Dell's computers in that price range use integrated graphics... so the only things you can upgrade are the processor, hard drive, and RAM... oh wait, you can do that with the faster Mac mini for a lot less money.
At the time of purchase you can upgrade the integrated graphics or you can purchase discrete graphics cards to put in the available PCI or PCI-e slots.
All that I've heard from nay sayers is that the entire desktop market below the Mac Pro is adequately covered by the Mac Mini and the iMac. That is a bold statement and I see no evidence that it is true, or even a reasonable guess. I would say that sales of these two products certainly do not support your claims. What other evidence can you provide that shows low end desktop sales will improve following Apple's current strategy?
On the other hand, there is adequate evidence that people are buying mini tower to meet their computing needs. Visit any retail store. Ask the sales people what their customers are buying.
The iMac may begin to sell well someday, if and when people change their image about the kind of computer they want. I would not stake the success of my company on such hopes however.
One market that is being ignored is business, and the ubiquitous office computer. If business begins using the iMac, it may catch on in the home market too. But, if Apple wants to sell computers now, they need something else. A mini tower would make a good next Mac for their product line, and that opinion is base on what kinds of computers are selling right now.
Apple wants to be a trendsetter for tomorrow, but it should not be at the expense of sales today.
Because, as has been said before, it would cannabalize sales of the iMac. Why should Apple render one product line defunct by making another computer that undercuts it in price and beats it in specs?
That's assuming they'd buy an iMac and not a PC. I do have to admit, while I love the Mac platform, having an AIO as the only midrange option is causing me to take a serious look at the Core2 Duo based Velocity-Micro Vector GX. I don't want the iMac at all. It's alright as a family machine, but I want a little something more. If Apple broadened their horizons and realize the goldmine of a case they're sitting on, they might gain some new customers. The again, it's the user's responsibility to change to suit Apple, right?
Folks who don't think that Apple has any need to make a non-AIO expandable box for around iMac money are arguing two things simultaneously.
One, that no one wants that outside a few niche tweak heads, and
Two, that offering that wouldn't make sense because it would cannibalize iMac sales.
So which is it? If no one wants it, how does it impact iMac sales?
And if it does impact iMac sales, then Apple is clearly not offering a configuration that its customers actually do want in order to protect margins, which is, of course, its right to do, but is a very different matter from Nobody Wants or Needs a Less Expensive Tower So Shut Up, Already.
At any rate, I'm not quite getting why offering a "low end" Mac Pro is being treated as somehow violating the very fabric of What Apple Is and What She Stands For, when exactly that was part of the line-up until very recently.
I'm still running a $1500 Sawtooth with a lot of replaced parts that got dropped in over the years, and I know for a fact that a lot of us on these very boards did that because we used to talk about it a lot.
Now if the thinking is that Apple doesn't want us to do that anymore-- that either we need to spend spend upwards of two grand or any "upgrade" is going to have to be new machine-- then OK, I don't like it but I can see the logic from Apple's perspective.
But dismissing people who do want that as whiny fringe dwellers or people who "just don't get it" strikes me as some kind of weird mass amnesia.
BTW, the argument "If you can spend $1700 you can spend $2000" is dumb. Why off a 17" iMac, since anyone who can swing that must be able to swing a 20"? Why offer $2500 Mac Pro, since anyone who can afford that can afford $3000?
The again, it's the user's responsibility to change to suit Apple, right?
Something like that. The CEO has a certain vision for computing. Thus far that vision is executing rather well in comparison with the previous CEO's vision which did include mid-ranged towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
All that I've heard from nay sayers is that the entire desktop market below the Mac Pro is adequately covered by the Mac Mini and the iMac. That is a bold statement and I see no evidence that it is true, or even a reasonable guess.
It also happens to be Apple's current position. That's not saying there might not be a $1700-$1800 conroe Mac Pro in the future at the low end of the pro series but that's not quite the same as the mid-range Mac you spoke of earlier that spanned the $1000-$2000 range.
Quote:
I would say that sales of these two products certainly do not support your claims. What other evidence can you provide that shows low end desktop sales will improve following Apple's current strategy?
What evidence do you have that Apple would be more successful deviating from their current strategy of AIO with good margins? AIO and SFF computers provide Apple the differentiator to compete in the mid range and low range and avoid direct comparisons with Dell and maintain margins.
Why would they wish to improve low end desktop sales with small margins at the expense of higher margin iMac and Minis?
Quote:
The iMac may begin to sell well someday, if and when people change their image about the kind of computer they want. I would not stake the success of my company on such hopes however.
The market seems to disagree with your opinion of Apple's long term prospects. It seems they are pretty successful and profitable.
Quote:
One market that is being ignored is business, and the ubiquitous office computer.
Its being ignored because its not a segment they are chasing at the moment and there's little margin in it except at the workstation and server level. Gee...it seems we have a price competive Mac Pro and XServe for that segment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Something that's confusing me:
Folks who don't think that Apple has any need to make a non-AIO expandable box for around iMac money are arguing two things simultaneously.
One, that no one wants that outside a few niche tweak heads, and
Two, that offering that wouldn't make sense because it would cannibalize iMac sales.
So which is it? If no one wants it, how does it impact iMac sales?
That's because there are multiple people in the same thread with different positions. If that's confusing then internet forums are not for you.
A cheaper tower would cannibalize iMac sales because its a better value proposition. Even with the same margins you end up with less revenue and you risk a monitor sale. Apple monitors are high margin and folks are likely to go elsewhere. This also leads to Apple selling fewer LCD panels leading to higher cost (lower profit) on every LCD they do sell.
It is debatable if the targetted demographic that Apple is chasing adds much to their Macs that can't be handled by external devices with the exception of video cards.
Quote:
BTW, the argument "If you can spend $1700 you can spend $2000" is dumb.
Mkay...if you can sell all the $2000 computers you can make why do you need to offer a $1700 one?
Is a $1700 Conroe all that great a deal? Sure, if you can't some up with the $300 that's what you'd get. But how many sales are lost from that 15% price difference vs the opportunity costs of the investment required to create and support a new line at this time? Their engineering staff can handle creating only so many models at one time and increasing staff increases cost. Perhaps in the future they will offer one as they have in the past.
We're still in the 32bit to 64bit transition phase with the MBPs and iMacs needing a new rev soon. MBP should be reasonably easy. iMac may require more work depending on which chip they go with.
That's because there are multiple people in the same thread with different positions. If that's confusing then internet forums are not for you.
Hmmm..... possibly not. This one seems afflicted with pointless contentiousness. Nevertheless, those two and contradictory ideas are being presented in the thread as if they were self evident facts and I'm merely pointing out they can't both be true.
Quote:
A cheaper tower would cannibalize iMac sales because its a better value proposition. Even with the same margins you end up with less revenue and you risk a monitor sale. Apple monitors are high margin and folks are likely to go elsewhere. This also leads to Apple selling fewer LCD panels leading to higher cost (lower profit) on every LCD they do sell.
How is that a problem if the tower you buy instead costs as much as the iMac? As far as margins go, the whole point would be to sell more computers, not just shift around some absolute number of buyers, yes?
Quote:
It is debatable if the targetted demographic that Apple is chasing adds much to their Macs that can't be handled by external devices with the exception of video cards.
Yes. Debatable. As in "you don't really know". Neither do I, but this notion is being brandished as if it were well established truth.
Quote:
Mkay...if you can sell all the $2000 computers you can make why do you need to offer a $1700 one?
Um, because you can sell all of those, as well? Apple sells all the 20" iMacs they make. Why offer the 17"?
Quote:
Is a $1700 Conroe all that great a deal? Sure, if you can't some up with the $300 that's what you'd get. But how many sales are lost from that 15% price difference vs the opportunity costs of the investment required to create and support a new line at this time? Their engineering staff can handle creating only so many models at one time and increasing staff increases cost. Perhaps in the future they will offer one as they have in the past.
But its all in the specifics, isn't it? You've argued that a tower cheap enough to be competitive, or satisfy this den of braying fools, or something, would cannibalize iMac sales, while a "$1700" tower wouldn't make any sense when a "much better machine" is available for $300 more.
So what about a $1500 tower, since that was the entry level tower price until recently? Has Apple's business model and economics really changed that much?
$1500 + monitor makes that comfortably more expensive than an iMac, and if we accept the notion that "most people" don't really want or need expansion capacity (which I don't necessarily, but then I'm not the one who's putting it out there) such a model wouldn't do much to cannibalize iMac sales, would it? "The demographic that Apple is chasing" would presumably prefer AIO designer goodness with its simplicity and ease of set-up, yes?
And a $500 jump seems plenty big enough to moot the "why not go for the next model up" argument, which personally I don't find persuasive even at the $300 gap, but that's just me. So it looks like the real question is whether such a model would cannibalize more expensive tower sales.
So you drop some firepower on the lower end model, as has been suggested, just like any line-up, to encourage the up-sell. I don't know exactly what that configuration would be, but I find it hard to believe that if Apple can sell a $2200 box that undercuts Dell they can't make a "competitive" box at $1500 that doesn't directly compete with quad core workstation.
If it does-- if Apple can't sell a less powerful box at $1500 because too many people would get that instead of quad core workstation, then it's merely true that Apple is kinda screwing us by forcing anyone who wants anything more than an iMac to go big. Way big.
We can talk all we want about Apple's sales model or business plan or what people actually do or do not want but there is undeniably a big-ass gap in the pricing scheme now that didn't used to be there.
Quote:
We're still in the 32bit to 64bit transition phase with the MBPs and iMacs needing a new rev soon. MBP should be reasonably easy. iMac may require more work depending on which chip they go with.
Vinea
If you're thinking that cheaper towers emerge when the dust settles that would make sense, but you seem to be saying the whole idea is an abomination.
Well, maybe not an "abomination", exactly, but at the very least unwise!
Wow! I am honestly in awe that people can look at Apple's current desktop line and think "yup, that's it, perfect". You are just in denial about what sorts of computers people buy.
Apple's market share of desktops is ridiculously low. There are plenty of barriers beyond machine configuration that stop people from switching from Windows to Mac, but Apple's recent significant laptop market share uptick shows that if Apple make machines that people actually want, a lot more people will buy them.
Two more things that the "Apple's desktop lineup is currently perfect" people are missing:
1.) It is absolutely possible for Apple to produce a tower that starts at $999 and has the same profit margins as an iMac:
A 20" iMac has the following spec:
20" screen
Built-in iSight
2.0 GHz Core Duo
512 MB RAM
250 GB Desktop HDD
Slot-load Superdrive
ATI-RADEON X1600 graphics
$1699
a 28% gross margin on this implies parts + construction costs of $1223.28
A 20" cinema display costs $699. A 35% margin implies parts + construction costs of $454.35.
Now let's assume that the construction cost of a 20" cinema display and a 20" iMac are about the same (I think we can all agree that it's more expensive to put an iMac together, but making this assumption makes it even harder for the nay-sayers to dispute my reasonings)
That means the parts costs of a 20" iMac without the display is $1223.28 - $454.35 = $768.93.
The tower that I would propose would have a base configuration as follows:
No Screen (price reduction accounted for above)
No iSight (-$5)
1.86 GHz E6300 Conroe processor (-$111 see Intel's latest price list here)
512 MB RAM (+$0)
160 GB HDD (-$20)
Draw-loading Combo Drive (-$40)
ATI-X1600 (+$0)
which results in a parts cost of $592.93. A $999 price with 28% margins means parts + construction costs of $719.28.
So, I've got $126.35 to buy me:
More expensive motherboard (2 x PCI-e slots, etc. +$25 difference from iMac motherboard)
Casework (tower, 1 optical drive slot, two HDD bays, PCI-E slots etc. +$60)
Construction (+$41.35).
Done.
So, now I've a tower that starts at $999 and can scale to $2499 (more powerful processors, extra RAM, storage etc.)
2.) No-one who is advocating a mid-range tower from Apple is suggesting that we do away with the iMac. The two machines serve two different sets of people.
Finally, would any of the "Apple's desktop lineup is perfect" crowd like to state in advance that they will point, laugh, name-call and shout at Apple for being silly idiots if they come out with a desktop Mac similar to the one that people in this thread are calling for?
I already have a monitor and I think tying a monitor and computer together inextricably is absolutely foolish, so the iMac is out.
I actually want more than one hard drive in my computer. I might want to upgrade the graphics card in 2 or 3 years. I might want to add RAM without hassle. I might even want to swap processors if the motherboard will allow it, so the Mac Mini is out.
I don't have a Mac desktop, and it's not because I don't know anything about computers.
Definitely a midi box would be very welcome - slightly larger cube with a little more expandability that I can still put on the top of my desk rather than banish it by the legs. And at that price point, it would definitely make it much better drop-in replacement for existing ailing desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Wow! I am honestly in awe that people can look at Apple's current desktop line and think "yup, that's it, perfect". You are just in denial about what sorts of computers people buy.
Wow! I am honestly in awe that people can look at Apple's current desktop line and think "yup, that's it, perfect". You are just in denial about what sorts of computers people buy.
Is it about what sorts of computers people buy or what sorts of macs people buy? Because most folks will buy cheap computers.
The line up isn't "perfect" for some users. The question is are the changes desired in this thread better or worse for Apple from a business perspective. A $1700 tower might not be bad but its also not going to be a bang-for-the-buck winner that the current tower is in relation to competitors.
I'm going to guess a lukewarm reception for a $1700 Conroe tower.
Quote:
Apple's market share of desktops is ridiculously low.
And yet apple is a profitable company that is executing well.
Quote:
There are plenty of barriers beyond machine configuration that stop people from switching from Windows to Mac, but Apple's recent significant laptop market share uptick shows that if Apple make machines that people actually want, a lot more people will buy them.
So they are gaining marketshare in a more profitable segment of the market as opposed to competing with Dell for the less profitable segment which they choose not to direct to much resources at.
Quote:
Two more things that the "Apple's desktop lineup is currently perfect" people are missing:
1.) It is absolutely possible for Apple to produce a tower that starts at $999 and has the same profit margins as an iMac:
A 20" iMac has the following spec:
...
$1699
a 28% gross margin on this implies parts + construction costs of $1223.28
...
The tower that I would propose would have a base configuration as follows:
which results in a parts cost of $592.93. A $999 price with 28% margins means parts + construction costs of $719.28.
Congrats...you've just converted $476 into $279. Margins are the same, revenue is not. You need to make enough sales to generate another $197 in profit just to break even.
On the plus side, the mini sales will likely also drop to near zero if there was a $999 mac tower.
On the minus side, you also have to figure on losing some of those $2000+ Mac Pros as well.
Quote:
2.) No-one who is advocating a mid-range tower from Apple is suggesting that we do away with the iMac. The two machines serve two different sets of people.
If you drive the volumes down low enough you might as well do away with it.
Quote:
Finally, would any of the "Apple's desktop lineup is perfect" crowd like to state in advance that they will point, laugh, name-call and shout at Apple for being silly idiots if they come out with a desktop Mac similar to the one that people in this thread are calling for?
Nope. If they come out with a $1500-$1700 Mac tower that's great for the users. It should be interesting to see the effect on sales of other models though. Especially the higher priced Mac Pro if it uses the same case.
One thing the company has is cachet...iMac, Mac Pro, Macbook, MBP, Mini. All reasonably unique machines that don't quite fit the mold. The $999 tower you describe? Eh.
I'd rather see a $1500 cube. Limited upgradeability but less probability of direct comparisons with Dell and less likelyhood of trashing the iMac and Mac Pro lineup. Fits 90% of the upgrade desires that the Mini doesn't have (3.5" drive + video slot). Probably wont sell well though.
I'd rather see a $1500 cube. Limited upgradeability but less probability of direct comparisons with Dell and less likelyhood of trashing the iMac and Mac Pro lineup. Fits 90% of the upgrade desires that the Mini doesn't have (3.5" drive + video slot). Probably wont sell well though.
I agree, except that video probably needs to be upgradeable, and maybe a slot or two for more expansion. The cube was interesting, but I don't really see that form factor coming back because it was part of the reason it didn't sell well--it was an iMac without a screen, but without the ability to upgrade it sufficiently (IIRC).
But I think the biggest reason why the cube failed is that in Apple's previous processor lineup there just wasn't room, with only the G3 and G4, or G4 and G5 at any given time. Now's a completely different story, and if the iMac stays Merom, then Apple will almost definitely release a headless Conroe machine to fill the lineup. If iMac goes Conroe, it gets harder to add a machine, but not impossible, and I still think it would be coming down the road.
Hmmm..... possibly not. This one seems afflicted with pointless contentiousness. Nevertheless, those two and contradictory ideas are being presented in the thread as if they were self evident facts and I'm merely pointing out they can't both be true.
They don't both need to be true do they? If one is true then it should be sufficient to view the addition with a little caution.
Personally, I don't care all that much either way. I DO care that someone with a vision is leading Apple. If that vision doesn't include mid-ranged towers I can live with that given they are executing well.
Quote:
How is that a problem if the tower you buy instead costs as much as the iMac? As far as margins go, the whole point would be to sell more computers, not just shift around some absolute number of buyers, yes?
You have to show that you will sell more computers. Folks aren't now switching just because there's no mid-range tower. Especially if the mid-range tower costs $1500+.
Quote:
Yes. Debatable. As in "you don't really know". Neither do I, but this notion is being brandished as if it were well established truth.
If Apple was floundering I'd say the burden of proof was on the folks that want to stay the course. Since Apple is executing well I'd say the burden of proof is on those that say if you build it, they will come is true.
Quote:
Um, because you can sell all of those, as well? Apple sells all the 20" iMacs they make. Why offer the 17"?
They sell a $2100 Mac Pro too.
Quote:
But its all in the specifics, isn't it? You've argued that a tower cheap enough to be competitive, or satisfy this den of braying fools, or something, would cannibalize iMac sales, while a "$1700" tower wouldn't make any sense when a "much better machine" is available for $300 more.
So what about a $1500 tower, since that was the entry level tower price until recently? Has Apple's business model and economics really changed that much?
Eh...were reviews of the lowest end G5 Power Mac all that positive?
"It can?t be the Good, the Better, or the Best model, so just where does the new $1,499 Power Mac G5 fit into Apple?s pro desktop lineup? Slowest is one way to describe it. Cheapest is the other."
Wow, that's a glowing review.
"There's a new single-processor 1.8GHz Power Mac G5 in town, adding an affordable ($1,499) option to the Power Mac line. But based on our testing, the new Power Mac is essentially an iMac G5 in a tower case?it doesn't provide the performance boost we're used to seeing when moving from the iMac to the Power Mac family."
Would a $1500 Mac Pro cannibalize iMac sales? Probably not. Would it set the Mac world on fire? Probably not. Should Apple offer one? Maybe later.
Quote:
We can talk all we want about Apple's sales model or business plan or what people actually do or do not want but there is undeniably a big-ass gap in the pricing scheme now that didn't used to be there.
October 4 2004 to June 2005 for the $1500 1.8 PowerMac.
Quote:
If you're thinking that cheaper towers emerge when the dust settles that would make sense, but you seem to be saying the whole idea is an abomination.
Well, maybe not an "abomination", exactly, but at the very least unwise!
I'm saying a $999 conroe tower is unwise. I'm saying a $1500-$1700 conroe tower will be so-so. I'd rather see a $1700 23" iMac (Conroe) first. Leave the 17" with Merom and label it the eMac. I'd rather see a cool looking cube...but hey, if they make a $1500 conroe using the Power Mac case I'd be very tempted to buy one but will likely get a GMA X3000 based Mini instead.
Source? AFAICT, they're the exact same panel and backlight.
The cinema displays have a 178 deg. viewing angle. The 17" has a 140 deg. horizontal and 120 deg. vertical viewing angle.
The 20" does actually have a 170 deg. viewing angle, so it might be the same. I've only ever used the 17" and the screen is noticeably lower quality than my 17" studio display.
What evidence do you have that Apple would be more successful deviating from their current strategy of AIO with good margins?
Those who buy Windows computers are not drastically different from Mac users, and currently, a mini tower sells well and the AIO not so well. Why would it be drastically different in the Mac world of computers? Of course the only way Apple will ever find out for sure how well a Mac mini tower would sell is to introduce one to the product line.
Quote:
Why would they wish to improve low end desktop sales with small margins at the expense of higher margin iMac and Minis?
You are assuming something about profit margins. There is no reason that a mini tower must sell at a low margin. Pricing is up to Apple, not the customer. If the mini tower does not sell well enough at a reasonable profit, drop it. If a mini tower causes iMac sales to plummet, then drop the iMac. We can't have untouchable favorites if we want to operate a successful business, can we?
Comments
Dell's computers in that price range use integrated graphics... so the only things you can upgrade are the processor, hard drive, and RAM... oh wait, you can do that with the faster Mac mini for a lot less money.
At the time of purchase you can upgrade the integrated graphics or you can purchase discrete graphics cards to put in the available PCI or PCI-e slots.
On the other hand, there is adequate evidence that people are buying mini tower to meet their computing needs. Visit any retail store. Ask the sales people what their customers are buying.
The iMac may begin to sell well someday, if and when people change their image about the kind of computer they want. I would not stake the success of my company on such hopes however.
One market that is being ignored is business, and the ubiquitous office computer. If business begins using the iMac, it may catch on in the home market too. But, if Apple wants to sell computers now, they need something else. A mini tower would make a good next Mac for their product line, and that opinion is base on what kinds of computers are selling right now.
Apple wants to be a trendsetter for tomorrow, but it should not be at the expense of sales today.
Jerry
Because, as has been said before, it would cannabalize sales of the iMac. Why should Apple render one product line defunct by making another computer that undercuts it in price and beats it in specs?
That's assuming they'd buy an iMac and not a PC. I do have to admit, while I love the Mac platform, having an AIO as the only midrange option is causing me to take a serious look at the Core2 Duo based Velocity-Micro Vector GX. I don't want the iMac at all. It's alright as a family machine, but I want a little something more. If Apple broadened their horizons and realize the goldmine of a case they're sitting on, they might gain some new customers. The again, it's the user's responsibility to change to suit Apple, right?
You really think Apple releasing a boring Dell look-a-like is going to instantly change Apple's marketshare?
You know Apple would never release a Dell look alike. Why do you say such a thing?
An Apple Mac mini tower would be a work of art.
You really think Apple releasing a boring Dell look-a-like is going to instantly change Apple's marketshare?
http://images.apple.com/macpro/image...er20060807.png
Wow, Dell's looking really good! Stick a P965 motherboard and a Core 2 Duo in here and you're all set.
Folks who don't think that Apple has any need to make a non-AIO expandable box for around iMac money are arguing two things simultaneously.
One, that no one wants that outside a few niche tweak heads, and
Two, that offering that wouldn't make sense because it would cannibalize iMac sales.
So which is it? If no one wants it, how does it impact iMac sales?
And if it does impact iMac sales, then Apple is clearly not offering a configuration that its customers actually do want in order to protect margins, which is, of course, its right to do, but is a very different matter from Nobody Wants or Needs a Less Expensive Tower So Shut Up, Already.
At any rate, I'm not quite getting why offering a "low end" Mac Pro is being treated as somehow violating the very fabric of What Apple Is and What She Stands For, when exactly that was part of the line-up until very recently.
I'm still running a $1500 Sawtooth with a lot of replaced parts that got dropped in over the years, and I know for a fact that a lot of us on these very boards did that because we used to talk about it a lot.
Now if the thinking is that Apple doesn't want us to do that anymore-- that either we need to spend spend upwards of two grand or any "upgrade" is going to have to be new machine-- then OK, I don't like it but I can see the logic from Apple's perspective.
But dismissing people who do want that as whiny fringe dwellers or people who "just don't get it" strikes me as some kind of weird mass amnesia.
BTW, the argument "If you can spend $1700 you can spend $2000" is dumb. Why off a 17" iMac, since anyone who can swing that must be able to swing a 20"? Why offer $2500 Mac Pro, since anyone who can afford that can afford $3000?
The again, it's the user's responsibility to change to suit Apple, right?
Something like that. The CEO has a certain vision for computing. Thus far that vision is executing rather well in comparison with the previous CEO's vision which did include mid-ranged towers.
All that I've heard from nay sayers is that the entire desktop market below the Mac Pro is adequately covered by the Mac Mini and the iMac. That is a bold statement and I see no evidence that it is true, or even a reasonable guess.
It also happens to be Apple's current position. That's not saying there might not be a $1700-$1800 conroe Mac Pro in the future at the low end of the pro series but that's not quite the same as the mid-range Mac you spoke of earlier that spanned the $1000-$2000 range.
I would say that sales of these two products certainly do not support your claims. What other evidence can you provide that shows low end desktop sales will improve following Apple's current strategy?
What evidence do you have that Apple would be more successful deviating from their current strategy of AIO with good margins? AIO and SFF computers provide Apple the differentiator to compete in the mid range and low range and avoid direct comparisons with Dell and maintain margins.
Why would they wish to improve low end desktop sales with small margins at the expense of higher margin iMac and Minis?
The iMac may begin to sell well someday, if and when people change their image about the kind of computer they want. I would not stake the success of my company on such hopes however.
The market seems to disagree with your opinion of Apple's long term prospects. It seems they are pretty successful and profitable.
One market that is being ignored is business, and the ubiquitous office computer.
Its being ignored because its not a segment they are chasing at the moment and there's little margin in it except at the workstation and server level. Gee...it seems we have a price competive Mac Pro and XServe for that segment.
Something that's confusing me:
Folks who don't think that Apple has any need to make a non-AIO expandable box for around iMac money are arguing two things simultaneously.
One, that no one wants that outside a few niche tweak heads, and
Two, that offering that wouldn't make sense because it would cannibalize iMac sales.
So which is it? If no one wants it, how does it impact iMac sales?
That's because there are multiple people in the same thread with different positions. If that's confusing then internet forums are not for you.
A cheaper tower would cannibalize iMac sales because its a better value proposition. Even with the same margins you end up with less revenue and you risk a monitor sale. Apple monitors are high margin and folks are likely to go elsewhere. This also leads to Apple selling fewer LCD panels leading to higher cost (lower profit) on every LCD they do sell.
It is debatable if the targetted demographic that Apple is chasing adds much to their Macs that can't be handled by external devices with the exception of video cards.
BTW, the argument "If you can spend $1700 you can spend $2000" is dumb.
Mkay...if you can sell all the $2000 computers you can make why do you need to offer a $1700 one?
Is a $1700 Conroe all that great a deal? Sure, if you can't some up with the $300 that's what you'd get. But how many sales are lost from that 15% price difference vs the opportunity costs of the investment required to create and support a new line at this time? Their engineering staff can handle creating only so many models at one time and increasing staff increases cost. Perhaps in the future they will offer one as they have in the past.
We're still in the 32bit to 64bit transition phase with the MBPs and iMacs needing a new rev soon. MBP should be reasonably easy. iMac may require more work depending on which chip they go with.
Vinea
That's because there are multiple people in the same thread with different positions. If that's confusing then internet forums are not for you.
Hmmm..... possibly not. This one seems afflicted with pointless contentiousness. Nevertheless, those two and contradictory ideas are being presented in the thread as if they were self evident facts and I'm merely pointing out they can't both be true.
A cheaper tower would cannibalize iMac sales because its a better value proposition. Even with the same margins you end up with less revenue and you risk a monitor sale. Apple monitors are high margin and folks are likely to go elsewhere. This also leads to Apple selling fewer LCD panels leading to higher cost (lower profit) on every LCD they do sell.
How is that a problem if the tower you buy instead costs as much as the iMac? As far as margins go, the whole point would be to sell more computers, not just shift around some absolute number of buyers, yes?
It is debatable if the targetted demographic that Apple is chasing adds much to their Macs that can't be handled by external devices with the exception of video cards.
Yes. Debatable. As in "you don't really know". Neither do I, but this notion is being brandished as if it were well established truth.
Mkay...if you can sell all the $2000 computers you can make why do you need to offer a $1700 one?
Um, because you can sell all of those, as well? Apple sells all the 20" iMacs they make. Why offer the 17"?
Is a $1700 Conroe all that great a deal? Sure, if you can't some up with the $300 that's what you'd get. But how many sales are lost from that 15% price difference vs the opportunity costs of the investment required to create and support a new line at this time? Their engineering staff can handle creating only so many models at one time and increasing staff increases cost. Perhaps in the future they will offer one as they have in the past.
But its all in the specifics, isn't it? You've argued that a tower cheap enough to be competitive, or satisfy this den of braying fools, or something, would cannibalize iMac sales, while a "$1700" tower wouldn't make any sense when a "much better machine" is available for $300 more.
So what about a $1500 tower, since that was the entry level tower price until recently? Has Apple's business model and economics really changed that much?
$1500 + monitor makes that comfortably more expensive than an iMac, and if we accept the notion that "most people" don't really want or need expansion capacity (which I don't necessarily, but then I'm not the one who's putting it out there) such a model wouldn't do much to cannibalize iMac sales, would it? "The demographic that Apple is chasing" would presumably prefer AIO designer goodness with its simplicity and ease of set-up, yes?
And a $500 jump seems plenty big enough to moot the "why not go for the next model up" argument, which personally I don't find persuasive even at the $300 gap, but that's just me. So it looks like the real question is whether such a model would cannibalize more expensive tower sales.
So you drop some firepower on the lower end model, as has been suggested, just like any line-up, to encourage the up-sell. I don't know exactly what that configuration would be, but I find it hard to believe that if Apple can sell a $2200 box that undercuts Dell they can't make a "competitive" box at $1500 that doesn't directly compete with quad core workstation.
If it does-- if Apple can't sell a less powerful box at $1500 because too many people would get that instead of quad core workstation, then it's merely true that Apple is kinda screwing us by forcing anyone who wants anything more than an iMac to go big. Way big.
We can talk all we want about Apple's sales model or business plan or what people actually do or do not want but there is undeniably a big-ass gap in the pricing scheme now that didn't used to be there.
We're still in the 32bit to 64bit transition phase with the MBPs and iMacs needing a new rev soon. MBP should be reasonably easy. iMac may require more work depending on which chip they go with.
Vinea
If you're thinking that cheaper towers emerge when the dust settles that would make sense, but you seem to be saying the whole idea is an abomination.
Well, maybe not an "abomination", exactly, but at the very least unwise!
Apple's market share of desktops is ridiculously low. There are plenty of barriers beyond machine configuration that stop people from switching from Windows to Mac, but Apple's recent significant laptop market share uptick shows that if Apple make machines that people actually want, a lot more people will buy them.
Two more things that the "Apple's desktop lineup is currently perfect" people are missing:
1.) It is absolutely possible for Apple to produce a tower that starts at $999 and has the same profit margins as an iMac:
A 20" iMac has the following spec:
20" screen
Built-in iSight
2.0 GHz Core Duo
512 MB RAM
250 GB Desktop HDD
Slot-load Superdrive
ATI-RADEON X1600 graphics
$1699
a 28% gross margin on this implies parts + construction costs of $1223.28
A 20" cinema display costs $699. A 35% margin implies parts + construction costs of $454.35.
Now let's assume that the construction cost of a 20" cinema display and a 20" iMac are about the same (I think we can all agree that it's more expensive to put an iMac together, but making this assumption makes it even harder for the nay-sayers to dispute my reasonings)
That means the parts costs of a 20" iMac without the display is $1223.28 - $454.35 = $768.93.
The tower that I would propose would have a base configuration as follows:
No Screen (price reduction accounted for above)
No iSight (-$5)
1.86 GHz E6300 Conroe processor (-$111 see Intel's latest price list here)
512 MB RAM (+$0)
160 GB HDD (-$20)
Draw-loading Combo Drive (-$40)
ATI-X1600 (+$0)
which results in a parts cost of $592.93. A $999 price with 28% margins means parts + construction costs of $719.28.
So, I've got $126.35 to buy me:
More expensive motherboard (2 x PCI-e slots, etc. +$25 difference from iMac motherboard)
Casework (tower, 1 optical drive slot, two HDD bays, PCI-E slots etc. +$60)
Construction (+$41.35).
Done.
So, now I've a tower that starts at $999 and can scale to $2499 (more powerful processors, extra RAM, storage etc.)
2.) No-one who is advocating a mid-range tower from Apple is suggesting that we do away with the iMac. The two machines serve two different sets of people.
Finally, would any of the "Apple's desktop lineup is perfect" crowd like to state in advance that they will point, laugh, name-call and shout at Apple for being silly idiots if they come out with a desktop Mac similar to the one that people in this thread are calling for?
...
The iMac uses a much cheaper LCD than the Cinema displays.
I already have a monitor and I think tying a monitor and computer together inextricably is absolutely foolish, so the iMac is out.
I actually want more than one hard drive in my computer. I might want to upgrade the graphics card in 2 or 3 years. I might want to add RAM without hassle. I might even want to swap processors if the motherboard will allow it, so the Mac Mini is out.
I don't have a Mac desktop, and it's not because I don't know anything about computers.
Something that's confusing me:
One, that no one wants that outside a few niche tweak heads,
By that argument, Apple shouldn't even be making computers. It might be 10-15% of the market, but what the iMac account for, 1.5-2?
Definitely a midi box would be very welcome - slightly larger cube with a little more expandability that I can still put on the top of my desk rather than banish it by the legs. And at that price point, it would definitely make it much better drop-in replacement for existing ailing desktops.
Wow! I am honestly in awe that people can look at Apple's current desktop line and think "yup, that's it, perfect". You are just in denial about what sorts of computers people buy.
Wow! I am honestly in awe that people can look at Apple's current desktop line and think "yup, that's it, perfect". You are just in denial about what sorts of computers people buy.
Is it about what sorts of computers people buy or what sorts of macs people buy? Because most folks will buy cheap computers.
The line up isn't "perfect" for some users. The question is are the changes desired in this thread better or worse for Apple from a business perspective. A $1700 tower might not be bad but its also not going to be a bang-for-the-buck winner that the current tower is in relation to competitors.
I'm going to guess a lukewarm reception for a $1700 Conroe tower.
Apple's market share of desktops is ridiculously low.
And yet apple is a profitable company that is executing well.
There are plenty of barriers beyond machine configuration that stop people from switching from Windows to Mac, but Apple's recent significant laptop market share uptick shows that if Apple make machines that people actually want, a lot more people will buy them.
So they are gaining marketshare in a more profitable segment of the market as opposed to competing with Dell for the less profitable segment which they choose not to direct to much resources at.
Two more things that the "Apple's desktop lineup is currently perfect" people are missing:
1.) It is absolutely possible for Apple to produce a tower that starts at $999 and has the same profit margins as an iMac:
A 20" iMac has the following spec:
...
$1699
a 28% gross margin on this implies parts + construction costs of $1223.28
...
The tower that I would propose would have a base configuration as follows:
which results in a parts cost of $592.93. A $999 price with 28% margins means parts + construction costs of $719.28.
Congrats...you've just converted $476 into $279. Margins are the same, revenue is not. You need to make enough sales to generate another $197 in profit just to break even.
On the plus side, the mini sales will likely also drop to near zero if there was a $999 mac tower.
On the minus side, you also have to figure on losing some of those $2000+ Mac Pros as well.
2.) No-one who is advocating a mid-range tower from Apple is suggesting that we do away with the iMac. The two machines serve two different sets of people.
If you drive the volumes down low enough you might as well do away with it.
Finally, would any of the "Apple's desktop lineup is perfect" crowd like to state in advance that they will point, laugh, name-call and shout at Apple for being silly idiots if they come out with a desktop Mac similar to the one that people in this thread are calling for?
Nope. If they come out with a $1500-$1700 Mac tower that's great for the users. It should be interesting to see the effect on sales of other models though. Especially the higher priced Mac Pro if it uses the same case.
One thing the company has is cachet...iMac, Mac Pro, Macbook, MBP, Mini. All reasonably unique machines that don't quite fit the mold. The $999 tower you describe? Eh.
I'd rather see a $1500 cube. Limited upgradeability but less probability of direct comparisons with Dell and less likelyhood of trashing the iMac and Mac Pro lineup. Fits 90% of the upgrade desires that the Mini doesn't have (3.5" drive + video slot). Probably wont sell well though.
Vinea
The iMac uses a much cheaper LCD than the Cinema displays.
Source? AFAICT, they're the exact same panel and backlight.
I'd rather see a $1500 cube. Limited upgradeability but less probability of direct comparisons with Dell and less likelyhood of trashing the iMac and Mac Pro lineup. Fits 90% of the upgrade desires that the Mini doesn't have (3.5" drive + video slot). Probably wont sell well though.
I agree, except that video probably needs to be upgradeable, and maybe a slot or two for more expansion. The cube was interesting, but I don't really see that form factor coming back because it was part of the reason it didn't sell well--it was an iMac without a screen, but without the ability to upgrade it sufficiently (IIRC).
But I think the biggest reason why the cube failed is that in Apple's previous processor lineup there just wasn't room, with only the G3 and G4, or G4 and G5 at any given time. Now's a completely different story, and if the iMac stays Merom, then Apple will almost definitely release a headless Conroe machine to fill the lineup. If iMac goes Conroe, it gets harder to add a machine, but not impossible, and I still think it would be coming down the road.
Hmmm..... possibly not. This one seems afflicted with pointless contentiousness. Nevertheless, those two and contradictory ideas are being presented in the thread as if they were self evident facts and I'm merely pointing out they can't both be true.
They don't both need to be true do they? If one is true then it should be sufficient to view the addition with a little caution.
Personally, I don't care all that much either way. I DO care that someone with a vision is leading Apple. If that vision doesn't include mid-ranged towers I can live with that given they are executing well.
How is that a problem if the tower you buy instead costs as much as the iMac? As far as margins go, the whole point would be to sell more computers, not just shift around some absolute number of buyers, yes?
You have to show that you will sell more computers. Folks aren't now switching just because there's no mid-range tower. Especially if the mid-range tower costs $1500+.
Yes. Debatable. As in "you don't really know". Neither do I, but this notion is being brandished as if it were well established truth.
If Apple was floundering I'd say the burden of proof was on the folks that want to stay the course. Since Apple is executing well I'd say the burden of proof is on those that say if you build it, they will come is true.
Um, because you can sell all of those, as well? Apple sells all the 20" iMacs they make. Why offer the 17"?
They sell a $2100 Mac Pro too.
But its all in the specifics, isn't it? You've argued that a tower cheap enough to be competitive, or satisfy this den of braying fools, or something, would cannibalize iMac sales, while a "$1700" tower wouldn't make any sense when a "much better machine" is available for $300 more.
So what about a $1500 tower, since that was the entry level tower price until recently? Has Apple's business model and economics really changed that much?
Eh...were reviews of the lowest end G5 Power Mac all that positive?
http://www.macworld.com/2004/11/revi...rmac/index.php
"It can?t be the Good, the Better, or the Best model, so just where does the new $1,499 Power Mac G5 fit into Apple?s pro desktop lineup? Slowest is one way to describe it. Cheapest is the other."
Wow, that's a glowing review.
"There's a new single-processor 1.8GHz Power Mac G5 in town, adding an affordable ($1,499) option to the Power Mac line. But based on our testing, the new Power Mac is essentially an iMac G5 in a tower case?it doesn't provide the performance boost we're used to seeing when moving from the iMac to the Power Mac family."
http://www.macaddict.com/issues/2005/3/reviews/powermac
Would a $1500 Mac Pro cannibalize iMac sales? Probably not. Would it set the Mac world on fire? Probably not. Should Apple offer one? Maybe later.
We can talk all we want about Apple's sales model or business plan or what people actually do or do not want but there is undeniably a big-ass gap in the pricing scheme now that didn't used to be there.
October 4 2004 to June 2005 for the $1500 1.8 PowerMac.
If you're thinking that cheaper towers emerge when the dust settles that would make sense, but you seem to be saying the whole idea is an abomination.
Well, maybe not an "abomination", exactly, but at the very least unwise!
I'm saying a $999 conroe tower is unwise. I'm saying a $1500-$1700 conroe tower will be so-so. I'd rather see a $1700 23" iMac (Conroe) first. Leave the 17" with Merom and label it the eMac. I'd rather see a cool looking cube...but hey, if they make a $1500 conroe using the Power Mac case I'd be very tempted to buy one but will likely get a GMA X3000 based Mini instead.
Vinea
Source? AFAICT, they're the exact same panel and backlight.
The cinema displays have a 178 deg. viewing angle. The 17" has a 140 deg. horizontal and 120 deg. vertical viewing angle.
The 20" does actually have a 170 deg. viewing angle, so it might be the same. I've only ever used the 17" and the screen is noticeably lower quality than my 17" studio display.
edit: Argh. Stupid vBulletin can't handle Unicode.
What evidence do you have that Apple would be more successful deviating from their current strategy of AIO with good margins?
Those who buy Windows computers are not drastically different from Mac users, and currently, a mini tower sells well and the AIO not so well. Why would it be drastically different in the Mac world of computers? Of course the only way Apple will ever find out for sure how well a Mac mini tower would sell is to introduce one to the product line.
Why would they wish to improve low end desktop sales with small margins at the expense of higher margin iMac and Minis?
You are assuming something about profit margins. There is no reason that a mini tower must sell at a low margin. Pricing is up to Apple, not the customer. If the mini tower does not sell well enough at a reasonable profit, drop it. If a mini tower causes iMac sales to plummet, then drop the iMac. We can't have untouchable favorites if we want to operate a successful business, can we?
Jerry