Would you buy this instead of an e/iMac?
Built for business/education. That means, roughly iMac specs (eMac is way lagging), two expansion slots (one used by graphics card), upgradable HD and graphics. $599 (basically, $200 less than the CRT eMac is right now). Basically, just Panther and no iLife on business model. Edu model a step up with iLife for $749. Home users can use this with their existing monitor, or go for the current iMac and pay more. The iMac should be about $200 less than it is right now to be in-line with this model. Entice business and home users to try it. Switcher ads didn't do it. They need something to entice people to at least try a Mac. Requisite pic follows:
Thoughts/ideas?
Thoughts/ideas?
Comments
I think something in the lines of...:
xStation 599$, G4 @1Ghz (Good swicher model)
iMac 999$, G4 @1.4Ghz (Good for people who want minimum hassle)
Power Mac Mini, Single G5 @1.8Hhz 1499$ (For people who want power, but does not got the cash)
Power Mac, Dual G5 @1.8Ghz 1999$ (For the "Only the best is good enough" crowd)
...Would make a good product matrix.
(Note, these are only the entry models ... well duh
Expansion cards and upgradable graphics aren't necessary in a home/office computer. If you need to add SCSI, FibreChannel, an audio card, an second graphics card, etc. you should get a tower.
Make it with basically iBook specs, but with desktop components (3.5" HD, normal DIMMs) and it becomes more econimically feasable.
Originally posted by Eric_Z
First one little nitpick, take a look at the apple, it wasn't meant to be two different products, no?
No, like the Quadra's of looooong ago, the logo can be placed in either direction.
Originally posted by Eric_Z
xStation 599$, G4 @1Ghz (Good swicher model)
iMac 999$, G4 @1.4Ghz (Good for people who want minimum hassle)
Power Mac Mini, Single G5 @1.8Hhz 1499$ (For people who want power, but does not got the cash)
Power Mac, Dual G5 @1.8Ghz 1999$ (For the "Only the best is good enough" crowd)
That sounds about right in line with my thinking. Entry level. For those who don't want to spend double on an iMac than a Dell, but still want a Mac that isn't 75 lbs and is uglier than hell.
Originally posted by spankalee
The CRT in the eMac adds probably less than $70 worth of costs for Apple (considering a similar quality monitor goes for a little over $100 retail now). Building a more compact computer with better specs for $200 less than the eMac isn't gonna happen.
Why not? I agree that they aren't gonna make a ton of money on them, but isn't marketshare worth it?
Originally posted by spankalee
Expansion cards and upgradable graphics aren't necessary in a home/office computer. If you need to add SCSI, FibreChannel, an audio card, an second graphics card, etc. you should get a tower.
Not necessary? What about cards that may need to be installed or integrated in almost EVERY computer in the coming years? Like biometrics boards that read fingerprints, retina scans, etc? SCSI - no way in this day and age. Audio - built-in. I think if for nothing else, people feel a sense of upgradability with an open slot.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why is it $150 more for the "educational" model with iLife? Is iLife worth $150? No... it's a free download from Apple, except for iDVD. So basically, you're saying it won't come bundled and people will pay $150 extra to not have to download it, even when they could buy it on CDs for $50?
Sorry, thought I added in the Superdrive option with it. iLife without a Superdrive would be kinda useless, don't cha think?
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Why not? I agree that they aren't gonna make a ton of money on them, but isn't marketshare worth it?
Is it? Would you rather have more market share and no money, or less market share and money?
I agree that Apple could use a less expensive non-AIO in the line up, but less expensive will mean less features. Every "please Apple, replace the iMac with my wonderful idea" thread that pops up here wants top-end features at a bottom-end price. That isn't a bad desire, but you can't just ignore economics. If you want a economy box you'll have to sacrifice some stuff. Integrated graphics and no PCI slots is a good start.
Not necessary? What about cards that may need to be installed or integrated in almost EVERY computer in the coming years? Like biometrics boards that read fingerprints, retina scans, etc? SCSI - no way in this day and age. Audio - built-in. I think if for nothing else, people feel a sense of upgradability with an open slot.
C'mon dude, get serious. Retina scanners? This is a home/office computer for today, right? Plus, what kind of retina scanner couldn't be built using FireWire? Expansion through cards is yesterdays news. Only pros have that need now, because only the most high bandwidth, low latency communication needs access to the PCI bus. FireWire is plenty fast enough for everything else.
Originally posted by spankalee
Is it? Would you rather have more market share and no money, or less market share and money?
I agree that Apple could use a less expensive non-AIO in the line up, but less expensive will mean less features. Every "please Apple, replace the iMac with my wonderful idea" thread that pops up here wants top-end features at a bottom-end price. That isn't a bad desire, but you can't just ignore economics. If you want a economy box you'll have to sacrifice some stuff. Integrated graphics and no PCI slots is a good start.
First of all a larger market share is never a bad thing as it increases the chanses of ports to OSX and it would propably speed up the release future ports.
Secondly, I agree on your point that it should share as many parts as possible with the iMac and that it should not have a PCI and a AGP slot. Not that it would be expensive to add them mind you. But it would keep cannibalization of the more profit bringing iMac to a minimum. And this simply by avoiding the dillemma of putting expandabillety versus the (in my vision of the product matrix) better CPU and, for some users, the built in screen of the iMac. And it would keep the tooling costs of setting up a new product line to a absolute minimum.
Originally posted by spankalee
Every "please Apple, replace the iMac with my wonderful idea" thread that pops up here wants top-end features at a bottom-end price. That isn't a bad desire, but you can't just ignore economics.
When did I say they had to have top-end features? iMac features sure as hell are not top-end. Some of the G5 PowerBook threads are more along that line.
Originally posted by spankalee
C'mon dude, get serious. Retina scanners? This is a home/office computer for today, right?
Every government, hospital or company that deals with customer/protected information are requiring them. Check out HIPAA laws!
And no, firewire isn't an option because Government and other agencies require their own cards. It's a way of protecting the device, physically. An external reader would be easily stolen - internal cards are much more secure. Check out this CNET article and this MacRumors report on DOD Common Access Cards. A lot of companies are turning to them to for authentication.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
And no, firewire isn't an option because Government and other agencies require their own cards.
Funny, but a quick goole turned up several USB Common Access Card readers.
As for security, it's not hard to lock down external devices. There's also a lot to be said for locking down the case and having all perhiphrials be external. Card readers are also know for wearing and getting gunked up, it's good to be able to easily replace them.
Originally posted by spankalee
Funny, but a quick goole turned up several USB Common Access Card readers.
Agree to disagree. I can live with that. But they need marketshare, and the best way to get it is low-price systems. That and a push toward a business group in each Apple Store to actively pursue business/edu sales. They need to show and convince people that they integrate into existing networks fine and are much easier, secure, less virus-prone, and more stable than a Windows counterpart. The main reason for my suggesting a low-end system is for this reason only.
Originally posted by iPeon
Make it a G5, even if at just 1.2 GHz and sell it for $998.00, I'd get it in a heart beat. And I'm betting, so would many potential switchers.
In time, when cooling has been addressed - or IBM can pump out .90 970's/980's.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Agree to disagree. I can live with that. But they need marketshare, and the best way to get it is low-price systems.
This is a very common assumption, and it simply doesn't hold.
Apple needs compelling systems. Price is certainly part of that, but you can't go whacking bits off and cutting corners just to bring the price down. You have to look at the whole thing. If a Mac offers a host of advantages for Federal and security-conscious buyers - which it does, in spades - then it can command a (slight) price premium on top of that. In addition, sealed boxes are far more proof against the sort of tampering that security-conscious agencies are afraid of (just try pulling the hard drive out of an eMac).
Also, the Feds aren't really a hard sell for Apple. The largest installations of Macs in the world are in US federal agencies, including those most concerned with high tech (the NSA, Los Alamos, NASA). Corporate IT is the main obstacle, and ironically Apple might get in courtesy of a certain $5.2 million installation of their top of the line machines - not some $600 client. This makes sense: You can get a cheap, suitable enterprise client from a white-box maker, because enterprise clients hardly require anything feature- or performance-wise; but they can't supply you with anything like a dual G5.
When the iMac first came out, the FBI grabbed a bunch of them, because they were sealed boxes with no writable, removable media (floppies) that people could use to take information off the machines. If they or similar parties have to pay $1299 a pop to get what they want, they will. Most Federal agencies have paid that much for a box of paperclips at one point or another anyway.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Agree to disagree. I can live with that. But they need marketshare, and the best way to get it is low-price systems. That and a push toward a business group in each Apple Store to actively pursue business/edu sales. They need to show and convince people that they integrate into existing networks fine and are much easier, secure, less virus-prone, and more stable than a Windows counterpart. The main reason for my suggesting a low-end system is for this reason only.
I've seen several IT purchases lately of machines that are a lot like an iMac in features and price. Most business I see aren't necessarily going for the cheapest computers. LCD's are the norm now even though they're more expensive, and quality and TCO are legit concerns.
The AIO design and articulated monitor of the iMac actually make it a great business machine. Most companies do consider ergonomics, ease of use, cost of maintanence when purchasing.
The iMac isn't really that far off right now. I've posted before that Apple does need to lower the price, but probably can't because the current design is too expensive to manufacture. If Apple can pull $200 off the price, while adding a nice speedbump they'll be in a great position. I really think they're just a couple hundred away from their sweet spot.
As for the fabled "headless iMac" in the $600 range, it's really tough to do. A better way to think of it is to take a G4 tower and strip that. The G4 tower starts at $1299. The first thing I would do is get rid most reasons to open the case. Axe the PCI slots, the 2nd processor slot, the extra HD bays, integrate the graphics. This should allow a cheaper, simpler case and motherboard. Also it should be available with no CD drive, and maybe even without a HD for NetBoot.
But it still has to be a Mac, regardless of how cheap a box we want. So it should have builtin AirPort and bluetooh antenna, FireWire 800 and USB 2, Gigabit Ethernet, ADC and DVI connectors with spanning, and a slot loading drive.
No one here really knows how much the case and motherboard simplifications would save, but I'd guess that you could get it to under $1000, maybe $899 (with PowerMac G4, not eMac performance), while still retaining Apple's good margins.
It's not the price point that everyone wants, and I don't even think it's a better business machine than an iMac, but a sub $1k would probably attrack the attention of some business. The margins are what keep Apple going though, and I don't think a loss-leader is a good idea for Apple.
Originally posted by Amorph
This is a very common assumption, and it simply doesn't hold.
Apple needs compelling systems. Price is certainly part of that, but you can't go whacking bits off and cutting corners just to bring the price down.
I think the thing that makes Apple compelling is software not hardware. Mac OS X is the most compelling jewel Apple has. How do they sell more? It's hard when they only have 3% market share. History dictates, to me at least
And I really wasn't thinking of reducing the tech including in an xStation - just use the iMac or PM G4 logic board but wheened of expandability in the PowerMac's case, and upgrade the expansion possibilites of the iMac. The Cube was quite compelling, but failed because of two reasons - no expandability and priced too high. This would be the best of both worlds, as far as a 'Cube rebirth' line of thinking.
Apple needs to push OS X into business/edu. They have a good (not great anymore, alas) sales team for education, but their business sales teams suck. Point blank. Do they actively invite large companies to view a mobile lab with Mac OS X-based systems integrated into a Windows server environment? They seem content to rely on their old strongholds of pre-press/graphics industries. Sorry, that isn't going to cut it. A lower end system could open some corporations eyes.
More than product, I think Apple needs to develop a solid business team to make these sales.