Low Cost Mac -- An Unfilled Need?
Is it time to revive the low end Mac discussion? The iBox thread is getting attention, and a lot of this interest has to do with having a low cost Mac. Whether a low cost Mac comes from a clone maker or Apple doesn't seem to make much difference. There is enthusiasm for such a product.
The IBM 970 continues to get most of the attention, as well it should, but the need for a low end, low priced Mac does not go away. In the past, most concerns were about lost sales in the more profitable product lines. Well, with a 970 in PowerMacs, the digital hub consumer Macs will get even faster G4s, and more powerful video cards. This situation could allow for more of a performance gap between a very low cost Mac and the digital hub Macs. Could a wider performance gap make a low cost Mac a more attractive product to Apple? It would seem that a modest performing G3 motherboard in a pizza box and no frills might sell well, yet not affect sales of iMacs and eMacs. The performance needs to be just good enough for OS X to provide an acceptable user experience.
Past low end Mac discussions got focused on Apple's prices. A comment read over and over is that if Apple drops the price of eMacs and iMacs we do not need a low end Mac. However, this contention ignores the real question, which is, "How much need is there for a low cost Mac, priced significantly lower than the eMac, but providing lower performance and fewer features?"
There are reasons popping up on the thread about the iBox. Here is just one.
The IBM 970 continues to get most of the attention, as well it should, but the need for a low end, low priced Mac does not go away. In the past, most concerns were about lost sales in the more profitable product lines. Well, with a 970 in PowerMacs, the digital hub consumer Macs will get even faster G4s, and more powerful video cards. This situation could allow for more of a performance gap between a very low cost Mac and the digital hub Macs. Could a wider performance gap make a low cost Mac a more attractive product to Apple? It would seem that a modest performing G3 motherboard in a pizza box and no frills might sell well, yet not affect sales of iMacs and eMacs. The performance needs to be just good enough for OS X to provide an acceptable user experience.
Past low end Mac discussions got focused on Apple's prices. A comment read over and over is that if Apple drops the price of eMacs and iMacs we do not need a low end Mac. However, this contention ignores the real question, which is, "How much need is there for a low cost Mac, priced significantly lower than the eMac, but providing lower performance and fewer features?"
There are reasons popping up on the thread about the iBox. Here is just one.
Quote:
Originally posted by b8rtm8nn
Educational markets love these type of deals. Since there is a consistent lack of funds, we end up doing our own hardware support over time anyways, as long as the motherboards and component boards are Apple compliant and the same throughout a model for a period of time, I would buy 50-100, outfit a department or lab and carry a few spare.
I have been begging Apple to do something like this for two years, since monitors outlast CPUs and the towers are too large when space is constrained.
Originally posted by b8rtm8nn
Educational markets love these type of deals. Since there is a consistent lack of funds, we end up doing our own hardware support over time anyways, as long as the motherboards and component boards are Apple compliant and the same throughout a model for a period of time, I would buy 50-100, outfit a department or lab and carry a few spare.
I have been begging Apple to do something like this for two years, since monitors outlast CPUs and the towers are too large when space is constrained.
Comments
It was upgraded to 10mb RAM even though the machine could only see 8mb.
I'll bet there's a million of us who got LCs and loved 'em.
Sure I have a G4 now (and a 970 come September
The pizza-box Mac is the idea that won't die because it makes sense and fills a great need.
If there are to be no more clones, Apple needs to have a low end machine and the eMac doesn't cut it. The original iMac did, since convection cooling allowed the machine to be silent, which at least gave it an advantage over the pizza box.
Everyone I've talked to with a eMac says it's too loud, which is probably the reason Apple didn't want to make it in the first place.
For the pizza-box to return, there are a few conditions that I think have to be met:
1. The Apple logo isn't to be anywhere on it, the Power Computing brand has to be resurrected.
2. It's a commodity item. If you're going to build it, build a gazillon of them and unleash them at Walmart, Costco and Kmart. Any stores that carry them must carry the full line of Apple displays (whether branded as Apple or Power Computing.)
3. The objective of this exercise is not profit. It's about building marketshare, allowing Mac-only software makers to compete and entrenching Apple-preferred standards like ADC, Quicktime and Firewire.
4. It's a sealed box. Limited RAM expansion. No PCI slots. Like the iPod...no hard drive upgrades other than the Firewire port.
5. The eMac again becomes education only. If it continues at all.
I like the pizza box idea and think it could lead to a whole new generation of Mac users. But there has to be a strict separation from the iMac and PowerMac, and I think the above conditions would satisfy this.
But my point is:
Does the current 3.5% (approx.) market share worry anyone else on these boards?
Originally posted by Frank777
The pizza-box Mac is the idea that won't die because it makes sense and fills a great need.
If there are to be no more clones, Apple needs to have a low end machine and the eMac doesn't cut it. The original iMac did, since convection cooling allowed the machine to be silent, which at least gave it an advantage over the pizza box.
Everyone I've talked to with a eMac says it's too loud, which is probably the reason Apple didn't want to make it in the first place.
For the pizza-box to return, there are a few conditions that I think have to be met:
1. The Apple logo isn't to be anywhere on it, the Power Computing brand has to be resurrected.
2. It's a commodity item. If you're going to build it, build a gazillon of them and unleash them at Walmart, Costco and Kmart. Any stores that carry them must carry the full line of Apple displays (whether branded as Apple or Power Computing.)
3. The objective of this exercise is not profit. It's about building marketshare, allowing Mac-only software makers to compete and entrenching Apple-preferred standards like ADC, Quicktime and Firewire.
4. It's a sealed box. Limited RAM expansion. No PCI slots. Like the iPod...no hard drive upgrades other than the Firewire port.
5. The eMac again becomes education only. If it continues at all.
I like the pizza box idea and think it could lead to a whole new generation of Mac users. But there has to be a strict separation from the iMac and PowerMac, and I think the above conditions would satisfy this.
I agree with your post, except for points 4 and 5.
Re 4: I think that a low end box should not be sealed, but should be upgradeable. You don't want to attract just computer newcomers. You also want to attract people who want to tinker, but can't/don't want to make a big initial outlay. (This includes people who have PCs who might want to try out a Mac as a second computer.) I think that the experienced computer user is actually the bigger target audience of the low-end (upgradeable) box.
Re 5: Why restrict sales of the eMac? Some don't like it. Others do. Let the market decide. For now, I believe that Apple is still selling them in large enough numbers in the general market to make it worthwhile.
And therefore the Powermac is too clumsy (And slow at present) if I want to take it over to a friend.. A cube is perfect, but unfortunately totally out of date.
I really really really hope that Apple brings it back with a 970 motherboard, S-ATA, 8x AGP and 450 Mhz DDR bus... *YUMMY*
Originally posted by Programmer
Revive the discussion?!? Tell me when exactly this discussion isn't going on? There is always a discussion about this going on, it has been beaten to death.
Yup, but the persistence of the discussion indicates the demand for the product. Are you listening Apple?
Originally posted by Chinney
Yup, but the persistence of the discussion indicates the demand for the product. Are you listening Apple?
No... You have to do it like this:
Steeeveeee.... Cuuuube.... NEXT cube? Cuuuuubeeee.... Steeeveee... Cuuubeee...
all towers are dual 970 and for pros
cubes are all single processor 970 and are for various consumers:
level one--single 970 at 1.4--with standard graphics card, airport ready, bluetooth ready and firewire 400--this is an entry user computer---the downside--steals sales from iMacs...how to keep an up side...make it use apple lcds only or you need a converter sold by apple to use your current monitor
level two--single 970 at 1.6 with upgraded graphics card, airport, bluetooth and firewire 800...for step up users (prosumers)...again, need an apple lcd or apple only converter
level three (for the gamers)---single 970 at 1.8 with top of the line graphics card, airport, bluetooth and firewire 800---
cubes are slightly upgradable, towers are very upgradeable and iMacs are not upgradable...
if apple brought back the cube, i probably would buy one this time (didn't last long enough for me to jump on last time)....
none of these options are the "cheap" mac people are asking for,,,but are more on the lines of what apple might actually do...i don't see a 300 to 400 dollar pizza box from apple....g
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
No... You have to do it like this:
Steeeveeee.... Cuuuube.... NEXT cube? Cuuuuubeeee.... Steeeveee... Cuuubeee...
Originally posted by thegelding
none of these options are the "cheap" mac people are asking for,,,but are more on the lines of what apple might actually do...i don't see a 300 to 400 dollar pizza box from apple....g
Yes, it is the cheap box - not the cube - that I envisaged. I am not talking about the equivalent of the ultra cheap PCs that are on offer here and there (and everywhere). It would still be made with Apple components, so that it likely would still be more expensive that the ultra-cheapo PCs. But it would be a bare bones - but upgradeable - Apple, that allows enthusiasts to tinker at the low end and those without cash to get in and then upgrade when they have more $$$. I know that the used Power Mac market already fills some of this void, but there are some people who basically don't buy used. Crazy, perhaps, but there is something about the whiff of new plastic.
(And when are you coming back to AO?)
(And when are you coming back to AO?)
maybe---MAYBE--after this little war of GW's is resolved...till then it has been nice avoiding AO...i miss the song and movie and sports threads...i miss a few of the people...but mostly it has helped my sanity mucho to be away from AO for awhile....
g
And so, we have the headless iMac thread again. Usually this argument is based upon the following premises:
1)Powermacs are expensive.
2)Apple is at some kind of 'crisis point' where they must try a bold new pricing strategy.
3)Entering into the low-margin, low-cost market is a smart move for Apple.
4)This machine would not cannibalize eMac and iMac sales.
I'll agree with #1, but the others are way off base. Clear the "pizza box" nostalgia out of your eyes, and you'll see that you JUST WANT A CHEAP POWERMAC. Admit it!
The real solution to this is for Apple to sell G4 Powermacs at $1099 ($999 edu) once the 970s hit the market. eMacs and iMacs could stand a bit of a price cut as well, but that's all up to Apple.
There's no need to waste money on R & D on a (sorry, guys) crappy pizza box design. And why risk cannibalizing iMac and eMac sales, or entering a market that's already collapsing? Because everyone here vastly overestimates their own peculiar computer desires as more important than Apple's own extensive market research? You collective heads of knuckle!
Here's the problem as I see it:
- Aside from occassional forays like the XServe, Apple doesn't seem terribly inclined to go after the Enterprise market (the niche publishing and audio/video markets not included). What does that leave us with? Schools and consumers. (Please note: for the sake of simplicity, the word "consumer" here refers mainly to the Joe Consumer category of buyer who just knows that they need "a computer," and ignores the gaming and tinkering niches whose buying habits don't seem to mirror society at large.)
Why is this a problem?
1) Macs in general are hella expensive. (Please don't flame me, I agree that they're worth it, and I have four of them. Read on.)
2) Consumers/schools have been taught that computers are commodity items. Thanks to companies like our good friends over at Dull, consumers now believe a powerful computer can be had for well under $1000. And they'd be right. Included in the commodity mentality is that computers are pretty much all the same (I know, I know, but we're talking about Joe Consumer here, not the fanatics like us who frequent the AI boards).
3) Consumers/schools are extremely price conscious. Now, since consumers think that computers are A) cheap, and
Anyone see where this is going?
In the last two months, I've lost two Mac sales to friends/family based solely on price. They were open to the idea of getting a Mac, but couldn't justify the additional cost. If there were some low-cost headless Mac equivalent (say, $600-700), I could have given the community two more Windows switchers. WOULDN'T THIS HAVE BEEN A GOOD THING??!?!?!?
If Apple says they want to increase market share while still targeting consumers, then let's see them do something about it! $1,300 iMacs aren't going to do it in any great numbers. If Apple is content to remain a boutique computer manufacturer, then that's fine too. There's nothing wrong with that. I almost wish they'd just come out and SAY that, but...
Also, I COMPLETELY disagree with the earlier poster who claimed that this inexpensive Mac ought to be pared-down feature wise. A consumer will still go with the $700 HP over a $700 Mac if the feature set of the PC is considerably better.
Just my 2¢.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
4)This machine would not cannibalize eMac and iMac sales.
You know, maybe we're treating the iMac and eMac as sacred cows when they really shouldn't be. Does the Apple of 2003 and beyond really NEED two all-in-one computers? Does it even need one? Is the target audience really being well-served by these machines?
Discuss.
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
You know, maybe we're treating the iMac and eMac as sacred cows when they really shouldn't be. Does the Apple of 2003 and beyond really NEED two all-in-one computers? Does it even need one? Is the target audience really being well-served by these machines?
Discuss.
Good point...but Apple's in a quandry there, selling the eMac to education consumers because the iMac's display is too fragile, and the education market prefers the simplicity of all-in-one.
It can't ditch the iMac either...can it? I know a couple of older folks, first time computer users, that bought the lamp iMac because of its reputation for simplicity and style. Also, I think the iMac is a sacred cow at Apple, probably because of its role in saving Apple in '98.
If Apple sold a cheaper Powermac G4 (sub-$1000 range), they could conceivably ditch the eMac, which would force educational customers to choose between the pricier (but all in one) iMac, or the cheap but headless Powermac.
That's the way it would have to go. I can't see them moving all 3 models (iMac, eMac, sub-$1000 Powermac) in enough volume to make it worth their
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Good point...but Apple's in a quandry there, selling the eMac to education consumers because the iMac's display is too fragile, and the education market prefers the simplicity of all-in-one.
It can't ditch the iMac either...can it? I know a couple of older folks, first time computer users, that bought the lamp iMac because of its reputation for simplicity and style. Also, I think the iMac is a sacred cow at Apple, probably because of its role in saving Apple in '98.
If Apple sold a cheaper Powermac G4 (sub-$1000 range), they could conceivably ditch the eMac, which would force educational customers to choose between the pricier (but all in one) iMac, or the cheap but headless Powermac.
That's the way it would have to go. I can't see them moving all 3 models (iMac, eMac, sub-$1000 Powermac) in enough volume to make it worth their
Good points, all. Let's play for a minute and assume that Apple is a pragmatic company and that Steve isn't too emotionally attached to the concept of the iMac (hell, he axed the G4 Cube, and that was his pet project). Here's a gameplan:
- eMac
Put the "education" back in the eMac by turning it back into an education-only machine. It's well-suited to this task, much sturdier than the iMac due to its CRT screen, and Apple can drop the price on it much further if it feels the need to shore up its sagging school marketshare (since they're using a comparatively inexpensive CRT, the margins have to be pretty damn good on this machine).
- iMac
The iMac as we currently know it (as an all-in-one) would go away in favor of either a "headless" iMac, or an inexpensive sub-$1k PowerMac. The iMac name is too powerful a brand to let disappear, so I would imagine that a tower or pizza box form would be out for this name. Since this is Apple, the most innovative computer company out there, let's imagine that Messrs. Jobs and Ive step up to the plate and develop a "headless" iMac that you could add a head to. Hell, you could practically do it with the current iMac (and I'm sure it's been proposed on these boards before, I just can't remember by when or by whom - sorry!): sell the "dome" by itself as a headless version for, let's say, $600 with all the necessary ports and features. If you've already got a monitor, or want to buy a third-party monitor, no problem. If you want an Apple monitor, you can buy one of their beautiful stand-alone monitors, or, they could sell you the LCD screen and arm mechanism that would pop right into the top of your headless iMac. Voila, instant all-in-one.
The professional line (PowerMac, PowerBook) would inherit the PPC970, like I'm sure they will anyway, and the consumer line (iMac, iBook) will keep/inherit the G4 (which, seriously, is plenty good enough for the the intended consumer market, especially if they can manage to up those front side bus speeds).
Voila, you've now got a lineup that's sufficiently differentiated (read: the headless iMac probably won't make the PowerMac sales suffer), while catering to high-end professionals, gamers, and gadget freaks (PowerMac, PowerBook), price-conscious consumers (iBook, headless iMac), and all-in-one fans (iMac with built-in screen).
Sounds pretty good to me, and given the incredible talent at Apple, I'm sure they could make it work. I'm sure there are holes in this though, so feel free to start poking. I would just love to see Apple get back up to about 10% market share, and I'd love to see them really do something to get there.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
4)This machine would not cannibalize eMac and iMac sales.
And if it did, so be it... The eMac doesnt deserve to live.. A slimmed down 15" iMac does though... It should be around the same price now..
The eMac is SO ugly...
apple has spent the past 4 years pandering to the low end, grandpa joe consumer brigade and gotten nothing out of it. in the meantime the pro user has been frozen out by apple's heavy reliance on outdated and uncompetitive technology. the upshot of it all has been the steady takeover of apple's creative roots by NT and linux (and now XP) - the very users who apple should be courting. I say, lets have the dual and quad 970s with enough power technology to blow a crater 5 miles in radius around the cinema display
Originally posted by spooky
No, No, No, No No. . .
apple has spent the past 4 years pandering to the low end, grandpa joe consumer brigade and gotten nothing out of it. in the meantime the pro user has been frozen out by apple's heavy reliance on outdated and uncompetitive technology. the upshot of it all has been the steady takeover of apple's creative roots by NT and linux (and now XP) - the very users who apple should be courting. I say, lets have the dual and quad 970s with enough power technology to blow a crater 5 miles in radius around the cinema display
A low-end Mac to gain marketshare at the consumer/school level and an uber-Mac workstation with quad 970s and every power-user technology one can imagine aren't mutually exclusive and can co-exist together very nicely. We're arguing for a low-priced, good performing consumer Mac, and you're arguing for a high-priced, high-performance professional Mac. They're at opposite extremes, to be sure, but they're both targeting markets that aren't being served.