Will Apple ever make this machine? [Archive]

dulcimer47

04-16-2007, 12:37 AM

First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower...

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.

What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.

I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.

The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...

2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

onlooker

04-16-2007, 12:41 AM

Pffft.. No.

sandau

04-16-2007, 12:47 AM

2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

what's the point. you're already past the $1500 mark at 2k, whats 499 more to get a Mac Pro that kills those specs?

Apple needs a headless 1k computer, not a headless 2k computer, imho. anything else has a screen parked in it or a crappy on board graphics chip.

Chucker

04-16-2007, 01:18 AM

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.

iPeon

04-16-2007, 02:12 AM

Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.

I wasn't aware that other manufacturers made Macs.

hmurchison

04-16-2007, 02:15 AM

They could easily do it but the question is "will they?"

I think eventually they'll have to. I love the iMac but some people will need a bit more grunt. Apple has to deliver both IMO.

kenaustus

04-16-2007, 03:17 AM

Trendannoyer

04-16-2007, 05:15 AM

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.

many years ago (or even NOT that many years ago) we had desktop computers mini computers and main frame computers.

those lines became blurred and indeed sound archaic today, likewise i think the thought of a "desktop CPU" versus a "laptop chip" or a "server chip" is getting almost as redundant.

after all, the G4 chips..what were they? we saw them first in the powermac (desktop line) but soon they became laptop ONLY.. so what were they? the definition is blurred already.

Apple are seeing more growth in their computer range than any other computer manufacturer, so perhaps they dont actually NEED to bother with an xMac. maybe indeed they ARE doing something right after all.

not to say i wouldnt be interested to see what they came up with and where it was priced :)

BenRoethig

04-16-2007, 08:04 AM

Fran441

04-16-2007, 10:52 AM

JeffDM

04-16-2007, 11:00 AM

Given that Apple has probably deliberately misinterpreted requests for headless desktop Macs by introducing the Cube and Mini, I don't see it happening. They've barely tolerated the $1499 single processor G5 model when it existed.

dulcimer47

04-16-2007, 11:54 AM

what's the point. you're already past the $1500 mark at 2k, whats 499 more to get a Mac Pro that kills those specs?

Apple needs a headless 1k computer, not a headless 2k computer, imho. anything else has a screen parked in it or a crappy on board graphics chip.

Does a 2.66 2xWoodcrest machine "kill" a 2.4 Kentsfield? Probably, but what about a 2.66 or 2.93 Kentsfield.

I suppose the question is: Which is preferable? Dual Dual or Single Quad?

Also, with the Octo announcement, it seems as if Octo-core is the new standard for Mac Pro towers, and to buy a Quad (really dual-dual) is misguided.

When iMacs have quad-core chips in 2008 (next year), dual-dual towers will be very out of date...

Superbass

04-16-2007, 12:23 PM

I'm one of the supporters of a headless mid-range for several reasons.

The first is the Mac mini users who bought one to "try a Mac". They are ready to move up, but don't want to give up their current display and don't want to pay the price of a Mac Pro. When you remember Apple saying that half of the Mac buyers in their stores are new to Macs it appears that an upgrade path to a mid range would be rather successful.

For me, I have a PB attached to a 23" display, which I prefer to the imac at home. Not having a chin puts the 23" lower and is more comfortable for me. I would go with a mid range that is a lot smaller, but I'm done with large towers. I'll wait for the mid-range, which I bet is a slightly taller version of the Apple TV. I'm also betting tht there will be a nice range of processors and video cards to choose from. Unfortunately it probably won't come for another 3 - 5 years!

Well, i think people that bought a mini just to "try one" without actually needing it probably have the cash to upgrade to mac pro...

The people that bought it because they need it would probably have initially bought an iMac or MacPro if they needed the extra power.

Since the average person is changing computers maybe every 3.5-4 years, I don't think there are too many freaking out over not being able to use their 4 year old monitor, at least not enough to make it of interest to Apple.

It is irritating, though, that the only option for non-laptop processors is Mac Pro. It's lame to have the lower performance of a laptop chip in the iMac desktops, especially considering they're pretty huge anyways... I mean an extra half inch thickness to get rid of the heat wouldn't be such a huge deal if it meant much better performance...

GSchubert751

04-16-2007, 12:25 PM

Dont think so

dulcimer47

04-16-2007, 01:14 PM

Don't think of it as a new machine, a mid-range tower, or headless iMac.

Think of it as a Mac Pro.

1xKentsfield instead of 2xWoodcrest.

Starting at $1799 (rather than the current $2299 for a Mac Pro).

The Mac Pro line would range from Kentsfield to Woodcrest to Clovertown...

rickag

04-16-2007, 01:20 PM

BenRoethig

04-16-2007, 01:21 PM

A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already? ;)

Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.

First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"

So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".

Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.

If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.

Yep they got it covered fine as long as you're either insanely rich or are willing to make severe capability sacrifices in order to meet with Jobs thinks a computer should be and should do. Yes they do keep making a mistake repeatedly, but it's listening only to a small niche group and leaving everyone else, including Mac Prosumers, high and dry. when I became a Mac user I didn't have a difficult time finding a Mac at all. The last couple I've had a very hard time finding a Mac that meets my needs. If it wasn't for the $1000 tax Apple levies for a 24" display to get so much as a GeForce 7600GT Apple would be getting two machines out of me. Now, they'll be lucky if they get one.

BenRoethig

04-16-2007, 01:37 PM

Replace Kentsfield with Conroe, lower base price to $779 - $899 and it might sell a lot. Chances of Apple introducing either machine = slim to none

They don't want this business for some reason known only to them.:mad:

it would be more like $1499-1699, but I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Fran441

04-16-2007, 02:00 PM

Yep they got it covered fine as long as you're either insanely rich or are willing to make severe capability sacrifices in order to meet with Jobs thinks a computer should be and should do. Yes they do keep making a mistake repeatedly, but it's listening only to a small niche group and leaving everyone else, including Mac Prosumers, high and dry. when I became a Mac user I didn't have a difficult time finding a Mac at all. The last couple I've had a very hard time finding a Mac that meets my needs. If it wasn't for the $1000 tax Apple levies for a 24" display to get so much as a GeForce 7600GT Apple would be getting two machines out of me. Now, they'll be lucky if they get one.

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

rickag

04-16-2007, 02:00 PM

it would be more like $1499-1699, but I would buy it in a heartbeat.
I was using pricing for base models that currently exist. I've found desktop computers using a single Conroe ranging from a low of ~$799 to pricing higher than $1699, some higher than $3000.

Oh well, we'll most likely never see Apple enter this market. For those that either need it or want it, Apple relegates them to the used tower market. :grumble:

BenRoethig

04-16-2007, 02:03 PM

I was using pricing for base models that currently exist. I've found desktop computers using a single Conroe ranging from a low of ~$799 to pricing higher than $1699, some higher than $3000.

Oh well, we'll most likely never see Apple enter this market. For those that either need it or want it, Apple relegates them to the used tower market. :grumble:

Or the Macbook/ PC desktop market.

rickag

04-16-2007, 02:05 PM

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

That's all well and good for Apple and its' shareholders, of which I am one.

As to whether Apple cares to increase market share, well, that's another story completely. Most people looking to buy a computer that I know don't ask themselves how much profit Apple made as opposed to Dell or HP. They do check their wallet though and the Mac mini and iMac are form factors they are not familiar with on top of being very expensive.

BenRoethig

04-16-2007, 02:09 PM

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.

rickag

04-16-2007, 02:21 PM

Fran441

04-16-2007, 02:26 PM

The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.

The Power Mac G5 was introduced in June of 2003. The cheapest model cost $1999. The second revision came in November, where the low end Power Mac G5 stayed exactly the same but got a $200 price cut to $1799. Other than that, there hasn't been a Power Mac since then that has had a price less than $1999.

The low end Mac Pro right now is $2200, and even though the $1799 G5 tower was only around for a few months at that price and every other low end Power Mac G5 was $1999, I'll say the difference is $400. Where does the other $300 come from?

Also, I fail to see how a computer can be fine one day and then 'obsolete' the next. Are we really supposed to believe that a dual processor, dual core Xeon is 'obsolete' because a newer, faster Mac Pro is introduced? There's no question in my mind that these 'obsolete' Mac Pros would smoke the Conore/Kentsfield towers being proposed here and I wouldn't be surprised to see the discounted towers selling for $1799 after newer Mac Pros were introduced.

I've seen this topic come up too many times now and know that even if Apple did come out with a 'mid range' Mac, people would still complain about it not having enough features, expandability, processing power, and the price. You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.

Edit:
I fear, unfortunately, that you're feelings are shared by many more consumers than Apple realizes.

Again, look at the fact that Apple made much more money than Dell last quarter and was also competitive with #1 PC maker HP. Apple seems to be doing just fine without a midrange Mac.

snoopy

04-16-2007, 05:08 PM

. . . look at the fact that Apple made much more money than Dell last quarter and was also competitive with #1 PC maker HP. Apple seems to be doing just fine without a midrange Mac

I agree that Apple's business plan is doing very well financially, and as a stockholder I'm glad. Yet, as a Mac customer, I'm dissatisfied. I've resigned myself to buying used Macs on eBay, to get the price, performance and features I want in a desktop Mac. If I preferred laptops, I would be happier.

In my opinion, Apple's current computer strategy is failing to increase market share significantly in desktops. (A while back there was a report that showed Apple's desktop market shrinking.) I don't expect that Apple will change their product strategy, however, unless forced to do so. If, say, an extremely large business gave Apple a specification for a desktop Mac, Apple would listen.

I've seen this topic come up too many times now and know that even if Apple did come out with a 'mid range' Mac, people would still complain about it not having enough features, expandability, processing power, and the price. You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.

Right, but Apple could do so much better. Following this topic over several threads, I notice Mac users have been repeating the same complaints over and over, yet nobody is paying attention at Apple, obviously.

1) Mini Tower: Fewer drives, about three slot plus graphics slot, two optical drives, and a pretty high performance CPU. If Apple offered this from $999 to $1999, it would please a large group of Mac complainers, and give potential switcher something that is familiar to them.

2) Big Mini - Small Desktop: Large enough to hold full size desktop HDD and optical drives, plus enough space and cooling to have a high performance CPU option. Such a model could sell for a little less than the current Mini on the low end, and sell for more on the high end. It might make a good, general purpose office computer too.

:D

Pippin

04-16-2007, 06:37 PM

How much of a hardship would it really be for Apple to just start offering this sort of thing at $1600-1800 as a BTO option for the Mac Pro? The case can obviously accomodate the hardware, the MOBOs are cheaper than their Woodcrest/Clovertown compatible counterparts..etc etc etc

They wouldn't even have to advertise it or hype it up very much, but it would most definitely shut everyone up and sell a lot of machines in a single swoop. Well, so I think. They could even go back to the Fast, Faster, Fastest selling scheme that they used to use.

What am I even saying this for? It will never happen. I think the real solution is for everyone to just suck it up and save.... :\ :\ :\ :grumble:

dulcimer47

04-16-2007, 06:52 PM

Does anyone have any insight as to which would be preferrable in terms of raw performance?

2.66 Kentsfield
2x2.66 Woodcrest

I think the key factor here is price. One Kentsfield must be cheaper than two Woodcrests. If Apple started using Kentsfield in an entry level Mac Pro, they could charge $1799-1999.

I don't think anyone is buying the 2.0 Mac Pro today, it's just a terrible value compared to the 2.66... To me, the Mac Pro line starts at $2499. It's not a horrible price for what you are getting, but it seems that not all people want "workstation" desktops, some people just want a standard desktop machine.

Joe_the_dragon

04-16-2007, 07:10 PM

iPeon

04-16-2007, 10:05 PM

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

You make very good points Fran, however, let me ask you this, what is the most popular PC that Dell or HP sell? Is it an all in one, is it a mid range upgradable tower, is it an high end tower?

Joe_the_dragon

04-16-2007, 10:25 PM

business want system that are easy to open the mini is not that kind of system.

BenRoethig

04-16-2007, 10:30 PM

business want system that are easy to open the mini is not that kind of system.

They also want something that a disgruntled employee can't stick in their briefcase.

achaney

04-20-2007, 11:44 PM

A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already? ;)

Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.

First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"

So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".

Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.

If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.

Your argument is well founded but based on price.

You are totally correct, at those price points, who wants to spend that kind of cash for a headless mid-range mac.

But you fail to discuss demand. There is certainly deman for the product. The problem has always been price point.

I'm typing this right now on my old cube. years ago when the industry was srong and I was makng fists full of dollars, I needed a mac and going to the store, I examined the imac (too weak), the tower (didn't need card slots and a huge footprint), the cube (PERFECT!!!!). It had a small footprint, serious power, and ....... welll like I said, price was no object, I bougt what I needed regardelss of price and it was the Cube.

Today times for me are tight. Now price is a huge factor. Given the same set of options and the pricing structure was the same, you're right, I woud eiher buy the imac or the tower, but I STILL WANT A CUBE.

So we really need to speak from the DEMAND side. Trick is, Steve need to stop trying to gouge the crap out of everyone and price it properly. Something like $1,499. WHO CAN ARGUE THAT PRICE.

Lastly, he needs to create a new column in his strategy. Instead of Consumer and Pro, he needs Consumer, Prosumer, Professional.

Consumer (White) - MacBook, iMac 17 and 20, Mac Mini

Prosumer (Black) - MacBook, iMac 24, Mac (Headless cube, no pci, and 4 cores = Just power)

Professional (Aluminum) - MacBook Pro, Mac 24 Pro (4 core imac in aluminum), Mac Pro

Ok, maybe i'm going a bit overboard, but ou get my idea. The leap to the Mac Pro is too steep.

-Alex

snoopy

04-21-2007, 12:50 AM

. . . I needed a mac and going to the store, I examined the imac (too weak), the tower (didn't need card slots and a huge footprint), the cube (PERFECT!!!!). It had a small footprint, serious power, . . .

Today times for me are tight. Now price is a huge factor. Given the same set of options and the pricing structure was the same, you're right, I woud eiher buy the imac or the tower, but I STILL WANT A CUBE.

Today, I think you could have your cake and eat it, as the saying goes, if Apple would simply build something like this. I might call it a big Mini or a small desktop. It could look like a Cube, or it could be lower and wider, which I would prefer.

Essentially, it would be large enough to contain a standard HDD and standard optical drive. It would also be large enough to have a fan or blower to handle a higher performance CPU, either a 2 core or 4 core, and a good GPU, in the higher priced option of course. To summarize, the top model would have a small footprint, reasonably high performance and a fairly low price tag.

My guess is that it could sell from $499 to $999, depending on options and performance.

:)

JLL

04-21-2007, 01:40 AM

You make very good points Fran, however, let me ask you this, what is the most popular PC that Dell or HP sell? Is it an all in one, is it a mid range upgradable tower, is it an high end tower?

It's probably a laptop.

JLL

04-21-2007, 01:48 AM

They also want something that a disgruntled employee can't stick in their briefcase.

That must be why ThinkPads and Lattitudes are such big flops. :rolleyes:

shanmugam

04-21-2007, 02:55 PM

another price cut from intel

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7006

desktop CPU prices sweet, sweet ...

only heat and noise were perfect we shall see them in iMac, thats not gonna happen next couple years.

with these CPUs, Mac Mini can be priced lower

BenRoethig

04-21-2007, 04:31 PM

LoganT

04-21-2007, 07:28 PM

Don't make it expandable.
Make it upgradeable.

1 HD Slot (If you want a bigger one, then you will have to replace your current one)
1 PCI X16 slot
1 FW800
3 USB 2.0
Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)

So now, the people who want more expandability will be forced to buy the Mac Pro.

kukito

04-21-2007, 09:39 PM

There's a growing anti Microsoft backlash and if Apple is serious about gaining market share now is the time to make the move. The xMac could be in the same price range as the iMac (with a mainstream desktop GPU and sans monitor) and would cost Apple a lot less to manufacture.

irahodges

04-22-2007, 03:05 PM

I believe the xMac we are talking about here falls into a prosumer line. It's offers the buyer more than a lowend computer but it is not the powerhouse of the Mac Pro. I agree that apple needs this type of computer in their lineup and here is why:

The 4 main issues I see problems with in apples current lineup are graphics card, expandability, footprint, and displays. Consumers see no need for a dedicated graphics card and therefore the macmini does not have one, and the imac and mac pro do. So if you want the graphics power like a prosumer would want, a mac mini is out of the question. But the imac is stuck when it comes to expandability and display...you cannot upgrade easily or have multiple internal hard drives, and although the imac has a Great footprint, many users already own displays (maybe even multiple displays). So the imac does not offer what the prosumer really wants in an xMac either. The only other option we have is the Mac Pro. The consensus seems to be that the Mac Pro is way too expensive for many prosumers and it does have quite a large footprint. And from what I have read in these threads, there is obviously a demand for something less.

I think apple could easily offer a "mini mac pro" or a "displayless imac" priced between $999 and $1999. If you look at the imac line, you pay for a laptop chip and a display...take away the display and add faster processers in and you can keep the same price points. Now all they have to do is design a form factor that allows for a few hard drive bays, pci cards, etc while keeping it relatively small.

Essentially what you have is a faster imac without the displays and in a different form factor. The only line it would really cut into in sales is the imacs, but it could be dubbed the iMacs twin or cousin or something. What do you think?

LoganT

04-22-2007, 03:23 PM

I think they should get rid of the iMac.

snoopy

04-22-2007, 04:23 PM

I believe the xMac we are talking about here falls into a prosumer line. It's offers the buyer more than a lowend computer but it is not the powerhouse of the Mac Pro. I agree that apple needs this type of computer in their lineup and here is why:

Excellent analysis of the problem, and your solution matches one I posted on page one of this thread, even the price range. So then, what can I say but "Right on."

:D

snoopy

04-22-2007, 04:29 PM

I think they should get rid of the iMac.

Whoa! Now that is thinking different, but I'd bet that Steve isn't willing to go that far.

:lol:

irahodges

04-22-2007, 05:29 PM

1) Mini Tower: Fewer drives, about three slot plus graphics slot, two optical drives, and a pretty high performance CPU. If Apple offered this from $999 to $1999, it would please a large group of Mac complainers, and give potential switcher something that is familiar to them.

2) Big Mini - Small Desktop: Large enough to hold full size desktop HDD and optical drives, plus enough space and cooling to have a high performance CPU option. Such a model could sell for a little less than the current Mini on the low end, and sell for more on the high end. It might make a good, general purpose office computer too.

:D

I like your ideas on what Apple could provide, and I think that each one of these are feasible. Personally, I would prefer a mix between the two. I think Apple can make a Mini Tower that is pretty small for a desktop, but can still be easily accesible for upgrades and high performance!

Great ideas though...now let's see it happen Steve.

fisha

04-22-2007, 05:37 PM

i'd just love a machine that sat in between the mini and the macpro. i dont want the iMac as an all in one ( primarily for not liking the white ) plus i want to use a screen of my choice. the mini is too small for my storage needs, and i dont want external drives. the macpro is just too much at the other end.

but if i could get the specs of the iMac in a box mid-way between the mini and macpro, then i'd jump on it.

BenRoethig

04-22-2007, 06:38 PM

I think they should get rid of the iMac.

The iMac, although pricey, is exactly the kind of computer a family needs.

irahodges

04-22-2007, 06:46 PM

I don't know how many people know of this or use this, but Apple offers a feedback page where you can send them features you think should be in their products or ways to improve what they already have. I have used it several recently, but I don't know how quickly Apple acts on this seeing as it would go through so many people to get approved. HA ha, worth a try...

www.apple.com/feedback

Do it and see if anything changes...then you can tell your children in 15 years that you told apple they should make that!

LoganT

04-22-2007, 07:09 PM

The iMac, although pricey, is exactly the kind of computer a family needs.

I think the Mac Mini is the kind of computer a family needs.

TKN

04-22-2007, 07:54 PM

They really just need to allow the Mac Mini to be more upgradeable. A higher end mini takes care of most of the issues, if the video card and processor were changeable to higher end specs, then I think that would take care of more people. Card slots and additional drive bays I think would be unnecessary for the majority of people.

No real reason for a new model.

snoopy

04-22-2007, 08:48 PM

The iMac, although pricey, is exactly the kind of computer a family needs.

Agreed, unless the family already has a nice LCD monitor, as many of us do. I have a 22 inch, wide screen ViewSonic on my music workstation. There is no way would I get an iMac for it, though I suspect I'll want an Intel Mac there one of these days. When that day comes, current Mac Pros will be selling much cheaper on eBay. Sorry Apple; you don't have what I want.

:no:

snoopy

04-22-2007, 09:07 PM

They really just need to allow the Mac Mini to be more upgradeable. . .

No real reason for a new model.

It's possible to upgrade the Mac Mini, but it is not the kind of thing the average person would be willing to tackle. Reasons for a new model:

1) Price. Using standard HDD and optical drive will lower cost of components.

2) More space for cooling to accommodate faster CPUs and GPUs.

3) Business is interested in a easily repairable computer.

4) Consumers want lower prices or better performance.

5) Increase sales and boost price of AAPL stock.

:D

irahodges

04-23-2007, 01:25 AM

One question on my mind is where is the average consumer going to put all that iTunes movie and tv show content?

Right now it doesnt seem to be that big of a deal, but with the apple TV and a shift from owning a DVD to owning the file...we are going to need either larger hard drives in smaller sizes or the ability to hold multiple hard drives without cluttering the desk with externals!

I, for one, have an iTunes music library of 48 GB, movie library of 71 GB, and TV Shows comprise 40GB. I have a PowerMac G4 quicksilver with 2 hard drive bays. I just ordered a 750 GB hard drive to accomodate for my growing music and movie collection and I think this powermac is a great computer!! Now, if apple could add some newer technology in a computer like the Powermac G4's (while changing the form factor to something slightly smaller) they would hit a great market.

I know I am a pretty heavy prosumer, but is that not what this future generation becoming. I skimmed an article in PC Mag about how the next generation are almost as computer savy as the people that make the computers...loose quote because i couldnt remember exactly!

And that just asks the questions about storage...what about graphics, cpu, and display?

Splinemodel

04-23-2007, 02:55 AM

Splinemodel

04-23-2007, 03:17 AM

I, for one, have an iTunes music library of 48 GB, movie library of 71 GB, and TV Shows comprise 40GB. . . .

I know I am a pretty heavy prosumer, but is that not what this future generation becoming. I skimmed an article in PC Mag about how the next generation are almost as computer savy as the people that make the computers...

The word "prosumer" is one of my pet peeves, since everyone I've ever encountered who throws it around is anything but a pro. First off, everyone is a consumer: you, your grandma, google corporate. . . all consumers. Pros are people who use their computers to produce professional work for professional endeavors. Usually this means money. There are undoubtedly pros that operate fine on mac minis: I think mac minis are fine computers for many software authors. If you think that whatever it is you do requires a lot of computational power, screen resolution, or expansion, you might call yourself a power user.

Why the distinction? A power user today is not necessarily a power user tomorrow, but a pro today is a pro tomorrow. For example, if you have been in to video for the past 10 or even 20 years, you used to be a major power user. It used to take a custom Avid workstation to do anything meaningful, in pseudo real time, with a video project. Now, a bottom of the line mac with iMovie does a damn respectable job at it. Having 48G of music files and 71G of videos hardly makes you a power user, either. My old iMac G5 has a 500G disk.

As PCs (as in "personal computers") become so fast, there will inevitably become fewer and fewer power users. I do some pretty heavy shit -- mathematical simulations, 3D CAD, electronic circuit board design -- and I'm not even sure I'm power user anymore. A pro, yes, but probably not a power user.

Despite the fact that this "next generation" has been pervaded by tech products and information readiness to the point where anything other than "instant" is not acceptable, they are not necessarily power users. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they are bigger basic-consumer than ever. Apple, google, etc come out with new toys and they eat this shit up. If anything, the future is right on Steve's old roadmap: the PC is becoming more and more of a digital hub for consumer gadgets than it is a tool for heavy computation.

JeffDM

04-23-2007, 08:36 AM

Joe_the_dragon

04-23-2007, 10:12 AM

It's possible to upgrade the Mac Mini, but it is not the kind of thing the average person would be willing to tackle. Reasons for a new model:

1) Price. Using standard HDD and optical drive will lower cost of components.

2) More space for cooling to accommodate faster CPUs and GPUs.

3) Business is interested in a easily repairable computer.

4) Consumers want lower prices or better performance.

5) Increase sales and boost price of AAPL stock.

:D

6) Desktop ram, cpus, and video cards cost less them laptop ones.

BenRoethig

04-23-2007, 10:21 AM

6) Desktop ram, cpus, and video cards cost less them laptop ones.

And in the case of the Mac Pros, regular desktop RAM is 2-3 times less.

irahodges

04-23-2007, 11:25 AM

If you think that whatever it is you do requires a lot of computational power, screen resolution, or expansion, you might call yourself a power user.

Well said, a power user is a much better distinction. But the fact of the matter remains is when a consumer of any kind buys a mac mini and it does not provide what he needs and he is not a professional so he doesnt need a Mac Pro...there needs to be a middle line for such "power user."

iMacs do not cut it with lack of expandability and built in display...read previous post.

snoopy

04-23-2007, 11:35 AM

The word "prosumer" is one of my pet peeves, since everyone I've ever encountered who throws it around is anything but a pro. First off, everyone is a consumer: you, your grandma, google corporate. . . all consumers. Pros are people who use their computers to produce professional work for professional endeavors.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the OS X Dictionary has this to say about "prosumer:"

noun
1. an amateur who purchases equipment with quality or features suitable for professional use . . .

So the way "prosumer" is used in these threads is perfectly valid -- meaning an amateur who buys professional quality equipment. A prosumer may buy a Mac Pro for example, but a mini tower would be appealing because it offers many of these features and higher performance at a much lower cost.

A prosumer may be satisfied with less than cutting edge capability, whereas a professional may not.

:D

irahodges

04-23-2007, 11:35 AM

The vibe I'm getting here is that 17 year old nerds seem to believe that buying iMacs will make them pariah among the League of Nerds, or that they don't have much cashflow and want to hook up to shitty hand-me-down monitors, presumably saving money from not having to pay for the iMac's display. Just mow lawns for a few more weeks, get the damn iMac, and quit moaning. The League of Nerds will not knock you down a rank for buying an iMac. I can promise this since I myself am I high-ranking nerd.

But really...whether it is a 17 year old that doesnt want the imac monitor or the 50 year old that has 2 23inchers, there is still a demand.

Apple clearly uses the marketing goal of product focus, in which they innovate and don't necessarily follow the wants or desires of a consumer. In this way, they can innovate rather than get stuck on pleasing people. However, what the focus of this thread seems to be is that Apple could easily do it and many people would buy it! You might not buy it, but there is a demand nonetheless.

Splinemodel

04-23-2007, 01:27 PM

You are pretty good at ignoring several other reasons noted in this thread. Your post looks more like a strawman than anything else.

Call the wambulance.

This is a new incarnation of a very old thread. The cube didn't sell well, and the current iMacs are quite affordable and quite usable to produce high-end work. end of story.

But really...whether it is a 17 year old that doesnt want the imac monitor or the 50 year old that has 2 23inchers, there is still a demand.

So you say. History seems to indicate otherwise. If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for. News flash: they haven't.

The reason why I know the target demographic here is 17 year olds is because no one but 17 year olds moan eternally about saving $300, maybe $400 on a computer (even though they're not really saving any money at all since the iMac gives you a display for the extra cash). The rest of the consumer universe gets together the extra $300 and buys the iMac during the same time that the 17 year olds are moaning about it.

JeffDM

04-23-2007, 01:44 PM

The cube didn't sell well, and the current iMacs are quite affordable and quite usable to produce high-end work. end of story.

End of what story? That's a horribly biased example. The Cube doesn't compare because it was a UP that was only $200 cheaper than a DP PowerMac. It was good for the uppity style-concious (which makes me wonder why Apple didn't sell more) space concious, but pretty much no one else.

The rest of the consumer universe gets together the extra $300 and buys the iMac during the same time that the 17 year olds are moaning about it.

I'd say that's patently false because most of the rest of the consumer universe doesn't even bother with any Mac at all. That $300 is half the average sell price of a computer.

irahodges

04-23-2007, 01:53 PM

If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for. News flash: they haven't.

Just because they havn't released it doesn't mean there are not plans to or they are not considering it. That is what we are talking about here, do we think apple will release one?

I certainly think apple has the ability to release one with moderate to high impact to their position in the market. Whether they will or not....well, that's why I am begging for it!

BenRoethig

04-23-2007, 02:00 PM

Call the wambulance.

This is a new incarnation of a very old thread. The cube didn't sell well, and the current iMacs are quite affordable and quite usable to produce high-end work. end of story.

So you say. History seems to indicate otherwise. If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for. News flash: they haven't.

The reason why I know the target demographic here is 17 year olds is because no one but 17 year olds moan eternally about saving $300, maybe $400 on a computer (even though they're not really saving any money at all since the iMac gives you a display for the extra cash). The rest of the consumer universe gets together the extra $300 and buys the iMac during the same time that the 17 year olds are moaning about it.

Affordable for who? We're not all sitting on BMW budgets here. To get 2.33ghz, 2GB of RAM, and a 7600GT you have to work over $2500 and agree to buy a 24" display if you really want one or not. For $1400 Velocity Micro, a high end boutique maker with similar quality to Apple, will give you a 2.4ghz Core 2, 2GB of high end corsair RAM, a 320GB hard drive, the brand new 8600GT, both a 20x DVD-burner and 16x DVD-ROM, and a ton of room for expansion. You're free to buy the display and webcam you want. If it wasn't for Apple locking Mac OS X to its own hardware this wouldn't be a hard choice at all. Look, I'm willing to pay a premium for Apple and the OS, but I'm not stupid. I'm not going to pay a premium for hardware that doesn't do the job. Apple has the perfect case for the job, why waste it on only the super rich.

LoganT

04-23-2007, 02:02 PM

Call the wambulance.

This is a new incarnation of a very old thread. The cube didn't sell well, and the current iMacs are quite affordable and quite usable to produce high-end work. end of story.

So you say. History seems to indicate otherwise. If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for. News flash: they haven't.

The reason why I know the target demographic here is 17 year olds is because no one but 17 year olds moan eternally about saving $300, maybe $400 on a computer (even though they're not really saving any money at all since the iMac gives you a display for the extra cash). The rest of the consumer universe gets together the extra $300 and buys the iMac during the same time that the 17 year olds are moaning about it.

You're not getting it. It's not that people can't afford an iMac. It has nothing to do with that. People want a mid range tower between $999 and $1999 so they can pick up their own display, upgrade the graphics card, put a bigger HD in, and maybe update the optical drive. Oh and Apple needs an actual computer with a desktop chip in it.

snoopy

04-23-2007, 02:39 PM

If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for.

I simply don't believe you are that naive. I don't know why Apple has not released a prosumer mini tower yet, but I can't accept the insufficient demand argument, nor the "Apple can't compete with a mini tower" notion.

To me, you seem to be needlessly defensive about the iMac, as though many of us here would like to abolish it. Not so, except maybe for one or two. The furthest I'd go is to say that Apple would be better off with a mini tower than an iMac, but there is no reason Apple can't offer both. There are many iMac fans in the Apple camp, and there should be an iMac for as long as demand for it continues.

A mini tower, however, can be configured in many more ways than the iMac, and it is possible to get all the performance and features of any iMac with a mini tower, with display purchased separately. In addition, a mini tower would be far more attractive to potential switchers, as a form they are very familiar with. The only unique advantage of the iMac is small footprint, which I think explains the iMac following.

So, if I were CEO and had to choose between the two models, iMac or mini tower, there is no doubt which one I'd pick. To repeat however, there is no reason Apple cannot offer both.

:D

Splinemodel

04-23-2007, 05:41 PM

You're not getting it. It's not that people can't afford an iMac. It has nothing to do with that. People want a mid range tower between $999 and $1999 so they can pick up their own display, upgrade the graphics card, put a bigger HD in, and maybe update the optical drive. Oh and Apple needs an actual computer with a desktop chip in it.

Oh, I'm getting it. Apple isn't interested in this niche market you speak of. The amount of people that actually fit into your target demographic and would consider buying a mac, I'm afraid, is ludicrously small. Apple has so far cultivated a highly coveted position in the computer market by delivering a consistent user experiences: a brand. The cost of building, marketing, and maintaining a low-end tower in their product lineup does not seem to be financially intelligent.

Moreover, what advantage do you get from upgrading the components in a computer that is already far more powerful than you know what to do with?

I simply don't believe you are that naive. I don't know why Apple has not released a prosumer mini tower yet, but I can't accept the insufficient demand argument, nor the "Apple can't compete with a mini tower" notion.

To me, you seem to be needlessly defensive about the iMac, as though many of us here would like to abolish it. . . .

My message since the first post I made in this ridiculous, circle-jerk of a thread is that "prosumers" are idiots who measure themselves by their tools and not their work. I rip on consumer audiophiles, too, and for the same reasons. The iMac happens to exist currently, which makes it a baseline with which to compare. Based on the testamonials everyone seems to provide (or lack thereof), I am certain the iMac is enough computer for the audience begging for a low-end tower. When I was 17 I also liked playing around with computer hardware. Then I got over it. If playing around with computer hardware is truly what you want to do, your best bet is to get a cheap PC and boot Linux. Again, the computer hardware enthusiast market is exceedingly small. You may be lead to believe otherwise from hanging around on web forums that are respositories for these folks, but the market here is indeed a small one.

To reiterate on final time, it's not that Apple can't compete in the low-end tower market. It's that the rewards are too small to warrant the development and operations burden of introducing and maintaining another product line. Please, please study your history. It's not just the cube.

LoganT

04-23-2007, 06:21 PM

Oh, I'm getting it. Apple isn't interested in this niche market you speak of. The amount of people that actually fit into your target demographic and would consider buying a mac, I'm afraid, is ludicrously small. Apple has so far cultivated a highly coveted position in the computer market by delivering a consistent user experiences: a brand. The cost of building, marketing, and maintaining a low-end tower in their product lineup does not seem to be financially intelligent.

Moreover, what advantage do you get from upgrading the components in a computer that is already far more powerful than you know what to do with?

My message since the first post I made in this ridiculous, circle-jerk of a thread is that "prosumers" are idiots who measure themselves by their tools and not their work. I rip on consumer audiophiles, too, and for the same reasons. The iMac happens to exist currently, which makes it a baseline with which to compare. Based on the testamonials everyone seems to provide (or lack thereof), I am certain the iMac is enough computer for the audience begging for a low-end tower. When I was 17 I also liked playing around with computer hardware. Then I got over it. If playing around with computer hardware is truly what you want to do, your best bet is to get a cheap PC and boot Linux. Again, the computer hardware enthusiast market is exceedingly small. You may be lead to believe otherwise from hanging around on web forums that are respositories for these folks, but the market here is indeed a small one.

To reiterate on final time, it's not that Apple can't compete in the low-end tower market. It's that the rewards are too small to warrant the development and operations burden of introducing and maintaining another product line. Please, please study your history. It's not just the cube.

Well considering Macs run Windows now, they are viable alternative for games. And don't tell me to buy a Windows box just to play games, because it's not really ethical.

JeffDM

04-23-2007, 07:16 PM

Moreover, what advantage do you get from upgrading the components in a computer that is already far more powerful than you know what to do with?

You say you are ripping into people for being snobs, but frankly, that's a very arrogant statement to presume whether someone knows what to do with the power. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Splinemodel

04-23-2007, 07:57 PM

Not for being snobs. . . for being idiots. I never claimed that I wasn't arrogant, either.

To Logan: if you want to play the latest FPS games on Apple hardware, then you'll want nothing short of the latest Mac Pro. Most games, however, will run fine on an iMac. Really, you guys have to realize that the market for the computer you want is small unless the price is very low, in which case there's not a lot of incentive for Apple to get into that market.

irahodges

04-23-2007, 11:41 PM

I think we fail to remember the Mac Mini. People were screaming for it but most said Apple wouldnt do it because they fit a niche market and wouldnt be beneficial to make us a cheaper desktop...well that happened.

And Splinemodel, why do you persist in trying to tell us what we want or need when you have no idea. You have your outrageous claims that "no one really needs a lowend tower" but thats like a grumpy old man claiming that we don't need to drive cars around when driving is what most of us would rather do. Excuse me for the rediculous analogy...couldnt think fast enough

It's not like I want a tower to just go and take out my video card and get a new one or do this and that to it...but like i said, I am running a PowerMac G4 quicksilver which is 5 years old and I love the fact that I can go out and get a larger hard drive or a new video card or some pci cards to make my system not seem so obsolete...eventually I will have to go out and get a new computer and it would be incredible if i could just get a new tower to go right in the spot of my old one (but slightly smaller of course)!

Splinemodel

04-24-2007, 12:58 AM

Since you had to ask, I do this because we have so many damn threads about low-end mac towers, and aside from the naive thread starter, it's always the same group of people in the echo chamber. Since you're new here I can't blame you for being suspicious.

The other aspect is that I'm exclaiming my near-certainty that Apple will not product this machine anytime soon, so moaning about is going to do you no good. If you want to actually prove me wrong, however, I'll give you the chance to tell me what you want to do with a low-end tower that you can't do with an iMac. Saying "I want to swap components" isn't going to cut it. Swaping components for the sake of swapping components is a niche activity and an idiotic one at that. I'm happy to trust the "honor system" here. By lying about this you're not really changing anything except the perception of this thread, which ultimately doesn't mean that much to me.

My personal advice to you is one word: eBay. About every 18-24 months sell the old iMac on eBay and buy a new one. It's surprisingly economical.

iPeon

04-24-2007, 02:48 AM

Really, you guys have to realize that the market for the computer you want is small unless the price is very low, in which case there's not a lot of incentive for Apple to get into that market.

Yea, it's only about, what... 20%? 30%? 40% of the PC market that Apple doesn't have? 95% of PCs sold are Windows, Apple wants a slice of that yet does not offer a consumer tower. Sure, the consumer tower has no market. :lol:

rickag

04-24-2007, 12:00 PM

Call the wambulance.

This is a new incarnation of a very old thread. The cube didn't sell well, and the current iMacs are quite affordable and quite usable to produce high-end work. end of story.

So you say. History seems to indicate otherwise. If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for. News flash: they haven't.

The reason why I know the target demographic here is 17 year olds is because no one but 17 year olds moan eternally about saving $300, maybe $400 on a computer (even though they're not really saving any money at all since the iMac gives you a display for the extra cash). The rest of the consumer universe gets together the extra $300 and buys the iMac during the same time that the 17 year olds are moaning about it.

er, ummm, 17 year olds?

I'm not 17, will be 56 shortly, and $300 to $400 savings is important.

I have an iMac iSight 20" with a G5, and I still feel frustrated that I can't upgrade to 802.11n so I can use Apple's new AppleTV, without having to buy an Airport extreme. A slot would come in handy.

I will be upset when USB 3, a new Bluetooth standard, a new harddrive bus like SATA becomes common. Any arguments for an AIO other than it saves space is a total rationalization. Both the Mac mini and iMac are designed for niche markets, albeit well designed.

Neither of them offer the ease of use nor the flexibility of a standard tower or shuttle.

rickag

04-24-2007, 12:05 PM

Splinemodel

04-24-2007, 06:10 PM

Yea, it's only about, what... 20%? 30%? 40% of the PC market that Apple doesn't have? 95% of PCs sold are Windows, Apple wants a slice of that yet does not offer a consumer tower. Sure, the consumer tower has no market. :lol:

Realistically, we're talking about a very small chunk. Not everyone who buys a low-end tower PC is interested in altering its components. I'd say that less than 2% of the PC market buys low-end towers with plans to modify them. Office buildings full of boilerplate PCs account for massive amounts of the overal market. The enthusiast market is quite small.

rickag: And which PCI cards do you need?

Anyway, I proposed a challenge to come up with real reasons why you need a low-end tower. So far, no real answers.

Joe_the_dragon

04-24-2007, 07:11 PM

rickag

04-25-2007, 11:19 AM

...
rickag: And which PCI cards do you need?

Anyway, I proposed a challenge to come up with real reasons why you need a low-end tower. So far, no real answers.
Right now, none, my iMac isn't that old.
Later, if I wish to join the rest of the world when 802.11n becomes common, one of those would be nice. So I wouldn't have to create more clutter with an Airport Extreme priced at close to $200.

In the next year or so when SATA becomes the standard and I'm still rendering/editing off my current internal drive with Final Cut Express, maybe I'd like to buy an inexpensive card to add an SATA drive to improve my speed.

Who knows? Technology changes a lot more rapidly than I and many other people are willing to spend ON A NEW COMPUTER to keep up when a relatively inexpensive PCI card will do.

Use your common sense. It is a relatively easy concept that on the other side has become a common practice, which is obviously proved by the shear extrodinarily numbers of PCI cards available for a huge variety of purposes. Google a couple of sites, here's just one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=usb+2+PCI+&x=0&y=0

there 6 pages of USB 2 PCI cards(some oddball stuff thrown in, but mostly PCI cards) and 106 options. SOMEONE IS BUYING THIS STUFF IN MASS QUANTITIES.

irahodges

04-25-2007, 03:57 PM

RAM And HD upgrades are common

I agree, we find that more and more people can easily buy RAM and Hard Drives from dealram, NewEgg, or some mass online store like nexttag. This is especially handy when you look at how much Apple charges for upgraded built-to-order RAM and Hard Drives. You can save $300 or $400 just with that (depending on what you want in HD space and memory).

Right now, none, my iMac isn't that old.
Later, if I wish to join the rest of the world when 802.11n becomes common, one of those would be nice. So I wouldn't have to create more clutter with an Airport Extreme priced at close to $200.

Who knows? Technology changes a lot more rapidly than I and many other people are willing to spend ON A NEW COMPUTER to keep up when a relatively inexpensive PCI card will do.

I will share my agreement with rickag as well. I have a 5 year old powermac with usb 1.1 ports...I would HAVE to purchase a new computer right now if it werent for pci slots...usb 1.1 is soooo slow! I have 2 of my slots filled right now with a usb 2.0 card and an extra firewire card!

irahodges

04-25-2007, 03:59 PM

To Splinemodel:

I don't think the market most of us are suggesting with a low-end tower is necessarily for enthusiasts that want to experiment and swap out things to feel like they built their computer. Rather, I believe the low-end tower fills the market that needs or DESIRES expandability. The Mac Pro is the ONLY computer apple offers that provide expandability without the loss of desk space from external HDs, airport express, usb splitters, etc.

What I tried to explain earlier is that the consumers are starting to understand technology a lot better. We are seeing HD in peoples living rooms, ipods all over the place, and ALL sorts of add-ons for computers (they wouldnt keep being built if people werent buying them). It is just a rising trend that more and more people know more about technology. Because of that...this would be a good market for those who understand technology.

On the other hand, it does not mean this computer is only for people who know what they are doing either. Believe it or not, there are consumers that want a mac, are attracted to the mac mini, yet are not convinced to buy because they want something more. The whole BYOKDM (bring your own keyboard, display, and mouse) with the mac mini wouldnt be much of a marketing ploy if apple didn't realize people already have this stuff and don't need them (plus it saves cost). But take it to the next level, and there are still people that have a display and don't want to get rid of it yet or don't need to if it will save them some extra cash while getting them better components. I believe people would easily make this trade, I would!

We live in a consumer world where people want more cheaper, and that is what we are talking about here. It isn't about what we NEED. Maybe for some but not most of us. It's about what we demand from apple to make our lives easier...and it could logically happen if enough show they want that. I think many have already stated that on the PC side that is a huge market, why would it be any different for apple?

rickag

04-25-2007, 05:41 PM

irahodges

I would only add that if the question is, if Apple wishes to expand market share, they will have to gain switchers. By default, switchers have computers the vast majority of which are towers that have PCI slots and are not AIO.

Why would they fear a similar computer? Why would they place an extraordinary premium on saving space, as does the Mac mini and iMac? The use of laptop parts add expense at the cost of speed and flexibility, BOTH OF WHICH ANY CURRENT SWITCHERS HAVE NOT PLACED A PREMIUM. The proof of this lays in the fact that on the PC side AIOs have existed for a long time, have been tried by most of the major manufactures, yet still lag miserably in sales.

Someday when the hardware so far exceeds the demands of software this may change and will all run around with star tek like tricorders, but not in my lifetime. The desktop will remain a viable option due to lower costs and greater speeds/cost and flexibility. The AIO has most of the disadvantages of a laptop but lacks the greatest advantage, it is not portable and requires an outlet.

FOXPhotog

04-25-2007, 06:01 PM

It's been interesting lurking on this thread...

I believe irahodges has the right of it regarding what many folks would like to see out of Mac.

Lemme 'splain...

Personally, I'm a PC user who is desperately trying to get into a Mac but I really don't like my VERY LIMITED options. Being a card carrying, Rat Bastard Capitalist I'm not really into a company telling me what my options are. That is the very reason why I'm leaving PC's and Microsoft; They are trying to make consumers buy Vista. Not me.

I then come over to look at the Mac side of the world and all looks really nice. Very inviting...

Right up until I see that in order to get into a Mac I must either:

a) Buy an iMac with very limited options and no real future expansion.

b) Spend about 25-30% more to get a stripped Mac Pro.

When I look at the financial metrics of switching to Mac they really aren't there. If Apple had something like a mid Mac Pro that could compete w/ the PC contemporaries like the configurable Dell XPS line that would seal the deal right there. I would pay a bit more for a comparably equipped Mac, but as of right now that is just not an option.

Why Apple doesn't try for an obviously large market (it is where most PC manufacturers make their money) is beyond me.

I would love to know why.

Thanks!

FOXPhotog

snoopy

04-25-2007, 07:16 PM

Why Apple doesn't try for an obviously large market (it is where most PC manufacturers make their money) is beyond me.

I would love to know why.

Many of us would love to know why. It makes no sense, and yes, it is very obvious.

By the way, welcome to the discussion.

:D

vinea

04-25-2007, 07:17 PM

If Apple had something like a mid Mac Pro that could compete w/ the PC contemporaries like the configurable Dell XPS line that would seal the deal right there. I would pay a bit more for a comparably equipped Mac, but as of right now that is just not an option.

Why Apple doesn't try for an obviously large market (it is where most PC manufacturers make their money) is beyond me.

I would love to know why.

Thanks!

FOXPhotog

Would you pay $1300 for a $1000 machine? Do you think that Apple would sell a lot more thousand dollar machines for $1300 than they do iMacs? Because that doesn't sound too competitive and reviews would trash Mac towers I would think. AIOs have the advantage that they aren't towers and its not an "apples to apples" comparison (no pun intended).

Apple has the best ASPs and margins in the business with a positive growth rate, good branding and mindshare. They make as much as larger companies but with lower infrastructure needs for inventory and support.

An Apple tower would cost more to make (lower volumes than Dell or HP, higher component costs because Apple is a "premium" brand and must have better fit and finish), have higher margins than its competitors (35% average Apple vs 18% average Dell) and would have to sell more units than iMacs (which has a higher ASP) to maintain total revenue stream and doesn't contribute to Apple's total notebook component buys (like the current iMacs do).

Name a premium brand tower maker. Not Sony. All their VAIO towers are gone. Nothing left but an AIO and a "Digital Living System"...a Core 2 Duo TiVO on steroids that is typically attached to a 200 DVD jukebox. Not IBM. Not Toshiba. Not Fujitsu. Heck, even Alienware is now Dell. There are a few boutique game tower makers like Voodoo but not a premium brand like has existed in the past with VAIO. Apple is a premium brand and has expended a good amount of effort to build that branding.

Why SHOULD Apple enter a mature highly competitive commodity market with entrenched combatants who's business models are built around high volume, low ASPs and thin margins? Especially with a product that would be judged much like the VAIO towers of the past...pretty case and accessories but overpriced and underpowered.

Compare that to what reviewers say of the Mac Pro...surprisingly competitive with Dell's offerings, expensive but good value, great workstation, editor's choice, yadda yadda yadda. Now with 8 cores.

Better to invest in product lines like Apple TV and iPhone where real market share gains and dominance can be achieved. Besides, Apple is sufficiently not a PC maker anymore that they dropped computer from the name. That should have clued folks in that a commodity PC market wasn't anywhere in Apple's future plans.

Vinea

vinea

04-25-2007, 07:50 PM

Slight addition:

IMHO a $1499-$1699 Cube might fit in the product line but the thrashing Apple took from the last cube makes this an unlikely possibility.

The only tower like thingy you're likely to see from Apple is an Apple branded NAS. Probably an Apple TV class machine with Mac Pro like drive bays using ZFS to support TimeMachine and storage of more iTunes content that sits wirelessly on a bookshelf (needing only power).

Vinea

iPeon

04-25-2007, 08:43 PM

Realistically, we're talking about a very small chunk. Not everyone who buys a low-end tower PC is interested in altering its components. I'd say that less than 2% of the PC market buys low-end towers with plans to modify them. Office buildings full of boilerplate PCs account for massive amounts of the overal market. The enthusiast market is quite small.

rickag: And which PCI cards do you need?

Anyway, I proposed a challenge to come up with real reasons why you need a low-end tower. So far, no real answers.

I wasn't referring to low-end towers. Someone who wants a low-end tower will most likely be interested in the Mac mini. What is missing is a mid-range tower between the iMac and the Mac Pros. I'm a long time Mac user and have no interest in AIOs or closed boxes like the Mac mini. I want to have the option to upgrade as new technologies are introduced. With the iMac and the Mac mini you are locked in. We aren't talking about enthusiast here, we are talking about those of us that do not want a closed box. There's a huge consumer market here that Apple is missing.

iPeon

04-25-2007, 08:54 PM

Slight addition:

IMHO a $1499-$1699 Cube might fit in the product line but the thrashing Apple took from the last cube makes this an unlikely possibility.

A Cube isn't a tower. The Cube was overpriced and had limited expandability. That's why it only catered to a few. Apple's consumer Macs are well designed and do have a market, but there is also a market for consumer towers, just look at the PC market.

FOXPhotog

04-25-2007, 11:32 PM

Would you pay $1300 for a $1000 machine? For the same machine no, would you?

That was not at all of what I was speaking...

Do you think that Apple would sell a lot more thousand dollar machines for $1300 than they do iMacs?

Um, no, but using those figures as the basis for a discussion is not realistic.

While I'll not speak of "ASPs" (I have no idea what that is) "margins" , "mindshare" or other industry-specific language what I will say is that the relative benefits for Apple to expand into a Mid market seem to be plentiful.

No not in the terms of a Dell or an HP, but in the terms that Apple likes, smaller areas of untapped growth.

Why make an iPod? The answer now is self evident. But rewind to pre-2001 and I'll bet you didn't see everyone walking around with a CD player. Why?

And what of the iPhone? Steve Jobs very strategy for getting into the overly saturated mobile phone arena is to get only 1% of the 20 million phones in use. (Taken from a recent Newsweek article with Steve Jobs)

That is a HUGE amount of cash coming to Apple if his goals are realistic, and clearly they are.

I think all of those folks, myself included, who are wanting another option are not wanting Apple to change itself or its business model. Much to the contrary, I like what Apple offers and I have a need/want in my computing life for something they do not yet make, but could.

Apple has the best ASPs and margins in the business with a positive growth rate, good branding and mindshare. They make as much as larger companies but with lower infrastructure needs for inventory and support.

They have snakes? :^)

An Apple tower would cost more to make (lower volumes than Dell or HP, higher component costs because Apple is a "premium" brand and must have better fit and finish), have higher margins than its competitors (35% average Apple vs 18% average Dell) and would have to sell more units than iMacs (which has a higher ASP) to maintain total revenue stream and doesn't contribute to Apple's total notebook component buys (like the current iMacs do).

Then by using that model, the current MacPro platform would be a just dandy jumping off point for a smaller midsize type computer. They already make an 8 core, 16g of RAM beast. Why not allow that to be paired down for those of us who have no desire for a beast that big yet want to be able to add components as we see fit?

Why SHOULD Apple enter a mature highly competitive commodity market with entrenched combatants who's business models are built around high volume, low ASPs and thin margins?

Yes, I think they would be better served entering the very minimally competitive world of Broadcast Newsroom intergration.:lol:

Having re-read what I wrote I can see how one could read that I was advocating for Apple to go tete-a-tete with the Dell's of the world. No. I believe that Apple is missing a larger market for cross over defectors who don't want to buy an all-in-one and aren't even going near the MacPro.

Better to invest in product lines like Apple TV and iPhone where real market share gains and dominance can be achieved.

Dominance in the mobile phone market? Is that what one would really consider a more viable and "open" avenue for dominance? Hmmm... that is a tough sell.

Besides, Apple is sufficiently not a PC maker anymore that they dropped computer from the name. That should have clued folks in that a commodity PC market wasn't anywhere in Apple's future plans.

Really. That's not at all what I got from it. But what do I know...

Thanks!

FOXPhotog

snoopy

04-26-2007, 12:52 AM

Apple . . . have higher margins than its competitors (35% average Apple vs 18% average Dell) . . .

Using your figures, Apple should compete just fine with a small tower. Say a particular Dell tower is equipped to sell for $799. Apple could sell a comparable Mac tower for $999. At that difference, the Mac price seems reasonable, considering that you get a professional OS, not a lite home edition. Plus you get iLife software that is equivalent to what you pay extra for with a Windows PC.

If Apple's Mac Pro can compete with Dell, a Mac mini tower can also compete.

Why SHOULD Apple enter a mature highly competitive commodity market with entrenched combatants who's business models are built around high volume, low ASPs and thin margins?

Sounds like you speak of the iPhone, rather than a mini tower. A highly competitive market is usually a big market, and therefore an opportunity to increase market share.

:D

REM#1

04-26-2007, 01:15 AM

I think that there is a market for a smaller non-AOI in the mac pantheon.
It should be a single chip model
2 non externally accessible drive bays
2 externally accessible drive bays (dvd, BD, tape drive)
4 Memory slots (1GB Ram Standard)
2 PCI slots (one for the video card and one extra)
Assorted ports (USB, FireWire a & b, Sata, Digital Sound, Hdmi, Ethernet)

Selling price $1300-1400 Base with 20" monitor $1900-2000.

This price range and capability put it above the iMac (the combo cost the same or a little more than a 24" iMac) keeping Apples margins, Lowering price to consumers who want more versatility, and hopefully not cannibalizing iMac sales.

LoganT

04-26-2007, 01:21 AM

REM#1

04-26-2007, 07:43 AM

One of those PCI slots would have to be PCIx16 for a video card.

They could both be PCIx or what ever version of the Spec is current or needed. The ports should be of the latest spec but somewhat backward compatible.

rickag

04-26-2007, 09:00 AM

...
Apple has the best ASPs and margins in the business with a positive growth rate, good branding and mindshare. They make as much as larger companies but with lower infrastructure needs for inventory and support.
...Vinea
Apple's growth rate is a result of laptop sales. Desktop sales were stagnant again this quarter.

rickag

04-26-2007, 09:08 AM

...
An Apple tower would cost more to make (lower volumes than Dell or HP, higher component costs because Apple is a "premium" brand and must have better fit and finish), have higher margins than its competitors (35% average Apple vs 18% average Dell) and would have to sell more units than iMacs (which has a higher ASP) to maintain total revenue stream and doesn't contribute to Apple's total notebook component buys (like the current iMacs do).
...Vinea
Regarding your post concerning costs, the Mac Pro actually costs less than an equivalently configured Dell, splain that, since their components obviously don't effect Apple's overall component laptop costs.

I've have yet to find a single customer that went into a store and thought gee, I guess I'll buy an Apple computer because their margins are 35% and Dell's is only 18%.

rickag

04-26-2007, 09:10 AM

rickag

04-26-2007, 09:17 AM

vinea

04-26-2007, 11:18 AM

For the same machine no, would you?

So you answered the question. Apple wouldn't sell many mid range towers because they would be uncompetitive.

Um, no, but using those figures as the basis for a discussion is not realistic.

Why? Which part do you disagree with?

That Apple maintains higher margins?
That Apple typically needs higher build quality to maintain brand image?
That these two factors results in a machine that would be more expensive than their Dell/HP counterparts?

While I'll not speak of "ASPs" (I have no idea what that is) "margins" , "mindshare" or other industry-specific language what I will say is that the relative benefits for Apple to expand into a Mid market seem to be plentiful.

ASP = Average Sales Price.

And I say that those "relative benefits" are illusory rather than plentiful. If they were not then there would be premium tower manufacturers still.

Then by using that model, the current MacPro platform would be a just dandy jumping off point for a smaller midsize type computer. They already make an 8 core, 16g of RAM beast. Why not allow that to be paired down for those of us who have no desire for a beast that big yet want to be able to add components as we see fit?

Sure. And I have never objected to the idea that Apple can and possibly should offer a single Xeon 2.66GHz BTO in their Mac Pro line for $1,699...something $50 less than the equivalent Dell Precision 490.

I do not believe that Apple would be successful trying to compete with Dell's Precision 390 line. Dell enjoys a lot of cost savings becuase it moves a lot of Conroe based machines in the lower tiers.

Yes, I think they would be better served entering the very minimally competitive world of Broadcast Newsroom intergration.:lol:

A market segment that Apple does already compete in (content creation).

Having re-read what I wrote I can see how one could read that I was advocating for Apple to go tete-a-tete with the Dell's of the world. No. I believe that Apple is missing a larger market for cross over defectors who don't want to buy an all-in-one and aren't even going near the MacPro.

And no one has shown that these folks exist in any large number.

Dominance in the mobile phone market? Is that what one would really consider a more viable and "open" avenue for dominance? Hmmm... that is a tough sell.

Smartphone market.

Vinea

vinea

04-26-2007, 11:41 AM

Using your figures, Apple should compete just fine with a small tower. Say a particular Dell tower is equipped to sell for $799. Apple could sell a comparable Mac tower for $999. At that difference, the Mac price seems reasonable, considering that you get a professional OS, not a lite home edition. Plus you get iLife software that is equivalent to what you pay extra for with a Windows PC.

If Apple's Mac Pro can compete with Dell, a Mac mini tower can also compete.

An Apple mini tower looks like a Precision 390. Compare this to the Dimension E520 and ask yourself how many Precisions does Dell sell in comparison the Dimensions. Now ask yourself how much more Core 2 Duo (Conroe) parts cost Apple vs Dell due to the volume discounts differences and attach that to the Precision's price and wonder how well this machine would review.

No, I dunno that I would agree that Apple would appear very competitive vs the Precision 390 much less the Dimension line simply because Dell has significant competitive advantages in the cost of the 390.

Sounds like you speak of the iPhone, rather than a mini tower. A highly competitive market is usually a big market, and therefore an opportunity to increase market share.

:D

The iPhone is fighting in a limited Smartphone market. This market is a good match for Apple since a) its underserved in the usability department and b) the demographic is time poor and cash rich.

Apple has the opportunity to dominate the smart phone market because of perceived limitations of the current offerings and the lack of a very strong dominant player. RIM is no Del, HPl or Microsoft. A lot more like Creative. The smartphone market is still emerging, not quite mature but mature enough that there is enough demand that the iPhone can move good volume if Apple does a good job. The push into true mainstream use hasn't quite happened.

They say they delayed Leopard to make iPhone happen. That tells you Apple's priorities.

Thus far no one has answered the challenge:

Name one premium brand tower maker.

Vinea

vinea

04-26-2007, 11:43 AM

A $1499 - $1699 Cube would be another failure, guaranteed. Another overpriced niche market item that consumers would avoid.

Another niche market item that apple would have high margins and ASPs and compete with a company like Shuttle and not a company like Dell.

The SFF market is said to be growing. A larger SFF computer (with more drives) used to feed the apple TV fits within the product strategy better than the current Mini.

Vinea

vinea

04-26-2007, 12:00 PM

Apple's just released quarterly results prove one thing.

Apple's growth in computer sales is overwhelmingly a result of laptop sales. "Why?" you ask. Because they are configured with what the consumer expects in a laptop. People are in fact switching to Mac OS X.

Arguably, notebooks are an area where Apple can be price competitive and is a high growth area where gains can be made without trying to take share away from an incumbent.

Apple's desktop sales are stagnant again. Apple is not gaining market share with desktops. Why? IMHO it is obvious. Apple doesn't offer anything, and I mean anything, that the consumer considers of value in their current line up.

600,000 people per quarter disagree with this assessment.

edit: To add emphasis, Apple's growth rate was 30%, let that sink in a minute. It blows away other manufacturer's results. Then, when it becomes apparent the the growth is exclusively in laptops, I mean wow, really wow. No one on any board has come up with anything remotely logical to explain this other than consumers are not buying AIO and Mac minis because they are considered odd.

What it says to me that Apple has optimized its entire product line to support the pc growth area where it is price competitive and this has paid handsome dividends.

Intel has stated it offers no pricing discounts except on the basis of volume. Apple has a strategy that by accident or plan maximizes its mobile parts volume by leveraging an additional 600K desktop sales as much as feasible to reduce its notebook component costs.

The notebook market is not as price sensitive as the desktop market. Yet.

Dell, HP and other commodity makers have not engaged in the pricing war to make the notebook market a commodity one. Yet. Premium brand notebook makers still exist. Don't expect this condition to last more than a few years. In time we will be having the same discussion about traditional notebooks and how Apple only offers UMPCs, ultrathin notebooks and phones. I suppose some folks already gripe that Apple has no desktop replacement notebook offering so this has already started.

Rather than conceed the desktop market entirely as Sony has effectively done, Apple offers SFF and AIO products that are sufficiently competitive that they have significant sales. It then uses these sales to optimize its ability to compete in the notebook market.

Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market.

Vinea

snoopy

04-26-2007, 12:14 PM

I think that there is a market for a smaller non-AOI in the mac pantheon. . .

Selling price $1300-1400 Base . . .

I believe this price is too high, and Apple could sell the machine you describe starting at $999, even $899, with a low cost but fast consumer chip and a reasonably good graphics card. Offer maybe three choices of CPU and several graphics cards, with at least one good for gaming.

2 PCI slots (one for the video card and one extra) . . .

Empty slots don't cost much. I'd say provide 3 empty slots. Otherwise you are describing just what I have been asking for in a mini tower, something noticeably smaller and cheaper than a Mac Pro.

A big argument that is raised against such a mini tower is that it would cannibalize sales of the iMac and Mac Pro. This is true, but I'd guess that iMac and Mac Pro sales would drop only 20 percent due to a mini tower. The reason this effect would be relatively small is price. Feature for feature, a Mac mini tower would not be cheaper.

What a mini tower does, however, is give Mac customers a choice, and those who prefer a headless, expandable prosumer tower could actually buy one from Apple.

Also, a mini tower would undoubtedly increase Mac desktop sales greatly. I'd say that 60 to 80 percent of a Mac mini tower sales would be to customers who would not buy a new Mac desktop today. This would include myself, who has been purchasing older Power Macs on eBay. If such a mini tower is not forthcoming from Apple, my next purchase will likely be a Mac Pro on eBay.

:)

vinea

04-26-2007, 12:23 PM

Regarding your post concerning costs, the Mac Pro actually costs less than an equivalently configured Dell, splain that, since their components obviously don't effect Apple's overall component laptop costs.

I did. Dell makes its margins in the workstation and server markets. Not the lower end tower markets. The 18% is the average of its gross profits across all product lines.

We know that they aren't making 18% in the entry market where their volume is largest. Therefore the margins in the workstation and server markets are far higher than 18%. This is also why IBM is still competitive in the medium server markets.

I've have yet to find a single customer that went into a store and thought gee, I guess I'll buy an Apple computer because their margins are 35% and Dell's is only 18%.

No, but I bet there are plenty of examples where folks have stated "I guess I'll buy this cheaper HP tower rather than this more expensive VAIO tower with the same specs".

The tower market completely ignored Sony's out of box advantage in DVD recording/authoring, digital media hub and integration with Sony lifestyle products (video cameras, digital camera, etc). Does that sound like the Windows version of iLife and Apple's own ecostructure (only iPod vs cameras)?

If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.

Instead Apple appears prescient in its AIO and SFF strategy for staying in the desktop market with good margins where Sony's VAIO tower strategy failed.

You can argue that Sony didn't do as good a job as Apple can and I would agree. But enough that the outcome is significantly different?

But DVD recording isn't the only area in which Sony is bringing together computing and consumer electronics. Only Apple bundles as many company-branded digital media applications--for music, photos and movies--with its consumer PCs. But many of Sony's applications are tightly tied to unique hardware features. For example, Sony's SonicStage software for managing and listening to MP3s also can record music from FM radio stations on models that come with a built-in FM receiver.

Sony's GigaPocket Personal Video Recorder software offers TiVo-like features for models packing TV tuners. Consumers can use the software for scheduling programs that can be recorded to the PC's hard drive. Sony also provides software that can be used for, among other things, editing out commercials. The consumer could then convert the show to MPEG2 and burn it to a DVD.

"One of the things Sony is going to do, being it's Sony, is to add extra value to its products to set them apart from the commodity PC market," Baker said. "Emphasizing specialized software or style gets them out of the speeds-and-feeds area and focuses the market on what Sony does best."

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-930802.html

Vinea

JeffDM

04-26-2007, 12:36 PM

If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.

I could have sworn I saw a Vaio tower at a Sony store last week, but it's not online.

For whatever Sony offers, usually the Apple counterpart is better and cheaper.

vinea

04-26-2007, 12:46 PM

I could have sworn I saw a Vaio tower at a Sony store last week, but it's not online.

For whatever Sony offers, usually the Apple counterpart is better and cheaper.

Do they still have the RC Digital Studio? I know there was a new rev in 2006 but it disappeared from the online SonyStyle store and I didn't see it at the Tysons Corner SonyStyle store. Wasn't looking for it either. I did play with their UMPC...rather cool.

http://b2b.sony.com/Solutions/category/desktops

No more RC link although the page for it still exists on the server:

http://b2b.sony.com/Solutions/subcategory/desktops/rc-series

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=cpu_VAIODesktopComputers&Dept=computers

Heh, forgot all about their $1600 round mini...

There are still a nice number of VAIO notebooks. I like their ultra-portable TX line and wish Apple had a model in the same product space.

Vinea

JeffDM

04-26-2007, 12:51 PM

There are still a nice number of VAIO notebooks. I like their ultra-portable TX line and wish Apple had a model in the same product space.

I do agree on that. Even though I expect such an Apple model to go for $2k, I think Apple could still sell a lot of ultralights just because of the size and being half the weight of their more powerful models.

I know that the computer market in Japan is depressed, but even so, I think Apple's sales there are disproportionately low there because they don't offer such a model. From what I hear from people in Japan is that the ultralight is pretty much the only type of computer that's in demand.

I think it's also possible that Apple may just be leapfrogging the ultraportable and trying to sell the iPhone to that market instead, because cell phones are where the Asian market does most of its electronic communication. iTunes' uptake is low because more people in Asia are using their phones to play music. They are also doing their text communications using their phones rather than buying computers to do the job.

mjteix

04-26-2007, 01:43 PM

Another niche market item that apple would have high margins and ASPs and compete with a company like Shuttle and not a company like Dell.

The SFF market is said to be growing. A larger SFF computer (with more drives) used to feed the apple TV fits within the product strategy better than the current Mini.

Vinea

Hello Vinea, nice to see you're back ;)

I don't think Apple should or want to compete with Dell, I think they are happy seeing Dell, HP and others fight themselves for .x% of the market.

But I like your comparaison with Shuttle, and I would like Apple to bring some models in that category as, like you said, the Mac mini doesn't cut it. In fact, nobody outside Apple knows how many minis are sold each quarter and how much it does for the current margin profits.

I really don't care which platform Apple should use for this kind of computer (Xeon or Conroe), but I really believe that a Conroe-based computer will cost Apple less to manufacture than a single CPU Xeon one, because of the cost of the chipset and RAM.

Taken in account Intel's last price cuts on desktop chips and that the Xeons have never seen their prices cut since the 5100 series launch, and that most of the components are already in Apple's inventory (HD, OD, Video cards, etc.), I really think Apple could make a "shuttle" for $999-$1999 depending on the CPU used. If Apple can manufacture a $2500 workstation with $1400 worth of CPUs inside, I really believe they can make a smaller computer for $1000 with a $200 CPU.

For what market, should you ask? I'll tell you that I am no gamer, but I really believe that it would increse sales in the small and not so small office/enterprise market. While Apple growth may be 3x the overall PC growth, it didn't change their market share a lot this quarter.

And while I think that the Mac Pro is an exceptionnally great and priced computer, it is still too expensive for most. Just think about all those creative offices, small and medium, that use (or could use) Adobe CS, FCP, Logic Pro and other solutions, that currently have no choice but the Mac Pro for real "desktop performance" and other features like easy access to internal components, maintenance, upgradability, the ability to have 2 identical displays of any size they want (try this with a 17", 24" or even a 20" iMac or any notebook), etc.

I've just visited the Shuttle web site an found a G2-3200H with a 2.40GHz Conroe, 1066FSB, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, basic ATI PCIe video card, wireless for $1300, with room for another HD and another PCI card, and there are more models with less or more features... This is basically a more powerful computer than the currently faster iMac (2.33GHz/667FSB).

...

vinea

04-26-2007, 02:39 PM

Hello Vinea, nice to see you're back ;)

Thanks. :)

But I like your comparaison with Shuttle, and I would like Apple to bring some models in that category as, like you said, the Mac mini doesn't cut it. In fact, nobody outside Apple knows how many minis are sold each quarter and how much it does for the current margin profits.

Probably wouldn't exite too many companies...besides Shuttle. :)

I really don't care which platform Apple should use for this kind of computer (Xeon or Conroe), but I really believe that a Conroe-based computer will cost Apple less to manufacture than a single CPU Xeon one, because of the cost of the chipset and RAM.

I would guess Merom if I had to for a Shuttle sized Mini. Not saying they couldn't go Conroe or Xeon but I would think they'd try to stay the same as the iMac.

I really think Apple could make a "shuttle" for $999-$1999 depending on the CPU used. If Apple can manufacture a $2500 workstation with $1400 worth of CPUs inside, I really believe they can make a smaller computer for $1000 with a $200 CPU.

If they had 1 16x PCIe slot I think most folks would be estatic...Merom, Conroe or Xeon...

And while I think that the Mac Pro is an exceptionnally great and priced computer, it is still too expensive for most.

No disagreement. A single Xeon priced like the comparable Dell Precision 490 ($1,749 for a single 2.66Ghz Xeon) would go a long way to fix this without doing anything more than adding a single BTO option to the Mac Pro line. A single 1.6 Ghz Xeon only costs $1,229from Dell...but I doubt Apple would want to go there.

I've just visited the Shuttle web site an found a G2-3200H with a 2.40GHz Conroe, 1066FSB, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, basic ATI PCIe video card, wireless for $1300, with room for another HD and another PCI card, and there are more models with less or more features... This is basically a more powerful computer than the currently faster iMac (2.33GHz/667FSB).

...

Yah...but I doubt Apple would offer something like that for less than $1499 and use a 2.16Ghz Merom vs 2.4Ghz Conroe. Just from what it might do to the iMac and PowerMac lines.

That Shuttle should destroy the 20" iMac in a head to head comparison (and benchmarks) even given you need to tack on a $200 20" widescreen flat panel from somewhere for the Shuttle. The expandability alone is to me worth $200....much less the faster Conroe.

The iMacs just aren't very good values when comparing specs.

Vinea

snoopy

04-26-2007, 02:42 PM

The SFF market is said to be growing. A larger SFF computer (with more drives) used to feed the apple TV fits within the product strategy better than the current Mini.

Here is something I think we agree upon. Yet, Apple seems to have painted itself into a corner. The Mac Mini is too small to house a very large HDD. I'd say Apple should redesign it and make it big enough to house a standard 500 GB drive. In addition, it should have room for a good cooling system, capable of handling a higher performance CPU. On-board graphics would be adequate for this market IMHO. The HDD capacity and CPU performance should be an option for the customer. Since this redesign would be larger, Apple should go ahead and include a full size optical drive as well.

The problem with this approach as I see it, is that many customers may have locked in the current Mac Mini dimensions. So, Apple may not be able to discontinue the current Mac Mini anytime soon. As demand for it decreased, Apple could eventually discontinue it, offering a last time buy for those who need something that small.

:D

vinea

04-26-2007, 03:38 PM

Here is something I think we agree upon. Yet, Apple seems to have painted itself into a corner. The Mac Mini is too small to house a very large HDD. I'd say Apple should redesign it and make it big enough to house a standard 500 GB drive. In addition, it should have room for a good cooling system, capable of handling a higher performance CPU. On-board graphics would be adequate for this market IMHO. The HDD capacity and CPU performance should be an option for the customer. Since this redesign would be larger, Apple should go ahead and include a full size optical drive as well.

Sure. Or you can take the aTV board, remove video related hardware and stick 4 drives with it, use ZFS and sell it as the iNAS.

I dunno which way is better.

The problem with this approach as I see it, is that many customers may have locked in the current Mac Mini dimensions. So, Apple may not be able to discontinue the current Mac Mini anytime soon. As demand for it decreased, Apple could eventually discontinue it, offering a last time buy for those who need something that small.

:D

Yah...there are a lot of 3rd party products designed for the mini dimensions. But they could do a lot of what you want with just height.

Vinea

Feartec

04-27-2007, 01:50 AM

BenRoethig

04-27-2007, 07:13 AM

I agree, with all of what everyone said aside from the several manufacturers one. To be honest, IMAC is perfect for just about everyone. Do you really need 4 processors? NO!!!! It's a BSD based system and unless you have VERY specific needs, IMAC or MacBook is all you need. Why is it that we always need better? We don't if we are doing the same tasks like web browsing, and basic programming. 3gb on my 2.16 GHz intel duo is all I will need for a very long time. Sit back, and enjoy technology because it will never end until the very earth stops breathing. Wait till forever my friend, it will never stop.

It's perfect if you can afford to replace a $2500 system after every refresh.

Do you want to see the perfect specs for a prosumer system than go here:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8308164&type=product&productCategoryId=pcmcat103700050071&id=1173577735222

High build quality (this is a high end boutique brand, not Dell), stylish brushed metal case, the newest technology, capable video card, large 320GB hard drive, 2GB of memory with the option to add an additional 2GB later, fast 20x desktop optical drive, not shortage of USB2 and firewire ports, 5.1 audio, and lot of of room for expansion so you don't need a large surge protector and an army of external devices/ The only thing its missing is OSX and an Apple logo. I'd be willing to spend an additional $200 to get this system in a Mac Pro case. What I'm not willing to do is spend $1000 more on a laptop with a 24" display that I'll have to replace in a much quicker time frame.

rickag

04-27-2007, 08:57 AM

Arguably, notebooks are an area where Apple can be price competitive and is a high growth area where gains can be made without trying to take share away from an incumbent.

600,000 people per quarter disagree with this assessment.

What it says to me that Apple has optimized its entire product line to support the pc growth area where it is price competitive and this has paid handsome dividends.Vinea
No, what it says is that when offering what people want Apple gains market share. When they offer what is considered odd and unacceptable they maintain what meager market they have.

Intel has stated it offers no pricing discounts except on the basis of volume. Apple has a strategy that by accident or plan maximizes its mobile parts volume by leveraging an additional 600K desktop sales as much as feasible to reduce its notebook component costs.

The notebook market is not as price sensitive as the desktop market. Yet.

Dell, HP and other commodity makers have not engaged in the pricing war to make the notebook market a commodity one. Yet. Premium brand notebook makers still exist. Don't expect this condition to last more than a few years. In time we will be having the same discussion about traditional notebooks and how Apple only offers UMPCs, ultrathin notebooks and phones. I suppose some folks already gripe that Apple has no desktop replacement notebook offering so this has already started.

Rather than conceed the desktop market entirely as Sony has effectively done, Apple offers SFF and AIO products that are sufficiently competitive that they have significant sales. It then uses these sales to optimize its ability to compete in the notebook market.

Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market.

Vinea
Absolutely nothing you posted in your list explains Apple's desktop offerings other than milk the faithful. Not my problem, not the consumers problem.

rickag

04-27-2007, 09:12 AM

I did. Dell makes its margins in the workstation and server markets. Not the lower end tower markets. The 18% is the average of its gross profits across all product lines.

We know that they aren't making 18% in the entry market where their volume is largest. Therefore the margins in the workstation and server markets are far higher than 18%. This is also why IBM is still competitive in the medium server markets.Vinea
So, we know that Dell sells one heck of a lot more towers than Apple and according to your hypothesis, Apples margins on the tower are lower than Dell's because they obtain lower pricing on the cpus.

Then it follows that for Apple's premium low volume brand, the Mac Pro, Apple is willing to sacrifice margins for sales, BUT for the largest volume desktop market Apple is going to extraordinary effort to use HIGHER PRICED cpus, hard-drives and ram in desktops to maintain margins on laptops(milk the faithful).

No, but I bet there are plenty of examples where folks have stated "I guess I'll buy this cheaper HP tower rather than this more expensive VAIO tower with the same specs".

The tower market completely ignored Sony's out of box advantage in DVD recording/authoring, digital media hub and integration with Sony lifestyle products (video cameras, digital camera, etc). Does that sound like the Windows version of iLife and Apple's own ecostructure (only iPod vs cameras)?

If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.

Instead Apple appears prescient in its AIO and SFF strategy for staying in the desktop market with good margins where Sony's VAIO tower strategy failed.

You can argue that Sony didn't do as good a job as Apple can and I would agree. But enough that the outcome is significantly different?
And their desktop market share is stagnant. Bet the current market on their prognostications, that's not prescient that's a gamble.

But DVD recording isn't the only area in which Sony is bringing together computing and consumer electronics. Only Apple bundles as many company-branded digital media applications--for music, photos and movies--with its consumer PCs. But many of Sony's applications are tightly tied to unique hardware features. For example, Sony's SonicStage software for managing and listening to MP3s also can record music from FM radio stations on models that come with a built-in FM receiver.

Sony's GigaPocket Personal Video Recorder software offers TiVo-like features for models packing TV tuners. Consumers can use the software for scheduling programs that can be recorded to the PC's hard drive. Sony also provides software that can be used for, among other things, editing out commercials. The consumer could then convert the show to MPEG2 and burn it to a DVD.

"One of the things Sony is going to do, being it's Sony, is to add extra value to its products to set them apart from the commodity PC market," Baker said. "Emphasizing specialized software or style gets them out of the speeds-and-feeds area and focuses the market on what Sony does best."

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-930802.html

Vinea
So now there is possibly a huge corporation that is going to try and go head to head against Apple's target market AND IS WILLING TO DO SO AT LOWER MARGINS. Not a good thing.

fisha

04-27-2007, 09:16 AM

# Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market

But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.

Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable. Apple are often viewed in that of category. So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.

I do think there is a reasonable market out there for a mid sized desktop. I dont think i'm alone. The MacPro is too much but i love the style of it, the Mini too little capacity but again i like the style, and the iMac to stylised for my personal liking and i dont want the all in one.

If apple could release a product that could take 3.5" HDD for large capacity, and a bit of a beefier graphics card then i'd be all for it. Heck . . . i'd even take a MacPro cut down.

Throw the iMac internals into a MacPro case ( not hard ) offer it for a little less than the equivalent iMac ( so that its a small jump to get the all in one with a display ), possibly limit the number of drive slots ( not hard ) and your sorted.

To me, that would sit just right to fill the hole. Something powerful enough to do decent basic video work and photo work, but also allow my own choices of external hardware. ( monitors )

rickag

04-27-2007, 09:24 AM

It is painfully obvious that posters trying to defend Apple's desktop strategy have to go to extraordinary, often irrational lengths to explain this oddity.

I fear it is Steve Jobs obsession with the concept that for the consumer a computer should be like an appliance. Regrettably, it is not and in the foreseeable future will not be.

I can almost accept the rationalizations of protecting margins for certain products, but when Apple announces 35% margins, then I can only remember reading stories of Apple past, chuckling to themselves at their high margins of long ago which resulted in losing the computer and OS wars.

5% market share won't cut it in the long run. Maybe that's why Apple is so bent on the iPod and iPhone projects.

rickag

04-27-2007, 09:31 AM

But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.

Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable. Apple are often viewed in that of category. So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.

I do think there is a reasonable market out there for a mid sized desktop. I dont think i'm alone. The MacPro is too much but i love the style of it, the Mini too little capacity but again i like the style, and the iMac to stylised for my personal liking and i dont want the all in one.

If apple could release a product that could take 3.5" HDD for large capacity, and a bit of a beefier graphics card then i'd be all for it. Heck . . . i'd even take a MacPro cut down.

Throw the iMac internals into a MacPro case ( not hard ) offer it for a little less than the equivalent iMac ( so that its a small jump to get the all in one with a display ), possibly limit the number of drive slots ( not hard ) and your sorted.

To me, that would sit just right to fill the hole. Something powerful enough to do decent basic video work and photo work, but also allow my own choices of external hardware. ( monitors )
agreed.

I highlighted your statement concerning premium placed on certain brands. Just the fact that Apple has sold ~600,000 computers this last quarter proves it. The logical extension of that is how many more computers could Apple sell if they offered what people either want or PERCEIVE what they want.

And, what is the WORST CASE SENARIO? Apple's profits tumble, the iMac and Mac mini sales drop. Apple's reaction, and it could be very swift, could be to discontinue the mythical xMac. Apple is taking a much larger risk with the iPhone.

BenRoethig

04-27-2007, 10:57 AM

agreed.

I highlighted your statement concerning premium placed on certain brands. Just the fact that Apple has sold ~600,000 computers this last quarter proves it. The logical extension of that is how many more computers could Apple sell if they offered what people either want or PERCEIVE what they want.

And, what is the WORST CASE SENARIO? Apple's profits tumble, the iMac and Mac mini sales drop. Apple's reaction, and it could be very swift, could be to discontinue the mythical xMac. Apple is taking a much larger risk with the iPhone.

Yes we are looking for a premium product at a premium price. Companies like Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell, etc. also offer premium products at a premium price. what to do not do is force the user to buy a type of computer the buyer is not interested in.

vinea

04-27-2007, 11:03 AM

So, we know that Dell sells one heck of a lot more towers than Apple and according to your hypothesis, Apples margins on the tower are lower than Dell's because they obtain lower pricing on the cpus.

Then it follows that for Apple's premium low volume brand, the Mac Pro, Apple is willing to sacrifice margins for sales, BUT for the largest volume desktop market Apple is going to extraordinary effort to use HIGHER PRICED cpus, hard-drives and ram in desktops to maintain margins on laptops(milk the faithful).

No. Dell's margins are comparable to Apples in the workstation market. Dell's volume sales in Conroe based machines and motherboards are much higher than their volumes in servers and workstations that are Xeon based. This is pretty well accepted. THIS is why the Mac Pro is competitive. Mac Pro volumes are not so much lower that Dell can have a huge cost advantage.

Apple is NOT sacrificing margins for sales in the workstation market. Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.

That Apple is using Merom vs Conroe in the iMacs are I think a combination of heat and the ability to maximize Merom buys. It makes them appear much larger to Intel when ordering mobile parts.

So now there is possibly a huge corporation that is going to try and go head to head against Apple's target market AND IS WILLING TO DO SO AT LOWER MARGINS. Not a good thing.

Of course. Dell and HP aren't stupid...they know the notebooks are the next battleground and they will use their corporate strengths to their advantage. When you see folks like Toshiba, NEC, etc drop from the plain jane notebook market expect Apple to follow not too distantly.

Folks wonder what Apple is going to do with that huge warchest. I think they know that they need to get multi-touch tablets or something that will diffentiate them from Dell and HP within one or two generations. Notebooks are approaching commodity items but moving into the commodity tower market is not helpful.

Edit: No I misread your comment. Sony DROPPED OUT OF THE TOWER MARKET. How is that hard to miss? They TRIED THE STRATEGY YOU WANT WITH MANY OF THE SAME ADVANTAGES THAT APPLE HAS AND FAILED MISERABLY.

Sorry for yelling but I've made this point several times and somehow you keep not reading it.

Vinea

JeffDM

04-27-2007, 11:11 AM

Yes we are looking for a premium product at a premium price. Companies like Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell, etc. also offer premium products at a premium price. what to do not do is force the user to buy a type of computer the buyer is not interested in.

In all fairness, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything, but I do agree that Apple's product line is a tad limited, leaving not many good options to a home power user that might consider an Apple. How big that market is kind of hard to guage though. Apple used to have a $1500 UP tower, but then, performance wise, it wasn't allowed to be much better than an iMac of the same price.

vinea

04-27-2007, 11:12 AM

But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.

Really? Because the market spoke definitively on IBM's desktop and Sony's VAIO desktops. Notice the complete lack of any IBM PCs at all? And Sony is just doing AIOs and notebooks?

Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable.

Evidently not the demographic that buys tower PCs. The demographic that buys AIOs and SFF computers seem to agree a premium is acceptable.

Apple are often viewed in that of category.

So is Sony.

So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.

They might not be surprised or bothered but other than current Mac owners they aren't going to be that inclined to buy either. If that's the case then all it means is lower ASPs, lower revenue, lower mobile part volume and higher costs for Apple notebooks.

The truth is somewhere in between but the downsides appear to be real enough that Apple isn't going to change its mind anytime soon. IF they DO change their mind dump your Apple stock...because Jobs wont be at the helm when it happens.

Vinea

vinea

04-27-2007, 11:16 AM

It is painfully obvious that posters trying to defend Apple's desktop strategy have to go to extraordinary, often irrational lengths to explain this oddity.

This "oddity" is the same decision that every non-commodity PC maker made in the past. Not one still makes towers.

Explain that. No IBM, Sony, Toshiba, NEC, Fujitsu, etc...

Apple has bucked the trend in finding a premium desktop strategy that actually sells 600K units/qtr in the face of $300 towers. Yeah, that's a little odd...but in a good way.

Vinea

BenRoethig

04-27-2007, 11:18 AM

No. Dell's margins are comparable to Apples in the workstation market. Dell's volume sales in Conroe based machines and motherboards are much higher than their volumes in servers and workstations that are Xeon based. This is pretty well accepted. THIS is why the Mac Pro is competitive. Mac Pro volumes are not so much lower that Dell can have a huge cost advantage.

Apple is NOT sacrificing margins for sales in the workstation market. Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.

That Apple is using Merom vs Conroe in the iMacs are I think a combination of heat and the ability to maximize Merom buys. It makes them appear much larger to Intel when ordering mobile parts.

Of course. Dell and HP aren't stupid...they know the notebooks are the next battleground and they will use their corporate strengths to their advantage. When you see folks like Toshiba, NEC, etc drop from the plain jane notebook market expect Apple to follow not too distantly.

Folks wonder what Apple is going to do with that huge warchest. I think they know that they need to get multi-touch tablets or something that will diffentiate them from Dell and HP within one or two generations. Notebooks are approaching commodity items but moving into the commodity tower market is not helpful.

Edit: No I misread your comment. Sony DROPPED OUT OF THE TOWER MARKET. How is that hard to miss? They TRIED THE STRATEGY YOU WANT WITH MANY OF THE SAME ADVANTAGES THAT APPLE HAS AND FAILED MISERABLY.

Sorry for yelling but I've made this point several times and somehow you keep not reading it.

Vinea

That's all good for Apple's profits (then again, they would be making more profits at 10%) and people who use Macs as some kind of religious crusade, but it doesn't quite do for those of us who are looking a superior computer, it doesn't quite cut it. You're trying to use value companies like Dell and extremely overpriced value companies like Sony as an example that nobody wants a tower.

Look at the end of the day fanatics aren't going to change the minds of reasonable people or vice versa, so there isn't much point of arguing.

vinea

04-27-2007, 11:28 AM

Yes we are looking for a premium product at a premium price. Companies like Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell, etc. also offer premium products at a premium price.

Alienware...purchased by Dell.
Velocity Micro, Polywell...premium brand? Hardly.

Folks have heard of Sony, Apple, Toshiba, IBM, Porsche, BMW, Lexus, Rolex, Cartier, Pellegrino, Prada, Perry Ellis, Hilfiger, Versace, Lear, Gulfstream, H&K, Beretta, Nordstroms, etc

Who the heck is Velocity Micro? Whitebox maker with pretensions. At least folks had heard of Alienware.

Again, find me a premium brand maker that still sells a tower.

Vinea

snoopy

04-27-2007, 11:30 AM

Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market.

Vinea

I missed this statement until fisha highlighted it. Normally I dislike car analogies, but:

Following this logic, since BMW is not a commodity manufacturer, BMW wisely avoids the commodity sedan market!

:lol:

vinea

04-27-2007, 11:36 AM

That's all good for Apple's profits (then again, they would be making more profits at 10%) and people who use Macs as some kind of religious crusade, but it doesn't quite do for those of us who are looking a superior computer, it doesn't quite cut it.

Almost every Apple computer is best in class (or danged close). They don't offer many or the one you want but almost the entire product line is a "superior computer".

You're trying to use value companies like Dell and extremely overpriced value companies like Sony as an example that nobody wants a tower.

Lots of folks want a tower. Never disputed. They buy them from Dell and HP and very few from a non-commodity maker. Apple, and other premium brands, are by definition "overpriced".

Look at the end of the day fanatics aren't going to change the minds of reasonable people or vice versa, so there isn't much point of arguing.

Nope. But if you don't want the discussion don't ask WHY Apple doesn't have a mid-tower as people have repeatedly. Don't get all surprised when folks answer.

If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.

The position of most folks that don't see the xMac in the cards don't mind if it appeared but just don't think its likely AND there are good reasons why. Its not just a whim of Jobs and Apple. Its the same decision every other major player in the market made after the price wars started in the desktop market. Consumers are conditioned to pay very little for quite a lot of capability in that form factor.

Vinea

vinea

04-27-2007, 11:41 AM

I missed this statement until fisha highlighted it. Normally I dislike car analogies, but:

Following this logic, since BMW is not a commodity manufacturer, BMW wisely avoids the commodity sedan market!

:lol:

It does avoid the commodity sedan market. It's in the sports and luxury sedan market. Notice this is a different market than the Civic or even Accord? Even the Mini Cooper is marketed as a "premium" brand in the US.

Vinea

BenRoethig

04-27-2007, 11:42 AM

Alienware...purchased by Dell.
Velocity Micro, Polywell...premium brand? Hardly.

Folks have heard of Sony, Apple, Toshiba, IBM, Porsche, BMW, Lexus, Rolex, Cartier, Pellegrino, Prada, Perry Ellis, Hilfiger, Versace, Lear, Gulfstream, H&K, Beretta, Nordstroms, etc

Who the heck is Velocity Micro? Whitebox maker with pretensions. At least folks had heard of Alienware.

Again, find me a premium brand maker that still sells a tower.

Vinea

So, what your saying here is Apple is the only premium maker in your mind.

BenRoethig

04-27-2007, 11:44 AM

It does. It's in the sports and luxury sedan market. Notice this is a different market than the Civic or even Accord? Even the Mini Cooper is marketed as a "premium" brand in the US.

Vinea

We're not debating the premiumness

A Sedan with a better interior is still a sedan. What Apple is trying to do is make us choose between a 3-door hatch and the X5.

BenRoethig

04-27-2007, 11:46 AM

Almost every Apple computer is best in class (or danged close). They don't offer many or the one you want but almost the entire product line is a "superior computer".

Lots of folks want a tower. Never disputed. They buy them from Dell and HP and very few from a non-commodity maker. Apple, and other premium brands, are by definition "overpriced".

Nope. But if you don't want the discussion don't ask WHY Apple doesn't have a mid-tower as people have repeatedly. Don't get all surprised when folks answer.

If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.

The position of most folks that don't see the xMac in the cards don't mind if it appeared but just don't think its likely AND there are good reasons why. Its not just a whim of Jobs and Apple. Its the same decision every other major player in the market made after the price wars started in the desktop market. Consumers are conditioned to pay very little for quite a lot of capability in that form factor.

Vinea

Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again? Better yet, where are these cutting edge designs that they're replacing them with? You say Apple is not a commodity maker, then when countered with boutique companies you dismiss them as irrelevant and counter with companies like IBM, Toshiba, and Sony who were never premium computer makers and in the case of Toshiba never to my knowledge ever made a desktop. Look, if AIOs were really want prosumers wanted, they'd be all over the place and if everyone who wanted a premium tower needed a workstation the premium boutique makers wouldn't sell conroe machines. This is justify another attempt to justify a belief that Apple is perfect and cannot make mistakes. If they can't make mistakes, therefore everyone who doesn't agree with Apple must be in the wrong.

vinea

04-27-2007, 12:22 PM

So, what your saying here is Apple is the only premium maker in your mind.

What I'm saying NOW is that you aren't even reading my posts.

Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again?

It's in the post you quoted. IBM, Sony, Toshiba...none sell into the mid-range tower market. IBM might have a workstation buried in their line somwhere but they sold their PC business to Lenovo including their valuable ThinkPad brand. Sony's last VAIO tower is no longer linked on their site or sold in their SonyStyle (online) store. Toshiba stopped making desktops in 2001.

These aren't "major" players. The major players are Dell and HP. These are "premium" players that have high margins and good branding.

Fujitsu-Siemens and NEC surprisingly still have towers. Where the heck you would buy them in the US beats me. Evidently the Fujitsu is still available for enterprise customers and NEC has some presence in Europe. Both tout the greeness of their computers. I guess that's a selling point in Europe.

Vinea

vinea

04-27-2007, 12:25 PM

We're not debating the premiumness

A Sedan with a better interior is still a sedan. What Apple is trying to do is make us choose between a 3-door hatch and the X5.

The Mac Pro is a tower. Just one you don't like the price or the "sport/luxury" aspect with the Xeon engine and FB-DIMM suspension.

Vinea

snoopy

04-27-2007, 01:56 PM

The Mac Pro is a tower. Just one you don't like the price or the "sport/luxury" aspect with the Xeon engine and FB-DIMM suspension.

Vinea

Analogies break down, which is why I don't like them generally. Most of us make a distinction between a Workstation and a Tower, which may be closer to comparing an SUV and Sedan, and you can buy a luxury or cheap model in either case.

The point is simply that Apple could offer a better tower at a higher price, and people would buy it.

:D

rickag

04-27-2007, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by vinea
No. Dell's margins are comparable to Apples in the workstation market. Dell's volume sales in Conroe based machines and motherboards are much higher than their volumes in servers and workstations that are Xeon based. This is pretty well accepted. THIS is why the Mac Pro is competitive. Mac Pro volumes are not so much lower that Dell can have a huge cost advantage.

Apple is NOT sacrificing margins for sales in the workstation market. Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.

That Apple is using Merom vs Conroe in the iMacs are I think a combination of heat and the ability to maximize Merom buys. It makes them appear much larger to Intel when ordering mobile parts.

Apple's Workstation, the Mac Pro, is less expensive than Dell's, in some price comparisons done online it is as much as $1000 less expensive in certain configurations. That's huge. Apple can accomplish this in one of two ways. Either their manufacturing efficiency is that much greater or they are sacrificing margins. Your argument is wrong.

You said it and I quote," Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.. So Apple lowers their margins in order to sell workstations, yes or no? And I completely dispute your statement that Dell's dont have a huge cost advantage, heck, the aluminum tower alone gives them a huge cost advantage.

Makes them appear much larger to Intel, what you think Intel can't add? I don't presume to know the price breaks that Intel offers, as you do, but there are computer manufactures out there smaller than Apple that compete very well. Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell were mentioned by BenRoethig. You think Dell bought Alienware because their margins were low? Did Alienware sell more computers than Apple? I don't know but I'll bet their volume discounts were closer to what Apple may be getting than what Dell does.

Originally Posted by vinea
Of course. Dell and HP aren't stupid...they know the notebooks are the next battleground and they will use their corporate strengths to their advantage. When you see folks like Toshiba, NEC, etc drop from the plain jane notebook market expect Apple to follow not too distantly.

Folks wonder what Apple is going to do with that huge warchest. I think they know that they need to get multi-touch tablets or something that will diffentiate them from Dell and HP within one or two generations. Notebooks are approaching commodity items but moving into the commodity tower market is not helpful.

Edit: No I misread your comment. Sony DROPPED OUT OF THE TOWER MARKET. How is that hard to miss? They TRIED THE STRATEGY YOU WANT WITH MANY OF THE SAME ADVANTAGES THAT APPLE HAS AND FAILED MISERABLY.

Sorry for yelling but I've made this point several times and somehow you keep not reading it.

I didn't miss anything and I read it. It makes no sense, unless you subscribe the "milk the faithful reasoning."

It is the IMPLICATION that YOU BROUGHT UP that Sony has decided to target the upscale AIO market, that Apple currently only offers in higher end consumer computers, that is relevant to my statement,"So now there is possibly a huge corporation that is going to try and go head to head against Apple's target market AND IS WILLING TO DO SO AT LOWER MARGINS. Not a good thing.".

Sony's AIO may survive. But their RM series will be still born. $3500 for a Intel Core 2 Duo processor and no FireWire 800 port. This product is priced for the professional but is configured for the hobbyist. The only thing I can gather is that Sony is so screwed up now as to be useless for discussion.

rickag

04-27-2007, 02:06 PM

...
If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.
Vinea
This is so totally wrong. No, people that have Macs do so for the OS and many settle on the hardware. Milk the faithful strategy that you are so good at pointing to, but in obtuse wording as to hide it.

rickag

04-27-2007, 02:09 PM

Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again? Better yet, where are these cutting edge designs that they're replacing them with? You say Apple is not a commodity maker, then when countered with boutique companies you dismiss them as irrelevant and counter with companies like IBM, Toshiba, and Sony who were never premium computer makers and in the case of Toshiba never to my knowledge ever made a desktop. Look, if AIOs were really want prosumers wanted, they'd be all over the place and if everyone who wanted a premium tower needed a workstation the premium boutique makers wouldn't sell conroe machines. This is justify another attempt to justify a belief that Apple is perfect and cannot make mistakes. If they can't make mistakes, therefore everyone who doesn't agree with Apple must be in the wrong.
Really true, and the anti xMac posters continue to dance around the Apple must protect margin argument yet never just come out and say it for what it is - milk the faithful.

vinea

04-27-2007, 02:21 PM

Analogies break down, which is why I don't like them generally. Most of us make a distinction between a Workstation and a Tower, which may be closer to comparing an SUV and Sedan, and you can buy a luxury or cheap model in either case.

The point is simply that Apple could offer a better tower at a higher price, and people would buy it.

:D

I'm not the one that trying to show that BMW competes directly with Honda because they both make sedans.

Your analogy...too bad it doesn't support your thesis very well.

The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.

If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting then explain why IBM sold it off to Lenovo, Sony only has AIOs in its remaining desktop lineup and Toshiba bailed entirely?

Are IBM, Sony, Toshiba and Apple all idiots for missing such a golden market? Or maybe those guys have put a little more analysis into it than you guys?

Vinea

rickag

04-27-2007, 02:39 PM

...
The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.

If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting then explain why IBM sold it off to Lenovo, Sony only has AIOs in its remaining desktop lineup and Toshiba bailed entirely?

Are IBM, Sony, Toshiba and Apple all idiots for missing such a golden market? Or maybe those guys have put a little more analysis into it than you guys?

Vinea
If Alienware was in such dire straits, please please explain to me why Dell bought them.

You keep bringing up IBM, yet it doesn't fit. Lenovo bought IBM's desktop computer line and is doing quite well thank you very much.

And yes Sony is a bunch of idiots and seems to be run by the content side of the business right now, to the extreme detriment of the manufacturing side of the business.

vinea

04-27-2007, 02:46 PM

Apple's Workstation, the Mac Pro, is less expensive than Dell's, in some price comparisons done online it is as much as $1000 less expensive in certain configurations. That's huge. Apple can accomplish this in one of two ways. Either their manufacturing efficiency is that much greater or they are sacrificing margins. Your argument is wrong.

You said it and I quote," Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.. So Apple lowers their margins in order to sell workstations, yes or no? And I completely dispute your statement that Dell's dont have a huge cost advantage, heck, the aluminum tower alone gives them a huge cost advantage.

Apple does not "sacrifice" its margins on the Mac Pro. Dell simply cannot be profitable without having some high margin items in its lineup. It has high margin items in its workstation and servers. Apple competes with Dell only in these areas. Not where the margins are thin. Why? Because it fits their corporate strategy and strenghts.

How is this hard to understand? Apple targets 28% margins across the entire lineup, higher ASPs and smaller volume. Dell shoots for higher volume, low ASPs and margins that range from razor thin in the $300 PC market all the way beyond Apple levels at the high end.

It is highly unlikely that Apple (or anyone) can get 28% margins in the $1000 tower market and it sure as hell is true that Dell ISN'T getting 28% margins in their $1000 towers. Yet most if not every proponent of the xMac INSISTS that Apple can magically make $1000 towers at 28% margins and gain share.

Makes them appear much larger to Intel, what you think Intel can't add? I don't presume to know the price breaks that Intel offers, as you do, but there are computer manufactures out there smaller than Apple that compete very well.

It has been documented that Intel has stated they make no discounts except on volume to avoid any more legal entanglements.

Intel can add. That's the entire point. They can see that 2M units of mobile parts is larger than 1.5M units of mobile parts. They don't CARE if Apple uses them for notebooks or AIOs. All they care about is volume.

Dell and HP make more notebooks than Apple. Their notebook growths are also no anemic. The 500K notebooks/qtr only helps level the field and delay the inevitable.

I didn't miss anything and I read it. It makes no sense, unless you subscribe the "milk the faithful reasoning."

It is the IMPLICATION that YOU BROUGHT UP that Sony has decided to target the upscale AIO market, that Apple currently only offers in higher end consumer computers, that is relevant to my statement,"So now there is possibly a huge corporation that is going to try and go head to head against Apple's target market AND IS WILLING TO DO SO AT LOWER MARGINS. Not a good thing.".

Sony has had an AIO in their line up for a long time. Thier AIO is far less capable than the iMac and more expensive. That's hardly "willing to do so at lower margins".

The article does not speak to the AIO but rather the towers they had and their media centric strategy.

The point is that only the AIO remains and not the towers...not even the Sony faithful purchased Sony towers and they were actually pretty nice.

Sony's AIO may survive. But their RM series will be still born. $3500 for a Intel Core 2 Duo processor and no FireWire 800 port. This product is priced for the professional but is configured for the hobbyist. The only thing I can gather is that Sony is so screwed up now as to be useless for discussion.

Sony had mid-priced VAIO towers. Just look at reviews for them in the 2000-2004 timeframe.

Vinea

PS Don't like being "milked"? Don't buy. Let the market decide. Somehow though, it seems Apple is doing awesome with its current strategy.

vinea

04-27-2007, 02:51 PM

If Alienware was in such dire straits, please please explain to me why Dell bought them.

Dell was looking for a strategy to not suck. It wasn't the greatest aquisition for them but not the worst. For whatever reason they couldn't seem to get their XPS brand as cool as Alienware.

Why they cared...I dunno. Read the Alienware interviews. They had always been undercapitalized and only moved like 50K units a year.

You keep bringing up IBM, yet it doesn't fit. Lenovo bought IBM's desktop computer line and is doing quite well thank you very much.

As a commodity PC maker with thin margins yes. As a "premium" brand like IBM or Apple? No, don't think so even if they still have the powerful ThinkPad brand.

And yes Sony is a bunch of idiots and seems to be run by the content side of the business right now, to the extreme detriment of the manufacturing side of the business.

Mkay. So what of IBM, Toshiba and Apple? No clearly these guys have no clue about the PC markets.

Vinea

vinea

04-27-2007, 02:57 PM

This is so totally wrong. No, people that have Macs do so for the OS and many settle on the hardware. Milk the faithful strategy that you are so good at pointing to, but in obtuse wording as to hide it.

So why are you being dumb and getting "milked"? Do you REALLY think OSX is that much superior to Ubuntu or Vista that you're a willing rube?

Apple is no more "milking" the faithful than BMW or any other premium brand. Yes, you do pay more for an incremental gain over commodity items. Do you really think the 3 series is actually twice the car as the civic? Or designer clothing, while better made with better materials, is really worth the premium of the label?

No.

These are luxury items for most and if you're buying it for professional reasons then you are only doing so because it represents good value vs their competitors.

Vinea

snoopy

04-28-2007, 01:11 AM

The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.

These other manufacturers were not Apple. These other manufacturers were competing with other Windows PC makers. No one competes with Apple in Mac OS X space. (Beside that, as someone pointed out, better quality tower makers may not do so badly in Windows world either.)

If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting . . .

Well, you messed that one up right off the starting block. I don't remember anyone claiming it is a lucrative market. It's just a very big market. There are lots of customers for a consumer/prosumer tower, so competition is fierce, and it is NOT lucrative. Everyone wants a piece of this Windows market.

On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far. You could argue that Mac users don't want a mini tower, but who will believe you?

Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out.

Your analogy...too bad it doesn't support your thesis very well.

I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.

:D

vinea

04-28-2007, 01:45 AM

These other manufacturers were not Apple. These other manufacturers were competing with other Windows PC makers. No one competes with Apple in Mac OS X space.

Apple competes in the larger market. Folks complain that the lack of a $1000 tower means that Apple is not competitive vs the Windows PC makers.

Therefore any Apple tower offering would be compared to their equivalent PC offerings if the objective is to get more switchers (increase share).

We have seen that premium brand towers have not fared well in the larger market with the significant premium brand makers exiting the market.

Within the OSX space the towers would compete with the iMac and Mac Pro. Given that only the edu iMac is priced at $1000 AND AIOs are not very attractive vs towers then the only reasonable conclusion is that within the OSX space the towers would eliminate the majority of iMac sales.

This would reduce ASPs and revenue even if margins were maintained.

Call it milking the faithful if you like but the bottom line is that it would be a bad business decision.

Well, you messed that one up right off the starting block. I don't remember anyone claiming it is a lucrative market. It's just a very big market. There are lots of customers for a consumer/prosumer tower, so competition is fierce, and it is NOT lucrative. Everyone wants a piece of this Windows market.

If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lucrative

I'll agree that the low and mid end tower market isn't all that profitable.

I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.

:D

Dell and HP are like Honda and Toyota.

BMW does not directly compete with Honda and Toyota except with their luxury divisions: Acura and Lexus.

Likewise Apple does not directly compete with Dell or HP except within their high end lines/divisions.

What you are complaining about is that BMW doesn't make a sedan like the Civic but only cars that compete with the luxury and sport sedans/SUVs in the Acura line.

That's the whole point of a premium/high end brand! Low volume, high margins. Quality over quantity. Better performance for a lot more money.

Vinea

BenRoethig

04-28-2007, 07:42 AM

I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.
:D

I look at it this way:

iMac: Subaru Baja
Conroe Mac: Pickup
Mac Pro: 18-wheeler.

BenRoethig

04-28-2007, 07:59 AM

Apple competes in the larger market.

Yes and no. If the user wants Mac OS X over the crapshoot called windows, they have no choice but to take what Apple gives them or just not come at all. With Apple were to let others sell Mac OS X on more suitable hardware that would be a different matter, but they don't.

Folks complain that the lack of a $1000 tower means that Apple is not competitive vs the Windows PC makers.

As for the not being competitive, the 5% for the platform speaks for itself. I would expect a company with Apple's advantages to be closer to 15-20%. Also, When did we say we were looking a $1000 tower? Once again you're confusing prosumers with budget users and making assumptions based on your own biases.

Mac Pro Core 2 Duo
P965 chipset.
2.4ghz core 2 Duo (2.13, 2.67 BTO)
1GB DDR2 667mhz RAM (4 slots, up to 8GB)
250GB hard drive (3 extra slots)
16x superdrive
256mb GeForce 8300GT (256mb 8600GT, 640MB 8800GTS BTO)
3 PCI-E x1 slots.
Bluetooth/Airport Extreme-N BTO
$1499-1699.

snoopy

04-28-2007, 11:02 AM

If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...

According to the Mac dictionary, lucrative means:

producing a great deal of profit

This is how I used the word. In my example, the Windows consumer/prosumer tower market is not what I'd call lucrative. It is profitable only because it does not operate in the red, and I'm not so sure of that from remarks on this forum.

Why should Apple pursue it? Because Apple should make a prosumer mini tower and ignore the very low end tower, like below $700 or there about. A prosumer Mac tower could be as profitable as any other Mac.

:)

vinea

04-28-2007, 11:13 AM

Also, When did we say we were looking a $1000 tower? Once again you're confusing prosumers with budget users and making assumptions based on your own biases.

Ben read the thread. Page one starting as early as post #16 (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1070461&postcount=16).

As far as "prosumers" a single Xeon BTO in the $1499-$1699 range would work. Never argued against that.

Vinea

BenRoethig

04-28-2007, 11:35 AM

Ben read the thread. Page one starting as early as post #16 (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1070461&postcount=16).

As far as "prosumers" a single Xeon BTO in the $1499-$1699 range would work. Never argued against that.

Vinea

You're still looking at a CPU and RAM that is twice as expensive as the desktop versions.

You can get xeon machine at that price, but you're looking at a 2.0ghz machine that because of memory latency might not be all that much faster in non-graphic intensive programs than the $1299 Macbook I'm buying next week. That's a pretty horrible deal for $1500. Then again, that is why Intel developed actual desktop parts and every other computer company on the planet uses them.

snoopy

04-28-2007, 11:47 AM

Apple competes in the larger market. . .

Therefore any Apple tower offering would be compared to their equivalent PC offerings if the objective is to get more switchers (increase share).

Not so in my opinion. Your statement would be true if a Windows user was looking at a Mac mini tower to run Window, only. Few would suggest such a scenario. Rather, we speak of a prosumer Mac tower in regard to two groups, existing Mac users, and those interested in switching from Window OS to Mac OS X.

In these cases, a Mac costs a little more, usually, and this is true whether it is an iMac or the mini tower that many of us have been promoting. I believe this point gets overlooked or ignored over and over in criticizing a Mac mini tower.

Why is it that you say a Mac mini tower cannot compete with Windows products, while an iMac is competitive? This notion make no sense, especially in light of the popularity of towers on the Windows side, and the low sales of Windows AIOs.

:err:

snoopy

04-28-2007, 12:52 PM

Really, you guys have to realize that the market for the computer you want is small unless the price is very low, in which case there's not a lot of incentive for Apple to get into that market.

We are speaking of the consumer/prosumer tower market, which is a very big Windows market, even if we count just those priced above say $700. How can you say a market for a prosumer Mac tower would be s small? When we become Mac users we don't automatically alter our hardware preferences.

:???:

vinea

04-28-2007, 01:48 PM

Not so in my opinion. Your statement would be true if a Windows user was looking at a Mac mini tower to run Window, only. Few would suggest such a scenario. Rather, we speak of a prosumer Mac tower in regard to two groups, existing Mac users, and those interested in switching from Window OS to Mac OS X.

The reviews of the Mac Pro tend to discuss performance and price vs their Dell counterparts. The OS is a non-factor in many comparisons.

This would likely also be the scenario with any Apple tower since a direct apples to apples comparison is possible.

In these cases, a Mac costs a little more, usually, and this is true whether it is an iMac or the mini tower that many of us have been promoting. I believe this point gets overlooked or ignored over and over in criticizing a Mac mini tower.

It is NOT ignored. The point is that an Apple tower in the price points that have been discussed ($1K) would compare very poorly against their Dell counterparts. Apple can be competitive in the $1499 region if it chooses the battleground. In other words with a Mac Pro and NOT a Mac mini tower running Conroe.

The comparison vs Dell would be Xeon vs Xeon and Apple would compare well. Apple pushing a mid-priced Conroe tower plays directly into the strengths of Dell and HP and into the weaknesses of Apple.

Why is it that you say a Mac mini tower cannot compete with Windows products, while an iMac is competitive? This notion make no sense, especially in light of the popularity of towers on the Windows side, and the low sales of Windows AIOs.

:err:

The notion makes no sense because I never said that and it's a strawman. Find where I say an iMac is competitive vs a tower? In fact I say the exact opposite.

What I DO say is that the AIO (and SFF) form factor hides this disparity better since a direct comparison is not as easy and the form factor provides real value for those that an AIO works well either from an aesthetic or space perspective.

But from a pure functionality vs price (ie bang for the buck) comparison perspective a tower wins. Fortunately an AIO and SFF computer is not judged as heavily from a pure functionality (spec) perspective.

Vinea

snoopy

04-28-2007, 02:49 PM

The reviews of the Mac Pro tend to discuss performance and price vs their Dell counterparts. The OS is a non-factor in many comparisons.

This would likely also be the scenario with any Apple tower since a direct apples to apples comparison is possible.

Here you talk about critique of hardware, where a Mac workstation or tower is compared with a Windows counterpart. The topic, however, is viability of a Mac prosumer tower as a choice for "customers," Mac users and potential switcher from the Windows side.

Now, I cannot see why Apple, which is so successful with the Mac Pro, would fail if it offered a smaller prosumer tower. What is the great strength of Dell and HP in the mid-range tower market, except for low price do to small markup?

Apple would still compare favorably with a mid-range tower, however, since this is what customers want. $200 more for a Mac isn't unreasonable, since it comes with iLife applications and a professional OS, not a cut down Home Edition.

Apple can be competitive in the $1499 region if it chooses the battleground. In other words with a Mac Pro and NOT a Mac mini tower running Conroe.

I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.

What I DO say is that the AIO (and SFF) form factor hides this disparity better since a direct comparison is not as easy and the form factor provides real value for those that an AIO works well either from an aesthetic or space perspective.

This is likely so, but it does not change the fact that many computer users want a mid-performance tower. Simply switching from Windows to Mac OS does not change our preference for hardware.

:no:

LoganT

04-28-2007, 04:04 PM

fisha

04-28-2007, 04:08 PM

Really? Because the market spoke definitively on IBM's desktop and Sony's VAIO desktops. Notice the complete lack of any IBM PCs at all? And Sony is just doing AIOs and notebooks?

Thats because they are simply offering the same product as all the cheaper ones . . . thats different from Apple. Apple offer a compeltely different OS and the advantages of that that go with it . . . iLife etc. Nowadays . . . which is different from the past, as an out of the box solution as a mid-tower, an apple system offers more compared to straight Windows pre-load machine, and so could reasonably attract a premium.

All the parts to make it are already there and if they continued to use the Merom setup in a mid-tower, then that only helps to their leverage against Intel.

I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.

but it doesn't have to be a cut-down MacPro on the hardware level . . . why cant it just be the iMac internals, put in a MacPro style case. If they can turn a profit on an iMac, they could just as easily turn a profit on the same hardward, without display, in a silver box.

vinea

04-28-2007, 04:21 PM

Here you talk about critique of hardware, where a Mac workstation or tower is compared with a Windows counterpart. The topic, however, is viability of a Mac prosumer tower as a choice for "customers," Mac users and potential switcher from the Windows side.

Yes we are talking about the viability of a Mac prosumer tower. Hence the discussion of how it fits in the product line, the impact to Apple revenue, the impact of the prosumer tower to the branding and whether the product would sell in enough volume to bother.

Now, I cannot see why Apple, which is so successful with the Mac Pro, would fail if it offered a smaller prosumer tower. What is the great strength of Dell and HP in the mid-range tower market, except for low price do to small markup?

Yes. The primary criteria for the mid-ranged tower market appears to be based on price vs performance. Dell and HP have a business model and corporate culture that excels in producing machines in that price range with excellent value.

Apple's business model and corporate culture is completely different. Steve Jobs would be no more successful in running Dell than Michael Dell would be at running Apple.

Apple would still compare favorably with a mid-range tower, however, since this is what customers want. $200 more for a Mac isn't unreasonable, since it comes with iLife applications and a professional OS, not a cut down Home Edition.

It did not help Sony. Sony had their equivalent of iLife and media center software.

The advantage of OSX over Windows is ZERO or negative for the majority of folks. Any UI, stability and inherent OS advantages are far outweighed by Windows market share. You want to play many games? Windows. Interact with many web sites? Explorer.

I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.

A $1500 Xeon Mac Pro would be compared to a $1550 Xeon Dell Precision.

A $1200 Conroe xMac would be compared to a $1000 Conroe Dell Dimension.

It is a perception issue. A $1500 Mac Pro is LESS expensive than its competition. A $1200 Conroe tower MORE expensive than its competition.

A $1500 Mac Pro would be perceived as a better value than a $1200 xMac because you cannot go directly to the Dell site and configure a better machine for less.

This is likely so, but it does not change the fact that many computer users want a mid-performance tower.

Tell that to Sony and Toshiba.

Vinea

vinea

04-28-2007, 04:25 PM

About a mid-range (think Shuttle size) cannibalizing Mac Pro sales. I really don't think it will. The people who are buying Mac Pros have a specific reason on why they are buying one. They are usually video editors/photographers/etc; they are not going to buy a mid-range tower instead of a Mac Pro.

I don't think a Merom based Shuttle would cannibalize Mac pro sales. It would destroy iMac sales unless priced fairly high.

A Conroe based Shuttle could cannibalize some Mac pro sales but not much. Mostly the lower end buys.

I'd love a Shuttle sized Mac...merom or conroe. I would think Merom more likely. I also think it would be in the $1500 range...

Vinea

BenRoethig

04-28-2007, 04:37 PM

We are speaking of the consumer/prosumer tower market, which is a very big Windows market, even if we count just those priced above say $700. How can you say a market for a prosumer Mac tower would be s small? When we become Mac users we don't automatically alter our hardware preferences.

:???:

Plus, who many people outside of Apple are buying AIOs like the iMacs or low end SFF machines like the Mini. For Apple a "niche" can be very lucrative., especially one where users expect to pay over $1000. The only reason I can see Apple not being here is some kind of unique form factor delusion by Jobs or some desire not to be conventional in any way. Look there are quite a few of us who who care less about this counter culture crap that has been going on since Jobs got back. We do not want to be different to just be different or have some need to feel like we're better than anyone else. We just want the best OS/ computer combination available. When the best OS belongs to Apple and you have to go to the PC ranks to get any kind of practical hardware when it comes to desktops (yes there is a difference between a desktop and a workstation) there is a problem.

LoganT

04-28-2007, 05:20 PM

I don't think a Merom based Shuttle would cannibalize Mac pro sales. It would destroy iMac sales unless priced fairly high.

A Conroe based Shuttle could cannibalize some Mac pro sales but not much. Mostly the lower end buys.

I'd love a Shuttle sized Mac...merom or conroe. I would think Merom more likely. I also think it would be in the $1500 range...

Vinea

There would still be people who buy iMacs. AKA parents, children, first timers.

snoopy

04-28-2007, 05:36 PM

When the best OS belongs to Apple and you have to go to the PC ranks to get any kind of practical hardware there is a problem.

Amen!

:lol:

snoopy

04-28-2007, 06:10 PM

. . . why cant [a mid-tower Mac] just be the iMac internals, put in a MacPro style case[?] If they can turn a profit on an iMac, they could just as easily turn a profit on the same hardware, without display, in a silver box.

Desktop components are a little cheaper and have higher performance. Therefore, a Conroe mid-tower Mac would compete better.

Sometimes an argument is raised about getting a better deal on laptop parts because of high volume Mac Book sales. In my experience doing cost estimates for proposed new products, a company can get a discount based on the total order. That is, if Apple orders 900,000 laptop drives and 100,000 desktop drives, Apple can get the 1,000,000 quantity price on all drives.

:D

shanmugam

04-28-2007, 11:35 PM

Mac Pro Core 2 Duo
P965 chipset.
2.4ghz core 2 Duo (2.13, 2.67 BTO)
1GB DDR2 667mhz RAM (4 slots, up to 8GB)
250GB hard drive (3 extra slots)
16x superdrive
256mb GeForce 8300GT (256mb 8600GT, 640MB 8800GTS BTO)
3 PCI-E x1 slots.
Bluetooth/Airport Extreme-N BTO
$1499-1699.

I like that, nice config and good price for gamers and like market.

Dan Wells

04-29-2007, 09:26 AM

There is a group of professionals who don't need a dual Xeon workstation, and would prefer not to pay for it if we didn't have to. I do a couple of things that put me in this category - I am a landscape photographer, professional naturalist and educator at the University level, as well as a doctoral student in Environmental Studies. I work with very large still images on a professional basis (I made 500 16.7 megapixel images in a recent weekend, leading a University trip to Acadia National Park), but I'm not a professional video user (I do own a camcorder, but it's worth about 5% of what my still camera system costs). 3 GB of RAM is a pretty serious limit for large still images (mine open at 100 megabytes, and grow from there, as I add layers and interpolate up (with Genuine Fractals) to print at 16x24 - even without layers, my print-size files are 200 megs). I'm also increasingly worried about laptop cooling systems as I drive my computer hard...
I presently use a MacBook Pro 15" with an external 30" display and a load of external hard drives. I'm contemplating a Mac Pro (dual 2.66) somewhat unhappily instead of upgrading my laptop RAM from 2 gigs to 3 and adding yet another external drive. I'm not sure 3 gigs will be enough (Photoshop grabs every byte I have as soon as I start serious work right now), but I don't need dual Xeons or a 16 gig RAM capacity.
If only Apple would make a $1500 tower with a RAM limit in the 4-8 gig range, one fast Conroe (2.66 or2.93?) and decent capacity for internal storage, photographers would beat a path to their door... The features I don't like about the Mac Pro, apart from the price, are the extremely expensive RAM (it's literally twice as expensive as Precision 390 RAM) and the huge size - the thing is the size of a small pedestal server, which makes sense when you look at the hardware, because it IS a small pedestal server in almost every respect.
I just test-configured a Precision 390 to the specs that might make a decent Apple base configuration, and it was $1753 with a $200+ Quadro 550 graphics card (Dell only offers Quadro and FireGL graphics on that model, while Apple would probably allow a cheaper Radeon or GeForce).
For $1753, the competition is selling -
Conroe 2.66
1 GB RAM
250 GB SATA drive
Quadro 550XL
DVD burner
4 DIMM slots (regular ol' DIMMs, NOT FB-DIMM)
4 hard drive bays
Vista Business
Eliminate the Quadro, replace Vista with Tiger, and you have a seriously fast $1699 Mac with very good expandability (4 GB of RAM is a $200 upgrade, 8 GB is possible, but a $800 upgrade because of expensive 2 GB DIMMs) - hard drive expandability is the same as the Mac Pro.

Does Apple not make this $1700 computer in order to force people to buy a $2500 machine that takes overpriced RAM? The Mac Pro is actually a better deal (Apple's $2500 machine is $3000+ from Dell), but it would be nice to have the $800 cheaper option for those of us who don't need the monster.

Right now, Apple's product line runs

laptop derived(Mini)->laptop(MacBook)->laptop derived(iMac)->Laptop (MBP)->BIG workstation(Mac Pro.) There's room for a true desktop or small workstation for people who work their computer hard enough to worry about a laptop's expandability and cooling, but don't need a dual Xeon monster... Many of us are 34 year old photographers, NOT 17 year old gamers...

-Dan

BenRoethig

04-29-2007, 11:01 AM

Does Apple not make this $1700 computer in order to force people to buy a $2500 machine that takes overpriced RAM?

Apple does it because they have a fanatical user base who, for the most part, will not question having to buy a workstation to get a desktop. For non-fanatic Mac users (specially those who can remember all the way back to the PPC days when we had these kind of systems) and switchers this presents a problem for both Apple and us. For Apple, they instead of gaining $1000 in extra sale, end up losing $1500 when the sale goes to either a PC or a second hand Mac.

ksec

04-29-2007, 11:46 AM

The reason why Cube fail was simply becoz it was too expensive or does not offer that much value.
With recent tech like DTX size or BTX size Mb, discount from Intel on chips and dirt cheap DRAM surely 1K cube is feasible. And BTW the mini is EXTEMELY EXPENSIVE for its spec.

rickag

04-29-2007, 12:06 PM

Apple does not "sacrifice" its margins on the Mac Pro. Dell simply cannot be profitable without having some high margin items in its lineup. It has high margin items in its workstation and servers. Apple competes with Dell only in these areas. Not where the margins are thin. Why? Because it fits their corporate strategy and strenghts.

How is this hard to understand? Apple targets 28% margins across the entire lineup, higher ASPs and smaller volume. Dell shoots for higher volume, low ASPs and margins that range from razor thin in the $300 PC market all the way beyond Apple levels at the high end.

It is highly unlikely that Apple (or anyone) can get 28% margins in the $1000 tower market and it sure as hell is true that Dell ISN'T getting 28% margins in their $1000 towers. Yet most if not every proponent of the xMac INSISTS that Apple can magically make $1000 towers at 28% margins and gain share.
You will have to prove to me that Apple gets 28% on each computer they sell. That's just silly, stop making stuff up.
Dell's margins on their workstation are higher than Apple's
For what possible reason would Apple not target those higher margins? The obvious answer is to promote sales. Your conjecture that Apple is doing it to maintain some mythical 28% margin across each product is wrong. You want evidence, explain the just announced quarters 35% margins.
Yes, I understand. Occam's razor and all.
Your arguments is another example of the shear unbelievable lengths to which the anti xMac posters have to go to in order to justify their rationalizations.

It has been documented that Intel has stated they make no discounts except on volume to avoid any more legal entanglements.

Intel can add. That's the entire point. They can see that 2M units of mobile parts is larger than 1.5M units of mobile parts. They don't CARE if Apple uses them for notebooks or AIOs. All they care about is volume.

Dell and HP make more notebooks than Apple. Their notebook growths are also no anemic. The 500K notebooks/qtr only helps level the field and delay the inevitable.
You keep mentioning quantity price breaks that manufacturers get.
QUOTE THEM FOR CLARITY
Apple's laptops are quite competitvely priced, yet I do believe other manufacturer's volumes are higher. Wouldn't that mean that Apple again is sacrificing margins for sales?
Or would you have us believe that other manufacturer's margins are higher than Apple's for comparable laptops, but even then this would mean that Apple is sacrificying margins for sales.

Sony has had an AIO in their line up for a long time. Thier AIO is far less capable than the iMac and more expensive. That's hardly "willing to do so at lower margins".

The article does not speak to the AIO but rather the towers they had and their media centric strategy.

The point is that only the AIO remains and not the towers...not even the Sony faithful purchased Sony towers and they were actually pretty nice.

Sony had mid-priced VAIO towers. Just look at reviews for them in the 2000-2004 timeframe.

Vinea
OK, I believe you, Sony has had AIO for awhile. SO WHAT, it doesn't sell, it won't sell, the vast majority of consumers don't want it and in the Window's world there are plenty of options. This proves nothing.
Why they dropped towers is beyond me. Here's my pet theory. They are trying to more closely integrate their computer line-ups wtih there other product lines, camcorders, dvd players, stereo systems, TV's creating a natural synergy. So what, tens of millions of people are buying mid range towers that have more than acceptable margins.

PS Don't like being "milked"? Don't buy. Let the market decide. Somehow though, it seems Apple is doing awesome with its current strategy.
I own a Powerbook and iMac, I like OS X, I know OS X, I like Final Cut Express. I accept Apple's pathological resistence to providing hardware that is consumer friendly.

What the anti xMac crowd does not seem to grasp is THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT IT, and when trying to capture market share, WHICH APPLE HAS STATED THEY WANT TO DO, they must conjole, attract, appeal to CURRENT WINDOWS USERS, that have not been limited to niche market AIO, ultra small Mac minis. By and large they have rejected them en mass.

Yes, Apple is doing awesome, I agree. They were also doing awesome with mind boggling margins in the 25 - 35% range, when they lost the computer and OS wars. In board meetings they laughed about the low margins of their competitors back then and I'm sure they are now.

rickag

04-29-2007, 12:21 PM

Dell was looking for a strategy to not suck. It wasn't the greatest aquisition for them but not the worst. For whatever reason they couldn't seem to get their XPS brand as cool as Alienware.

Why they cared...I dunno. Read the Alienware interviews. They had always been undercapitalized and only moved like 50K units a year.
And your point?
I believe they bought them because there are people buying these computers that won't buy from Apple because Apple doesn't offer anything close. There is a market for a mid to upper level tower, just not for Apple.

As a commodity PC maker with thin margins yes. As a "premium" brand like IBM or Apple? No, don't think so even if they still have the powerful ThinkPad brand.
er, um you might want to look at this http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/04-25-2007/0004574045&EDATE=
From the article:
"Gross margins were 43% in the first quarter of 2007 compared to 36% in the year-ago
period and 42% in the previous quarter."
EVEN YOU MIGHT CONCEDE 43% IS NOT TOO SLIM.

OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%

Mkay. So what of IBM, Toshiba and Apple? No clearly these guys have no clue about the PC markets.
Vinea
Apparently not since they got out of the business.

rickag

04-29-2007, 12:31 PM

So why are you being dumb and getting "milked"? Do you REALLY think OSX is that much superior to Ubuntu or Vista that you're a willing rube?

Apple is no more "milking" the faithful than BMW or any other premium brand. Yes, you do pay more for an incremental gain over commodity items. Do you really think the 3 series is actually twice the car as the civic? Or designer clothing, while better made with better materials, is really worth the premium of the label?

No.

These are luxury items for most and if you're buying it for professional reasons then you are only doing so because it represents good value vs their competitors.

Vinea
As a matter of fact, I don't think Apple is milking the faithful. It's your reasoning that is backing up this argument. I happen to think that the iMac and the original G4 Mac mini were quite a good value for the money(re: currently the Mac mini isn't such a great deal with the Yonah, but that's another argument). THEY JUST ARE NICHE MARKET COMPUTERS.

And NO, Apple computers can not be compared to BMW, they now use the same industry standard insides that the other manufacturers use. More than ever, now since the switch to Intel. They just include more stuff in them than the stripped down versions the rest of the industry offers.

What can be considered BMW-like from Apple is the SOFTWARE, including OS X, iApps, Final Cut Express/Studio, etc.

rickag

04-29-2007, 12:38 PM

If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lucrative

I'll agree that the low and mid end tower market isn't all that profitable.

Prove it.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/04-25-2007/0004574045&EDATE=
"Gross margins were 43% in the first quarter of 2007 compared to 36% in the year-ago
period and 42% in the previous quarter."

My evidence is above, were's your's?

OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%

rickag

04-29-2007, 12:51 PM

...
The advantage of OSX over Windows is ZERO or negative for the majority of folks. Any UI, stability and inherent OS advantages are far outweighed by Windows market share. You want to play many games? Windows. Interact with many web sites? Explorer.
...
Vinea
Then why in the heck is Apple banging the drum in their advertisements on the virtues of Mac OS X over Windows?

Your attitude here is completely defeatist and negative, as is many of the anti xMac arguments. Almost to a poster, the advocates for an xMac are optimistic, having faith in Apple to provide a competitively priced product that might substantially increase Apple's desktop market share and not adversly effect profits.

As Oddball was oft to say," Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves.".:smokey:

snoopy

04-29-2007, 09:45 PM

Yes we are talking about the viability of a Mac prosumer tower. Hence the discussion of how it fits in the product line, the impact to Apple revenue, the impact of the prosumer tower to the branding and whether the product would sell in enough volume to bother.

Then let's talk about how a Mac prosumer tower would fit into Apple's product line, and not be so concerned about how it compares with its Windows counterparts.

First, a Mac mini tower would take no sales from the iMac because of price, when someone compares an iMac to a tower plus a display. An AIO will always be cheaper. I think most of us would agree with that.

A prosumer tower would take sales from the iMac, however, because not all shoppers will need a display too. In addition, there are those who prefer a tower to an AIO, and it doesn't matter why. These shoppers would buy the Mac mini tower if it were available. So why is this considered to be a bad thing? It is giving the customer a choice that he or she does not have today.

I think most of us know why Apple is following the AIO strategy, and not offering a mini tower. Apple, or Steve Jobs specifically, is determined to keep the sales of iMac as high as possible. It is his baby, and he's determined to make it succeed. Steve does a lot of brilliant things, but he also makes some stupid moves. Nobody's perfect.

Second, would a Mac prosumer tower sell enough to make it worthwhile? It's almost a joke to discuss this. Consumer and prosumer towers are the most popular forms of PC there are on the Windows side. To repeat what I've said at least twice now, when we move from Windows to Mac OS X, we don't suddenly change our hardware preferences. We simply look at what Macs are available, rather than what Dell and HP are doing.

Cost wise, a Mac mini tower could bridge the iMac price, and give customers a real choice. That is, the mini tower with a display would cost a little more than a comparable size iMac. Without the display, the tower would be cheaper. That is what I mean by bridging the iMac price.

A $1500 Mac Pro would be perceived as a better value than a $1200 xMac because you cannot go directly to the Dell site and configure a better machine for less.

Then, to begin with, Apple would not have to worry about a Mac mini tower robbing the Mac Pro of its sales. Regarding the price of Dells, since Mac users are not choosing between an Apple Mac and Dell, it doesn't matter what a Dell sells for. It would be for curiosity only.

:D

shanmugam

04-30-2007, 01:02 AM

one more thing and important thing about xMac or Mac Cube

we are living in two different ERA, IBM's PPC and intel's Core

there is enough space between Conroe (xMac) and Xeon processor (Mac Pro)

if price is rite, xMac will be successful compared to Mac Cube

It is time one of these could happen, Apple cannot just close one eye keep continuing

1. Conroe in iMac
2. xMac
3. worst still, put Conroe in Mac Pro and drop the price, xServe becomes Xeon class machines ( i do not exactly know the performance difference between Conroe Quads Versus Xeon Quads considering the price difference)

LoganT

04-30-2007, 01:05 AM

I personally think it should just be called "Mac".

Introducing the "Mac".

shanmugam

04-30-2007, 01:13 AM

Just "Mac" - Cool

snoopy

04-30-2007, 11:29 AM

I personally think it should just be called "Mac".

Introducing the "Mac".

If you didn't have so few posts, I'd accuse you of trying to resurrect this older and long thread on the subject.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=65570

:lol: :lol: :lol:

vinea

04-30-2007, 01:59 PM

You will have to prove to me that Apple gets 28% on each computer they sell. That's just silly, stop making stuff up.

It was said at one of the quarterlies. I'll look for it later when I have a moment.

Dell's margins on their workstation are higher than Apple's
For what possible reason would Apple not target those higher margins? The obvious answer is to promote sales. Your conjecture that Apple is doing it to maintain some mythical 28% margin across each product is wrong. You want evidence, explain the just announced quarters 35% margins.

The reason the margins were high is because component costs dropped and Apple didn't reduce price. They like thier prices and I presume the expect that when they do a rev of the hardware for leopard that the costs will go back to expected levels.

Most of the line up could use a refresh...certainly by the time Santa Rosa rolls in.

You keep mentioning quantity price breaks that manufacturers get.
QUOTE THEM FOR CLARITY

Given that the specific numbers are trade secrets that would be difficult. However when there was that spat about Dell, special pricing, monopoly, etc with Intel eventually Intel said they only discount on volume, nothing else.

Apple's laptops are quite competitvely priced, yet I do believe other manufacturer's volumes are higher. Wouldn't that mean that Apple again is sacrificing margins for sales?
Or would you have us believe that other manufacturer's margins are higher than Apple's for comparable laptops, but even then this would mean that Apple is sacrificying margins for sales.

Apple's margins for the notebooks it sells is on par with others. How many times do I have to repeat that the notebook market hasn't become a commodity market yet?

Note that Apple does not compete in the ultra-cheap notebook market. That market is growing quickly though. Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO.

OK, I believe you, Sony has had AIO for awhile. SO WHAT, it doesn't sell, it won't sell, the vast majority of consumers don't want it and in the Window's world there are plenty of options. This proves nothing.

Why they dropped towers is beyond me. Here's my pet theory. They are trying to more closely integrate their computer line-ups wtih there other product lines, camcorders, dvd players, stereo systems, TV's creating a natural synergy. So what, tens of millions of people are buying mid range towers that have more than acceptable margins.

That integration, ease of use, etc were not compelling enough to sell towers at the rough prices we would expect Apple to sell towers at and at the margins Apple would expect to seel them.

As far as "acceptable" margins, Apple appears to disagree...along with IBM, Sony and Toshiba.

What the anti xMac crowd does not seem to grasp is THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT IT, and when trying to capture market share, WHICH APPLE HAS STATED THEY WANT TO DO, they must conjole, attract, appeal to CURRENT WINDOWS USERS, that have not been limited to niche market AIO, ultra small Mac minis. By and large they have rejected them en mass.

Apple has been asked many times these last few quarters of bumper margins whether they would reduce margins to capture more share. Consistently they have said no, they are happy with current growth.

So Apple has stated they want capture more share. ON THEIR TERMS.

Yes, Apple is doing awesome, I agree. They were also doing awesome with mind boggling margins in the 25 - 35% range, when they lost the computer and OS wars. In board meetings they laughed about the low margins of their competitors back then and I'm sure they are now.

At no time did Apple have commanding share. Apple vs IBM was a no win for Apple in the business market. The branding of IBM was far too strong in the business arena and their margins were no leaner than Apple's.

The markets that Apple had a shot in, they still are in today (content creation, edu, upper end consumer) with strong share numbers.

Vinea

vinea

04-30-2007, 02:03 PM

OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%

Don't worry about it. Everyone has done that before.

But yeah...expect your margins around the 13-18% region for Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, etc.

Apple can make about the same money with lower support and infrastructure costs and a smaller, more agile company. Great if you can do that...and without Jobs Apple was UNABLE to do that.

The guy has some quirks but overall I can live with them.

Vinea

vinea

04-30-2007, 02:04 PM

one more thing and important thing about xMac or Mac Cube

I think a merom cube would do very well...I also doubt Apple would try a cube soon...a shame really.

Vinea

vinea

04-30-2007, 02:12 PM

Then let's talk about how a Mac prosumer tower would fit into Apple's product line, and not be so concerned about how it compares with its Windows counterparts.

First, a Mac mini tower would take no sales from the iMac because of price, when someone compares an iMac to a tower plus a display. An AIO will always be cheaper. I think most of us would agree with that.

I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that Apple should have a prosumer tower in the price range of $1499-$1699. It is just my opinion is that the easiest way to offer such a tower is to simply have a single Xeon Mac Pro BTO.

With a really slooooow xeon you can get down into the $1250 range. If you agree that the xMac must always be more expensive than a comparable iMac then $1250 is at the bottom end of your range anyway given a $1250 xMac + $679 24" Dell WS display is less expensive than the 24" iMac.

This machine would offer prosumers with all the expansion possibilities they want except as a top end gamer platform.

Vinea

sequitur

04-30-2007, 02:55 PM

I think a merom cube would do very well...I also doubt Apple would try a cube soon...a shame really.

Vinea

Sounds good to me. I have two large monitors on my desk now and can't use an iMac. What about a larger Mini - with all the goodies that an iMac has or more. It could be 1, 2, or more inches taller, but it could have the same footprint.
"Super Mini"; MiniPlus; Mini2; -whatever - with 'room' to grow with an 'Elegant" way to open like the MacPro. Sorry, just daydreaming.

fisha

04-30-2007, 03:31 PM

^^^ even just being able to whack a 3.5" hdd in for large capacity storage and i'd be sold.

KD86

04-30-2007, 06:17 PM

That's all well and good for Apple and its' shareholders, of which I am one.

As to whether Apple cares to increase market share, well, that's another story completely. Most people looking to buy a computer that I know don't ask themselves how much profit Apple made as opposed to Dell or HP. They do check their wallet though and the Mac mini and iMac are form factors they are not familiar with on top of being very expensive.

Not in all cases. When I was a PC user, seeing designs like the iMac, Mac Mini, etc. upon wandering into an Apple Store are what grabbed my attention for the sheer fact that they WERE form factors I was unfamiliar with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.

snoopy

04-30-2007, 10:59 PM

Not in all cases. When I was a PC user, seeing designs like the iMac, Mac Mini, etc. upon wandering into an Apple Store are what grabbed my attention for the sheer fact that they WERE form factors I was unfamiliar with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.

I'm glad you brought that up. There is no doubt that the iMac and/or Mac Mini are attractive to a lot of people. It's easy to forget this fact when you are in the other half of Mac users, or potential switchers from Windows, who do not want either an iMac or Mini. Apple could afford to start covering all their bases by now.

:D

snoopy

05-01-2007, 12:02 AM

"Super Mini"; MiniPlus; Mini2; -whatever - with 'room' to grow with an 'Elegant" way to open like the MacPro. Sorry, just daydreaming.

That is what I've been hoping Apple would make, in addition to a prosumer mini tower.

What about a larger Mini - with all the goodies that an iMac has or more. It could be 1, 2, or more inches taller, but it could have the same footprint.

I'd suggest a wider and slightly deeper footprint, but not much taller. In this way, I could set my monitor on top of it.

:)

snoopy

05-01-2007, 12:51 AM

I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that Apple should have a prosumer tower in the price range of $1499-$1699. It is just my opinion is that the easiest way to offer such a tower is to simply have a single Xeon Mac Pro BTO.

Well, I agree that the easiest way to develop a prosumer tower is by using existing Mac Pro hardware. With the sales I'd expect a prosumer tower to have, however, Apple could afford to develop a uniquely different mini tower that has more appeal to this segment of buyers. In addition, manufacturing cost could be lower, allowing more flexibility in establishing price and profit.

With a really slooooow xeon you can get down into the $1250 range. If you agree that the xMac must always be more expensive than a comparable iMac then $1250 is at the bottom end of your range anyway given a $1250 xMac + $679 24" Dell WS display is less expensive than the 24" iMac.

I believe $1000 is a good bottom end price, or $999 for those who like to price that way. The bottom end mini tower might have a smaller HDD than the 20 inch iMac, and a combo optical drive. Add $600 for a 20 inch Cinema display and the iMac would be a better deal.

:D

CheddarTrek

05-01-2007, 03:21 AM

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.

I wasn't aware that other manufacturers made Macs.

Ouch, I'm sorry, but you asked for that. Nice response iPeon.

Personally I'm not that interested in a computer like the one being discussed on this thread. I tend to go to extremes in my computer buying and keep a small notebook and a powerful desktop.

However, I can see why there is a desire out there for something like this. You are not the only one. Most people have no need for a powerful desktop; a great many people want them, for whatever reason (I.e. games), but only a fraction of those people truly need them. Still, if you're like me and you can have what you really want for $500-$1000 extra, you save up and buy it and probably increase the time until you need to upgrade.

People who don't really want anything more in a laptop than what they need don't have much of an option here except for the Mac Mini. The Mac Mini uses a processor designed for a notebook, and it's small form makes it hard to include many of the perks, like loads of ports, that desktop owners want.

So, is there a market for a Mac Tower, using a Desktop CPU, with lots of ports and all the traditional trimming associated with a desktop? Sure there is, but it's a niche market. Most people can make do with the Mac Mini, iMac, or Mac Pro. There's not a very big demanding market for what you want, that doesn't mean people wouldn't choose it over the other things if it was available, but at this point they are still BUYING the other things.

I could see them possibly expanding the options a little on the current Mac Pro into a lower range. That would allow you to make it into a desktop instead of a server by choosing the Kentsfield and other lower range options. I could also see them doing what someone else said and making a Mac Mini Pro or something similar; they could double the height and add other things. Just don't hold your breath for either of these things to happen, they're pretty unlikely. Even more unlikely is that Apple would decide to make something completely new.

rickag

05-01-2007, 10:40 AM

The reason the margins were high is because component costs dropped and Apple didn't reduce price. They like thier prices and I presume the expect that when they do a rev of the hardware for leopard that the costs will go back to expected levels.

Most of the line up could use a refresh...certainly by the time Santa Rosa rolls in.Vinea
Which means they didn't meet their target of 28%, they exceeded it, or they really don't have a set target for 28% on each product they sell, or they target 28% across the complete product lines. Me, I think the last option is the most reasonable allowing them to adjust pricing. I'd venture to say they do the same things with the iPods.

Given that the specific numbers are trade secrets that would be difficult. However when there was that spat about Dell, special pricing, monopoly, etc with Intel eventually Intel said they only discount on volume, nothing else.
Vinea
Point is you don't know and I don't know. I'm suggesting that the price breaks when in Apple's volumes for Core Duo cpus don't significantly differ from Dell's, Toshiba's, Compac's, Sony's, Lenovo's, with or wihtout iMacs and Mac minis included.

Apple's margins for the notebooks it sells is on par with others. How many times do I have to repeat that the notebook market hasn't become a commodity market yet?

Note that Apple does not compete in the ultra-cheap notebook market. That market is growing quickly though. Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO.
Vinea
Whether or not the notebook market is a commodity market is irrelevant. Apple's most recent gains in market share(except the current quarter) were exclusively due to laptop sales. This means there are switchers, there are people who are attracted to Mac OS X. They just are not buying Apple's desktops, why? Because Apple does not offer a desktop they would buy.

So, you're saying, Apple has exited the traditional desktop market and no longer desires to increase desktop market share. When laptops become a commodity, you're saying Apple will exit this market too. What does that leave? Exiting the computer market completely?

High priced niche market computers is not sustainable. Apple is currently trying to branch out into the phone market, AppleTV market. Without computer's both these ventures will fail.

Again you present the milk the faithful argument = " Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO"

That integration, ease of use, etc were not compelling enough to sell towers at the rough prices we would expect Apple to sell towers at and at the margins Apple would expect to seel them.

As far as "acceptable" margins, Apple appears to disagree...along with IBM, Sony and Toshiba.Vinea
Well, without IBM, Sony and Toshiba maybe less competition means more opportunity. Look on the bright side. Other companies are making profits and the mid to upper end sales are the low hanging fruit.

Apple has been asked many times these last few quarters of bumper margins whether they would reduce margins to capture more share. Consistently they have said no, they are happy with current growth.

So Apple has stated they want capture more share. ON THEIR TERMS.Vinea
So, I guess they really don't try to target 28% for each product.
What growth?
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/20/notebook/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
Apple notebook market share falls in fourth quarter

At no time did Apple have commanding share. Apple vs IBM was a no win for Apple in the business market. The branding of IBM was far too strong in the business arena and their margins were no leaner than Apple's.

The markets that Apple had a shot in, they still are in today (content creation, edu, upper end consumer) with strong share numbers.
Vinea

They are losing edu, especially in the K -12 market. Over the years they have also lost content creation, remember Adobe recommending other manufacturers computers? Apple has gained some in video, only because of Final Cut. Adobe Premier had crippled Apple versions.

vinea

05-01-2007, 06:39 PM

Which means they didn't meet their target of 28%, they exceeded it, or they really don't have a set target for 28% on each product they sell, or they target 28% across the complete product lines. Me, I think the last option is the most reasonable allowing them to adjust pricing. I'd venture to say they do the same things with the iPods.

Mmmm...okay to be strictly pendantic then no, 28% is not an absolute target. However, historically, Apple has never shifted pricing downward to pass saving on to consumers and has margins in the 25-28%+ region.

They typically have guidance for that range so you certainly can say they target that for their product lines as a whole. What is certain is that you cannot sell a large volume of low margin items and STILL have 28% gross margins.

But its rather odd for you to be arguing that Apple doesn't strive for high margins when the only examples you have are when they have even HIGHER margins in a quarter. Historically Apple's margins have been quite high and the only way to get that consistent behaviour is for them to actually be targetting high margins.

So arguing that NO! APPLES MARGINS ARE 35% and not 28%! THEREFORE THEY SHOULD OFFER PRODUCTS WITH 5-10% MARGINS! is just...silly.

I'm suggesting that the price breaks when in Apple's volumes for Core Duo cpus don't significantly differ from Dell's, Toshiba's, Compac's, Sony's, Lenovo's, with or wihtout iMacs and Mac minis included.

So you're saying that the price is the same for 1.5M vs 1M? Mkay.

Whether or not the notebook market is a commodity market is irrelevant.

It's not irrelvant if you're trying to guess how long Apple will stay in the notebook market. Also the fact that it is not yet a commodity market means the margins are still high enough for Apple to remain competitive.

So, you're saying, Apple has exited the traditional desktop market and no longer desires to increase desktop market share. When laptops become a commodity, you're saying Apple will exit this market too. What does that leave? Exiting the computer market completely?

Well...they DID drop computer from their name.

But yes, I would say that when laptops become a commodity then Apple will be reduced to the MBP for the high end, an ultraportable and a multi-touch tablet within the notebook segment.

They will then be into...who knows, wearable computers? The iPhone and aTV are certainly indicators of where they intend to put OSX next.

High priced niche market computers is not sustainable. Apple is currently trying to branch out into the phone market, AppleTV market. Without computer's both these ventures will fail.

Again you present the milk the faithful argument = " Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO"

You say milk the faithful.

I say provide luxury computing and lifestyle products. At some point notebooks wont be in those categories but something else will. Apple will offer those and not notebooks except for some niche ones just as they do in the desktop market.

Well, without IBM, Sony and Toshiba maybe less competition means more opportunity. Look on the bright side. Other companies are making profits and the mid to upper end sales are the low hanging fruit.

:lol:

So, I guess they really don't try to target 28% for each product.
What growth?
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/20/notebook/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
Apple notebook market share falls in fourth quarter

By 7/10s of 1 percent. But they do have growth in total sales and I dunno what point you're trying to make.

You say Apple wants more market share and use that as "proof" that they should reduce margins to capture more share.

I point out that folks have asked Apple just that in their quarterlies and they said "No". So gee, maybe that means that repeating the mantra that "Apple has stated they want more share" doesn't meet with the reality of Apple's actual behavior. Yes, they would like more share, no, not enough to reduce margins even from a lofty 35%.

I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.

Vinea

iPeon

05-01-2007, 07:45 PM

snoopy

05-02-2007, 12:12 PM

I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.

Strange that you bring up the word "lucrative" here, when I suspect you are the one not getting the subtile differences in meaning. You seem to use the word as a synonym for profitable, which misses the nuance of lucrative.

If you had a marginally profitable business and went to the bank for a loan, saying your business is lucrative, it might raise a few eyebrows. Most of us use lucrative to convey producing a great deal of profit, which is the meaning shown by the dictionary on my Mac.

It can also be used to mean yielding a profit, large or small, that is easy to come by. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says it is wealth or profit acquired, received, or had without burdensome conditions or giving of consideration.

Okay, here is how you used it in your post.

If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting then explain why IBM sold it off to Lenovo, Sony only has AIOs in its remaining desktop lineup and Toshiba bailed entirely?

A rhetorical question that seems to assume we believe the Windows tower market is extremely profitable. You attempt to show we are wrong by pointing out how IBM and Sony got out of the tower market. You imply the market has little or low profit, and is not lucrative.

In my reply, I point out that we never claimed that the market for Windows towers is lucrative. I went on to explain that low profits on the Windows side does not mean that Apple could not make a very good profit on the Mac side, saying:

"On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far. You could argue that Mac users don't want a mini tower, but who will believe you?"

"Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out."

To which you reply:

If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...

So, you say Windows towers are not so lucrative. When I say essentially the same thing, you say I don't know what lucrative means. Yes, maybe a sensible discussion is impossible.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

BenRoethig

05-02-2007, 12:56 PM

vinea

05-02-2007, 01:30 PM

Strange that you bring up the word "lucrative" here, when I suspect you are the one not getting the subtile differences in meaning. You seem to use the word as a synonym for profitable, which misses the nuance of lucrative.

If you had a marginally profitable business and went to the bank for a loan, saying your business is lucrative, it might raise a few eyebrows. Most of us use lucrative to convey producing a great deal of profit, which is the meaning shown by the dictionary on my Mac.

No, I understand the nuance just fine. The point is why would a business invest in a domain that is at best described as "marginally profitable" by its proponents?

Okay, here is how you used it in your post.

Of course there is profit in the tower business. Or even Dell and HP would have exited as well. The point is that a commodity market is NOT lucrative even though it can be profitable...but you sure have to work pretty hard at it.

Investing in the tower market, windows or mac, doesn't seem like a great use of time or resources by Apple.

A rhetorical question that seems to assume we believe the Windows tower market is extremely profitable. You attempt to show we are wrong by pointing out how IBM and Sony got out of the tower market. You imply the market has little or low profit, and is not lucrative.

In my reply, I point out that we never claimed that the market for Windows towers is lucrative. I went on to explain that low profits on the Windows side does not mean that Apple could not make a very good profit on the Mac side, saying:

Proponents for the xMac repeatedly assert that the majority of the market consists of towers and that is sufficient justification that Apple should also have a tower and that such a tower would increase profits and share. Typically the implication is that profits would increase wildly as Apple took over the world...and Jobs is simply being obstinate in not offering an xMac.

"Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out."

YOU may WANT such a product but clearly you have not shown that you are willing to PAY for such a product in as much as the majority of complaints is that the Mac Pro is too expensive and you consistently push for $1000 tower. It is clear that no xMac as Apple would build it (and not Dell with a nicer case) would satisfy you. Every time I suggest a $1499-$1799 Mac Pro we end up right back at the $1K price point. Even $1200 you feel is too high as minimum even though that's a good $200 less than I think would be even vaguely considered by Apple.

Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.

But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.

Vinea

snoopy

05-02-2007, 01:52 PM

Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.

I certainly wouldn't be lucrative, making a great or obscene profit, but it would be as profitable as say an iMac, and greatly boost Apple's market share.

But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.

Like I said: "On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far." Apple can set any profit margin it wishes to for a Mac mini tower.

Well, at least we got the meaning of lucrative settled, I think.

:D

vinea

05-02-2007, 01:53 PM

I think Vinea's argument comes down to four things.

1. There is not enough difference between Mac OS X and the iapps and their windows counterparts to warrant coming to the Mac for operating system alone.

Having used windows extensively, I can can tell you the difference is that great.

90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.

Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.

2. If its not the operating system, Mac users must come to Apple soley for the cutting edge designs.

There is some truth to this but, it's the not the whole story. There are many who are just plain sick of windows. Nobody else is allowed to make Mac OS X compatible computers, so Apple is the only game in town.

Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.

94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.

OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.

3. Once again, since the operating system doesn't make all that much difference Apple inherently operates in the same cut throat market as windows PCs.

Not true. The cut throat market is the medium to low end market. It's very crowded and the only way Dell or HP or Gateway can make a sale is give the user or company a little bit better deal than the competition. Apple has two main advantages, number one, like I said earlier, they are the only Mac maker, so 100% of those who want the OS have to come to them.

The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).

Number 2, they do not operate in the cutthroat value computer market, they operate in the more affluent upper end. Yes, Mac biases might discount this, but there are actually many upscale PC buys who know what they're talking about. These users are looking for the best PC available at the price. If we're talking about a family PC, the iMac makes a good choice or them. If they are looking for something more, Apple has nothing to sell them. They do not take the Mac religiously, so they much less likely to get duped into a workstation for Apple's betterment. They may be small, at 25% at best, but that's huge by Apple's standards. The AIO and SFF desktop markets that Apple deal in perhaps make up a 3 or 4% at best. Is everything that is not a notebook or the Mac Pro to be abandoned because the market is not there on the PC side?

And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).

4. If Apple does something it must inherently be the correct action.

Also not true. Steve jobs is more a visionary, than a businessman.

Strawman.

My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market. Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.

The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.

xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.

OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.

So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?

Vinea

BenRoethig

05-02-2007, 02:03 PM

90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.

Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.

Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.

94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.

OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.

The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).

And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).

Strawman.

My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market. Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.

The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.

xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.

OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.

So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?

Vinea

Seriously, do you actually listen to what people are writing are jsut stick to your preconceived notion that everyone who currently is not on the Mac is some kind of low end ignorant cheapass? [b]For the last time time we are not talking about the people $1000 and below. We are talking about the $1200-$2000 prosumer market. AKA those between the low end/ family (iMac/ Mini) and high end professional (Mac Pro) markets.

Second, Toshiba, Sony, and IBM were never high end makers. They were too expensive for the value market and didn't hold a candle to the boutique makers.

vinea

05-02-2007, 02:09 PM

I certainly wouldn't be lucrative, making a great or obscene profit, but it would be as profitable as say an iMac, and greatly boost Apple's market share.

Then you ARE saying it is lucrative...because if it is as profitable as an iMac (margin wise) AND greatly boosts Apple's market share then you are selling a lot more units at 28% margins that no one else has managed to do. Because "greatly boosting" Apple's market share means selling a huge number of machines over the 1.6M/qtr they do today.

If Apple could move an additional 1.4M $1000 xMacs/qtr @ 25% gross margins that $350M more per quarter and $1.4B over the year. At that point no one cares that you just slashed your ASPs...your maintained > 25% gross margins with hugely increased revenues. I don't care who you are or what definition you choose to use...that's damn lucrative...and 25% IS obscene profits in the commodity PC market.

You just can't show that second step because if you COULD show that second step then Apple's board would have overruled Jobs by now and you'd have your xMac tower.

Like I said: "On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far." Apple can set any profit margin it wishes to for a Mac mini tower.

Well, at least we got the meaning of lucrative settled, I think.

:D

It sure as heck isn't lucrative if they make an overpriced tower and fail to sell any. I think the cube proved that Apple can't just shove whatever on the market and make it fly.

And no, you still don't get the meaning of lucrative...which ranges from "attractively profitable" in addition to "obscenely profitable".

Vinea

vinea

05-02-2007, 02:13 PM

Seriously, do you actually listen to what people are writing are jsut stick to your preconceived notion that everyone who currently is not on the Mac is some kind of low end ignorant cheapass? [b]For the last time time we are not talking about the people $1000 and below. We are talking about the $1200-$2000 prosumer market. AKA those between the low end/ family (iMac/ Mini) and high end professional (Mac Pro) markets.

Second, Toshiba, Sony, and IBM were never high end makers. They were too expensive for the value market and didn't hold a candle to the boutique makers.

You aren't the only one in this thread. If you don't like that other folks keep pushing $1000 xMacs into the discussion then instead of staying quiet you could say something to them and NOT me.

Your problem is that you want ONE particular solution...a Conroe based xMac. You have disregarded previous options of Xeon or Merom based towers.

Tough. Most prosumers would be satisfied with either if Apple actually did either a revamped cube (merom based) or a single Xeon BTO.

And saying that IBM was never a high end maker is just silly. They DEFINED the high end market for business. Sony did so for the consumer end with the VAIO line.

Vinea

snoopy

05-02-2007, 07:33 PM

And no, you still don't get the meaning of lucrative . . . which ranges from "attractively profitable" in addition to "obscenely profitable".

I don't think there is a defined point where a business goes from being very profitable to lucrative. I take producing a great deal of profit, which is the Mac dictionary definition, to be well above a good, normal profit of 30 or so percent. I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying. This is the first time I've ever had to explain it so precisely.

and 25% IS obscene profits in the commodity PC market.

I certainly wouldn't consider 25 percent profit obscene in any market. It's a good profit and realistic in most cases. Just because the Windows consumer and prosumer tower market is cut-throat, and no one is making a reasonable profit, this does not mean a normal, good profit here is lucrative.

Then you ARE saying it is lucrative...because if it is as profitable as an iMac (margin wise) AND greatly boosts Apple's market share then you are selling a lot more units at 28% margins that no one else has managed to do. Because "greatly boosting" Apple's market share means selling a huge number of machines over the 1.6M/qtr they do today.

My apology for exaggerating, using the word great. I guess because Apple's market share is so low, any increase seems great to me. :D

It sure as heck isn't lucrative if they make an overpriced tower and fail to sell any. I think the cube proved that Apple can't just shove whatever on the market and make it fly.

I believe this issue has been covered adequately, many times, by others.

8-)

vinea

05-03-2007, 10:12 AM

I don't think there is a defined point where a business goes from being very profitable to lucrative. I take producing a great deal of profit, which is the Mac dictionary definition, to be well above a good, normal profit of 30 or so percent. I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying. This is the first time I've ever had to explain it so precisely.

Gee, you know there's more than one dictionary...and given I've provided a well known alternative you might say that your insistance that there is but one narrow meaning to the word might be a tad...limited.

So...here's a few more:

Wordnet (princeton) S: (adj) lucrative, moneymaking, remunerative (producing a sizeable profit) "a remunerative business"

FreeDictionary: Producing wealth; profitable: a lucrative income; a lucrative marketing strategy.

YourDictionary: Producing wealth; profitable: a lucrative income; a lucrative marketing strategy.

Dict,die.net: adj : producing a good profit; "a remunerative business" [syn: moneymaking, remunerative]

english-test.net: Definition of lucrative (adjective) profitable; gainful; comprehensible

Merriam-Webster: Function: adjective, Etymology: Middle English lucratif, from Middle French, from Latin lucrativus, from lucratus, past participle of lucrari to gain, from lucrum
: producing wealth : PROFITABLE

(Note: Same definition as in the paperback Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary Office Edition)

So ya think that maybe...just maybe there are folks that use the word without requiring "obscene" or "great deal" of profit for something to be lucrative?

Perhaps your narrow usage isn't the common one?

I certainly wouldn't consider 25 percent profit obscene in any market. It's a good profit and realistic in most cases. Just because the Windows consumer and prosumer tower market is cut-throat, and no one is making a reasonable profit, this does not mean a normal, good profit here is lucrative.

Obscene is a subjective assessment. Relative to what Dell makes getting 25%+ margins on a $1000 machines is huge/great/fantastic/tremendous/obscene profits. Highly lucrative.

If you can sell any.

My apology for exaggerating, using the word great. I guess because Apple's market share is so low, any increase seems great to me. :D

Any significant change in share means a lot of profit because current numbers relative to the larger market isn't all that high. Unless you assume that you cannibalize the entire current lineup and produce a meager 600,001 xMacs increasing share by .000000001 percent and trashing your revenue in the process.

The point is you cannot BOTH say that xMacs are not lucrative AND assume any significant increase in share.

I believe this issue has been covered adequately, many times, by others.

And I disagree. No one has shown that Apple can move $800 towers for $1000 significantly better than IBM, Sony or Toshiba could. There's some handwaving and claims of the superiority of OSX but no substantive argument.

I can argue the "superiority" of Linux over Windows (with great difficulty in keeping a straight face) but the market certainly hasn't done ANYTHING in terms of adoption of Linux on the desktop (given that Win95 still has a higher installed base than Linux). Even assuming that OSX is twice as good as Ubuntu the rate of adoption on the strength of the OS alone is going to be really really meager.

Ubuntu is free. OSX is not.

Vinea

rickag

05-03-2007, 12:55 PM

Of course there is profit in the tower business. Or even Dell and HP would have exited as well. The point is that a commodity market is NOT lucrative even though it can be profitable...but you sure have to work pretty hard at it.
The mid to upper end consumer machines are obviously not commodity market and this is where Dell tries to increase margins to make up for the low end.

No one here has suggested that Apple get into the commondity market.

Proponents for the xMac repeatedly assert that the majority of the market consists of towers
We don't assert this, it is fact not ficiton.

and that is sufficient justification that Apple should also have a tower and that such a tower would increase profits and share.
NO, we have said that margins might, I stress might be, lower, but the distinct possibility exists that Apple may increase market share.

Typically the implication is that profits would increase wildly as Apple took over the world...and Jobs is simply being obstinate in not offering an xMac.
Show me just one reference where any one advocating Apple offer an xMac has said anything close to this.

YOU may WANT such a product but clearly you have not shown that you are willing to PAY for such a product in as much as the majority of complaints is that the Mac Pro is too expensive and you consistently push for $1000 tower. It is clear that no xMac as Apple would build it (and not Dell with a nicer case) would satisfy you. Every time I suggest a $1499-$1799 Mac Pro we end up right back at the $1K price point. Even $1200 you feel is too high as minimum even though that's a good $200 less than I think would be even vaguely considered by Apple.

Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.

But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.
No, it is not clear to you.

An xMac with a single Conroe, blah, blah blah priced in the $1499 - $1799 market would not sell. If it had a Xeon, it would not sell even more. This is a redux of the infamous Cube.

Dell averages between 16 - 18% margins, therefore their mid to upper end consumer offering HAVE TO BE HIGHER, MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LOW END $499 MACHINES. What they are, who knows, but considering the volume of the mid to upper end is LOWER, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, than the low end offerings the margins on the mid to upper end in order to skew the average up to 16 - 18% it would seem to be in the 22 - 28% area and maybe just maybe higher. This IS THE LUCRATIVE MARKET YOU KEEP REFERING TO.

snoopy

05-03-2007, 01:07 PM

Gee, you know there's more than one dictionary. . . you might say that your insistance that there is but one narrow meaning to the word might be a tad . . . limited.

I'll simply repeat what I said: "I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying." Does that sound like I insist on one narrow meaning of the word?

Perhaps your narrow usage isn't the common one?

Many words have taken on a nuance in usage that go beyond most dictionary definitions. It's okay to use lucrative as a synonym for profitable, and when you do, readers will pick up on your meaning from the context. It's also okay to use lucrative to mean a very great profit, a distinction that most dictionaries miss entirely. If I use lucrative in this way, I expect that my readers will pick up on the meaning from the context. Normally, it is no big deal whether the reader sees the subtile difference or not. However, as I alluded to earlier, this is the first time anyone has challenged the way I use the word lucrative.

Many or the references you cited do show lucrative going beyond just being profitable, and there are more yet. Espindle says highly profitable. WordNet says producing a good profit. Answers.com say well paid, which can be translated to very good profit for a business situation. And or course the Apple dictionary which says producing a great deal of profit. All of these go beyond simply profitable. One even gives the usual "profitable" as the first meaning, but give "greedy gain" as a second meaning, the Brainy Dictionary.

We could take a survey to see how other use the word lucrative, but I found one from Google. It gave "profitable" as the meaning and asked for a rating of that meaning, from 1 to 5. When I checked, profitable was being rated below a 2. So, not everybody is happy with simply profitable.

Obscene is a subjective assessment. Relative to what Dell makes getting 25%+ margins on a $1000 machines is huge/great/fantastic/tremendous/obscene profits. Highly lucrative.

What you are really saying is that the adjective use to describe profitability of a company depend on what market it's in. I agree that you can do this if you use a qualifier, as you did above: "Relative to what Dell makes." However, if profitability is discussed without a qualifier, I believe a persons use of adjectives ought to be consistent, to not confuse the reader.

By the way, I'm sorry I used the word obscene. I don't think lucrative would imply an obscene profit. Yet everyone is free to use adjectives this way, if it's consistent.

:D

rickag

05-03-2007, 01:29 PM

90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.
US market share, right. Oh, except for those buying laptops, which is higher that 6%.

Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.
Facts, figures or made up numbers.

Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.
So. Irrelevant to the discussion of something Apple currently doesn't offer, like the xMac.

94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.
Actually, if you compare price/feature the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell, the iMac is comparably priced feature for feature, it is only the Mac mini which fits this statement and it may or may not sell very well, which is bizarre since in any other market the least expensive product is normally the highest seller. Truly bizarre.

OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.
So what.

The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).
So why oh why is Apple advertising? Nothing they can do will increase market share. Are these commercials for the shareholders.
Who was it that said,"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves."?
You have got absolutely the most negative things to say about Apple. They "Windows wouldn't still have 90% of the desktop market", "OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined."

And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).
See above posts about pricing and margins.

Strawman.

My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market.
Except you haven't shown why they exited. There could be other reasons.

Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.
Talk about strawman - virtually no one has advocated adopting Dell's or HP's strategy.
And no, offering an xMac is in no way shape or form as risky as the iPod was or the iPhone is.

The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.
xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.
All of the above quote presumes that Dell's margins for a mid to upper end consumer desktop is in the 16 - 18% range, which can be reasonably rejected. If they are higher then Apple could compete feature for feature in the same price range, JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH THE iMac and Mac Pro and XServe.

OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.
More negative waves.

So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?
IBM left to concentrate on their IT, mainframe and chip business which are core to their existance.
Sony and Toshiba left because they were incompetent in marketing, manufacturing and distribution.

vinea

05-03-2007, 03:51 PM

The mid to upper end consumer machines are obviously not commodity market and this is where Dell tries to increase margins to make up for the low end.

No one here has suggested that Apple get into the commondity market.

Snoopy has suggested $500 xMacs in the past. Here $1000 xMacs. These are within that range. $1600-$2000 and I agree you've left the commodity range. $1100-$1400? Likely outside.

We don't assert this, it is fact not ficiton.

The assertion is that this justification for an xMac. Its true that most machines are towers.

NO, we have said that margins might, I stress might be, lower, but the distinct possibility exists that Apple may increase market share.

Then why would Apple wish to do this? Dilute their ASPs and profitability on the possibility that it might increase share. So what if they do increase share? They're losing money they could have made.

Show me just one reference where any one advocating Apple offer an xMac has said anything close to this.

Go read the umpteen million other xMac threads and get back to me. I sure as heck aint reading them again.

No, it is not clear to you.

An xMac with a single Conroe, blah, blah blah priced in the $1499 - $1799 market would not sell. If it had a Xeon, it would not sell even more. This is a redux of the infamous Cube.

A PowerMac sold for $1499-$1699 with a single G5 and even slightly crippled. A single Xeon Mac Pro would sell to the same market and it would be easier to just make it a BTO without futzing with crippling it.

A single Conroe xMac using an Core 2 Duo Extreme in the $1799 range would sell given it would be one of the cheaper Core 2 Duo Extremes on the market and priced under Dell's Precision 390 equivalent.

Either one would be price competitive vs Dell offerings in the same class. A Xeon is simply the easier of the two to implement.

Dell averages between 16 - 18% margins, therefore their mid to upper end consumer offering HAVE TO BE HIGHER, MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LOW END $499 MACHINES. What they are, who knows, but considering the volume of the mid to upper end is LOWER, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, than the low end offerings the margins on the mid to upper end in order to skew the average up to 16 - 18% it would seem to be in the 22 - 28% area and maybe just maybe higher. This IS THE LUCRATIVE MARKET YOU KEEP REFERING TO.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say that Dell is getting 14%-18% on their $1000 boxes. The region where Apple DOES compete with Dell is in that lucrative 25%+ region...with the Mac Pro.

At least you finally got that.

$1000 machine? No. $1400 machine? Maybe. $1600 machine? Probably. $2000 machine? Certainly...they do it now.

But hey...you guys that want a Conroe based xMac* all that much why WOULDN'T you buy a $1799 Mac Pro based on the Core 2 Extreme X6800 or Core 2 QX6700 for $1899?

Oh, because you are really saying you don't care about whether Apple offers a "prosumer" xMac of good value. Just that its cheap. Sorry, but that's not a good fit with the brand image.

Vinea

* Other than Dan Wells

vinea

05-03-2007, 04:10 PM

US market share, right. Oh, except for those buying laptops, which is higher that 6%.

No, I was refering to the installed base numbers from website hits. Questionable absolute numbers but good enough to see relative share of the installed base on an OS level.

Facts, figures or made up numbers.

Windows market share indicates that if these folks do hate Microsoft they don't hate it enough to stop using Windows...

So. Irrelevant to the discussion of something Apple currently doesn't offer, like the xMac.

My comment was in response to Ben's strawman that folks only purchased because of hw design. They buy for the total experience. It's a nice experience but pricey.

Actually, if you compare price/feature the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell, the iMac is comparably priced feature for feature, it is only the Mac mini which fits this statement and it may or may not sell very well, which is bizarre since in any other market the least expensive product is normally the highest seller. Truly bizarre.

The point is that the Mac Pro is less expensive than the Dell because Apple is competing in an area where Dell doesn't move so much volume it can crush Apple on margins. Dell has areas where they enjoy nice margins and this is where Apple (wisely) chooses to compete with them.

iMac vs a Dell tower gets crushed on performance vs price.

So what.

So read the post I was responding to.

So why oh why is Apple advertising? Nothing they can do will increase market share. Are these commercials for the shareholders.

They can increase SALES and they have been. You're the one who keeps trying to show that they haven't gained share as well. Share have risen and fallen over time. Sales continue to grow these last qtrs.

The point however is that the OS really hasn't been a decisive factor and arguably MacOS had a far more decisive advantage over Windows 3.x than OSX has over Vista/XP.

I would say that branding has been the decisive factor in growth these last quarters. That's a combo of the iPod halo, the exclusive pricing and refinement in ease of use and design.

That and Job's RDF. He's sure cool for a geek.

You have got absolutely the most negative things to say about Apple.

Only if you have poor reading comprehension...

Vinea

snoopy

05-03-2007, 06:01 PM

Snoopy has suggested $500 xMacs in the past. Here $1000 xMacs.

Whoa! No! I suggested $500 for a bigger Mac Mini, built with desktop parts and enough room for cooling of a higher performance CPU and GPU. Range $500 to $1000. The low price version is lower performance, needless to say, for the economy minded.

Regarding a Mac mini tower, I've been saying $1000 to $2000, but for one post I said possibly as low as $900. We can guess, but only Apple knows what Apple will do. I just hope they make a mini tower sooner, rather than later.

If we'd stop calling everything an xMac, it would clear up such confusion.

Then why would Apple wish to do this? Dilute their ASPs and profitability on the possibility that it might increase share. So what if they do increase share? They're losing money they could have made.

Apple doesn't need to dilute their profitability with a mini tower. The price can be set to have minimal impact on the iMac. Would it sell. Damn well it would. There would be no competition because no one else would makes a Mac mini tower. Apple has a clear market, just as it has on all it's computer products.

Would it take some sales from the iMac and Mac Pro? Yes it would, but if Apple set the margins about the same, it would make no difference, and customers would have a choice. Would market share increase? Of course, since potential switchers would have a broader choice, and Mac users would not need to buy on eBay to get something close to what they want.

The above has been repeated over and over. It's okay to not believe what we say, but at least acknowledge that we have addressed the issues.

You also mention that we insist on just a certain type of prosumer tower and don't accept a cut down Mac Pro with a single CPU. Not so. We prefer a desktop CPU solution because of manufacturing cost. Apple can make a lower priced consumer/prosumer mini tower by using desktop, not workstation, components. The idea is to offer a better value tower for those who do not need a workstation. I believe this argument is sound. You obviously don't.

:)

Fran441

05-03-2007, 07:46 PM

A PowerMac sold for $1499-$1699 with a single G5 and even slightly crippled. A single Xeon Mac Pro would sell to the same market and it would be easier to just make it a BTO without futzing with crippling it.

Remember that the G5 you are talking about only came into existance after the 1.6/1.8/Dual 2.0 GHz G5s were introduced, the solo 1.8 GHz G5 was discontinued, and then the solo 1.8 GHz was reintroduced to replace the 1.6 GHz G5. It had 256 MB of RAM, an 80 GB Hard Drive, a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM, and a 600 MHz FSB.

This machine was not offered at the $1499 price tag until over a year after the G5s were released and the 3rd 'revision' was released. It hasn't been a year for the Mac Pros and it's hard to argue that the addition of the Eight Core Mac Pros is a major update to the line. Regardless, let's look at what the equivilent machine would be today.

The solo processor G5 was $500 cheaper than it's dual processor counterpart. So assuming a $501 price drop off of the 'low end' Dual Processor 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pro ($800 price drop from the standard Dual Processor 2.66 Ghz Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pro), we get this:

One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699

That's the same exact machine as the current $2200 Dual Processor 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon system with only one 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon Processor. I don't think dropping one processor from the machine will make it $501 cheaper but we'll keep it like this for the sake of discussion.

I'm guessing that the people who want a 'headless mid-range tower' would call this overpriced and would say that they'd immediately have to upgrade the RAM, add Airport, Bluetooth, or both, and upgrade the graphics card which would bring the cost of the system up as well.

Out of all of the possibilities I've heard for a 'mid range tower', this is the one that is most likely historically. Apple has in the past offered low end Power Mac towers in this price range and it wouldn't shock me to see them add this type of tower sometime in the future.

What's crazy is that this tower would offer people everything they want in their 'headless mid-range tower' because it would have the same expandability as the top of the line Mac Pros and the same type of processor. But I also have little doubt that they'd take one look at the $1699 price and say that Apple has "once again failed them" because they don't want to pay that much for a computer.

We've had this conversation so many times now, I've lost track of everything that has been said, but I know that there's no way for Apple to make everyone happy here.

imacFP

05-03-2007, 08:38 PM

I'd love to know how many times this topic has been discussed. Honestly there are only a few important issues that nobody is bothering to figure out. #1 Why does Apple not want to build an xMac? and #2 What would force Apple to build, or decide that it was the right time to build, a headless prosumer Mac. I've always felt that if Apple wanted to do it they would have before now. Their two attempts at a headless Mac (the Cube and Mini) are (were) not up to what most people would want in a xMac. There's something, and not just Steve, that keeps them from doing it. Unless you can answer the above questions, which we can't, any thread like this is nothing more than an extended group rant. Perhaps the better thing to do, as somebody suggested, is to write to Apple about what we're looking for. It might not work but it's better repeating the same thing over and over. Most people want an xMac but clearly Apple doesn't and that's all that matters. I know the purpose of a forum is to discuss and debate but it just seems endless. Maybe we should send an open letter to Apple on why a xMac is needed.

Fran441

05-03-2007, 09:07 PM

#1 Why does Apple not want to build an xMac? and #2 What would force Apple to build, or decide that it was the right time to build, a headless prosumer Mac. I've always felt that if Apple wanted to do it they would have before now. Their two attempts at a headless Mac (the Cube and Mini) are (were) not up to what most people would want in a xMac.

1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.

2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.

FOXPhotog

05-03-2007, 10:10 PM

We keep hearing about the Cube and the Mac Mini.

:rant:
The Cube is/was NOT (for most of us) a mid tower. Yes, maybe it had the specs and similiar blah, blah, blah as other PC towers... (enter dead-horse argument here) but it like the Mac Mini lacks one major feature.

IT'S NOT OPEN FOR UPGRADES!!!

(please don't ask me why I need to upgrade... that will just be pointless)

Why is it like pulling teeth to see this point? We don't want a sealed box. We don't like the limited options that the Apple Elite tell us are good enough. I want choices!!! That's all. User designed choices. NOT PREPACKAGED ONES!!! I would love to have the blue-million choices that the PC boxes allow with the awesome Apple OS. For some reason yet to be explained in all of this mental masturbation is the real why?

Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.

Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? What if I don't? Then I go with a lesser computer (a PC) because I don't have my mind right?

That is REALLY what it sounds like is being suggested.

About a month ago I wanted to get a Mac soooo badly. Now I'm beginning to rethink my position. I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable for about $1000 less than the topped out iMac 24".

So why in the Sam Hill would I want to buy a Mac now???

BTW, I'm one of those Prosumers. Professional by day consumer by night. I'm a professional video Photojournalist and editor. At home I'm a video hobbiest with a wicked appetite for a good interface. I know what I need and Mac apparently doesn't want me to be able to buy it.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

:end rant:

vinea

05-03-2007, 11:19 PM

About a month ago I wanted to get a Mac soooo badly. Now I'm beginning to rethink my position. I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable for about $1000 less than the topped out iMac 24".

And that will almost always be the case except for the Mac Pro. Macs are simply not all that cost effective except at the top end.

In any case, why would you get a topped out iMac 24" anyway? A "topped out" iMac 24 is over $3600.

Get a Mac Pro with a X1900 for $2700 and add a Dell 24" for $569 or a Dell 30" for $1,269.

Buy some memory from Crucial.

Quad core, 2.66Ghz, X1900, 1GB RAM, 250GB HDD, Dell 30" for $3969. A far better deal than a topped out iMac 24.

A good value vs a Dell workstation.

So why in the Sam Hill would I want to buy a Mac now???

BTW, I'm one of those Prosumers. Professional by day consumer by night. I'm a professional video Photojournalist and editor. At home I'm a video hobbiest with a wicked appetite for a good interface. I know what I need and Mac apparently doesn't want me to be able to buy it.

If the tools on OSX does not increase your productivity enough to offset the cost then you don't want a mac.

For you a 15" MBP with a 24" or 30" Dell monitor seems better than a tower anyway. Having FCP available on the flight home or in your hotel room might be useful...or not if you don't travel.

But it really is more about your tool chain than the OS or hardware that should decide for you.

Vinea

snoopy

05-03-2007, 11:23 PM

The Cube is/was NOT (for most of us) a mid tower. . . like the Mac Mini lacks one major feature.

IT'S NOT OPEN FOR UPGRADES!!!

. . . We don't like the limited options that the Apple Elite tell us are good enough. I want choices!!! That's all. User designed choices. NOT PREPACKAGED ONES!!! . . .

Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.

Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? . . .

BRAVO!

By the way, have you considered getting a dual core G5 Power Mac on eBay? It's still big, but a lot cheaper than a Mac Pro.

:D

Fran441

05-04-2007, 12:05 AM

Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.

Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? What if I don't? Then I go with a lesser computer (a PC) because I don't have my mind right?

That is REALLY what it sounds like is being suggested.

As hard as it is to imagine, some of us remember Apple before Steve Jobs took over as CEO from Gil Amelio in July of 1997. Let's take a trip down memory lane.

In 1996-1997, Apple was hemmorhaging money. The company was making major plays for market share and had allowed other companies to license System/Mac OS 7.x and make Mac clones. Power Computing was the most notable, at one point having the fastest Mac out on the market and also undercutting Apple's prices.

At the same time, Apple had literally dozens of machines for sale. They had pizza boxes, towers, all in ones, and laptops. Some of their 'pizza box' Macs were the exact same machines as some of their towers, only in a different case. Some towers were under the Performa line, some were under the Power Mac line. Apple had a major problem, there were too many Macs on the market.

When Jobs took over as CEO, he took action almost immediately. Mac OS 7.7 was renamed to Mac OS 8, which helped end Mac cloning. The Performa brand was discontinued, the Power Mac G3 was released in two varieties (the last pizza box which had already been in development and a tower), and the PowerBook G3 was released (a PowerBook 3400 with a G3 which had already been in development). Anything not directly related to the Mac was killed off, including Apple's printer lines, the Newton, scanners, QuickTake cameras, etc.

Over the course of the next few years, the product line was consolidated to the iMac, the iBook, the Power Mac, and the PowerBook. The decision to consolidate the lines saved Apple. After a few years, the Power Mac G4 Cube was released and it didn't sell well. Apple discontinued it realizing that the market wasn't there for the machine. Apple also tried to maintain an educational all in one called the eMac before realizing that the market was just as willing to buy an iMac. It was also discontinued. Apple did listen to customers though, and the Mac Mini was released as a cheap, entry level machine in 2005.

I know people will argue that the iMac doesn't work for them for X, Y, and Z reasons. But Apple has catered to overlapping segments of the market before and it just hasn't worked out for them. It's obvious that they see the iMac as a 'Prosumer' machine. I think that if Apple saw a market for a mid range tower, they'd release one.

But even if Apple did release a mid range Mac tower, you *still* would have people upset because Apple would charge more for their towers than Dell, HP, <insert PC manufacturer here>. You'd *still* see these boards dominated by posts saying, "I could get a Dell that has the exact same specs as the 'xMac' for $300 cheaper OMFG".

I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable

If you're looking for Apple to release a machine that is more powerful, less expensive, and more upgradeable than other custom PCs, you're going to be waiting for a heck of a long time because it's not going to happen.

LoganT

05-04-2007, 12:29 AM

So far it looks like 1077 people would like it.

http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Letter_To_Steve_Jobs_Please_Build_The_Missing _Mac

:D

boots

05-04-2007, 01:36 AM

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 08:15 AM

One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699
.

That's a system is going to be no faster the $1199 iMac and it still has the insanely expensive and high latency FB-DIMMs. No rational person is going to give up their PC for that. How about instead of trying to cripple everything and trying to gouge people for money, they try to make the best and most innovative computer in that category like they did with the blue and white g3. That doesn't mean some bizarre form factor that is so out there that it doesn't do the job. it means sticking a P965 motherboard with its desktop ram and conroe CPUs into the superior Mac Pro case and continuing the legacy of the PowerMac. Apple had chances in the 80s and right after the original iMac was released to gain and keep a significant marketshare. Both times they let their arrogance get the best of them and they slipped into unprofitability. If they squander this really big chance with that same arrogance, they might not get a 4th.

As for the failure of the past:

Cube: More expensive than PMG4 at same price. Looks better, but really an impractical design.

Late PowerMac G4/G5: Non-competitive PowerPC cpus. No chance for any real switchers due to platform. PMG5 case large and less practical than the one it replaced.

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 08:20 AM

Look at what Gateway is rolling out at $1399 after rebate:

http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529665346.php

2.4GHz dual core, 320MB 8800 GTS, 2GB RAM, 250GB hard drive, and a safe 'n' sane mini tower case.

Go ahead and stack the Apple tax on that for OS X, and a nicer enclosure, etc. Should still be under $2K IMO.

Better yet:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8308164&type=product&productCategoryId=pcmcat103700050071&id=1173577735222

2.4ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB of high end PC5300 DDR2 RAM
320GB hard drive
20x DVD burner
256MB Geforce 8600GT
Similar quality and appearance to Apple
$1499

OSX is worth a lot, but it isn't worth twice the price of a high end PC.

imacFP

05-04-2007, 08:25 AM

1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.

2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.

Actually I think it's more complex than the Cube failing. If you took the guts of the iMac and put it into a simple box, not concept enclosure like the Cube, and bundled it with a LCD at a good price it would work. The Cube was a head of its time and Apple wouldn't need to make that mistake again. If you're right and Apple can never be forced to make a xMac than why bother debating it? I agree that Apple is a bit gun shy and nobody is asking them nor should be return to the pre-Jobs days, but if Apple sold the iMac as "headless" with the same prices and specs, but allowing upgrades, that would make most people happy.

Mac Mini from $599
xMac from $999 (same prices as current 17" 20" and 24" when bundled with a display of that size)
Mac Pro from $2400

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 08:29 AM

So far it looks like 1077 people would like it.

http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Letter_To_Steve_Jobs_Please_Build_The_Missing _Mac

:D

Over 2500 now.

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 09:01 AM

1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.

2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.

Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.

rickag

05-04-2007, 09:19 AM

So far it looks like 1077 people would like it.

http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Letter_To_Steve_Jobs_Please_Build_The_Missing _Mac

:D

So far it looks like 1077 people would like it.

http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Letter_To_Steve_Jobs_Please_Build_The_Missing _Mac

:D
Over 2500 now.
less than an hour later up to 2739 :D

Appears to be gaining steam.

rickag

05-04-2007, 09:20 AM

Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.
This is such an easy concept to grasp it defies logic to argue against an xMac.

FOXPhotog

05-04-2007, 09:33 AM

BRAVO!

By the way, have you considered getting a dual core G5 Power Mac on eBay? It's still big, but a lot cheaper than a Mac Pro.

:D

That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?

Thanks for the suggestion,

FOXPhotog

rickag

05-04-2007, 09:39 AM

That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?

Thanks for the suggestion,

FOXPhotog
Opps, one more potential lost sale for a new Apple computer, as the used market seems the best competition against Apple's own mid to upper end computers.

FOXPhotog

05-04-2007, 09:49 AM

As hard as it is to imagine, some of us remember Apple before Steve Jobs took over as CEO from Gil Amelio in July of 1997. Let's take a trip down memory lane.

<<SNIP>>

All of that turbulent history is very true. We are not asking for all of or even any of that bad business model.

Rather, it seems most of us would be ok with a MacPro with more "upgrade friendly" features. Meaning that I would gladly buy a base MacPro with Conroe or equivalent architecture. One that would allow the user to swap in (aftermarket) drives, graphics cards etc.

We're not asking Apple to hit every niche out there, rather to make a machine that niche folks can adjust for themselves.

But even if Apple did release a mid range Mac tower, you *still* would have people upset because Apple would charge more for their towers than Dell, HP, <insert PC manufacturer here>. You'd *still* see these boards dominated by posts saying, "I could get a Dell that has the exact same specs as the 'xMac' for $300 cheaper OMFG".

True. You will also have people who drink bong water. :err:

Some folks cannot be pleased, ever. But that is not about whom we are speaking.

If you're looking for Apple to release a machine that is more powerful, less expensive, and more upgradeable than other custom PCs, you're going to be waiting for a heck of a long time because it's not going to happen.

How about powerful, upgradeable, lower priced than the MacPro. Based on the MacPro architecture maybe???

Fran441

05-04-2007, 10:04 AM

Apple had chances in the 80s and right after the original iMac was released to gain and keep a significant marketshare. Both times they let their arrogance get the best of them and they slipped into unprofitability. If they squander this really big chance with that same arrogance, they might not get a 4th.

It's was Apple's plays for Mac marketshare that got them into trouble in the first place. Heck, I used to think and hope that Apple would turn things around and start making major gains in market share for the Mac. After all, increased market share meant increased software support for the Mac. But to a certain extent, I was all wrong. When developers were abandoning Mac support in the mid to late 1990s, it was because 'Apple was doomed'. There was the real possibility that Apple was not going to turn things around and developers didn't want to waste time developing for a system that wasn't going to be around for much longer. But once Apple proved to developers that it wasn't going anywhere and Mac OS X was released, developers came back to the Mac.

Apple is in a good place right now and making tons of money. Why would they jeopardize this by trying to undercut HP/Dell/etc.? That's what it would take to gain significant market share. Heck, Microsoft loses money on every Xbox/Xbox 360 they sell, all in the name of market share. Is that the road we want Apple to head down?

Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.

We're going in circles here. Just a few posts ago, you were saying that no rational person would 'give up their PC' for the Mac Pro I listed. I said that if Apple offered a solo Xeon instead of a dual processor Mac Pro, it might help fit the gap in the lineup people are talking about. Now you are saying that the machine you wanted was already offered in the solo processor Power Mac G4 when Apple was offering dual processors in the rest of the lineup. $1599 got you a 400 MHz G4, 64 MB of RAM, and a 20 GB Hard Drive. So yes, it needed to be upgraded out of the box just like most people would do with the Mac Pro I posted.

Anyway, this discussion continues to be all over the place with some people insisting the xMac has to start at $999 while others say they are looking at the $1200-$1800 range. There's never going to be a consensus here and even if Apple released a mid range tower, it's going to be more expensive than people think/want. The comparisons between Apple and HP/Dell/etc. need to stop because we all know that Apple is going to charge more.

Fran441

05-04-2007, 10:08 AM

How about powerful, upgradeable, lower priced than the MacPro. Based on the MacPro architecture maybe???

Did you miss the post I made about this?

One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699

That's the Mac Pro with the same type of processor, but only one, and everything else is direct from the stock 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Same architecture, same case, the same possible upgrades, but only one processor. But we've already heard from people in this thread that it's not what they want.

FOXPhotog

05-04-2007, 10:10 AM

vinea

05-04-2007, 10:48 AM

No rational person is going to give up their PC for that.

No rational person is going to buy a single Xeon Dell Precision? I wonder why they offer it as a BTO then?

Vinea

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 10:49 AM

Did you miss the post I made about this?

One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699

That's the Mac Pro with the same type of processor, but only one, and everything else is direct from the stock 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Same architecture, same case, the same possible upgrades, but only one processor. But we've already heard from people in this thread that it's not what they want.

And you don't seem to understand why. 2.0ghz CPU and insanely expensive high latency memory. 2.33ghz is a the minimum I would go for at that price. Of course Apple doesn't use those and it wouldn't involve sacrificing your own requirements for the benefit of Apple. Apple has a case, intel has a cpu and motherboard platform specifically designed for desktops, close to 97% of desktops sold are towers. This is not that hard to figure out. Disconnect from Apple's hive mind people and start thinking for yourselves for a minute or too. This is not that hard to figure out.

vinea

05-04-2007, 10:50 AM

That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?

Thanks for the suggestion,

FOXPhotog

Yes, but its dead technology. You're better off buying a Mac Pro and ebaying the extra Xeon if you are inclined toward the single Xeon model that has been suggested.

Vinea

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 10:52 AM

No rational person is going to buy a single Xeon Dell Precision? I wonder why they offer it as a BTO then?

Vinea

They call them low end professional workstations and the conroe ones outnumber the xeon ones by a large majority in the single CPU arena. Why do they offer them in single CPU configurations then? They allow the user to choose for themselves instead of insisting on trying to think for them. We are also talking desktops, not workstations. Different users, different requirements.

vinea

05-04-2007, 10:59 AM

2.0ghz CPU and insanely expensive high latency memory.

Apple Mac Pro DDR2 PC2-5300 4GB Kit = $497.99

Dell Precision 390 (Conroe) DDR2 PC2-5300 4GB kit = $355.99

http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=Mac+Pro+%284%2Dcore%29

Insanely Expensive = $142 difference

Gotcha.

Oh and given the cost difference between Apple and Dell at the dual 2.66Ghz range it seems that Apple could offer a single Xeon 2.66Ghz at $1699 ($50 cheaper than dell).

Vinea

PS FB-DIMMs have the advantage of being able to have more memory...its a design decision of increased latency vs vm.

vinea

05-04-2007, 11:02 AM

They call them low end professional workstations and the conroe ones outnumber the xeon ones by a large majority in the single CPU arena. Why do they offer them in single CPU configurations then? They allow the user to choose for themselves instead of insisting on trying to think for them. We are also talking desktops, not workstations. Different users, different requirements.

Oddly...I use my mac pro as a desktop with no ill effects. There's no difference between a "desktop" and a "workstation" except cost. What "different requirements" OTHER than price?

There's nothing that a single xeon Mac Pro couldn't do that a conroe based Mac Pro could except slightly slower (but with better expansion to 8 cores).

Vinea

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 11:24 AM

Apple Mac Pro DDR2 PC2-5300 4GB Kit = $497.99

Dell Precision 390 (Conroe) DDR2 PC2-5300 4GB kit = $355.99

http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=Mac+Pro+%284%2Dcore%29

Insanely Expensive = $142 difference

Gotcha.

Oh and given the cost difference between Apple and Dell at the dual 2.66Ghz range it seems that Apple could offer a single Xeon 2.66Ghz at $1699 ($50 cheaper than dell).

Vinea

PS FB-DIMMs have the advantage of being able to have more memory...its a design decision of increased latency vs vm.

You're comparing Dell prices to third party FB-DIMMS.

At newegg.com, the most expensive price for 2GB (2x1GB kit) DDR667 memory is $245 for super high end gaming ram. The normal stuff is around $100. You're paying between between $240-350 for the same amount of memory (4x512 since Apple does not offer 2x1GB) on sale.

That money might seem insignificant to you because you apparently have no budget, but for those of use who are not insanely rich, it adds up.

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 11:27 AM

Oddly...I use my mac pro as a desktop with no ill effects. There's no difference between a "desktop" and a "workstation" except cost. What "different requirements" OTHER than price?

There's nothing that a single xeon Mac Pro couldn't do that a conroe based Mac Pro could except slightly slower (but with better expansion to 8 cores).

Vinea

True there is no consumer task a xeon workstation can't do and do well, there is no disputing that. However, a Conroe desktop can do those same tasks at nearly half the price. And yes there is an ill effect, workstation = waiting a much longer time and not getting an ibook replacement as well.

As my sig says, it's like having to buy one of these:
http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/trucks/find-by-model/M2-100-106/

To do the work of one of these:
http://www.dodge.com/en/ram_1500/index.html

Fran441

05-04-2007, 12:04 PM

And you don't seem to understand why. 2.0ghz CPU and insanely expensive high latency memory. 2.33ghz is a the minimum I would go for at that price. Of course Apple doesn't use those and it wouldn't involve sacrificing your own requirements for the benefit of Apple. Apple has a case, intel has a cpu and motherboard platform specifically designed for desktops, close to 97% of desktops sold are towers. This is not that hard to figure out. Disconnect from Apple's hive mind people and start thinking for yourselves for a minute or too. This is not that hard to figure out.

So because people are playing devil's advocate, they're somehow connected to 'Appe's hive mind' and are unable to think for themselves?

The point that is always made by this topic is that people don't want to pay so much for Apple's Power Mac or Mac Pro towers. People want the same expandability, similar speed, the same options, and sometimes even the same case. But they want this at half of the price of the existing towers. People point to Dell, IBM, HP, etc. to make their point about why Apple should offer that machine at the price they want. People also say that it will increase Mac market share and that 'everyone' will want to buy one. Yet despite all of the great moves that Apple has made since 1997, they don't make this machine. Do you think they know something that we don't?

My PowerBook G4 is almost dead and I'm in the market for a new computer. I've been saving money for quite some time and I can't decide whether I want a Mac Pro or a MacBook Pro. On the one hand, I like owning a portable, but on the other hand, I want a computer that's going to last a long time and I know the Mac Pro will. While the Mac Pro might be overkill for what I'm doing now, it won't be overkill 4 years from now. Definitely keep that in mind when you consider the prices of Mac towers.

snoopy

05-04-2007, 12:23 PM

That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?

Thanks for the suggestion,

Yes, and both the G4 and G5 should run Mac OS X for many years to come. Apple's Universal software lets applications run natively on either a PPC (G5 etc.) or Intel processor. There is a down side only if you need the speed and power of new Intel chips, or if you need to run Windows applications on the same computer.

I'm not running anything more demanding than Logic, Apple's professional music application, and for a few Windows applications, I have an older PC in the basement. The bottom line is that Apple provides my OS and updates, plus several of my important applications. My hardware comes from eBay.

I don't know whether you have purchased computers on eBay? I have been doing it for six or seven years now. I've discovered that if I am patient and do my research, I can get a very good deal. I'm running three Power Mac towers now, and will like wait two years before getting a Xeon Mac Pro from eBay. Plans could change if Apple begins to make a prosumer mini tower.

:D

snoopy

05-04-2007, 01:01 PM

The point that is always made by this topic is that people don't want to pay so much for Apple's Power Mac or Mac Pro towers. People want the same expandability, similar speed, the same options, and sometimes even the same case. But they want this at half of the price of the existing towers.

Me thinks you exaggerate too greatly. Most of us who want a prosumer tower would be happy with a single Xeon Mac Pro, except for price. It's been mentioned over and over that a Mac Pro has excess cost built into it, in the form of a more expensive CPU, more costly RAM, four HDD bays when two would be enough, and an overkill power supply for a single CPU mini tower.

If Apple made a prosumer tower and priced it with typical Apple margins, it would provide a lot more value for Mac users who only need and/or want a prosumer tower. Why should we pay for a workstation just to get 3 PCIe cards, two HDDs and two optical drives? If Apple offered a mini tower, fewer people would point to what Dell, IBM, HP, etc. offer. And yes, it will increase Mac market share.

Does Apple know something that we don't? No, but they're in denial.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Fran441

05-04-2007, 01:17 PM

Me thinks you exaggerate too greatly.

Given the number of times I've read a thread on this topic in the last 8 years, I can safely say I'm not exaggerating. ;)

rickag

05-04-2007, 01:23 PM

vinea

05-04-2007, 01:31 PM

You're comparing Dell prices to third party FB-DIMMS.

Both prices are from crucial.

At newegg.com, the most expensive price for 2GB (2x1GB kit) DDR667 memory is $245 for super high end gaming ram.

Which means the 4GB set for the Mac Pro from Crucial is the same price.

So much for insanely expensive.

And no, no-name ram from new egg is not the same as comparing ram from crucial. The price delta is a $100.

Vinea

vinea

05-04-2007, 01:35 PM

True there is no consumer task a xeon workstation can't do and do well, there is no disputing that. However, a Conroe desktop can do those same tasks at nearly half the price. And yes there is an ill effect, workstation = waiting a much longer time and not getting an ibook replacement as well.

As my sig says, it's like having to buy one of these:
http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/trucks/find-by-model/M2-100-106/

To do the work of one of these:
http://www.dodge.com/en/ram_1500/index.html

No...its a lot more like whining that you can't get a 5 series BMW for Chevy Malibu prices because BMW doesn't make a low end sedan.

Vinea

vinea

05-04-2007, 01:49 PM

Well that Open Letter to Steve Jobs on digg's website is up to 3541 duggs.

At least those of us that have posted our desire for a mythical xMac can console ourselves that we're not alone, and not the "few pot bangers" that has been suggested here and on other threads.:smokey:

http://www.digg.com/news/popular/24hours

I Support Kevin Rose and Digg

House Speaker Pelosi wants to hear your opinion on Bush/Cheney impeachment

ASTOUNDING: New Power Station Makes the Air Glow in Spain (PICS!)

Open Letter To Steve Jobs: Please Build The Missing Mac

10 Reasons Why It Doesn’t Pay To Be “The Computer Guy”

Vegan Parents Starve Baby to Death on Soy Milk/Apple Juice Diet

School Dean Sends Home Letter to Students Filled with Spelling Errors [PIC]

You know there was a time when Digg was cool and dugg articles were...I dunno...relevant...interesting? Finding 3000 other anonymous folks that think xMacs are cool doesn't seem much harder than finding 3000 other anonymous folks think that criminally stupid vegan parents or spelling errors from a school letter is important...

When you get to 100K Apple might take note.

Vinea

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 01:50 PM

Me thinks you exaggerate too greatly. Most of us who want a prosumer tower would be happy with a single Xeon Mac Pro, except for price. It's been mentioned over and over that a Mac Pro has excess cost built into it, in the form of a more expensive CPU, more costly RAM, four HDD bays when two would be enough, and an overkill power supply for a single CPU mini tower.

If Apple made a prosumer tower and priced it with typical Apple margins, it would provide a lot more value for Mac users who only need and/or want a prosumer tower. Why should we pay for a workstation just to get 3 PCIe cards, two HDDs and two optical drives? If Apple offered a mini tower, fewer people would point to what Dell, IBM, HP, etc. offer. And yes, it will increase Mac market share.

Does Apple know something that we don't? No, but they're in denial.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

To put it in perspective
CPU list prices
2.4ghz conroe: $316
2.33ghz woodcrest: $455

Motherboard prices (Newegg)
Intel P965motherboard: $110
5000X motherboard: $400

1GB 667 memory (2x512mb)
DIMM $63
FB-DIMM $120 on sale ($170 regular price)

Power supply:
Coolermaster 500W: $100
1000W: $350

Total:
Core 2 Duo: $589
Xeon: $1325
Difference: $736 or 2.25 times the component price. I don't know what kind of discounts Apple is getting, but I can bet nowhere near that kind of price difference. Going with workstation components would only add a lot of uncescesary cost on to the user for a machine that does performs sightly slower. That doesn't seem like that good of a deal to me.

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 02:00 PM

No...its a lot more like whining that you can't get a 5 series BMW for Chevy Malibu prices because BMW doesn't make a low end sedan.

Vinea

Huh? If you object having to pay $1000 in extra workstation parts just to get the same capability as a high end PC, you are cheap? This platform is not reserved only for the super wealthy.

BenRoethig

05-04-2007, 02:02 PM

Both prices are from crucial.

Which means the 4GB set for the Mac Pro from Crucial is the same price.

So much for insanely expensive.

And no, no-name ram from new egg is not the same as comparing ram from crucial. The price delta is a $100.

Vinea

c-r-u-c-i-a-l, let's see here: $111 2x 1GB

rickag

05-04-2007, 02:04 PM

No...its a lot more like whining that you can't get a 5 series BMW for Chevy Malibu prices because BMW doesn't make a low end sedan.

Vinea
No it's not and your argument above is silly. Quit acting like Apple makes BMW's, they make mid to upper end consumer computers with the same insides as the other mid to upper end manufacturers, except they make AIO and Mac mini that are less flexible. They get their parts, cpus, harddrives, video chips, wireless chips etc. from the same manufacturers as Dell and HP.

rickag

05-04-2007, 02:09 PM

To put it in perspective
CPU list prices
2.4ghz conroe: $316
2.33ghz woodcrest: $455

Motherboard prices (Newegg)
Intel P965motherboard: $110
5000X motherboard: $400

1GB 667 memory (2x512mb)
DIMM $63
FB-DIMM $120 on sale ($170 regular price)

Power supply:
Coolermaster 500W: $100
1000W: $350

Total:
Core 2 Duo: $589
Xeon: $1325
Difference: $736 or 2.25 times the component price. I don't know what kind of discounts Apple is getting, but I can bet nowhere near that kind of price difference. Going with workstation components would only add a lot of uncescesary cost on to the user for a machine that does performs sightly slower. That doesn't seem like that good of a deal to me.

Your response above is so logical as to be painful. Why people don't get it is beyond all rational thought.

And the digg article is now over 3600 and increasing at what appears to be ~20 every 5 minutes or so.