Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"
Give it up. Apple isn't about to trash its entire desktop line to introduce a lower profit xMac to compete with HP and Dell in a cutthroat market with minimal margins.
I really love the guy that whines that he'll be without a computer because there's no xMac replacement for his iBook. WTF?
Heh...and the guy moving to the PS3 to run Linux because the MacBook is "underpowered"...without realizing that you can't access the PS3 GPU from Linux at this time.
Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"
As how it goes on AppleInsider. From one standpoint I can see what they are saying. I also would like to buy an expandable Mac, but I don't need a Mac Pro.
OTOH I can also see how such a computer may not fit into Apple's busines model. I certainly do not see the logic of viewing Apple's success as proof that they need a midrange desktop. Especially looking at HP and Dell, why in the world would Apple want to follow what they are doing.
Sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously there was word out today that Dell was having problem with the paint on their new "Colorful" laptops. It's just goes to show, take a mediocre laptop and slap a coat of cheap paint on it and what do you have? A cheap laptop with the paint flaking off.
And this with Back To School season here. Guess the Apple Stores will be packed and with Parallels, VMWare's Fusion and Boot Camp you can easily run windows if you wanted to really torture yourself.
AND the courts have recently upheld the ban on the chipset for iPhone's competition. Just think of it, your competitors are blocked by the courts and have tons of inventory that has paint peeling off.
It's a good time to be long Apple stock.
The other problem is that supplies for the LED backlighting, as well as for the glass used, is also in short supply. The article in the WSJ mentioned that those supplies were most likely constrained for its competitors as well (Apple anyone?).
So, in case some here are still complaining about Apple not using LEDs for the MacBooks yet, that could be a reason.
It's interesting that Dell is willing to put state of the art technology into its $1,000 laptops, but that Apple is not, relegating them to second best after Dell.
It's interesting that Dell is willing to put state of the art technology into its $1,000 laptops, but that Apple is not, relegating them to second best after Dell.
With strong MB sales there is no reason for Apple to interupt its supply chain and eat into its profit with limited and expensive LED backlighting.
LED backlight supply will improve and price will go down. Apple will include it in a MB refresh to keep sales strong.
Nobody would buy the midrange tower if it cost the same or more than the iMac.
Customer: "What's this computer here?"
Sales Assoc: "Oh that's the new xMac. It's expandable."
Customer: "Does it cost less than the iMac here?"
Sales: "Well, they're about the same, but the xMac is expandable."
Customer: "Expandable for what?"
Sales: "You can add PCI cards, extra hard drives, change the video card, change the optical drive..."
Customer: "But it doesn't come with a display?"
Sales: "No, but we have displays starting at $599."
{Customer buys iMac.}
It doesn't have to be more expensive.
What you're doing here is taking two poor decisions by Apple to make an excuse for them to not have made two good decisions.
I can't figure that one out.
Two proper decisions for apple would have been to, as I've ben saying for years, come out with a mid tower starting around $1,000, or less, and a less expensive monitor line as well. It wouldn't kill them, and would lead to greater sales.
Apple's desktop sales are artificially depressed because they refuse to compete in the largest market segments.
I've always found it to be odd that when Apple comes out with new products such as LCD monitors, its products are LESS expensive than anyone else's, but that it then lets them founder, until competitors have less expensive products, often that perform better.
This is poor thinking on Apple's part. I don't care what their plans are. They are no good.
There is NO excuse for their monitors to cost what they do right now. If they want high end graphics monitors, they should make sure that that line is better in performance than they are now, and then have a less expensive line for everyone else.
It's purely dumbness, and stubbornness, to refuse to have less expensive monitors while trying to sell Minis. Not only does this lose monitor sales for Apple, but it prevents the sale of Minis as well.
With strong MB sales there is no reason for Apple to interupt its supply chain and eat into its profit with limited and expensive LED backlighting.
Nonsense!
That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.
Every time Apple refuses to put features that are standard on PC's, even much cheaper models, people here come out with excuses for why Apple shouldn't do it. If later, Apple does do it, I don't see them complaining that Apple is cutting its profits.
Apple has enough buying power these days to get good prices on these items.
There are those who have complained that Apple's margins are TOO high. This is one reason. Apple milks what it has for as long as it can.
That's why we see 2400's and 2600 Pro's in the iMacs, instead of much better gpu's that cost little more. For example, the 8600GTS is only $50 more?retail, perhaps $25 OEM (or less). To think that Apple couldn't have put that into the $1799 Mac is difficult for me to understand. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to raise the price to $1849 because of it, but really!!!
The same thing with Santa Rosa in the MB. While it didn't improve he power of the other machines it's used in overall, the gpu is better.
Now Intel has released drivers for the 3000 gpu inside to do gpu based vertex processing, a BIG boost.
When will Apple update the drives to utilize that? Probably well after everyone else does.
That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.
In this case I don't see the great advantage LED backlighting provide that its worth interupting the supply chain and paying more for. When people are happily buying MB the way it is.
Quote:
That's why we see 2400's and 2600 Pro's in the iMacs, instead of much better gpu's that cost little more.
As far as how Apple chooses its GPU. That's a different issue. Really only they know why they came to that desicion. Perhaps it is just being cheap.
In this case I don't see the great advantage LED backlighting provide that its worth interupting the supply chain and paying more for. When people are happily buying MB the way it is.
This is a very good article from one of the premier pro photographic sites and digital leaders, Rob Galbraith. Well worth reading.
Quote:
As far as how Apple chooses its GPU. That's a different issue. Really only they know why they came to that desicion. Perhaps it is just being cheap.
Cheap it is!
In times of rising sales, it can be difficult to see an advantage to making the product even more desirable, it's true. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, and that sales wouldn't increase even more.
This is a very good article from one of the premier pro photographic sites and digital leaders, Rob Galbraith. Well worth reading.
That is a good article and to me is an endorsement of why Apple put LED into the MBP 15" and why they should get it into the 17" ASAP. Where accurate color is more important.
For the MB accurate color is of less importance and LED can wait until its cheaper with better supply.
That is a good article and to me is an endorsement of why Apple put LED into the MBP 15" and why they should get it into the 17" ASAP. Where accurate color is more important.
For the MB accurate color is of less importance and LED can wait until its cheaper with better supply.
I know people who can't afford a MBP for Photoshop, but would still like to edit on a MB, that's particularly true in schools where laptops have become common.
The MP is a premier consumer, and school laptop. The top end model, at least, could have one.
Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?
I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin". I advocate an xMac lineup starting at $499 and going up to $1999; this would replace the Mac Mini and run alongside the iMac. At $499 to $799, the margins would probably be just under 20% and increase to the high twenties once you get to $1999. It's easy when all you think of is Macs to not realise that $499 is not the lowest of the low-end anymore, it's the highest of the low-end / beginning of the mid-range. Below $499 is where the razor-thin margins are, and I nor anyone else here has ever once suggested that Apple should go there.
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?
I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin". I advocate an xMac lineup starting at $499 and going up to $1999; this would replace the Mac Mini and run alongside the iMac. At $499 to $799, the margins would probably be just under 20% and increase to the high twenties once you get to $1999. It's easy when all you think of is Macs to not realise that $499 is not the lowest of the low-end anymore, it's the highest of the low-end / beginning of the mid-range. Below $499 is where the razor-thin margins are, and I nor anyone else here has ever once suggested that Apple should go there.
i don't even think that Apple has to go that low. $799 would get quite a crowd of home and school purchases. business is also looking for a medium priced machine in that range. I also don't think they have to go that high. $1,499 would be a good cap.
So a base machine at $799 that could be loaded to $1,499 would be a good med priced line.
While the laptop numbers are great, the desktop numbers are further evidence that Apple really doesn't understand the market for desktop computers anymore, IMHO...
I don't know about that. These numbers were over a pretty short window, specifically the one right before the iMacs were updated. They simply hadn't updated any of the desktops in a while, so sales were sagging. And even those numbers are going up for apple, aren't they?
Personally, I'd love to see more desktop options from Apple. I just don't agree that this article proves that they're blowing it in the desktop market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
Nobody would buy the midrange tower if it cost the same or more than the iMac.
That's true...but who ever said that it should cost more than the iMac? Slots are dirt cheap. Sure, they add a small cost to the machine, but the expense is far less than a 20 or 24 inch LCD. A basic tower shouldn't cost much more than a mini, which has an inflated price due to the laptop components. If you're not paying for the miniaturization, you could put equivalents of the mini components in a normal sized case along with a bigger hard drive, a better DVD drive, an open bay or two and a couple slots.
A simple minitower is probably the cheapest possible machine to manufacture. Apple could easily make one cheaply, sell it for a competitive price, and still make profits comparable to what they're getting on the iMac.
Also, don't forget that apple is only using the Xeon and laptop chips in their "desktop" line. Intel has the Conroe line which has better bang for buck than what apple is using now, and apple has never taken advantage of it. Heck, apple could even take their current tower and just ship a conroe version on the low end (even if that meant it were a dual instead of a quad), and it would be way cheaper.
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?
No I don't believe its that simple an explination. Dell/HP sales include business to business sales which is the majority of desktop sales. If this were divided between business to business and buseinss to consumer I'm sure the numbers would change alot. Apple is more business to consumer than business to business.
When you walk into Best Buy these days you see notebooks prominent in the front shelves while desktops are farther back on the wall shelves. Where they place products on shelf space and in easy view means a lot in the retail business.
Quote:
To think that Apple couldn't have put that into the $1799 Mac is difficult for me to understand. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to raise the price to $1849 because of it, but really!!!
Another thought on this. We don't know how much Apple pays Intel. Apple does not buy in the same number as Dell/HP. But Apple has been getting new processors such as the X7900 before everyone else. I imagine Apple has to pay for this exclusivity and may balance out that cost with a cheaper GPU.
No I don't believe its that simple an explination. Dell/HP sales include business to business sales which is the majority of desktop sales. If this were divided between business to business and buseinss to consumer I'm sure the numbers would change alot. Apple is more business to consumer than business to business.
Yes, and that's one reason why business gives for not buying more Macs.
Quote:
When you walk into Best Buy these days you see notebooks prominent in the front shelves while desktops are farther back on the wall shelves. Where they place products on shelf space and in easy view means a lot in the retail business.
Very true.
Quote:
Another thought on this. We don't know how much Apple pays Intel. Apple does not buy in the same number as Dell/HP. But Apple has been getting new processors such as the X7900 before everyone else. I imagine Apple has to pay for this exclusivity and may balance out that cost with a cheaper GPU.
Apple pays whatever any other company about the same size, buying about the same number of chips of that type pays, no more, no less.
I would imagine the advantage to Apple, which is a minor one, is the price of doing Apple's business from the original negotiations with Intel. It may disappear after some set time, or after Apple reaches a certain size.
I think that Apple cuts whereever it can.
They are still not concerned about gaming. As long as people say that Macs are not for serious work, that will continue. I just went through that with someone here on another thread.
That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.
Every time Apple refuses to put features that are standard on PC's, even much cheaper models, people here come out with excuses for why Apple shouldn't do it. If later, Apple does do it, I don't see them complaining that Apple is cutting its profits.
Not exactly. It seems to me that the people finding "excuses" for apple are really trying to imagine what apple must be thinking. (We may end up sounding like Apple apoligistas because we are up against irrational whiners.)
It shouldn't be that difficult to see that apple doesn't sell an xMac because they don't want to.
It is not because they are idiots as most of the midtower people scream daily.
I think everyone would agree that they would sell a gazilion more computers if they offered a cheep, expandable small desktop. But to sit there whining about it and saying Apple is run by fools is pointless.
Not exactly. It seems to me that the people finding "excuses" for apple are really trying to imagine what apple must be thinking. (We may end up sounding like Apple apoligistas because we are up against irrational whiners.)
It shouldn't be that difficult to see that apple doesn't sell an xMac because they don't want to.
It is not because they are idiots as most of the midtower people scream daily.
You also have to look at history.
When the Mac first came out, it was exactly the same. It was a closed appliance, which is exactly what Jobs wanted to sell.
The industry was selling open machines, as the older AIO market waned with the intro of the IBM PC.
One of the main reasons why the Mac didn't make it big was because of that reason. I knew plenty of others in business who loved the idea of the Mac but simply didn't want a closed machine that couldn't accept an internal HHd, and had an attached 9" monitor.
It didn't begin to sell well until after Jobs left, and Scully came out with the Mac II, with 8 slots. Then business began to take it up in big numbers, but it was too late for dominance.
Even the first iMacs which were released to much acclaim, didn't really sell that well, though better than some of Apple previous products.
Quote:
I think everyone would agree that they would sell a gazilion more computers if they offered a cheep, expandable small desktop. But to sit there whining about it and saying Apple is run by fools is pointless.
It's not that Apple is run by fools. It's just that Jobs has this history. And, as we all know, Jobs can be very stubborn about something. This is one of those things. He doesn't like people inside his machines. When he came back to Apple, one of the first things he did was to reduce the capability of Apple's pro lines, and discontinue Apples home and school lines that had the ability to be upgraded.
You may not remember this, but the early iMacs (crt) had what was called the "mezzanine" slot. That was for internal testing, but developers quickly found that they could add all sorts of hardware to make the iMac perform better, and to add functions that people wanted, but that Apple hadn't included.
What did Apple do? They eliminated the slot!!!
Why does my old G4 tower have room above the optical drive for another 5.25 unit, but instead is totally empty? There is no good reason except that Apple (Jobs) didn't want something up there. Going by the hacks offered by third parties to add extra drives, it could be seen that heat, and power supply limitations, weren't the reason.
No, there is a stubbornness that is present in the current management about these things. It's really hard to understand.
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?
I'm saying who cares? Do they HAVE to also do well on desktops to be successful? The answer is clearly NO. Yes, you and a few other folks here desperately want an xMac. Heck, I'd even like one. So what? If you folks want one so bad go build one like those tablet folks.
Quote:
I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin".
Fine. Tell me why Dell's margins suck in comparison to Apple's then. And tell me how to get the minimum level of teh snappy on a $499 box with 28% margins because to get to that price range you're using a Semperon.
On second thought...DON'T tell me. I don't care anymore.
Comments
Give it up. Apple isn't about to trash its entire desktop line to introduce a lower profit xMac to compete with HP and Dell in a cutthroat market with minimal margins.
I really love the guy that whines that he'll be without a computer because there's no xMac replacement for his iBook. WTF?
Heh...and the guy moving to the PS3 to run Linux because the MacBook is "underpowered"...without realizing that you can't access the PS3 GPU from Linux at this time.
Vinea
Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"
I just need something expandable thats slightly cheaper than the mac pro so I can afford a monitor... It could be $1500 for all I care...
Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"
As how it goes on AppleInsider. From one standpoint I can see what they are saying. I also would like to buy an expandable Mac, but I don't need a Mac Pro.
OTOH I can also see how such a computer may not fit into Apple's busines model. I certainly do not see the logic of viewing Apple's success as proof that they need a midrange desktop. Especially looking at HP and Dell, why in the world would Apple want to follow what they are doing.
Sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously there was word out today that Dell was having problem with the paint on their new "Colorful" laptops. It's just goes to show, take a mediocre laptop and slap a coat of cheap paint on it and what do you have? A cheap laptop with the paint flaking off.
And this with Back To School season here. Guess the Apple Stores will be packed and with Parallels, VMWare's Fusion and Boot Camp you can easily run windows if you wanted to really torture yourself.
AND the courts have recently upheld the ban on the chipset for iPhone's competition. Just think of it, your competitors are blocked by the courts and have tons of inventory that has paint peeling off.
It's a good time to be long Apple stock.
The other problem is that supplies for the LED backlighting, as well as for the glass used, is also in short supply. The article in the WSJ mentioned that those supplies were most likely constrained for its competitors as well (Apple anyone?).
So, in case some here are still complaining about Apple not using LEDs for the MacBooks yet, that could be a reason.
It's interesting that Dell is willing to put state of the art technology into its $1,000 laptops, but that Apple is not, relegating them to second best after Dell.
It's interesting that Dell is willing to put state of the art technology into its $1,000 laptops, but that Apple is not, relegating them to second best after Dell.
With strong MB sales there is no reason for Apple to interupt its supply chain and eat into its profit with limited and expensive LED backlighting.
LED backlight supply will improve and price will go down. Apple will include it in a MB refresh to keep sales strong.
Nobody would buy the midrange tower if it cost the same or more than the iMac.
Customer: "What's this computer here?"
Sales Assoc: "Oh that's the new xMac. It's expandable."
Customer: "Does it cost less than the iMac here?"
Sales: "Well, they're about the same, but the xMac is expandable."
Customer: "Expandable for what?"
Sales: "You can add PCI cards, extra hard drives, change the video card, change the optical drive..."
Customer: "But it doesn't come with a display?"
Sales: "No, but we have displays starting at $599."
{Customer buys iMac.}
It doesn't have to be more expensive.
What you're doing here is taking two poor decisions by Apple to make an excuse for them to not have made two good decisions.
I can't figure that one out.
Two proper decisions for apple would have been to, as I've ben saying for years, come out with a mid tower starting around $1,000, or less, and a less expensive monitor line as well. It wouldn't kill them, and would lead to greater sales.
Apple's desktop sales are artificially depressed because they refuse to compete in the largest market segments.
I've always found it to be odd that when Apple comes out with new products such as LCD monitors, its products are LESS expensive than anyone else's, but that it then lets them founder, until competitors have less expensive products, often that perform better.
This is poor thinking on Apple's part. I don't care what their plans are. They are no good.
There is NO excuse for their monitors to cost what they do right now. If they want high end graphics monitors, they should make sure that that line is better in performance than they are now, and then have a less expensive line for everyone else.
It's purely dumbness, and stubbornness, to refuse to have less expensive monitors while trying to sell Minis. Not only does this lose monitor sales for Apple, but it prevents the sale of Minis as well.
With strong MB sales there is no reason for Apple to interupt its supply chain and eat into its profit with limited and expensive LED backlighting.
Nonsense!
That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.
Every time Apple refuses to put features that are standard on PC's, even much cheaper models, people here come out with excuses for why Apple shouldn't do it. If later, Apple does do it, I don't see them complaining that Apple is cutting its profits.
Apple has enough buying power these days to get good prices on these items.
There are those who have complained that Apple's margins are TOO high. This is one reason. Apple milks what it has for as long as it can.
That's why we see 2400's and 2600 Pro's in the iMacs, instead of much better gpu's that cost little more. For example, the 8600GTS is only $50 more?retail, perhaps $25 OEM (or less). To think that Apple couldn't have put that into the $1799 Mac is difficult for me to understand. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to raise the price to $1849 because of it, but really!!!
The same thing with Santa Rosa in the MB. While it didn't improve he power of the other machines it's used in overall, the gpu is better.
Now Intel has released drivers for the 3000 gpu inside to do gpu based vertex processing, a BIG boost.
When will Apple update the drives to utilize that? Probably well after everyone else does.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8519
That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.
In this case I don't see the great advantage LED backlighting provide that its worth interupting the supply chain and paying more for. When people are happily buying MB the way it is.
That's why we see 2400's and 2600 Pro's in the iMacs, instead of much better gpu's that cost little more.
As far as how Apple chooses its GPU. That's a different issue. Really only they know why they came to that desicion. Perhaps it is just being cheap.
In this case I don't see the great advantage LED backlighting provide that its worth interupting the supply chain and paying more for. When people are happily buying MB the way it is.
Here is one important reason for going LED:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-8741-9027
This is a very good article from one of the premier pro photographic sites and digital leaders, Rob Galbraith. Well worth reading.
As far as how Apple chooses its GPU. That's a different issue. Really only they know why they came to that desicion. Perhaps it is just being cheap.
Cheap it is!
In times of rising sales, it can be difficult to see an advantage to making the product even more desirable, it's true. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, and that sales wouldn't increase even more.
This is a very good article from one of the premier pro photographic sites and digital leaders, Rob Galbraith. Well worth reading.
That is a good article and to me is an endorsement of why Apple put LED into the MBP 15" and why they should get it into the 17" ASAP. Where accurate color is more important.
For the MB accurate color is of less importance and LED can wait until its cheaper with better supply.
That is a good article and to me is an endorsement of why Apple put LED into the MBP 15" and why they should get it into the 17" ASAP. Where accurate color is more important.
For the MB accurate color is of less importance and LED can wait until its cheaper with better supply.
I know people who can't afford a MBP for Photoshop, but would still like to edit on a MB, that's particularly true in schools where laptops have become common.
The MP is a premier consumer, and school laptop. The top end model, at least, could have one.
If Apple wanted to put the final nail into the coffin, they need:
a) SuperDrives across the line
b) a 15" model OPTION
c) remove that premium pricing for black
Absolutely! Particularly the SuperDrives, you'd have to go very low price to find a PC laptop without a DVD burner these days.
IRT Topic:
Dude! You're getting a Mac!
Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?
I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin". I advocate an xMac lineup starting at $499 and going up to $1999; this would replace the Mac Mini and run alongside the iMac. At $499 to $799, the margins would probably be just under 20% and increase to the high twenties once you get to $1999. It's easy when all you think of is Macs to not realise that $499 is not the lowest of the low-end anymore, it's the highest of the low-end / beginning of the mid-range. Below $499 is where the razor-thin margins are, and I nor anyone else here has ever once suggested that Apple should go there.
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?
I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin". I advocate an xMac lineup starting at $499 and going up to $1999; this would replace the Mac Mini and run alongside the iMac. At $499 to $799, the margins would probably be just under 20% and increase to the high twenties once you get to $1999. It's easy when all you think of is Macs to not realise that $499 is not the lowest of the low-end anymore, it's the highest of the low-end / beginning of the mid-range. Below $499 is where the razor-thin margins are, and I nor anyone else here has ever once suggested that Apple should go there.
i don't even think that Apple has to go that low. $799 would get quite a crowd of home and school purchases. business is also looking for a medium priced machine in that range. I also don't think they have to go that high. $1,499 would be a good cap.
So a base machine at $799 that could be loaded to $1,499 would be a good med priced line.
While the laptop numbers are great, the desktop numbers are further evidence that Apple really doesn't understand the market for desktop computers anymore, IMHO...
I don't know about that. These numbers were over a pretty short window, specifically the one right before the iMacs were updated. They simply hadn't updated any of the desktops in a while, so sales were sagging. And even those numbers are going up for apple, aren't they?
Personally, I'd love to see more desktop options from Apple. I just don't agree that this article proves that they're blowing it in the desktop market.
Nobody would buy the midrange tower if it cost the same or more than the iMac.
That's true...but who ever said that it should cost more than the iMac? Slots are dirt cheap. Sure, they add a small cost to the machine, but the expense is far less than a 20 or 24 inch LCD. A basic tower shouldn't cost much more than a mini, which has an inflated price due to the laptop components. If you're not paying for the miniaturization, you could put equivalents of the mini components in a normal sized case along with a bigger hard drive, a better DVD drive, an open bay or two and a couple slots.
A simple minitower is probably the cheapest possible machine to manufacture. Apple could easily make one cheaply, sell it for a competitive price, and still make profits comparable to what they're getting on the iMac.
Also, don't forget that apple is only using the Xeon and laptop chips in their "desktop" line. Intel has the Conroe line which has better bang for buck than what apple is using now, and apple has never taken advantage of it. Heck, apple could even take their current tower and just ship a conroe version on the low end (even if that meant it were a dual instead of a quad), and it would be way cheaper.
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?
No I don't believe its that simple an explination. Dell/HP sales include business to business sales which is the majority of desktop sales. If this were divided between business to business and buseinss to consumer I'm sure the numbers would change alot. Apple is more business to consumer than business to business.
When you walk into Best Buy these days you see notebooks prominent in the front shelves while desktops are farther back on the wall shelves. Where they place products on shelf space and in easy view means a lot in the retail business.
To think that Apple couldn't have put that into the $1799 Mac is difficult for me to understand. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to raise the price to $1849 because of it, but really!!!
Another thought on this. We don't know how much Apple pays Intel. Apple does not buy in the same number as Dell/HP. But Apple has been getting new processors such as the X7900 before everyone else. I imagine Apple has to pay for this exclusivity and may balance out that cost with a cheaper GPU.
No I don't believe its that simple an explination. Dell/HP sales include business to business sales which is the majority of desktop sales. If this were divided between business to business and buseinss to consumer I'm sure the numbers would change alot. Apple is more business to consumer than business to business.
Yes, and that's one reason why business gives for not buying more Macs.
When you walk into Best Buy these days you see notebooks prominent in the front shelves while desktops are farther back on the wall shelves. Where they place products on shelf space and in easy view means a lot in the retail business.
Very true.
Another thought on this. We don't know how much Apple pays Intel. Apple does not buy in the same number as Dell/HP. But Apple has been getting new processors such as the X7900 before everyone else. I imagine Apple has to pay for this exclusivity and may balance out that cost with a cheaper GPU.
Apple pays whatever any other company about the same size, buying about the same number of chips of that type pays, no more, no less.
I would imagine the advantage to Apple, which is a minor one, is the price of doing Apple's business from the original negotiations with Intel. It may disappear after some set time, or after Apple reaches a certain size.
I think that Apple cuts whereever it can.
They are still not concerned about gaming. As long as people say that Macs are not for serious work, that will continue. I just went through that with someone here on another thread.
Nonsense!
That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.
Every time Apple refuses to put features that are standard on PC's, even much cheaper models, people here come out with excuses for why Apple shouldn't do it. If later, Apple does do it, I don't see them complaining that Apple is cutting its profits.
Not exactly. It seems to me that the people finding "excuses" for apple are really trying to imagine what apple must be thinking. (We may end up sounding like Apple apoligistas because we are up against irrational whiners.)
It shouldn't be that difficult to see that apple doesn't sell an xMac because they don't want to.
It is not because they are idiots as most of the midtower people scream daily.
I think everyone would agree that they would sell a gazilion more computers if they offered a cheep, expandable small desktop. But to sit there whining about it and saying Apple is run by fools is pointless.
Not exactly. It seems to me that the people finding "excuses" for apple are really trying to imagine what apple must be thinking. (We may end up sounding like Apple apoligistas because we are up against irrational whiners.)
It shouldn't be that difficult to see that apple doesn't sell an xMac because they don't want to.
It is not because they are idiots as most of the midtower people scream daily.
You also have to look at history.
When the Mac first came out, it was exactly the same. It was a closed appliance, which is exactly what Jobs wanted to sell.
The industry was selling open machines, as the older AIO market waned with the intro of the IBM PC.
One of the main reasons why the Mac didn't make it big was because of that reason. I knew plenty of others in business who loved the idea of the Mac but simply didn't want a closed machine that couldn't accept an internal HHd, and had an attached 9" monitor.
It didn't begin to sell well until after Jobs left, and Scully came out with the Mac II, with 8 slots. Then business began to take it up in big numbers, but it was too late for dominance.
Even the first iMacs which were released to much acclaim, didn't really sell that well, though better than some of Apple previous products.
I think everyone would agree that they would sell a gazilion more computers if they offered a cheep, expandable small desktop. But to sit there whining about it and saying Apple is run by fools is pointless.
It's not that Apple is run by fools. It's just that Jobs has this history. And, as we all know, Jobs can be very stubborn about something. This is one of those things. He doesn't like people inside his machines. When he came back to Apple, one of the first things he did was to reduce the capability of Apple's pro lines, and discontinue Apples home and school lines that had the ability to be upgraded.
You may not remember this, but the early iMacs (crt) had what was called the "mezzanine" slot. That was for internal testing, but developers quickly found that they could add all sorts of hardware to make the iMac perform better, and to add functions that people wanted, but that Apple hadn't included.
What did Apple do? They eliminated the slot!!!
Why does my old G4 tower have room above the optical drive for another 5.25 unit, but instead is totally empty? There is no good reason except that Apple (Jobs) didn't want something up there. Going by the hacks offered by third parties to add extra drives, it could be seen that heat, and power supply limitations, weren't the reason.
No, there is a stubbornness that is present in the current management about these things. It's really hard to understand.
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?
I'm saying who cares? Do they HAVE to also do well on desktops to be successful? The answer is clearly NO. Yes, you and a few other folks here desperately want an xMac. Heck, I'd even like one. So what? If you folks want one so bad go build one like those tablet folks.
I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin".
Fine. Tell me why Dell's margins suck in comparison to Apple's then. And tell me how to get the minimum level of teh snappy on a $499 box with 28% margins because to get to that price range you're using a Semperon.
On second thought...DON'T tell me. I don't care anymore.
Vinea