Apple execs address Apple TV, iMac in event Q&A

[AppleInsider]

The more personal setting of Apple's auditorium gave Apple chief Steve Jobs and other top executives an opportunity to sit down and answer questions about current hardware and future directions in the wake of its summer Mac event.


Jobs, marketing VP Phil Schiller, and chief operating officer Tim Cook spent much of their time addressing the design decisions for the new iMac.

Despite selling nearly two-thirds of all its Macs as portables, Apple's product line still needs desktops for many users, according to Jobs. Desktops are still important: the extra size allows for faster and inexpensive parts as well as larger displays, he said. Many buyers also look to own two different systems, promising a "bright future" for the computer.

A multi-touch interface like that of the iPhone was off the table for the iMac and other systems, however. The Apple chief was "not sure it makes sense" for a computer and would not rule it out, but said that for now it would only be studied within Apple's engineering labs.

Discussion also shifted to the Apple TV and its relation to the Mac platform. Jobs again took charge of answering concerns and said his company would "have some news" for the media hub soon but that a Mac-focused event was not the place for discussion.

The prevalence of Google in Apple's new iLife suite for certain features, such as AdSense ads built into iWeb sites, was also addressed in an indirect fashion. Jobs contended that Google's "back end services" were appealing and were being integrated into Apple software, and that the respect was mutual from the search engine giant.

The tone of the question and answer session was also characterized by direct jabs at the Windows PC market's budget-conscious design philosophy. Schiller in particular addressed the long-standing question of why Apple had not once used the Intel logo; everyone already knows Macs use Intel chips, he said, and there were far too many stickers and labels on most Windows computers. Jobs also emphasized that Macs were designed to be easily recommended and that this meant including features many other companies would leave out.

"There is some stuff in our industry we wouldn't be proud to ship. We can't ship junk," he told the gathered press. "We want to make the best personal computers in the industry."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple's product line still needs desktops for many users, according to Jobs. Desktops are still important: the extra size allows for faster and inexpensive parts

So why don't you use any of those parts, Steve?

[SpamSandwich]

Exciting stuff, all around.

[MsNly]

Make a real desktop, thats not just for pros...

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by MsNly

Make a real desktop, thats not just for pros...

So list the specs and your proposed pricing.

[macshark]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Discussion also shifted to the Apple TV and its relation to the Mac platform. Jobs again took charge of answering concerns and said his company would "have some news" for the media hub soon but that a Mac-focused event was not the place for discussion.

And I thought Apple TV was the cheapest Mac one could buy!

[macshark]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

So list the specs and your proposed pricing.

If the new iMacs came with a couple of e.SATA ports and an ExpressCard slot, there wouldn't be much need for a desktop form factor...

[hmurchison]

The iMac is a decent computer and this new evolution of the brand makes me happy. I'm glad they're silver now rather than white. FW800 on all models means they can bridge the gap between Consumer and Professional. The AIO form factor is dead easy to setup and reduces clutter.

I would like a minitower configuration but my only reasoning for that is the ability to utilize faster GPU and more storage. I think the more storage will be less of an issue and consumers move to networked storage. The GPU might not be an issue in a couple of years as the GPU functionality begins to appear on the same die as the CPU (AMD and Intel are working on this with Fusion and Nehalem)

Perhaps we have the vestiges of the perfect modern computer and we're not giving it it's just due.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Apple TV evolve. I'm guessing the next update will be software related.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

So list the specs and your proposed pricing.

Why do some people find this so hard to grasp? Apple sell iMacs for a profit. However, iMacs use almost exclusively laptop components, which are slower and/or more expensive than desktop counterparts.

So, you take out all the laptop parts (CPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, optical drive) and the screen, replace the laptops bits with faster and cheaper desktop components, put them in an attractively styled mini-tower enclosure, and hey presto, you've got a profitable desktop Mac that's much cheaper (and correspondingly less powerful and less flexible) than a Mac Pro.

[astro]

i'm not really sure why this article is titled "Apple execs address Apple TV, iMac..." when the article is only about the iMac, and mentions that the ATV was *not* discussed...

perhaps it was too silly to say "Apple talks about iMac at iMac event?"

I thought Apple was using parts that use less power and produce less heat - a noted and seemingly continuous problem in their history. Hence the slightly more expensive laptop parts?

[Mr. Dirk]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

Why do some people find this so hard to grasp? Apple sell iMacs for a profit. However, iMacs use almost exclusively laptop components, which are slower and/or more expensive than desktop counterparts.

So, you take out all the laptop parts (CPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, optical drive) and the screen, replace the laptops bits with faster and cheaper desktop components, put them in an attractively styled mini-tower enclosure, and hey presto, you've got a profitable desktop Mac that's much cheaper (and correspondingly less powerful and less flexible) than a Mac Pro.

While I'm sure that for the most part that's true, you're forgetting a key part of the equation: economies of scale. In addition to the individual cost of each component that goes into the computer, each product/product line comes with fixed costs (e.g. designing the product, testing it, setting up the production line, etc.) that must be overcome before the product can be considered truly "profitable."

Apple only just recently crossed the 1.5 million unit sales barrier. Even with that, 2/3 were laptops. So 500,000 were desktops; let's say for simplicity that 200,000 were Mac Pros and 300,000 were iMacs. Selling 300,000 iMacs a quarter generates enough profit margin to overcome the product's fixed costs. But let's say Apple introduces a new mini-tower Mac, that's pretty popular and sells 150,000 units; now let's say that Apple's market can only grow so fast, and that those aren't 150,000 ADDITIONAL units, but rather 150,000 units that would have gone towards iMac sales.

So as it would stand then, there would be sales of 150,000 iMacs and 150,000 mini-towers, meaning that Apple would have to deal with roughly double the fixed costs (for maintaining the two separate product lines). All the sudden, despite lower component costs, things become far more complicated. So, Apple has two options: either (1) scrap the iMac and only make a mini-tower, or (2) wait until Apple's doing enough desktop mac volume to justify introducing another product line.

Apple's obviously choosing (2). Doing (1) would be incredibly risky--Apple knows it has a market for AIO desktops like the iMac, so why risk such a vast sea change?

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dirk

So 500,000 were desktops; let's say for simplicity that 200,000 were Mac Pros and 300,000 were iMacs.

Apple sold over 600,000 desktops last quarter. No way that anywhere near 200,000 of them were Mac Pros. Back when Apple were still breaking out the sales figures, they repeatedly stated the "hope" that they'd be able to get the G5 tower sales back to 100,000 per quarter.

Originally Posted by Mr. Dirk

those aren't 150,000 ADDITIONAL units, but rather 150,000 units that would have gone towards iMac sales.

I don't think that the xMac would canabalise iMac sales to anywhere near that extent. Seriously, who in their right mind buys an iMac when what they really want is an xMac? Potential xMac purchasers are either potential Windows switchers who currently are saying to themselves "oh well, Apple still don't make the machine I want, guess I'm sticking with Windows", or Apple fans who currently buy second-hand Mac Towers from eBay.

Originally Posted by Mr. Dirk

So, Apple has two options: either (1) scrap the iMac and only make a mini-tower, or (2) wait until Apple's doing enough desktop mac volume to justify introducing another product line.

Apple don't have the correct line-up to do (2). They need additional models (an xMac) in order to expand desktop market share.

[imacFP]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

Why do some people find this so hard to grasp? Apple sell iMacs for a profit. However, iMacs use almost exclusively laptop components, which are slower and/or more expensive than desktop counterparts.

So, you take out all the laptop parts (CPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, optical drive) and the screen, replace the laptops bits with faster and cheaper desktop components, put them in an attractively styled mini-tower enclosure, and hey presto, you've got a profitable desktop Mac that's much cheaper (and correspondingly less powerful and less flexible) than a Mac Pro.

Clearly Apple does not agree with you. Have you watched the video of the event? If you did you'd note that Jobs shows a picture of a desktop PC tower with a bunch of wires, etc. and then switches to the iMac with fewer wires and exclaims that the iMac is the better option. Jobs really does think the iMac is as good better than the mini tower concept. You clearly disagree, and there is merit to your ideas, but Apple will never build a mini tower while Jobs is there. It just won't happen.

Here's what Jobs said in response to a question at the event.

Is Apple’s goal to overtake the PC in market share? Jobs said, “Our goal is to make the best personal computers in the world and make products we are proud to sell and recommend to our family and friends. We want to do that at the lowest prices we can.
“But there’s some stuff in our industry that we wouldn’t be proud to ship. And we just can’t do it. We can’t ship junk,” said Jobs. “There are thresholds we can’t cross because of who we are. And we think that there’s a very significant slice of the [market] that wants that too. You’ll find that our products are not premium priced. You price out our competitors’ products, and add features that actually make them useful, and they’re the same or actually more expensive. We don’t offer stripped-down, lousy products.”

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by imacFP

Clearly Apple does not agree with you. Have you watched the video of the event? If you did you'd note that Jobs shows a picture of a desktop PC tower with a bunch of wires, etc. and then switches to the iMac with fewer wires and exclaims that the iMac is the better option. Jobs really does think the iMac is as good better than the mini tower concept. You clearly disagree, and there is merit to your ideas, but Apple will never build a mini tower while Jobs is there. It just won't happen.

Yes, I know that "Apple" disagrees. I wouldn't say it'll "never" happen whilst Jobs is there. I mean, if he really believed what he's saying, Apple wouldn't have the Mac Mini or the Mac Pro.

It is just about within the realms of possibility that Steve may one day see the reality that Apple's laptop market share is shooting through the roof, but their desktop market share is doing nothing (hey, at least it's not going down ). He may one day be forced to admit that maybe that's got something to do with the desktops that Apple is selling.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

Yes, I know that "Apple" disagrees. I wouldn't say it'll "never" happen whilst Jobs is there. I mean, if he really believed what he's saying, Apple wouldn't have the Mac Mini or the Mac Pro.

It is just about within the realms of possibility that Steve may one day see the reality that Apple's laptop market share is shooting through the roof, but their desktop market share is doing nothing (hey, at least it's not going down ). He may one day be forced to admit that maybe that's got something to do with the desktops that Apple is selling.

Maybe they think the mini and Pro are incidental. The mini they want to keep so they have a lower-priced hook and try to upsell to the iMac, and keep the Pro to keep their higher end pros happy.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

So why don't you use any of those parts, Steve?

So, you think that an iMac costs as much as a MBP? It has the better specsas well.

You think that a 20, or esp a 24" screen costs the same as a 15, or 17" screen?

If we can assume that the iMac screens cost more, because of their much larger size, then the rest of the parts must cost MUCH less to make up for it, considering that the new 24" iMac costs $1799, and the newest 17" MBP costs $2799, a cool thousand more, I would say that Jobs is right on the money. Wouldn't you?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by macshark

If the new iMacs came with a couple of e.SATA ports and an ExpressCard slot, there wouldn't be much need for a desktop form factor...

I have been calling for an E-SATA port. One is all that is needed if it conglomerates several drives into one port as many external card tower combo's do.

I'm not entirely sold on the Express slot though. For a portable it's a good idea, but for this, I'm not so sure. Though one could add a SATA card through one.

I would have liked to see either a Display port or HDMI port.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

Why do some people find this so hard to grasp? Apple sell iMacs for a profit. However, iMacs use almost exclusively laptop components, which are slower and/or more expensive than desktop counterparts.

So, you take out all the laptop parts (CPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, optical drive) and the screen, replace the laptops bits with faster and cheaper desktop components, put them in an attractively styled mini-tower enclosure, and hey presto, you've got a profitable desktop Mac that's much cheaper (and correspondingly less powerful and less flexible) than a Mac Pro.

While some of the parts are from the laptop, most are not.

The mobo is not a laptop mobo. We've seen enough of them in the stripdowns to know that. They are specifically designed for the iMacs.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

Apple sold over 600,000 desktops last quarter. No way that anywhere near 200,000 of them were Mac Pros. Back when Apple were still breaking out the sales figures, they repeatedly stated the "hope" that they'd be able to get the G5 tower sales back to 100,000 per quarter.




I don't think that the xMac would canabalise iMac sales to anywhere near that extent. Seriously, who in their right mind buys an iMac when what they really want is an xMac? Potential xMac purchasers are either potential Windows switchers who currently are saying to themselves "oh well, Apple still don't make the machine I want, guess I'm sticking with Windows", or Apple fans who currently buy second-hand Mac Towers from eBay.




Apple don't have the correct line-up to do (2). They need additional models (an xMac) in order to expand desktop market share.

I agree with you on this posting.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by imacFP

Clearly Apple does not agree with you. Have you watched the video of the event? If you did you'd note that Jobs shows a picture of a desktop PC tower with a bunch of wires, etc. and then switches to the iMac with fewer wires and exclaims that the iMac is the better option. Jobs really does think the iMac is as good better than the mini tower concept. You clearly disagree, and there is merit to your ideas, but Apple will never build a mini tower while Jobs is there. It just won't happen.

Here's what Jobs said in response to a question at the event.

Is Apple’s goal to overtake the PC in market share? Jobs said, “Our goal is to make the best personal computers in the world and make products we are proud to sell and recommend to our family and friends. We want to do that at the lowest prices we can.
“But there’s some stuff in our industry that we wouldn’t be proud to ship. And we just can’t do it. We can’t ship junk,” said Jobs. “There are thresholds we can’t cross because of who we are. And we think that there’s a very significant slice of the [market] that wants that too. You’ll find that our products are not premium priced. You price out our competitors’ products, and add features that actually make them useful, and they’re the same or actually more expensive. We don’t offer stripped-down, lousy products.”

While I generally agree with what Apple does lately, that doesn't mean that they are always right. Sometimes Jobs has some "thing" against an idea that makes sense.

But, never say never. It may happen yet.

[murphyweb]

Originally Posted by melgross

While some of the parts are from the laptop, most are not.

The mobo is not a laptop mobo. We've seen enough of them in the stripdowns to know that. They are specifically designed for the iMacs.

I am sorry Mel but the motherboard is not most!
Please explain to use exactly what you would find in the new iMac that you will not find inside a MacBook Pro? of course with exception to the screen size.

I was waiting to buy the new iMac but ended up going out and getting a MBP last month as i discovered (through this site) that the only way i could get a Apple desktop was to shell out for a Mac Pro and i was not prepared to spend that kind of money on a computer. So wanting very much to stick with Mac i got what i thought was by far the best deal, powerful notebook specs in a notebook package.

Now here is the rub, if i was not prepared to buy a notebook and really wanted a desktop i am not sure i would have bought an iMac, it just does not make any sense at all. Why is the iMac so thin and full of notebook components? Why cant you swap hard drives and add a second monitor to it?

A desktop should be fat! it is supposed to be fat! If i buy a desktop i want a desktop CPU, i want a PCI graphics card that i can swap out if i require a faster one, i want 3.5" drives that can be swapped out easily, i want the ability to add hardware. This is what a desktop is and this is what the majority of desktop PC buyers out there are used to. There is no doubt at all that this strategy is not helping to win switchers over from PC's when a PC user looks at the Apple website and sees the only computer that resembles anything like what they have on their windows machine is a Mac Pro. In fact i would go as far as saying that Apple only have one desktop computer in the Mac Pro and everything else are just different styles of notebooks.

So when Steve Jobs says

Desktops are still important: the extra size allows for faster and inexpensive parts

you really have to ask yourself what the ell is he going on about???

[soward]

Originally Posted by murphyweb

I am sorry Mel but the motherboard is not most!
Please explain to use exactly what you would find in the new iMac that you will not find inside a MacBook Pro? of course with exception to the screen size.

Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme) Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.

That said I'd like to see something of a mac pro jr/ xmac as well just to be able to get a little more RAM and more disk into a machine for less $, but also in less space -- these mac pro's are _big_!

However I don't expect to see it in the really short run. I do expect that the mac-mini line will eventually disappear and might then be replaced by something similar but in a slightly larger form-factor, perhaps large enough to hold 2 3.5" SATA drives and handle the heat from a reasonable GPU.

I would also vote for eSata and/or pciExpress slots on the iMac, were Apple soliciting input.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by soward

Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme)

Just because Apple don't use an X7800/7900 in their laptops, doesn't stop it being a laptop CPU.

Originally Posted by soward

Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.

And optical drive, and motherboard chipset. Yes, the motherboard, as in the actual PCB, is not the same as that from the MacBook Pro. But the motherboard chipset, the "electronic guts" of the motherboard, is.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by melgross

So, you think that an iMac costs as much as a MBP? It has the better specsas well.

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by melgross

You think that a 20, or esp a 24" screen costs the same as a 15, or 17" screen?

If we can assume that the iMac screens cost more, because of their much larger size

I think that the iMac screens probably do cost more, but that the difference is almost certainly surprisingly small.

Originally Posted by melgross

then the rest of the parts must cost MUCH less to make up for it, considering that the new 24" iMac costs $1799, and the newest 17" MBP costs $2799, a cool thousand more, I would say that Jobs is right on the money. Wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't say that. Apple save money on the HDD and GPU. All the other components: RAM, CPU, optical drive, motherboard chipset (from Santa Rosa) are obviously the same as that used in the MacBook Pro 17". Which means one thing: the margins on the 17" MBP are much, much higher than those of the iMac. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by soward

Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme) Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.

The main chipset is most likely the notebook chipset, lower power, higher cost. The CPUs are a low power, high cost CPUs, and it's likely the same on the top end. If the top model is using a desktop CPU and desktop chipset (which I really doubt because of cooling & size issues), then there would be no reason to hamstring it with a notebook speed bus, the bus speed isn't a major power consumer compared to the CPU. In all, the only desktop component in the iMac that affects system speed is the hard drive and possibly the video chip.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

(xMac buyers are) either potential Windows switchers who currently are saying to themselves "oh well, Apple still don't make the machine I want, guess I'm sticking with Windows",

Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore." It's very frustrating to want to upgrade your Mac but not see a single good replacement. I can't see buying a laptop until I can dock it and use two external monitors and quickly undock it to go. I can't see spending the cash on a Mac Pro. I have monitors and want good graphics, so don't want an iMac. And a mini is too underpowered with horrible graphics.

So I keep my G5 tower and hope Apple starts making products I want to buy before it gets too long in the tooth and I switch to Dell/Ubuntu in frustration or something. Considering I've been using Macs since the Mac Plus (even sticking with them through the tough Spindler years) and I don't want any of their current computers, I'd say Apple's risking something by ignoring the demands of the market.

[rogerborn]

Originally Posted by Booga

Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore.".

Face it ~ If Steve Jobs doesn't want it or use it, it won't get built.

A great many of us want a smaller MacBook Pro, say with a screen under 12"

A lot of us would buy it regardless of cost.

Many of the people who want a MacBook subnotebook also want it solid state ~ that is, without any hard drive or superdrive, using flash memory instead.

What is Steve using right now? An iPhone. Perhaps to him, that is his new mini MacBook.

However, it may not just be Steve's disaffection for a mini laptop that keeps one from being built.

It may be that a 12" laptop or smaller just isn't big enough to hold all the components that go into a MacBook. Consider that the new iMacs no longer come in the 17" size. They are much thinner now, and perhaps Apple cannot get all the components into such a thin machine that is smaller than a 20" version.

That's my take on it. Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
"Never squat with your spurs on."

[samurai1999]

Originally Posted by Booga

Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore." It's very frustrating to want to upgrade your Mac but not see a single good replacement. I can't see buying a laptop until I can dock it and use two external monitors and quickly undock it to go. I can't see spending the cash on a Mac Pro. I have monitors and want good graphics, so don't want an iMac. And a mini is too underpowered with horrible graphics.

Yep - there seem to be alot of people on here who think this!

I think that whilst the iMac is a lovely looking machine, it doesn't suit everyone, and there is a large gap in the Apple desktop range between the Mini & the Mac Pro that could easily be filled with a small mini-Tower or similar.

As Steve said 40% of the Global PC market is for notebooks, whilst for Apple 66% are notebook sales.

Last quarter Apple sold about 1.2M Notebooks & 600K desktops
- if Apple's Notebook/Desktop ratios were the same as the rest of the Industry, they'd be selling 1.8M Desktops / quarter
- so effectively Apple is missing out on 1.2M Desktop sales per quarter
- Apple should ask themselves why this is.

- maybe lack of general purpose software is something to do with it, but also, I think it's because of the obvious gaps in their hardware range.

[dimplemonkey]

"There is some stuff in our industry we wouldn't be proud to ship. We can't ship junk," he told the gathered press. "We want to make the best personal computers in the industry."

I thought you were supposed to be a software company above and beyond it all. That's why you dropped the "Computer" from your company name. Just wondering...

[domerdel]

What a terrible Q & A session, I know a lot of intelligent minds of Apple Forums (such as this one) could come up with something better.

Apple TV / Mac Mini Q&A
- Where is the HD content?
- Sales were slow for Mac Mini, so the solution is just better CPU?
- When can we expect 1080P/i version of Apple TV?

/end Q&A

I still think apple dropped the ball, they could've made a hybrid Apple TV / Mac Mini for $999.

Someone was asking to propose a price standard for a new concept midline PC (non iMac)... here's my take

Single processor Intel C2D 2.0 ghz
1 GB Ram (expandable to 4 GB)
256 Geforce 7300 PCI express (give options ; dont intergrate)
250 gb SATA II drive, 7200 rpm
Option for 2nd hdd drive
one bay only: Superdrive 16 X DL DVDrw
- USB 2.0 Ports as well as FW 800, 400
$999

Basically, an Apple tower roughly 2/3rds the size of the Mac Pro.

You have Mac Mini, MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro... how about just "Mac"

[SpamSandwich]

I'd say for the average student and most households, the iMac or MacBook will fill the bill.

[ljocampo]

Originally Posted by macshark

If the new iMacs came with a couple of e.SATA ports and an ExpressCard slot, there wouldn't be much need for a desktop form factor...

I'll go out on a limb and say that those of you who so madly desire a minitower are in the closet PC windows users trying to infect the Mac.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by murphyweb

I am sorry Mel but the motherboard is not most!
Please explain to use exactly what you would find in the new iMac that you will not find inside a MacBook Pro? of course with exception to the screen size.

I was waiting to buy the new iMac but ended up going out and getting a MBP last month as i discovered (through this site) that the only way i could get a Apple desktop was to shell out for a Mac Pro and i was not prepared to spend that kind of money on a computer. So wanting very much to stick with Mac i got what i thought was by far the best deal, powerful notebook specs in a notebook package.

Now here is the rub, if i was not prepared to buy a notebook and really wanted a desktop i am not sure i would have bought an iMac, it just does not make any sense at all. Why is the iMac so thin and full of notebook components? Why cant you swap hard drives and add a second monitor to it?

A desktop should be fat! it is supposed to be fat! If i buy a desktop i want a desktop CPU, i want a PCI graphics card that i can swap out if i require a faster one, i want 3.5" drives that can be swapped out easily, i want the ability to add hardware. This is what a desktop is and this is what the majority of desktop PC buyers out there are used to. There is no doubt at all that this strategy is not helping to win switchers over from PC's when a PC user looks at the Apple website and sees the only computer that resembles anything like what they have on their windows machine is a Mac Pro. In fact i would go as far as saying that Apple only have one desktop computer in the Mac Pro and everything else are just different styles of notebooks.

You have the cpu and the support chips. You also have the slotted DVD recorder. And the memory.

Everything else is not from a laptop. That means most of the electronics, the mobo, and daughter boards, the gpu, the HHD, and the power supply. The cooling system. And the rest of the mechanics, including the keyboard, which, while it might look similar to the MB keyboard, is new. And, of course, the mouse.

Easy upgrades is NOT what a desktop is. It's what most desktops do.

But, it's very interesting that even though most people cry out for slots, etc., almost no one does actually upgrade their machines, they buy new ones.

If you are one of the few (as I am), who does upgrade your machine, then this is not for you. Nor was it intended for you (or me).

But, even though It's not for me, I can recognize that it is a brilliant machine for the markets it IS intended for.

So when Steve Jobs says you really have to ask yourself what the ell is he going on about???

If you can still say that, then you've missed everything I've said.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

No, I don't.

So, then you do agree with Jobs!

I think that the iMac screens probably do cost more, but that the difference is almost certainly surprisingly small.

I'd like to see some pricing from you comparing the OEM numbers then.

No, I wouldn't say that. Apple save money on the HDD and GPU. All the other components: RAM, CPU, optical drive, motherboard chipset (from Santa Rosa) are obviously the same as that used in the MacBook Pro 17". Which means one thing: the margins on the 17" MBP are much, much higher than those of the iMac. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

Nope.

You are just guessing on that. While it's certainly likely that the margins on the MBP are higher, they would have to be on the order of 75% to make up for the difference in price from the 24" to the 17". Not happening.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by melgross

So, then you do agree with Jobs!

Nope.

Originally Posted by melgross

You are just guessing on that. While it's certainly likely that the margins on the MBP are higher, they would have to be on the order of 75% to make up for the difference in price from the 24" to the 17". Not happening.

Er... What the hell are you talking about?

I'm not just guessing. It's plain as day. The iMac uses the Merom processor, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses laptop RAM, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses the chipset from Santa Rosa, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses a laptop slot-loading 8x DVD burner optical drive, so does the MacBook Pro.

So, I'll say it again. The iMac uses a desktop HDD and GPU, which saves Apple some money over the MacBook Pro. The other key components, CPU, RAM, motherboard chipset and RAM are the same in both the iMac and MacBook Pro. Therefore, given the price difference, the MacBook Pro 17" has much higher margins than the iMac.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by dimplemonkey

"There is some stuff in our industry we wouldn't be proud to ship. We can't ship junk," he told the gathered press. "We want to make the best personal computers in the industry."

I thought you were supposed to be a software company above and beyond it all. That's why you dropped the "Computer" from your company name. Just wondering...

You can wonder...

But, Apple is not a software company. They never have been.

If they were, they could have picked up programs for real cheap over the years, which would have added significantly to their software sales, but they didn't.

They are a hardware company, that produces software to have something to run on their hardware, so they can sell that hardware.

If Apple's sales were a much larger fraction of the overall industry, you wouldn't have seen Apple get into as much of the software business as they have the past few years.

They produce only the software that will sell their machines, that isn't being produced by others, or is being produced, but not at the level that would sell their machines.

For example, video.

When Avid began to abandon the platform, it put Apple on notice. As soon as Apple could afford to, they bought programs to replace Avid on the low end. The fact that Adobe's Premier was not an effective professional program at the time (it was intended as an amateur product from the beginning) was also a reason. Apple was losing sales mightily to the PC in the pro video industry. There were, and are, many more products for the PC out there.

Apple had to produce their own, so they did.

Now, Apple is on a roll. But, the vast majority of their sales and profits come from their hardware.

They are forced to provide excellent interfaces for it. But all other hardware companies are trying to do the same thing. That's just because almost everything is run by a computer chip.

That doesn't make all companies software companies because they MUST write software to run their products.

The iPhone, for example. OS X runs the machine. But, it is the kicker, it's not the product.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

So list the specs and your proposed pricing.

-2.33ghz Core 2 Duo standard
2.66ghz, 3.0ghz, 3.0ghz quad-core BTO
320GB hard drive
-1GB RAM, 4 DIMM slots
-Radeon HD 2600Pro standard
Geforce 8600GTS, Radeon 2900XT BTO
-2 optical drive bays
-2 hard drive bays.
-2-3 PCI-E X1 slots
-Same basic front and rear port configuration as Mac Pro.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

Nope.



Er... What the hell are you talking about?

I'm not just guessing. It's plain as day. The iMac uses the Merom processor, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses laptop RAM, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses the chipset from Santa Rosa, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses a laptop slot-loading 8x DVD burner optical drive, so does the MacBook Pro.

So, I'll say it again. The iMac uses a desktop HDD and GPU, which saves Apple some money over the MacBook Pro. The other key components, CPU, RAM, motherboard chipset and RAM are the same in both the iMac and MacBook Pro. Therefore, given the price difference, the MacBook Pro 17" has much higher margins than the iMac.

The problem is that you're wrong. Period.

There have been teardowns of iMacs from the very beginning. They DON'T use the same mobo, or most anything, other than the cpu, chipset, memory, and optical drive. The rest is all different.

For one thing, the case of the MBP is much more expensive. It's more complex. Miniaturization costs more. It always does.

Even these expensive batteries used add a lot to the price of the machine. More than the power supply of an iMac, and then you have the charger module as well.

Assembly of a MBP is more expensive. I would be very surprised if an iMac uses as much hand assembly as a MBP does.

The margin on this iMac may be around 25%. The margin on a MBP may be 35%. Not nearly enough to account for the difference in price, which is $1,000.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by melgross

The problem is that you're wrong. Period.

There have been teardowns of iMacs from the very beginning. They DON'T use the same mobo, or most anything, other than the cpu, chipset, memory, and optical drive. The rest is all different.

That's exactly what I've been saying! So how can you then tell me that I'm wrong? I've been saying that the CPU, RAM, chipset and optical drive are the same as the MacBook Pro, and now, at last, you've admitted so too.

So tell us, melgross, what else is on a motherboard, apart from the RAM, CPU, and motherboard chipset?

The GPU perhaps? Right, I've covered that, said it's a cheaper one in the iMac.

Yes, the actual PCB is different, because the internal shape of an iMac is different to that of the MBP.

Originally Posted by melgross

For one thing, the case of the MBP is much more expensive. It's more complex. Miniaturization costs more. It always does.

And where exactly did I say anything about the case of the MBP? I'm sure is costs more to assemble than the iMac.

Originally Posted by melgross

Even these expensive batteries used add a lot to the price of the machine. More than the power supply of an iMac, and then you have the charger module as well.

Yup, agreed.

Originally Posted by melgross

The margin on this iMac may be around 25%. The margin on a MBP may be 35%.

I'm confident that the MBP is amongst the highest % margin hardware products that Apple make. I really wouldn't be surprised if the gross margins are over 40%.

I'm not really all that sure what we're even arguing about; you even agree that the margins of the MBP are higher than the iMac. It's just that I think the gap in the margins is bigger than you do. It's no big deal.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by ljocampo

I'll go out on a limb and say that those of you who so madly desire a minitower are in the closet PC windows users trying to infect the Mac.

I think that's pretty unlikely, I don't know how it's possible to "infect" the Mac platform this way. The reasons Apple has for not producing a more affordable minitower may be valid, but I think your reasoning amounts to an ad hominem argument. I'm not even sure what sort of reasoning can lead you to such a conclusion.