine to replace the 3 year old MacBook I use to write software on. Faster linking would be nice, and 64-bit will help that. But I certainly want to have a faster machine. And the market of people who want faster machines, is much larger than the market of people who need faster machines.

What Apple needs, is something to get PC game makers to make their games for the Mac OS. Until that happens, NVIDIA is helping Apple power programs that don't really need GPUs. I know, I know, the whole video, and video editing, and video this and video that argument, but really, high powered gaming is what NVIDIA and ATI chips are predominately designed for, made for and used for. I'd never "game" on a Mac, maybe in the future, but definitely not now.

Apple can do whatever they want the truth is that people buy pc because they are cheap, reachable in the regular american budget and even for some small offices when apple start to do good computer at $499 compare to a pc then they can talk whatever they want

Theres a huge error in logic here. Video cards are used to play games, there are no games for a mac… Therefore, why do they need a high powered video card? As if they weren't overpriced to begin with….

I have used Macs for over ten years, but over the last few months I have been cursing the, the quality just isn't what it used to be, I've had to return two laptops this summer.

The other problem is the limits that Apple put on their users. When my laptop broke this week it had all my iTunes on it, this was all legally bought music and video. I can not download this content again from apple, and while I have my music backed up, all my movies and tv programmes are lost, and it isn't cheap to buy this stuff legally.

All consumer PC is underpowered as soon as it's sold.

I should know this, I'm a software developer by trade.

From Jon Fortt:

Carl: Apparently my prose wasn't clear. I'm not saying discreet graphics are new. Of course they're not. But what Apple is offering is not discrete graphics. It's a GPU built into the chipset. (MacBook Pro adds discrete graphics on top of that.) So it's bringing a GPU down to the basic chipset level at Apple the first time.

Mr. Fortt: I offer my comment with sincerity and respect — but my head is spinning at what you wrote. You wrote "Unlike the other mainstream PC makers, Apple has chosen to stop using the standard-issue integrated graphics that come packaged with Intel (INTC) chips, and switch to a new setup from Nvidia, which Apple says can run about five times faster." When I read this it makes me think, as others have commented or suggested, that you don't know anything at all about computers nor computer buying habits. PC makers have FOR YEARS been offering integrated and discrete graphics card options. Not only that, a number of laptop makers allow the option of discrete or integrated graphics on machines that start at less than $1299 (the new MacBook base price) (and, for what it's worth, I have Macs and PCs). But your article is written as if Apple has broken some new ground here — and it hasn't. The "new ground" is in the design process of the Apple's new laptop "case" or body; it is not because Apple has configured the computer in a way that no one else has thought of or tried. To write in 2008 whether "this endorsement [from Apple finally] puts graphics processors on the map" is like asking whether the iPhone's release proves that a viable business model can be based on the mobile telephone. Ask a gamer if the graphics processor is on the map. Ask someone who deals with video if a processor is on the map. Further, as others have noted, for many, many users integrated graphics is perfectly fine. They don't need to upgrade and would hardly notice if they did — so their choice isn't holding anything back in terms of more sophisticated computer usage. My word of caution to you is not to assume that because Apple makes an announcement re: a new or updated product that Apple is doing something (to use favorite Apple words) "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking." I love look of the new laptops but, for me, other than the new design the product is not enormously exciting. There are some trade offs (as there are with many products) — just don't assume that Apple's trade off's are necessarily for the good of the consumer.

Also, Apple does NOT mark the first use of the GPU for non graphical tasks. You've been able to run the Folding@home client on various GPUs for quite awhile. Also, Nvidia released their Physx API awhile back which allows you to use the GPU for physics calculations in various multiple GPU configurations.

Even the multiple graphics chipset in a notebook to save battery life has been done already on the windows side. You could even argue that Vista has a leg up on OSX on this front since you aren't required to log out to change which chipset is active.

Apple is a fine boutique manufacturer, but don't pretend for a moment that superior marketing dollar spent automatically equals superior product.

Here's a little fortune telling. What is going to happen in the next two years is that Apple is going to migrate over half its installed base to a 64-bit OS running on 64-bit hardware; it's going to ship 8+GB notebooks to take better advantage of this. Also, it's going to use the OpenCL framework to drastically accelerate certain operations via the GPU.

iLife, (iTunes will have to be completely re-written), iWork, Safari, the Finder, all the Apple applications users spend the majority of their life in will be optimized to be crazy fast and handle huge media files with ease.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is going to still be limping along trying to get it's installed base moved over to 64-bit and not be able to for a wide variety of legacy reasons: drivers, OLE, Office. For a variety of technical decisions made long ago, Microsoft is not in a good position to do a gradual transition to 64-bit. Yes, you can buy a 64-bit version of Windows now, but a) it is sold as a separate product not the unified 64/32 OS that OS 10.6 will be, and b) there are a many legacy reasons which keep longtime MS customers from choosing it.

Apple is going to advertise like crazy about this difference. They will have demos of huge photos being color adjusted in half a second on a 16GB Mac Pro, and in a minute on a high end PC. (Well that might be a bad example as Photoshop will not be 64-bit on the Mac anytime soon). But there will be demos highlighting the edge cases where multi-GB of RAM and GPU acceleration make a huge difference.

Apple has been laying the groundwork for the last couple years, even going as far as getting Intel to make a tiny 64-bit processor so they wouldn't have to make a 32-bit MacBook Air. They can see the hole MS has dug themselves into, and its time to start getting the shoves out and sealing them into it.

"Can the admins please ban poor people from commenting here.

All these poor people do is complain that the better product is more expensive. It’s as if they didn’t understand that “you get what you pay for”."

If they ban poor people from this blog, then they definately have to ban clueless people like you as well. Being well off (which I am) or poor has nothing to do with it. Just because you have money doesn't mean you have to blow it all on extravagent things that you don't NEED. A rich person doesn't have spend $2500 on a computer/laptop because he won't utilize 90% of the capabilities. It's your mentality of wasting money to buy things you don't need that has made the good ol' U.S. of A the huge debtor nation it is today. Way to ruin it for your kids and grandkids.

Nothing bugs me more than people pushing consumers to buy crap they don't need, especially when most of us are already in over our heads.

"The problem is, we are hooked on the underpowered, bargain-bin variety, the sort that putter around on the Internet, choke on high-definition video, and struggle to render 3D games."

No, Mr. Fortt, the problem is that most laptop users don't want to play HD video or graphics-intensive games. There is NO REASON for a typical user to buy a $999 Macbook, let alone a $1,299 Pro, for word processing and Internet browsing. When you buy a Mac, you are paying a premium for a name. Macs are very nice machines–but so is a Mercedes Benz. Why aren't we all driving those?

"Hey Eric I’m just guessing but think you meant to say revolve, and as far as evolve …..maybe you should"

Couldn't play it cool and avoid the cheap shot. Well I'm sorry a Mac does not seem like a breakthrough of anything to me. Just fancy looking computer. I work with real breakthrough technologies at work. So maybe you should take a gander in the mirror. Geico may have a spot for you.

"It’s fairly obvious by reading the comments that techgeeks still don’t understand that they no longer the strongest buying segment for end-user computer.

TechGeeks think that the mere EXISTENCE of a machine that doesn’t fit their needs is a waste of space and anyone who wants it is a moron.

It has been proven, time and time again, that when a person buys a computer for themselves, 2 out of 3 will choose a Mac.

If corporations stopped buying machines for their employees and instead forced them to buy one themselves Dell would lose half of their business overnight."

Here's a comment that is made by someone who has no idea how the business world works, period. In any retail field, the low end products are generally the low margin, low profit products meaning you have to sell a TON to turn a decent profit. The high end products are the ones that rakes in the big bucks for the company. You want examples? Restaurants. Mobile phone. Automobiles. Airline tickets. Hotels and resorts. The same holds true for computers. Why else would companies bother with offering their high end customers more perks and push so hard to sell their "premium" product line? By this same logic, the "tech geeks" that are willing shell out more money for their computers are also the ones that companies value the most. In essence, tech geeks are still the top buying segment in the business. Want to make more false assertions?

***SNOW LEOPARD*** Mac OS X 10.6

This is the whole reason there is so much emphasis on the new Macbook laptops having non-integrated GPUs. As been mention a number of times, Apple's pro laptops and towers have had non-integrated GPU for years.

The new OS will be doing some VERY innovative stuff with the GPU next year.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

My computer is better than your computer! What a bunch babies we are….look, people buy computers for different reasons…to each his own, I can live with that. Let's move on

I'm not sure the need for additional graphics cards at all. To play games and watch HD movies? That's what xbox and play station, HD TV and Blueray offer. Why would you want to watch/play on a small screen when you can enjoy it on the big screen, the way its meant to be seen?

"It has been proven, time and time again, that when a person buys a computer for themselves, 2 out of 3 will choose a Mac."

Whhere did this nonsensical factoid emerge from? A bad Steve Job's acid trip? As a PC user I find that I don't need to pay a premium for hand holding and frankly don't need frequent reassurances from Apple that I'm a superior human being because of the materialistic crap I accumulate during the course of a lifetime. I just need a damn computer to run my apps.

The major drawback to owning an Apple used to be compatibility between other non-apple machines (Linux, Unix, windows), but those days are long gone.

I've always been a PC fan, mainly because of cost, but I'm starting to see co-workers gravitating towards Apple laptops. The non-technical staff is always proclaiming it's ease of use over Windows machines.

I do – photos, movies, web surfing , documentation..

Tools -

Mac – expensive but the premium buys stuff that works well together and saves my time. always buy the extended warranty though.

Windows – cheaper, needs work to get things to work well together.

linux – even cheaper but needs a lot more time to get things to work well together. (and this with a distribution like Ubuntu)

Depending on how highly I value my time linux can be far more expensive than windows, which is far more expensive than mac.

"It has been proven, time and time again, that when a person buys a computer for themselves, 2 out of 3 will choose a Mac."

Proven by who? When a person buys a computer for themselves, 9 out of 10 would rather buy something within their budget instead of an overpriced Mac.

Welcome to 5 years ago, Jon Fortt. Dedicated graphics cards in laptops (let alone computers) have been around for ages. Apple isn't doing anything that hasn't already been done in the PC sector…

"These special chips made by companies like AMD (AMD) and Nvidia (NVDA) speed up visually intensive (and increasingly popular) tasks such viewing photos"

Are you kidding me? Viewing a photo? Thanks for playing.

"Patrick Moorhead, AMD vice president of advanced marketing, recently showed me a demo to drive home this point; he displayed two computers, one with AMD graphics and one with Intel's basic integrated graphics, running the popular Iron Man game and playing 'The Simpsons Movie.'"

Did he really take time out of his day to demo this "technology?" Anyone with half a tech brain could have told you the benefits of a dedicated GPU.

GET A CLUE "TECH" BLOGGER.

"Get a life bro and realize the world does not evolve around you and your Mac."

Hey Eric I'm just guessing but think you meant to say revolve, and as far as evolve …..maybe you should

There is an important point that is being missed here.

These cards will be used by future versions of the OS which allow the multiple cores in the GPU to work alongside the main CPU increasing power manyfold for non-graphical apps.This is the true breakthrough. Even today, tests have revealed that playing HD video on the new MacBook pro only uses 26% CPU vs 100% for the old version because the new cards are doing the h264 decoding.

The new macbook pro also has two graphics cards which are user switchable and trade battery life for graphics power.

Yes PC notebooks also have graphic cards. But Apple's OS is the first to take advantage of using the GPU for non graphical tasks.

If the author had stressed this point thus article would make more sense.

It's fairly obvious by reading the comments that techgeeks still don't understand that they no longer the strongest buying segment for end-user computer.

TechGeeks think that the mere EXISTENCE of a machine that doesn't fit their needs is a waste of space and anyone who wants it is a moron.

It has been proven, time and time again, that when a person buys a computer for themselves, 2 out of 3 will choose a Mac.

If corporations stopped buying machines for their employees and instead forced them to buy one themselves Dell would lose half of their business overnight.

Too bad for all the "deals & steals" below; they all run Windows…

One point is missing in this story.

Apple's next version of OS X is going to redirect certain program activity from the central processor to the graphics processor when it's idle. This is going to generate extra speed improvements on programs that are not graphics intensive.

The technology will be patented and give Apple an interesting competitive edge for relative little money, actually.

The NVDA VP is a 1990's geek. He does not understand modern consumer computing needs. Look at where all the time is being spent… less and less on graphics intensive games, and more and more on FB, Myspace, chat, and other more content and video oriented sites. So the NVDA demo confirms my criticism that there is no useful app for this chip: demoing a DVD movie playback at the same time as a graphics intensive game. Who the heck does that? Nobody. Hence there is very little value here… the author of this article is not mature enough in computing to understand this and so question NVDA on how they plan to extract value from this chip.

There might be other great apps for the NVDA multicore architecture, but demo's such as simultaneous gaming/DVD movie playback show that NVDA does not yet know what this demo is.

Of the 75%, what percentage has average or below average computer skills? Tools for the job folks. I KNOW it has already been said here but there is absolutely NO reason to buy a Lexus if you only need a Corolla to get to work and back. Bottom line: Macs sell well to their target demographic because it is a demographic that does not see price as a factor (Inelastic Demand). Apple likes their average 35% margins and so do their shareholders. But you have to wonder how much their shareholders like their 3% world wide market penetration (when you include business customers)? A 35% margin means you have room to maneuver (I’m assuming COGS and operational costs are well managed as well).

So imagine if Apple started pricing for the REST of us? Oh wait, we don’t have to imagine. They did. The iPhone for $199. Oh yes, I know, you have to sign up for a two year AT&T contract with a $30 a month unlimited data plan (avg. annual cost of $1,560) to get that $199. Of course that is if you were not already thinking of upgrading your phone and changing your carrier to begin. It’s even less of an issue if you are already an AT&T customer. The point is this: The idea of a one $600 Apple product for only $200 made people consider making the change let alone doing it (my wife’s sister and brother-in-law dumped Verizon and both got iPhones).

My wife is the perfect example of what Apple is missing out on at a $1,200 price point. She LOVES the Mac Book. She loves her iPod and iTunes as well. All that being said, she told me not to get her one because of the price. She would rather have the iPhone (we are AT&T customers already) or the iPod Touch and check her Gmail using WiFi.

So going back to my original question: What percentage of that 75% is like my wife?

To a Starbucks customer their coffee is worth every penny but even they had to offer price incentives to offset lagging sales.

This would have been innovative 15 years ago. This is just another article written by the uniformed who's sole purpose is to perpetuate the marketing propaganda to other masses of uninformed lemmings with needs the latest "cool" gimmicks to prop up their falling self esteem.

If everyone would look you know open your eyes they would see that intel and microsoft have been monopolizing the computer market for 14 yrs. Does any one remember installing anafter market video, modem.sound,scsi card and not get problems from Windows coming up with a comment abouth the hardware and driver not compatible. Well I do believe I own my computer not Billy. Then later on microsoft began charging hardware manufacturers

to allow their software to be windows compliant this was abouth the same time Intel started with their onboard sound,graphics, etc. sorry Billy the the govenment went after for bundlling an Internet browser they should have tried building a computer.

I'm not sure how you can call something innovative that's been around for years. Dell has been offering optional graphics cards on their laptops. I'm not sure what "And will Apple’s move really make U.S. computer buyers smarter about buying PCs?" means. Is spending twice as much for something trivial to most people smarter? Aren’t we going through turmoil right now because of years of excess spending? The article's comparison is like comparing a bus to a car. You don't need a bus if your only moving one person. This poor article by an uninformed author who fails to draw valid comparisons.

Can the admins please ban poor people from commenting here.

All these poor people do is complain that the better product is more expensive. It's as if they didn't understand that "you get what you pay for".

Yeah right, gamers, who are the most demanding consumers regarding video, are going to move to Apple for their machines? Can we all take a break from drinking the Apple Kool Aid?

Hmm, maybe the sub $1k Dell notebook I bought two years ago must have been a REAL trend setter for having a discrete graphics chipset.

Wait, no it wasn't. You could get notebooks with discrete graphics for years before that even.

If I'm going to spend $1,299 for a notebook, it BETTER have discrete graphics in this day and age. The fact that the previous gen MacBook only had a GMA 950 for that price means that Apple is only now finally being competitive for their pricepoint. That's not really anything to crow about.

This is just a fluff piece to further stroke Apple's ego about yet another yawn inducing product line refresh dressed up in a big showy song and dance.

Oh, and good luck stressing that graphics processor watching HD video when you can't even get a proper 1080p source to run on the thing (not that it would matter with the seriously low resolution display). My 7 year old PC desktop can handle the level of 720p video that iTunes pumps out.

Nice, right on schedule Eric. First you misunderstood my tone, I guess the "Damn" got your panties up in a wad..don't sweat it, I was as calm writing my comment as could be but you had to go and get all monkey headed didn't you. I'll talk slow for you…I havn't met anyone that uses an Apple product because of lack of intelligence like you stated but rather people that would rather spend their precious time being prductive and Not getting all caught up in the tech specs..I meen come man like I said I don't give a damn what you prefer, just stop whining about it.

1) When the dollar is 30% cheaper than the euro, its easy for Germans to buy expensive high tech computers.

2) "…visually intensive (and increasingly popular) tasks such viewing photos and high-definition video, and playing games…"

Since when do you need a fast and expensive PC to watch photos?

3) If you try to convince people into spenting more money in PCs and use the excuses like: "Look what the German buy", or "You NEED expensive PCs to see your photos", use some arguments that hold water.

"Look, first of all if your happy with your PC then keep your damn PC nobody’s attacking you so don’t get all threatened by Apple."

Hey Florida, don't get all defensive about these posts. I always hear these people screaming about their "amazing" experience on the Mac and "ease of use". If you think using a windows machine is too difficult then I seriously question your intelligence. So a Mac is like a 1st graders computer, like when I was in elementary school, which is what we had. This article is about things that have for long been news and now its news because Apple is doing it? Come on, this article just screams "elitist" and "ignorance". So don't get mad when people question the motives and know better than the author at some things. And your words mean nothing to me, because your the same guy that says "Vista Sucks" and guess what, it doesn't and works like a charm all the time every time. Just me and my co-workers experience for you. So take your agenda's and shove them because your going around spewing misleading information you took from a bogus Mac commercial that also screams "elitist". Get a life bro and realize the world does not evolve around you and your Mac. And also a computer is a tool not a lifestyle, so get a real life.

Bruce from Minnesota. I don't need to have ever owned an Apple to not like them even though I have used them extensively before. In anycase, Apple computers has nevered suited my needs because you see, I actually "upgrade" my PCs instead of just throwing it out and buy a new one. Need a better graphics card? Go out, buy one, and plug it in. Need a better sound card? Go out, buy one, and plug it in. Need a faster processor? Go out, buy one, and plug it in. The same goes for DVD/CD-RWs, RAM, hard drives and so on. That's the main thing that PCs offers which Apple do not, the customability of system based on individual needs. I'd rather be someone who can think for myself rather than another drone that needs to be told by Apple what my computer should be like.

Apple's effort is pointless. They're just trying to break PC maker's stranglehood on market share by playing this move as some sort of "innovation". Well, it's not. The problem is that the people who needs more advanced graphic options are already buying notebooks or PCs with stand alone graphic cards. Hell, why wouldn't they when it costs less than $1000 or even $800? On the other hand, the people who are REALLY on the budget or will never need to have the added capability isn't all the sudden going to jump on the bandwagon.

This article is just another misguided cheerleading effort to prop up Apple's Macbook/iMac sales numbers. Too bad the false asserations regarding HP/Dell/Toshiba notebooks in this article can easily be dismissed with just one trip to your local Best Buy. In fact, I have a receipt here that shows that I paid $890 (including tax) for my newest dual core laptop with a built in Nvidia graphics card.

You can get great PCs for $1,000. A friend of mine just got a 2.5 quad core with 8 gigs of RAM and a 9800 GX series video card and a terrabyte hard drive.

Granted, we built that ourselves, so we saved money by buying parts individually, but that is an extremely high-end computer for $1,000.

I'll soon be purchases a macbook pro because I need CS and FinalCut. If I didn't need those MAC-specific programs, I'd be buying a PC laptop.

Look, first of all if your happy with your PC then keep your damn PC nobody's attacking you so don't get all threatened by Apple. I think your missing a huge point and that is it's the operating system that makes the Apple experience so much more enjoyable, Yes the way mine handles photos and movies is amazing but it's all about the intuitive ease of use that brings a smile to my face everday. I bought my first Mac just a year and a half ago after a decade and a half of using PC's and have since purchaced a second one for my wife and I'm telling you we have enjoyed them like we've never enjoyed our microsoft driven computers ever, and I've owned PC's since DOS command lines. I still use PC's at work and it really always makes me miss my Mac at home. My friends that have juiced up thier PC's for gaming have spent double what I spent on my Mac, Sorry I don't care about anyone's opinion that doesn't have any experience on anything but PC's …get out of your shell and try it.. Warning you may never want to go back

Yeah, I'm not sure about this article. PC laptops have options for much better graphics cards than NVIDIA's 9400M chipset. You can get 9800M GT's from PC laptop manufacturers, dual if you wish, and even desktop replacement notebooks that would smoke any Apple laptop out there.

Apple hasn't embraced anything graphical for years. Their computers and laptops are behind the times, and still are. Show me one of their laptops with NVIDIA's latest mobile graphics processors in SLI and then I can agree with this article.

"I believe that Oct. 14, 2008 will be remembered as the moment when an inflection point happened." Are you kidding!? The video card does not make-or-break a notebook plus NVIDIA/ATI have already been doing this for years with the Windows-based machines. Lets face it, the bargain basement notebooks of today are pretty decent (Athlon X2, 2 gb ram, 5400 rpm hard drive, Vista ~400). Of course it's not as powerfull as a beefed up Core2Duo, but with the above specs people can easily use this for college or the normal web surfing and spreadsheet/word processing usage. Plus it won't feel slow a year later (I still cannot believe people were suckered into the Celeron-based notebooks with 512 mb ram running Vista during the holiday season last year). It's all about how you use it. The NVIDIA/ATI video card option has been out there for a while so Apple isn't making an earth shaking move here.

As a side note, my Core2Duo T8300-based Dell with the built-in Intel video card runs high definition movies without a problem. And yes, it was still $400 cheaper than the cheapest Apple. I will, though, give props to Apple for their designs and a Unix-based OS. If I wanted Unix I'd use CentOS or Ubuntu, if I wanted pretty I'd read Cosmo.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of the people who slam Apple have ever owned one for any length of time.

MacBook Pros always had a graphic chipset already. This article is not well informed making this sound like new news. Only the MacBook changed now to what is the more "normal" Apple way of handling graphics. Big deal.

OMG don't show this to Netbooks (ASUS Eee, MSI Wind, Aspire One etc.), their heart will be broken.

Clueless article.

Um, why would I want to watch HD movies on my computer?

I really couldn't care less about 3D games, either.

So, I bought an HP for under $300 that does everything I need it to do, even in spite of the fact is has vista, and I'm the one that doesn't know how to buy a computer? Yeah, that's a good one.

It does make me wonder how the author thinks we should buy cars: Why buy an sensible car that will serve your real needs for many years when you can spend 3x as much on a car that will get you there faster?

Is Apple preparing for Snow Leopard with the release of the new MacBook Pros with Graphics Chips?

The majority of computer users don't even need a graphics card.

The integrated graphics is just fine for HD videos, and every day use.

Unless you play games you don't need a high powered GPU (by the way the 9400 is not a high powered GPU)

Wait are we saying that apple has been inferior in the fx department all along!? *gasp* Apple puts in a sub-par fx chip and we get all excited?! Laptop manufacturers have been doing this for years. Sorry, but I'll take that crown you want to award apple and give it to Asus. BTW, everyone you can go get your so called powerful Apple fx chip at Fry's for $29.99.

This is a stupid article.

Another pro-Apple column attempting to show that Apple is trying to outpace PC's by offering upgraded graphics, but for a price. Heck, even if you own a PC made by HP or Dell, it doesn't cost that much to purchase a separate graphics card, install it in your pc, and what do you know, you have the graphics and you didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for a Macbook Pro or whatever from Apple. Built-in graphics sucks anyway – video cards are the only way to go and Apple is relying on most Americans not knowing that updating their video card is the simplest and easiest upgrade, next to memory.

I'm not sure Americans need to spend more money in order to get faster Internet access, watch more high-definition video, or play 3D games. Europeans probably snicker at Americans because we're exceedingly overweight. Perhaps we should step away from the computer and go for a jog.

I don't know what this guy is talking about, people have known about high powered GPUs in computers for a long time, myself included. What does he mean that "we don't know how to buy computers?" That is a pretty ignorant statement. Sure, consumers may not know all the ins and outs of a PC, but they do do their homework, and there are computer geeks like me around to help them.

And another thing, why is that when Apple embraces Nvidia or AMD chip sets it's suddenly "big news?" Consumers are not making a wise decision to invest $1,299 into a Macbook that I know for a fact will be inferior to a PC but simply has a 9400 chip series. I got a PC with a 2.4 GHz quad core procesor, Nvidia 8500 chip set, and 750GB hard drive for way less than what Apple would steal from me.

I guess its become all about name recognition? You must have to have an Apple these days to be "cool." Well, you're going to shell out a lot more money for a grossly inferior machine.

Macs have always had a graphics chip until the Macbook. The MacBook Pro, iMac and MacPro have always had graphic chips and still do. end of article

Honestly you are giving too much credit to graphics processors. I mean sure if you are a big gamer and watch alot of movies or videos on the web, sure you may need some more graphics power. But in reality not the majority of us are doing something that needs this crazy amount of graphics power. Gamers have long been using powerful graphics cards, so no change there. Most standard graphics cards can handle internet video and movies just fine, so not much of a problem there. Most people use their computers as a tool, so if you are in graphics design, sure this is great for you. Apple is just trying to make you think you need this more than you do to try and up sales more. Plain and simple.

Wow, we not take pretty old technology, from a tech lifespan point of view, and award Apple for being an innovator? Given my first Nvidia loaded pc was all of 7-8 years ago I find this article amusing and a bit sad.

Glad to see you on the payroll for Apple there Jon. Nothing like a clear cut Apple commercial in the guise of a legitimate CNN article. Only difference between a Mac and a PC is the price (yes a PC is much cheaper with the SAME hardware including a supped up graphics processor) and the price (PC much cheaper).

Say "hi" to Steve J.

Although the low end integrated graphics chips poorly render video and graphics, most people just use their computers to surf the web. The 'average' user doesn't need a better video card or chip and doesn't know what they are missing.

Want a better video card, ask a gamer.

Building computers with low end video saves money and that is what people are looking for.

I think it's the Japanese who say, "Only cry once." Instead of going for the cheap deal and then struggling with movies that won't play, etc., bite the bullet and spend a few extra bucks to get something that you won't spend hours trying to coax into performing the most reasonable tasks. PC writer, John Dvorak, said many years ago to buy the best available at the time, because it won't be in 3 months. As to Apple, sure Macs cost a few dollars more, but I only smile to myself as I hear my PC friends grouse about all their problems. As to this article, I don't think a graphics processor influences me as much as a generally better and friendlier operating system.

The US isn't behind, we're demonstrating a functional free market economy. I commend US manufactures for putting products on the market that meet consumer's needs. Personally I'd rather go for a jog in the park then sit around "gaming" or watching YouTube, so your implication that US consumers aren't smart for buying unnecessary processing power is absurd. I seriously doubt Germans are lauging at us because of our graphics processors, if they are then they should get a life.

The US has a higher percentage of computer ownership than other countries? Perhaps some people here buy those low end computers rather than none, as they might elsewhere.

This article is misleading. PC buyers have been choosing AMD and Nvidia graphics for years. Both companies have sold billions of dollars worth of graphics chips. The only problem is Intel using its near monopoly power to force its inferior integrated graphics on the majority of the market and Apple's willingness to use such junk.

There has been an Apple computer elitist group in this country for 20 years now, always willing to pay a premium for membership. It is going to stay that way, Apple over charges for everything and has no plans to become the mainstream product in PCs when the fringe pays so very well. Intel will quickly bring out something "good enough" to keep the pc buyers happy, and this column significantly overstates most of us PC buyers desire to watch high def and play games on a laptop screen… As for Europeans laughing at American PC buyers, interesting that all the major PC makers are the result of American innovation, guess we can laugh all the way to the bank!!! Bad article…

Does buying an overpowered machine really make you smarter? For most people the bargin bin computers do exactly what they need them to do. It's like the people who buy a Hummer only to make a one hour commute to and from work. Except for the ego boost it's a waste of money. Unless your a gamer or graphics designer the basic $600-$800 laptop should be fine.

Want to make Mac main stream, Apple needs to figure out how to get their computers/laptops to play main stream and latest release games. The only reason we are not a Mac house is because my kids and myself love to play games.

$1,299 is really for a stipped down MAC. Want something powerful enough for graphics, play games, not crash or slow to crawl when multiple apps are running — well you need to spend $2,500 or more on a premium mac book or over $4,000 on a PC.

Most sub $1,000 pc's are junk. You get what you pay for and this is one thing you don't go cheap on

The $999 laptop is a joke. I would only consider a top of line Mac Air. And forget about all this HP junk from Best Buy for $600 or less.

The Asus netbooks also suck — no dvd drive, 1GB of memory a tiny 160GB hard drive

The specs on the Apple laptops did not turn heads. First of the graphic offerings out side of the 9600 GT on the top end pro are a joke. The screen resolutions are a joke as well. 1280 x 800 on the mac book and 1440×900 on the pro. These should have been at least 1440×900 on the mac book and 1920×1200.

Dell has far better offerings at the same price. Sorry.

How is it "smarter" to spend more money a PC with high-end graphics capabilities when all most people do is check their e-mail and visit MySpace or Facebook?

Hi

I am from Europe. Could we please leave the cheap shots out of the article please. "those Europeans one less thing to snicker about".

Who got us into the financial meltdown BTW. Was that not american mortgage back securities which turned out to be just bogus.

Snickering indeed. Clear first your own mess please before pointing the finger to Europe.

Joost (The Netherlands)

A very large percentage of Americans do not use their computers for HD video, gaming, or heavy duty graphics processing. That's what a $600 Dell, HP et al. generic box or notebook is designed for. Who's going to spend $200 for a graphics card alone when an Xbox is $200 outside of the most avid gamers? That small minority already heavily engineers their computers for performance and both Dell and HP also have Alienware and Voodoo to cater to them on the high end.

The fact that Apple drops these cards in every one (except its mini) of its computers bumps prices up significantly w/ dubious benefit for a 13/15" notebook w/ limited screen size and still limited gaming capabilities. It may run photoshop adequately but serious graphics artists still need desktop quad/octa core, high speed disk space and extremely large monitors (Mac Pro or another workstation). The only thing Apple has done is shorten battery life of their notebooks and raised prices in the face of falling component prices.

You're sort of missing the man behind the curtain… Apple has made vague promises that the next version of Mac OS X, Snow Leopard, will use the latent power of GPUs (which are evolving much faster CPUs) for general-purpose computing tasks. So while current buyers are only going to see slightly better game performance (as if the Mac had any meaningful stake among gamers!) and improved video playback, what may really be going on is Apple seeding the market with GPU-equipped Macs that will make Snow Leopard really shine when it comes out.

Your poll as to whether Americans make intelligent PC purchases is slanted, as are many polls, by the very nature of how the questions is posed. I don't think that most Americans wanted high-end graphic cards because they did not perceive the value in them (i.e. they're not gamers, and they prefer to watch movies on a full-size screen). We aren't stupid.

From a purely economic perspective, Macs in my experience have a longer useful life than PCs. This is due to a lot of reasons, including

(a) much better quality hardware than bargain-basement PCs (so they don't break as quickly);

(b) Macs don't get loaded up with all that junk that PCs get, including Malware, Free/Cheap junky software, and even 'real' applications that make poor use of the system. (Long time Mac users in the 'Apple culture' frankly have pretty high standards; junk rapidly gets that reputation);

(c) The graphics core, in particular, is sufficiently efficient that applications (like word processors) that follow Apple coding guidelines are pretty efficient on older machines.

From an end user's perspective, this is A Good Thing (My oldest machine is about 6 years old and it's still in daily use!), but for Apple this does somewhat limit sales. Frankly, this is a factor that the PC -purchase- analysis misses, since Macs are used for a longer time, the share of Macs -in use- is substantially larger than this year's purchase numbers would indicate.

Many times I've talked to people who say "my [PC] computer got old and slow so I threw it out." when the problem wasn't the hardware… The idea of 'spend a bit more for a machine that lasts longer' may well take hold and add to Apple sales.

This is a bunch of junk. The vast majority of Americans do not need anyting more than a cheap $500 PC. All they use it for is sending email and updating a MySpace page if necessary.

The ones that need the horsepower know that they do and buy accordingly. This is just more Apple BS in order to con us into buying more than we need.