Apple's Mac sales rock-steady despite Vista

[AppleInsider]

Apple Inc. had little to quarrel about with the latest figures from Gartner, which showed the Mac maker standing firm against a tidal wave of Windows PC sales triggered by Vista. For the first quarter of 2007, Mac unit shipments were up some 30 percent.

Research firm Gartner published a preliminary report on Wednesday saying that rapid Vista sales scarcely made a dent in Apple's marketshare during the first quarter of the year, declining only a tenth of a point to reach an even 5 percent of US computer shipments by the end of March.

Sales for other computer designers fell almost perfectly in line with fourth quarter results, with Toshiba edging out Apple for fourth place at 5.4 percent and Gateway claiming the third spot with 7.7. The most surprising change for Windows PC shipments was a narrowing of the gap between top-ranked Dell and close opponent HP as the latter's success with Vista took away from its struggling rival.

Though potentially dampening the hopes of those who would expect Apple's newfound success to translate to a larger piece of the market, the statistic reinforced Morgan Stanley's notion that the Calfornia system builder had weathered the storm both before and after Vista's release. Mac shipments grew at a steady 30 percent year-over-year to 741,000 in the US alone, the report said, which created a buffer for the company.



Better still for Apple was news that the surge in PC shipments could be just a momentary spike -- both at home and abroad -- rather than the start of a larger trend.

"Microsoft’s official consumer launch of Vista in January, [sic] had very limited impact on overall worldwide shipment demand on a quarterly basis," Gartner wrote. "On a monthly basis, mature regions experienced a bubble in demand following its release. Vista adoption was primarily in the consumer and very small business segments of the mature regions."

Nonetheless, the charts illustrated the challenge of breaking into the upper ranks of computer sales for the primarily US-driven Apple, which yet again was left out of the top five system vendors after southeast Asian strongholds Acer, Lenovo, and Toshiba occupied spots three through five.



This could be due to a surprising shift in power, according to the researchers. Although the US market fared better than southeast Asia in sales, a shift in power during the first quarter gave the upper hand to Eastern territories -- where homegrown manufacturers often take precedence over American opponents.

"The Asia/Pacific region surpassed the U.S. PC market to take the No. 2 position in terms of shipments for the first time," Gartner was careful to note.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2679)

[Ireland]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/45/RocksteadyTMNT.jpg/200px-RocksteadyTMNT.jpg

[reverie]

I'm pretty sure you mean east asian, not southeast asian. The 3 companies mentioned are from China, Taiwan, Japan respectively.

[pazimzadeh]

It sure looks like Apple could catchup to Toshiba within the next couple of quarters (at least in the US). And if Leopard hadn't been delayed this might have happened during Q2.

[solipsism]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/45/RocksteadyTMNT.jpg/200px-RocksteadyTMNT.jpg

Huh?



It sure looks like Apple could catchup to Toshiba within the next couple of quarters (at least in the US). And if Leopard hadn't been delayed this might have happened during Q2.

I think Apple will definitely overtake 4th place eitehr Q2 or Q3 2007 and probably take 3rd place a year later.

Either way, it's impressive that Apple is doing so well in a market that is saturated by cheap-ass computers.

[BenRoethig]

It sure looks like Apple could catchup to Toshiba within the next couple of quarters (at least in the US). And if Leopard hadn't been delayed this might have happened during Q2.

Toshiba caught up to and passed Apple.

[Ireland]

Huh?

Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the title.

[Louzer]

Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the title.

Sorry, call me ignorant ("You're ignorant!") but are we supposed to know what that picture is?


Either way, it's impressive that Apple is doing so well in a market that is saturated by cheap-ass computers.

Yeah, real impressive. You did notice that they only have 5% of the market, right? Compared to their previous share, sure, that's impressive. But its not really impressive to the 20+% of its competitors.

[Chucker]

Sorry, call me ignorant ("You're ignorant!") but are we supposed to know what that picture is?

The article says "sales rock-steady". The picture is of a character "Rocksteady" in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocksteady_%28TMNT%29)

No worries, I didn't know either. But a minute or two of research on the web would have told you.

Yeah, real impressive. You did notice that they only have 5% of the market, right? Compared to their previous share, sure, that's impressive. But its not really impressive to the 20+% of its competitors.

They're on the path to become the fourth-largest vendor of PCs (including desktops, laptops and servers, so all market segments) in the US within a few years from now. If that isn't impressive, I don't know what is.

[solipsism]

Yeah, real impressive. You did notice that they only have 5% of the market, right? Compared to their previous share, sure, that's impressive. But its not really impressive to the 20+% of its competitors.

You can't see that Apple's position here isn't something to be admired with Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, and HP selling most of their computers at well under a $1,000?

Car analogy warning: Imagine Bentley grabbing 5% of the entire US auto market.

I wish I could see a marketshare report that focused on either $1000+ computers, Core (2) Duo or greater (even anything dual core for that matter), or some other criteria that isn't saturated by cheap-ass PC with outdated tech.

[BlackSummerNight]

Mac Mini, iMac (low end), and the Macbook are pretty much on the same level as low end Windows PCs. They all are right at or below $1000. The only reason Apple is gaining the little marketshare they are is because they finally found out that not many people can afford Bentleys.
You can't see that Apple's position here isn't something to be admired with Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, and HP selling most of their computers at well under a $1,000?

Car analogy warning: Imagine Bentley grabbing 5% of the entire US auto market.

I wish I could see a marketshare report that focused on either $1000+ computers, Core (2) Duo or greater (even anything dual core for that matter), or some other criteria that isn't saturated by cheap-ass PC with outdated tech.

The Car analogy is dead, can we finally put it to rest.:rolleyes:

[solipsism]

Mac Mini, iMac (low end), and the Macbook are pretty much on the same level as low end Windows PCs. They all are right at or below $1000. The only reason Apple is gaining the little marketshare they are is because they finally found out that not many people can afford Bentleys.

So you are saying that Apple increased sales are being carried by the Mac mini and educational iMac? That is funny! :lol:

[BlackSummerNight]

I don't consider the Ed Mac the low end, it's not available to everyone. So would you want to sell 1 MacPro or 20 Macbooks. It's been well stated that the Macbook is Apple's best seller. I'm sure you can do the math....well not sure, but you have a calculator.8-)
So you are saying that Apple increased sales are being carried by the Mac mini and educational iMac? That is funny! :lol:

[solipsism]

It's been well stated that the Macbook is Apple's best seller.

Exactly, and it's over a grand and is sporting a Core2Duo.

[Chucker]

It's been well stated that the Macbook is Apple's best seller.

Whereas all other companies in the top market share spots have low-end models as their best sellers. You only need to compare average selling points.

[Porchland]

Yeah, real impressive. You did notice that they only have 5% of the market, right? Compared to their previous share, sure, that's impressive. But its not really impressive to the 20+% of its competitors.

I'm still waiting for the halo. Apple has sold millions of iPods, hundreds of millions of iTunes tracks and Apple's share of the PC market has inches up one or two percentage points?

It's good to see Apple selling a third more computers in the January quarter than it did the same quarter a year ago, and hopefully the iPhone and Apple TV will torque up Mac sales even more, but why the tiny halo?

[rickag]

Be nice to know the breakdown between desktop and laptop sales.

[Louzer]

You can't see that Apple's position here isn't something to be admired with Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, and HP selling most of their computers at well under a $1,000?


No, not really. I do look at it and go "Gee, just imagine if apple sold a low-cost 15" laptop, or a low-cost mini-tower". But I'm just annoying that way.

I wish I could see a marketshare report that focused on either $1000+ computers, Core (2) Duo or greater (even anything dual core for that matter), or some other criteria that isn't saturated by cheap-ass PC with outdated tech.

Just to make you go insane (and I'm sure it will launch the really stupid "Yeah, but if you upgrade it...." comparisons), but my boss yesterday just bought a Dell Dimension 9200, with a Core 2 Duo E4300 processor, 1GB RAM, lot's of room for expansion, all for $650. (If he went for the Dell E520, he could have gotten the same basic specs for $599). Apple can't even be bothered doing something like that, they have to go "Let's make a cheap mac, but we'll make it look really nice, because people care only about looks, so who cares if its not upgradable, has a laptop drive in it, and even to change the memory requires the use of tools usually left to those who break into homes".

[Louzer]

Be nice to know the breakdown between desktop and laptop sales.

Yeah, but you know apple, they no longer breakdown their sales (Do they even break it down by laptops/desktops anymore)? Guess they got tired of being embarrassed to see their towers selling in such small quantity.

[vinea]

Yeah, but you know apple, they no longer breakdown their sales (Do they even break it down by laptops/desktops anymore)? Guess they got tired of being embarrassed to see their towers selling in such small quantity.

Why? Mac Pro's are pro workstation class machines which are a limited market.

Desktop sales would be low overall but within the AIO segment they dominate and I suspect that Apple looks good in comparison to other SFF makers.

If there were cheap towers and laptops then Apple numbers would look like Dell or HP numbers but with far lower volumes. Profitability would drop and the only positive thing we'd get is that we'd show up on the worldwide charts for unit sales.

Apple ASPs are fantastic and volume is reasonable. That's a damn good combo.

Vinea

[AISI]

It sure looks like Apple could catchup to Toshiba within the next couple of quarters (at least in the US). And if Leopard hadn't been delayed this might have happened during Q2.

In the U.S. Apple was already selling more than Toshiba in the full calendar years 2004 (http://web.archive.org/web/20050208193126/http://www.idctracker.net/tracker/Pressreleases/jan2005.pdf), 2005 (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS20051406) and 2006 (http://reports.idctracker.org/webdownloads/P0004/pressreleases/IDC_2006_Q4_PC_Press_Release.pdf).

They're on the path to become the fourth-largest vendor of PCs (including desktops, laptops and servers, so all market segments) in the US within a few years from now. If that isn't impressive, I don't know what is.

Apple was the already the fourth largest U.S. vendor in the full calendar years 2005 (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS20051406) and 2006 (http://reports.idctracker.org/webdownloads/P0004/pressreleases/IDC_2006_Q4_PC_Press_Release.pdf). Fifth in CY 04 (http://web.archive.org/web/20050208193126/http://www.idctracker.net/tracker/Pressreleases/jan2005.pdf).

Do they even break it down by laptops/desktops anymore?

Of course they do (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-sec&secCat00_rs=1&secCat00_rc=20&control_searchbox=&control_selectgroup=Quarterly%20Filings). :)

[physguy]

No, not really. I do look at it and go "Gee, just imagine if apple sold a low-cost 15" laptop, or a low-cost mini-tower". But I'm just annoying that way.



Just to make you go insane (and I'm sure it will launch the really stupid "Yeah, but if you upgrade it...." comparisons), but my boss yesterday just bought a Dell Dimension 9200, with a Core 2 Duo E4300 processor, 1GB RAM, lot's of room for expansion, all for $650. (If he went for the Dell E520, he could have gotten the same basic specs for $599). Apple can't even be bothered doing something like that, they have to go "Let's make a cheap mac, but we'll make it look really nice, because people care only about looks, so who cares if its not upgradable, has a laptop drive in it, and even to change the memory requires the use of tools usually left to those who break into homes".

As an Apple shareholder all I can say is 'OMG I hope not' Just look at dell's business performance.

[iPeon]

As an Apple shareholder all I can say is 'OMG I hope not' Just look at dell's business performance.

Admit it, Apple needs to plug that hole. Where's the consumer upgradable mini tower? Take that mini and do something with it. It's a nice little computer for mom and dad, but it's not designed for the typical PC user who is accustomed to upgradability. There's a huge market here that Apple isn't acknowledging.

[Chucker]

Admit it, Apple needs to plug that hole.

That must be why their market share has grown by 30%.

Oh wait.

[physguy]

Admit it, Apple needs to plug that hole. Where's the consumer upgradable mini tower? Take that mini and do something with it. It's a nice little computer for mom and dad, but it's not designed for the typical PC user who is accustomed to upgradability. There's a huge market here that Apple isn't acknowledging.

Why? Doesn't seem to be a market that is currently profitable. As a shareholder I really don't care about market share numbers. They have enough market share to attract developers (the absolute numbers are more than enough for that). Dell is killing itself serving that market at the moment.

[BenRoethig]

Why? Doesn't seem to be a market that is currently profitable. As a shareholder I really don't care about market share numbers. They have enough market share to attract developers (the absolute numbers are more than enough for that). Dell is killing itself serving that market at the moment.

Tell that to PC makers like Velocity Micro and Polywell. Your confusing the entire high end prosumer market with the bargain basement makers.

[BenRoethig]

That must be why their market share has grown by 30%.

Oh wait.

It's why they still make up only 1 in every 20 computers.

[Chucker]

It's why they still make up only 1 in every 20 computers.

Successfully so.

[physguy]

It's why they still make up only 1 in every 20 computers.


And how many of those 20 do Velocity Micro and Polywell make??? This is the whole point. Why should apple do this. If they want to increase market share they will HAVE to complete with Dell, not Velocity Micro and Polywell. If they do that they don't make money. If they compete with Velocity Micro and Polywell the might make some tiny amount of money but they don't make market share. It's a lose-lose at this point.

[Hiro]

For arguments sake:

Dell vs Apple stock prices (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=DELL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=AAPL)

Dell down over 5 years. Apple up OVER 600%!!! :wow:

yeah. Apple is killing itself not fighting in the commodity low-end market. :lol:

[iPeon]

For arguments sake:

Dell vs Apple stock prices (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=DELL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=AAPL)

Dell down over 5 years. Apple up OVER 600%!!! :wow:

yeah. Apple is killing itself not fighting in the commodity low-end market. :lol:

I don't see the relevance, nor is anyone arguing that Apple is killing itself by not having a consumer tower. Nor is Apple's rate of growth proof that Apple doesn't need to add said product.

The logical argument against it would be to say that there isn't a market for said product. I think there is. It's either "there is" or "there isn't", anything else is irrelevant.

[Chucker]

The logical argument against it would be to say that there isn't a market for said product. I think there is. It's either "there is" or "there isn't", anything else is irrelevant.

There is a market for inline skates. Apple should make some.

[BenRoethig]

And how many of those 20 do Velocity Micro and Polywell make??? This is the whole point. Why should apple do this. If they want to increase market share they will HAVE to complete with Dell, not Velocity Micro and Polywell. If they do that they don't make money. If they compete with Velocity Micro and Polywell the might make some tiny amount of money but they don't make market share. It's a lose-lose at this point.

The boutique market makes up roughly a quarter of the market.

[lkrupp]

Sorry, call me ignorant ("You're ignorant!") but are we supposed to know what that picture is?



Yeah, real impressive. You did notice that they only have 5% of the market, right? Compared to their previous share, sure, that's impressive. But its not really impressive to the 20+% of its competitors.

5% of the market yet closing in on double the market cap of Dell (last time I checked Dell was at $52 billion, Apple $80 billion). Market share is the current straw man of the Apple bashing crowd. Of course by that logic cockroaches are superior to humans because there's more of 'em on the planet. A Ford Escort is better than a BMW Z5 for the same reason. :err:

[physguy]

The boutique market makes up roughly a quarter of the market.

That really doesn't answer my question. If the boutique market is 25% (and I'm not say I don't believe you but I will admit I'm surprised. Is there a link I can look at?) how many vendors serve it. If its like other boutique markets its served by many many vendor each finding a quite small niche that they can serve uniquely. That's how they add enough value to make a profit. If that's the case then my argument still stands. If Apple had to create 10's of products/services to gain a significant market share it would be more like them building in-line skate (thanks Chucker) than their current product - i.e. a different market/service model.

[iPeon]

There is a market for inline skates. Apple should make some.

Fishing is a dull sport.

[Hiro]

I don't see the relevance.

Well, there you go. :lol:

[iPeon]

Well, there you go. :lol:

:lol:

So you are saying that Apple shouldn't offer a consumer tower because Dell is losing money? Is Dell solely in the business of making consumer towers?

[physguy]

:lol:

So you are saying that Apple shouldn't offer a consumer tower because Dell is losing money? Is Dell solely in the business of making consumer towers?

No. I think what we're saying is that 'consumer towers' are not a very good market. Dell makes little money. Others need to find appropriate niches.

[Hiro]

Exactly. The low end consumer desktop market that Dell is playing heavily in is so bad that their high end servers and services packages can no longer keep them consistently above water financially. They make a ton on their high end stuff, and loose a ton and more in the commodity market. When you don't make lots of profit, you get punished in the market.

[solipsism]

Proof that marketshare doesn't mean profit:http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/21/lenovo-laying-off-1-400-employees-looking-overseas/

[BenRoethig]

I swear to God the mac community has gone from Think Different to Let Apple Think for you. Okay, the prosumer tower market is NOT the same thing as the $600 celeron tower market. It is also NOT the same thing as the $2100 workstation market or the AIO market. Liking AIOs or you have the means to pay $3000 on a super workstation does not mean that you're someone better or smarter than "the PC heathens" who want an a tower. In fact many of us are long time Mac users who had our market abandoned by Apple so they could move upmarket into the workstation class with the Mac Pro and sell a 24" iMac. I am not some PC automaton who wants a tower just because everyone else has had one. I've had all in ones before and have used iMacs and decided through actually reasoning that the form factor is not sufficient for my needs. At the same time I think it's absolutely to have to pay $2100 and get a 24" display just to get a semi credible graphics solution or over $3000 for a quad core workstation if I want a CPU over 2ghz, more than 2 DIMM slots, and a higher end graphics card. That's $800 more than even boutique PCs of similar quality to Apple in the same configuration and doesn't include add-ons that I have to but just because Apple didn't think they looked good. Maybe I'm just nostalgic and trying to hang on to a great computer company that doesn't exist anymore. When I used to buy a Mac I knew it was going to do everything I wanted it to with ease. The new generation I'm lucky if they're able to do any of the things i want them to do. If you're not into the creative arts, I don't know if you have a place at the Mac table anymore.

[solipsism]

The new generation I'm lucky if they're able to do any of the things i want them to do. If you're not into the creative arts, I don't know if you have a place at the Mac table anymore.

I can't say I agree. What types of programs can't you find for OS X?

[doh123]

I can't say I agree. What types of programs can't you find for OS X?

If it was just an OSX issue, we wouldn't be discussing hardware

I just see a bunch of people saying Apple needs to make a decent Tower Mac that is not a workstation. Everyone who is detracting from that is saying they shouldn't compete in the bargain basement computers. Those are not the same things. Wanting a decent tower-type Mac does not mean bargain basement... it doesnt even mean its sub 1000. You all do realize that Apple use to make these kinds of machines and dropped out during the G5 era?

[BenRoethig]

I can't say I agree. What types of programs can't you find for OS X?

I'm not taking software. Apple's machines have the software, they're just not deisnged to take full advantage of it.

Card reader/ 3-port hub combo for photography: $25

EyeTV Hybrid to replace my VCR: $120
Note: before any asks, iTunes cannot tape the Cubs, Bulls, or Bears games for me.

Western Digitial my book Pro 250GB FW800 hard drive for time backup $140
(More reliable internal SATA version $67)

Sony DRX830ULT Firewire400 DVD burner that doesn't take me all day to burn a disk: $120
(More reliable internal version: $30)

Logitech Z-4I High end 2.1 speaker system $70

Combined With the 24" iMac (2.33ghz, 2GB) required to get a (now outdated) 7600GT That's a $3000 investment. $3600 If I want the expansion of the tower.

[physguy]

I'm not taking software. Apple's machines have the software, they're just not deisnged to take full advantage of it.

Card reader/ 3-port hub combo for photography: $25

EyeTV Hybrid to replace my VCR: $120
Note: before any asks, iTunes cannot tape the Cubs, Bulls, or Bears games for me.

Western Digitial my book Pro 250GB FW800 hard drive for time backup $140
(More reliable internal SATA version $67)

Sony DRX830ULT Firewire400 DVD burner that doesn't take me all day to burn a disk: $120
(More reliable internal version: $30)

Logitech Z-4I High end 2.1 speaker system $70

Combined With the 24" iMac (2.33ghz, 2GB) required to get a (now outdated) 7600GT That's a $3000 investment. $3600 If I want the expansion of the tower.


I swear to God the mac community has gone from Think Different to Let Apple Think for you. Okay, the prosumer tower market is NOT the same thing as the $600 celeron tower market. It is also NOT the same thing as the $2100 workstation market or the AIO market. Liking AIOs or you have the means to pay $3000 on a super workstation does not mean that you're someone better or smarter than "the PC heathens" who want an a tower. In fact many of us are long time Mac users who had our market abandoned by Apple so they could move upmarket into the workstation class with the Mac Pro and sell a 24" iMac. I am not some PC automaton who wants a tower just because everyone else has had one. I've had all in ones before and have used iMacs and decided through actually reasoning that the form factor is not sufficient for my needs. At the same time I think it's absolutely to have to pay $2100 and get a 24" display just to get a semi credible graphics solution or over $3000 for a quad core workstation if I want a CPU over 2ghz, more than 2 DIMM slots, and a higher end graphics card. That's $800 more than even boutique PCs of similar quality to Apple in the same configuration and doesn't include add-ons that I have to but just because Apple didn't think they looked good. Maybe I'm just nostalgic and trying to hang on to a great computer company that doesn't exist anymore. When I used to buy a Mac I knew it was going to do everything I wanted it to with ease. The new generation I'm lucky if they're able to do any of the things i want them to do. If you're not into the creative arts, I don't know if you have a place at the Mac table anymore.

One quick comment on 'that great computer company' - Don't forget that when they offered these things they were going the way of the dinosaur. They were trying to sell themselves or anything else because their sales were slowly, inexorably going away.

If it was just an OSX issue, we wouldn't be discussing hardware

I just see a bunch of people saying Apple needs to make a decent Tower Mac that is not a workstation. Everyone who is detracting from that is saying they shouldn't compete in the bargain basement computers. Those are not the same things. Wanting a decent tower-type Mac does not mean bargain basement... it doesnt even mean its sub 1000. You all do realize that Apple use to make these kinds of machines and dropped out during the G5 era?

As far as I'm concerned I'm not arguing against any of these technical arguments, nor am I saying that the desire isn't there, I would buy one, but what I think we're all saying is that this market, even if not small (the 25% number mentioned before) is highly fractured and better served (in the non OS x space) but smaller boutique companies. All we're saying is that Apple doesn't NEED (this is the key word) to do this, and IMO, doing so would NOT be a good business decision.

[BenRoethig]

One quick comment on 'that great computer company' - Don't forget that when they offered these things they were going the way of the dinosaur. They were trying to sell themselves or anything else because their sales were slowly, inexorably going away.



As far as I'm concerned I'm not arguing against any of these technical arguments, nor am I saying that the desire isn't there, I would buy one, but what I think we're all saying is that this market, even if not small (the 25% number mentioned before) is highly fractured and better served (in the non OS x space) but smaller boutique companies. All we're saying is that Apple doesn't NEED (this is the key word) to do this, and IMO, doing so would NOT be a good business decision.

So, selling more machines to interested clients is not a good business decision? I'd also like to add that Apple was going the way of the Dinosaur because it couldn't adapt to a direct marketing/ BTO situation. But hey, if Apple wants to alienate everyone who is not a fanatic, who I am to say something. As for the fracturing, that because there is choice, but the brand in each market pretty much sells the same thing in slightly different packages. Apple sells something completely different. That's a good thing if you're looking for something different, but if you're just looking for a better PC, you are pretty well screwed. You find yourself where the OS severely lacking if you go for the hardware you want or the hardware severely lacking (or complete overkill) if you go for the better OS. Either way, it's very difficult to be happy with a purchase the way I was with my Blue & White G3.

[physguy]

So, selling more machines to interested clients is not a good business decision?

I'll say this one more time, and I don't understand why its so hard to understand:); [just] selling more machines to interested clients may not be a good business decision. 1) The price might be too low to be interesting (Dell). 2) The service/support costs might be too high with small market size to be interesting to a large company (Boutique, which by the way is likely the reason that Dell doesn't serve this boutique market either).

I'd also like to add that Apple was going the way of the Dinosaur because it couldn't adapt to a direct marketing/ BTO situation.

That's far too simplistic. RoughlyDrafted's Daniel Eran investigates and organizes this all much much better.

But hey, if Apple wants to alienate everyone who is not a fanatic, who I am to say something. As for the fracturing, that because there is choice, but the brand in each market pretty much sells the same thing in slightly different packages. Apple sells something completely different. That's a good thing if you're looking for something different, but if you're just looking for a better PC, you are pretty well screwed. You find yourself where the OS severely lacking if you go for the hardware you want or the hardware severely lacking (or complete overkill) if you go for the better OS. Either way, it's very difficult to be happy with a purchase the way I was with my Blue & White G3.

Actually is seems Apple is only alienating the 'consumer tower' fanatic. I've had more switchers I've advised in the last 6 months than every before. The iMac and Macbook pro fit their needs almost exactly, and I was surprised that none of them balked at the price. They seem to have done their homework and realized the value that's there. They also have purchased mid-sized towers in the past and almost never used the upgrade possibilities. They've just bought new systems. It's all about market size, costs and payback.

[Hiro]

If it was just an OSX issue, we wouldn't be discussing hardware

I just see a bunch of people saying Apple needs to make a decent Tower Mac that is not a workstation. Everyone who is detracting from that is saying they shouldn't compete in the bargain basement computers. Those are not the same things. Wanting a decent tower-type Mac does not mean bargain basement... it doesnt even mean its sub 1000. You all do realize that Apple use to make these kinds of machines and dropped out during the G5 era?

I see a couple folks trying to jack the thread that was started on the first page and DID engage in debate on the low end machines. You cant show up with your buddies on the second page, add a brand new wank about mid-towers and say the thread is missing the difference between those mid-sized towers and the low end stuff. The mid-sized towers weren't part of the discussion when you walked up to the bar.

So yeah I realize the difference and so do the others. But you seem to have missed it yourself.

That aside, that market is a mirage, probably just as small or smaller than the gamer market which has been shown to be about 3% of the entire PC market and that 75% of that is self built white boxes. Making gamer boxes less than 1% overall pre-configured market. When the numbers are than small it just isn't profitable to chase, just let those that want those low priced upgradeable machines buy and build them since that;'s what they seem to be asking for with the full upgradeability anyway!

[iPeon]

No. I think what we're saying is that 'consumer towers' are not a very good market. Dell makes little money. Others need to find appropriate niches.

Consumer Towers don't have a very good market? Where did you get this info?

The reason Dell "makes little money" has nothing to do with the fact that they make consumer towers, that they undercut the price could be a factor, but that falls under "miss-management" category and not under product type so as to say that Apple shouldn't make a consumer tower because Dell is losing money.

[physguy]

Consumer Towers don't have a very good market? Where did you get this info?


Please read the rest of the thread.

[Hiro]

Consumer Towers don't have a very good market? Where did you get this info?

The reason Dell "makes little money" has nothing to do with the fact that they make consumer towers, that they undercut the price could be a factor, but that falls under "miss-management" category and not under product type so as to say that Apple shouldn't make a consumer tower because Dell is losing money.

The reasons Dell has to push their prices down are the precise reasons the consumer tower market is unprofitable.

[BenRoethig]

Consumer Towers don't have a very good market? Where did you get this info?

The reason Dell "makes little money" has nothing to do with the fact that they make consumer towers, that they undercut the price could be a factor, but that falls under "miss-management" category and not under product type so as to say that Apple shouldn't make a consumer tower because Dell is losing money.

I think it's the usual "Apple is always right and if Apple doesn't make it, there just not be a market" stuff.

[BenRoethig]

The reasons Dell has to push their prices down are the precise reasons the consumer tower market is unprofitable.

Take a gander on the prices of the XPS series. You're trying to equate the $300-800 entry level PC with a prosumer PC. They lose money on the celeron and sempron machines much make up the majority of sales. That is not the market or suer we're talking about. Prosumers are willing to spend a pretty penny to get good hardware.

[BenRoethig]

I'll say this one more time, and I don't understand why its so hard to understand:); [just] selling more machines to interested clients may not be a good business decision. 1) The price might be too low to be interesting (Dell). 2) The service/support costs might be too high with small market size to be interesting to a large company (Boutique, which by the way is likely the reason that Dell doesn't serve this boutique market either).



That's far too simplistic. RoughlyDrafted's Daniel Eran investigates and organizes this all much much better.



Actually is seems Apple is only alienating the 'consumer tower' fanatic. I've had more switchers I've advised in the last 6 months than every before. The iMac and Macbook pro fit their needs almost exactly, and I was surprised that none of them balked at the price. They seem to have done their homework and realized the value that's there. They also have purchased mid-sized towers in the past and almost never used the upgrade possibilities. They've just bought new systems. It's all about market size, costs and payback.

The machines fit them because they don't have to compete in those markets. They always play it safe.

[Chucker]

I think it's the usual "Apple is always right and if Apple doesn't make it, there just not be a market" stuff.

Or maybe it's the "gee, Apple's numbers in terms of revenues, profits, stock value and market share growth have been wonderful for several years in a row; maybe they're doing something right after all" stuff.

[Gon]

That aside, that market is a mirage, probably just as small or smaller than the gamer market which has been shown to be about 3% of the entire PC market and that 75% of that is self built white boxes.^^^ Ehh what?

I personally know about ten people who do a lot of PC gaming. Every one of them has the skill necessary to build their own gaming box. One or two I think did build their most recent computer. One or two had their computers built to order. The rest, 6-7 people, are going with off the shelf. Two of these folks have had (relatively) fast and expensive systems at some point in the last three years - and by expensive I mean at around 1500€. The rest have gone with what I believe were around 1000€ computers. For comparison, the low end iMac is 1200€.

These are not very casual players, either. Some of these folks have been in the top two European clans, some have represented their country in WorldCyberGames.

The average reader (not subscriber) of the leading gaming magazine in my country is rapidly approaching 25 years old. Grown people rarely have time or interest to mess with computer building - as evidenced by the 80-90% of my gamer friends who don't do it.

The total myths that "gaming computers" are a small niche, are loaded with expensive hardware and built by their user should be laid to rest already. The hardware enthusiasts, benchmarkers and overclockers you see bullshitting about the latest and greatest on web forums are a small niche. Gamers aren't. Even discounting web games and Solitaire, you'd be surprised how large a portion of home computers is used to play games at some point of their life.

[BenRoethig]

Or maybe it's the "gee, Apple's numbers in terms of revenues, profits, stock value and market share growth have been wonderful for several years in a row; maybe they're doing something right after all" stuff.

They are doing something very right and it's called the iPod and notebooks. Of course their also aimed at everyone instead of a small niche of users. Before the pod (even under Jobs) Apple was doing just enough with sales t get buy.

[BenRoethig]

^^^ Ehh what?

I personally know about ten people who do a lot of PC gaming. Every one of them has the skill necessary to build their own gaming box. One or two I think did build their most recent computer. One or two had their computers built to order. The rest, 6-7 people, are going with off the shelf. Two of these folks have had (relatively) fast and expensive systems at some point in the last three years - and by expensive I mean at around 1500€. The rest have gone with what I believe were around 1000€ computers. For comparison, the low end iMac is 1200€.

These are not very casual players, either. Some of these folks have been in the top two European clans, some have represented their country in WorldCyberGames.

The average reader (not subscriber) of the leading gaming magazine in my country is rapidly approaching 25 years old. Grown people rarely have time or interest to mess with computer building - as evidenced by the 80-90% of my gamer friends who don't do it.

The total myths that "gaming computers" are a small niche, are loaded with expensive hardware and built by their user should be laid to rest already. The hardware enthusiasts, benchmarkers and overclockers you see bullshitting about the latest and greatest on web forums are a small niche. Gamers aren't. Even discounting web games and Solitaire, you'd be surprised how large a portion of home computers is used to play games at some point of their life.

As for the niche thing, what they do think the SFF (Mac Mini), AIO (iMac), and workstations (MacPro) markets are, mainstream? Niche to PCs is potentiality massive sales for Apple. I think all the opposition comes from not wanting those with differing opinions on the Mac platform.

[Chucker]

They are doing something very right and it's called the iPod and notebooks.

And the iMac.

And…*oh wait, just about every Mac model.

Of course their also aimed at everyone instead of a small niche of users.

As opposed to the iMac, which of course is only aimed at people whose first name isn't Ben.

Before the pod (even under Jobs) Apple was doing just enough with sales t get buy.

Are you positive you don't want to redact that statement?

[BenRoethig]

And the iMac.

And…*oh wait, just about every Mac model.

Funny, while laptop sales are way up, desktop sales lost ground the last couple of years. But Hey, let's not let facts and actual buying trends get in your belief that AIO desktops are what everyone really wants.



As opposed to the iMac, which of course is only aimed at people whose first name isn't Ben.

Must be a lot of people named Ben. It's cool looking, saves space, and the integrated iSight is neat, but it's a family machine with a higher end prosumer price tag. Families can't afford it save the GMA model and the prosumers find it rather anemic.


[quote]Are you positive you don't want to redact that statement?

Take a look at Apple's financials before the iPod came about. They were either losing money or just barely making a profit. There were some dark days between the success and profits of the original iMac and where we're at today. When the iPod took off and Apple became popular again in late 2003, they started making money again.

[Chucker]

Funny, while laptop sales are way up, desktop sales lost ground the last couple of years.

You mean, just like the market trend. Funny that!

your belief that AIO desktops are what everyone really wants.

Quite the strawman. Apple believes that. Maybe they have reason to.

Must be a lot of people named Ben. It's cool looking, saves space, and the integrated iSight is neat, but it's a family machine with a higher end prosumer price tag. Families can't afford it save the GMA model and the prosumers find it rather anemic.

Families can't afford it? :lol:

Take a look at Apple's financials before the iPod came about.

I did.

They were either losing money or just barely making a profit.

If you say so.

1/00 2.340 Mio. 183 Mio.
2/00 1.940 Mio. 233 Mio.
3/00 1.820 Mio. 203 Mio.
4/00 1.870 Mio. 170 Mio.
1/01 1.000 Mio. -195 Mio.
2/01 1.430 Mio. 40 Mio.
3/01 1.480 Mio. 61 Mio.

If you only look at the "we totally screwed up with the Cube" quarter, famously coinciding with the "the entire PC industry is screwed, and the only two companies with good prospects are Dell and Apple" quarter, as well as the "oh, look at that, the dot com bubble burst" quarter, then yes, they indeed lost money. Other than that, they made profits. Barely. :lol: So barely, Steve couldn't even afford vegan meals.

There were some dark days between the success and profits of the original iMac and where we're at today.

Where?

[physguy]

I think it's the usual "Apple is always right and if Apple doesn't make it, there just not be a market" stuff.

Why turn this into a fanboi runoff? All we're trying to do is understand/explain why Apple is doing what they're doing.

1) Fact - They're not producing 'consumer towers' as defined in this thread.

2) Fact - They're being very successful for that last few years doing this. This is a fact as judged by market capitalization (stock price), cash generation, profit generation. These are the usual business metrics by which managers are judged (for the most part).

3) Opinion - Apple manages their product line quite well resulting in number (2). Some events/decisions by apple as examples to support this opinion
- replacing the iPod mini with the nano at the height of its popularity - this is the right thing to do but its a very hard decision
- focussing on the iPod functionality rather than features. i.e. iTunes integration, iTunes Store, no FM radio, no voice recording, etc.
- focussing on design such as the iMac form factor changes
- pricing very accurately at what the market will bear on both Mac and iPod lines


Given these it would be nice to try and understand what based on the facts we know, such as Dell's performance in this space.

[vinea]

Given these it would be nice to try and understand what based on the facts we know, such as Dell's performance in this space.

Hard to do without Apple's internal numbers they base their forecasting on. However, it seems in most of these discussion the pro-tower folks discount the value of branding and the difficulty in comparing AIOs to mid-priced towers. Apple is price competitive on the higher end of the spectrum.

Were it to compete directly with Dell and HP in that mid or lower tower segment the ASPs would plummet and nobody is looking at 28%+ profit in those markets.

As is, the AIOs are niche but their very form factor hides how uncompetitive they are from a bang for the buck perspective. So, Apple desktop sales are low but help supplement the bottom line while maintaining high ASPs and profitability allowing them to invest in areas they are far more competitive in: notebooks and workstations for the content creation folks.

Prosumers...well heck, if you're going to sink $3K into a rig anyways not just holding off a couple month so you have that extra $600 for a Mac Pro or dropping back to a MBP is silly. If you really really must have a tower...wait a year and get a used Mac Pro off ebay.

Vinea

[physguy]

Hard to do without Apple's internal numbers they base their forecasting on. However, it seems in most of these discussion the pro-tower folks discount the value of branding and the difficulty in comparing AIOs to mid-priced towers. Apple is price competitive on the higher end of the spectrum.

Were it to compete directly with Dell and HP in that mid or lower tower segment the ASPs would plummet and nobody is looking at 28%+ profit in those markets.

As is, the AIOs are niche but their very form factor hides how uncompetitive they are from a bang for the buck perspective. So, Apple desktop sales are low but help supplement the bottom line while maintaining high ASPs and profitability allowing them to invest in areas they are far more competitive in: notebooks and workstations for the content creation folks.

Prosumers...well heck, if you're going to sink $3K into a rig anyways not just holding off a couple month so you have that extra $600 for a Mac Pro or dropping back to a MBP is silly. If you really really must have a tower...wait a year and get a used Mac Pro off ebay.

Vinea

I agree re internal numbers. My only quibble is the statement that the AIO are uncompetitive. Looking at shootout iMac (http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2006/0926_dt1100.html) It seems they are at least competitive. I understand the + and - of these comparisons but having the AIO form factor and space savings, for me and many others I deal with, is a huge benefit. Also the simplicity re cables (with wireless keyboard/mouse).

Do you have handy reference for the unit sales breakdown of the desktops? The 2006 annual report (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000110465906084288/a06-25759_210k.htm) shows equivalent numbers for desktops and 'portables' 2.4 vs 2.9 million respectively. I would have thought the majority of the 2.4 million were AIO but I don't know where to find out.

[iPeon]

The reasons Dell has to push their prices down are the precise reasons the consumer tower market is unprofitable.

Dell loosing money...
Dell makes consumer towers...
therefore consumer towers are unprofitable.


:lol:

Sorry, but that is funny Hiro. No insult intended.

I can think of many reasons as to why Dell "is loosing money", but one thing is for sure, that Dell is losing money does not equal that consumer towers have no market. By the same token, that Apple is making money does not equal that they shouldn't make a consumer tower.

Associative logic results in assumptions. If you want to discover the real why you have to analyze data.

[physguy]

Dell loosing money...
Dell makes consumer towers...
therefore consumer towers are unprofitable.


:lol:

Sorry, but that is funny Hiro. No insult intended.

I can think of many reasons as to why Dell "is loosing money", but one thing is for sure, that Dell is losing money does not equal that consumer towers have no market. By the same token, that Apple is making money does not equal that they shouldn't make a consumer tower.

Associative logic results in assumptions. If you want to discover the real why you have to analyze data.

Your taking one post out of a long line of reasoning in this thread. I still haven't seen a business reason based on at least one example of success that shows that Apple either NEEDs to or SHOULD do this. These are not my words but those that keep bringing up this issue - 'Apple NEEDs to do this'. None of us have the real background and raw data to argue the Market from first principles.

So we don't go around another circle - by Market I mean profitable (~25%+ margin) and significant in size for that product (not a large market served by many differentiated products).

I believe that these are likely criteria the Apple is using based on the products they choose to produce.

If ALL your saying is the you WANT them to do this, that's fine. That's not debatable. I want them to do this also. As I've said I'd likely buy one of these (although I really like the AIO form factor for the obvious reasons). But my wanting doesn't translate into Apple NEEDing to.

[iPeon]

I still haven't seen a business reason based on at least one example of success that shows that Apple either NEEDs to or SHOULD do this.

I haven't seen a business reason why Apple shouldn't. I'm still waiting for a valid reason. Those that believe Apple shouldn't offer a consumer tower base their argument from irrelevant assumptions. So what is the real reason for Apple not offering a consumer tower? No one here has offered the business reason for it.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm very curious as to why Apple doesn't.

To recap:

Some point to Dell and say, "Look they aren't making money, they sell consumer towers..." Fair enough, but so what? Maybe they are losing money because they sell low quality hardware therefore losing money fixing it when it breaks down. I know of one friend who has had support tech come over to his house to fix his Dell laptop - twice - for free (under warranty)! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this can't be good for business. Or maybe Dell is being miss-managed, or maybe this or maybe that, but who cares, that is all irrelevant to this question: Why doesn't Apple sell a consumer tower? The point is, you can't point to Dell and say, "Look they aren't making money selling consumer towers therefore..." as proof. That's silly. Their business success or lack of is irrelevant. Apple sells an iMac for $999.00, a Mac mini for $599 and is doing well. So why can't Apple offer a consumer tower for say $1,099.00 - it's selling an AIO for less already? Explain that.

Others say that Apple is doing well when compared to Dell because Apple does not sell consumer towers. That's even sillier. If Apple was solely in the business of selling computers one could form such a deduction, but even that would be an assumption. Apple's success isn't solely based on selling Macs. One can prove that Apple is very successful at providing solutions for professionals as well as digital media for the consumer. But we also see Apple interested in winning over PC consumers with the Mac vs PC commercials. So one can safely say that Apple wants the consumer market as well.

So why isn't Apple offering a consumer tower? This question has not be answered here. Yet! :grumble:

[vinea]

I understand the + and - of these comparisons but having the AIO form factor and space savings, for me and many others I deal with, is a huge benefit. Also the simplicity re cables (with wireless keyboard/mouse).


See? :)

Yes, the form factor and space savings represents value. How much value vs some other technical specification? Up to the individual user right? Comparing a tower to an AIO is not...no pun intended...an apples to apples comparison.

Do you have handy reference for the unit sales breakdown of the desktops? The 2006 annual report (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000110465906084288/a06-25759_210k.htm) shows equivalent numbers for desktops and 'portables' 2.4 vs 2.9 million respectively. I would have thought the majority of the 2.4 million were AIO but I don't know where to find out.

I don't think Apple has said. I recall a few analysts asking at various quarterly telecons but the answer was invariably "As I just said a few moments ago we aren't going to go through breakdowns by model...you idiot". Okay, they skipped the "you idiot" part but there was typically a short pause where everyone else listening heard it anyway.

You can try to guess based on some industry reports on the Mac mini and pro sales but these are spotty.

Vinea

[vinea]

I haven't seen a business reason why Apple shouldn't. I'm still waiting for a valid reason. Those that believe Apple shouldn't offer a consumer tower base their argument from irrelevant assumptions. So what is the real reason for Apple not offering a consumer tower? No one here has offered the business reason for it.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm very curious as to why Apple doesn't.


Dell has gross margins in the 18% range, Gateway 14% (numbers from memory) and Apple in the 29% range.

Take a mid range base $1000 desktop that Dell sells below this 18% gross margin range...lets say 10% for $1100 and compare to the Apple tower at the 28% margin range for $1280...if everything was equal.

But they aren't.

Dell moves more volume in terms of desktop components. This reduces their costs.
Apple moves nearly zero. Almost all of Apple's current desktops use largely notebook parts. Apple isn't likely to overtake Dell or HP any time soon...even if they double desktop sales.

Dell's branding is for inexpensive machines at volume. Using inexpensive components (which typically isn't bad for $1K+ machines) doesn't harm their image.
Apple's branding is a premium brand. Form and fit must be higher than Dell's to maintain branding. Meaning a case more like the Mac Pro or Dell XPS than their Dimension line.

So Apple's mid-tower, as designed and implemented by Apple, would be more costly even before the difference in margins.


Apple sells an iMac for $999.00, a Mac mini for $599 and is doing well. So why can't Apple offer a consumer tower for say $1,099.00 - it's selling an AIO for less already? Explain that.


Because Apple's $1099 consumer tower will compare unfavorably with the Dell $1099 consumer tower and more like a $799 Dell tower.

Whereas currently their desktop lines are either AIOs, SFF (which a harder to make a direct comparison) or workstations that compare very favorably vs Dell since Dell's margins are as high or higher at this price point.

The market at $1K is very price/performance conscious. Margins are thin, though not as razor thin as in the sub $500 entry market.

The only thing a $1K Apple tower is likely to do is kill their AIO lines...which currently adds 0.5M/qtr notebook component buys for Apple allowing Apple to maintain notebook component volume within striking distance of far larger HP and Dell.

Dell and HP notebook sales are growing faster than Apple's. Wont be a few more years before Apple notebooks are all pro models or ultra-thins or tablets...or phones. Whatever is harder to compare with a low margin Dell or HP traditional notebooks.

One can prove that Apple is very successful at providing solutions for professionals as well as digital media for the consumer. But we also see Apple interested in winning over PC consumers with the Mac vs PC commercials. So one can safely say that Apple wants the consumer market as well.


Yes, they want it...at their 28% margin and highest ASPs in the industry terms. Not too hard to understand if you can get it. Apple can.


So why isn't Apple offering a consumer tower? This question has not be answered here. Yet! :grumble:

So why isn't Porsche offering a $30K sports coupe? Honda and Nissan seem to make a nice bundle on their RSX and 350Z lines...

The question has been answered multiple times in multiple threads. That pro-tower folks wont accept these answers is a different issue.

IBM left the PC market...even the more lucrative notebook one. Sony doesn't have a tower in their VAIO desktop line anymore. Toshiba and other higher end PC makers don't have desktop lines.

So, how many 28% margin $1000 mid-range tower makers are there?

Vinea

[physguy]

Dell has gross margins in the 18% range, Gateway 14% (numbers from memory) and Apple in the 29% range.

.....Much good stuff removed to save screen space....


So why isn't Porsche offering a $30K sports coupe? Honda and Nissan seem to make a nice bundle on their RSX and 350Z lines...

The question has been answered multiple times in multiple threads. That pro-tower folks wont accept these answers is a different issue.

IBM left the PC market...even the more lucrative notebook one. Sony doesn't have a tower in their VAIO desktop line anymore. Toshiba and other higher end PC makers don't have desktop lines.

So, how many 28% margin $1000 mid-range tower makers are there?

Vinea

Vinea, thanks - you saved me a lot of time. :):)

(Oh, and did it better than I would have )

[iPeon]

Dell has gross margins in the 18% range, Gateway 14% (numbers from memory) and Apple in the 29% range.

Who said anything about having Apple reduce it's margins?

Take a mid range base $1000 desktop that Dell sells below this 18% gross margin range...lets say 10% for $1100 and compare to the Apple tower at the 28% margin range for $1280...if everything was equal.

I would rather buy a product from Apple for $1280 even if Dell's $1100 had the same specs. Again, no one is saying that Apple should sacrifice profit. Apple has a reputation for making high quality products, this is where Dell fails. I see you agree with me on this:

Dell's branding is for inexpensive machines at volume. Using inexpensive components (which typically isn't bad for $1K+ machines) doesn't harm their image.
Apple's branding is a premium brand. Form and fit must be higher than Dell's to maintain branding. Meaning a case more like the Mac Pro or Dell XPS than their Dimension line.

The consumer knows this and is whiling to pay for it. But the consumer who wants a consumer tower isn't getting one from Apple. You go on to give more numbers and reasons why Apple doesn't offer a consumer tower because it saves money by using notebook components on their consumer machines and repeat the margins thingy with good ol' car analogies. Very good reading!

Did you forget that Apple makes towers as well? Apple DOES make towers, did you know? So what relevancy does the AIO, Mac mini and laptop segment have to do with the tower market? Nada, zero. There's people interested in AIOs, Mac minis and laptops and there's people interested in towers.

[vinea]

Who said anything about having Apple reduce it's margins?

The point about margins is that an Apple tower would end up looking like VAIO towers. Overpriced and underpowered (for the cost...sorta a double hit for the same thing but perception isn't always fair).


I would rather buy a product from Apple for $1280 even if Dell's $1100 had the same specs. Again, no one is saying that Apple should sacrifice profit. Apple has a reputation for making high quality products, this is where Dell fails. I see you agree with me on this:


Yes, but the number of folks like you appear limited. The demographic that the majority of tower sales goes to appears to me to be price sensitive vs capability sensitive or asthetic sensitive.

Otherwise there would still be premium tower makers.


The consumer knows this and is whiling to pay for it. But the consumer who wants a consumer tower isn't getting one from Apple.


Or Sony or IBM or Toshiba or...

Apple branding is powerful but so was/is Sony's. The consumer has voted with their wallets and only Dell, HP and other commodity makers still exist in the tower market.


Did you forget that Apple makes towers as well? Apple DOES make towers, did you know? So what relevancy does the AIO, Mac mini and laptop segment have to do with the tower market? Nada, zero. There's people interested in AIOs, Mac minis and laptops and there's people interested in towers.

They make towers yes. In the one segment where their margins are the same or lower than commodity makers. Dell's margins are in the same 25%+ region as Apple in their Precision lines. Thus when folks review the Mac Pro and compare them to their Dell and HP equivalents the Mac Pro is very competitive and it reviews well. This helps branding by showing that while Apple products ARE expensive they still represent good value vs a brand known for "competitive pricing".

This translates down the entire line to the iMacs and Mini which cannot be directly compared against towers because there are obvious visible differences in form factor.

An Apple tower in the $1000-$1200 range would be judged against their 25% less expensive (where there would be technical parity) or 25% more capable (where there was price parity) competitors within that market segment. How well would these be reviewed? Not so well IMHO and that hurts branding not helps it and increases the impression that Apple products represents poor value.

You asked for business reasons. I provide a few. You reject them. Paint me surprised.

Perhaps I'm not explaining it very clearly. Ah well.

Vinea