PPC 970 In Next Revision of PM Now Confirmed By MacWhispers - Page 3

Yeah you're posts are too helpful and well thought out damn it

I respect Matsu opinion. Hell I want Mac littered through my house but currently that's not going to happen.

I think it will be coming. I envision that in the new few years I will be buying Apple 5 Home license for OSX to put on the 5 OSX computers I hope to have. Right now I can't afford that but if Apple was to have a headless Mac that I had a modicum of expandability I'd buy in.

I just realize the high end needs to get in gear. Apple also need to get into IT in a big way. Suprise suprise WWDC has IT Seminars so Apple looks to be pushing into this market which will be good .IT is a big money maker on Service.

So in short ...no we're not going to get low cost Powermacs but hopefully we'll get Sub $1k boxes with a tad of expandability to easy "Rendezvous" them into our Home LAN.

The future looks fun.

Well, first I'm going to start by saying just how nice it is to be typing this in smooth, a-a text using the 'beta' browser of my choice. Safari. I love thee already.

A 'slow' but quality experience on Jaguar 10.2 (Mrs. Lemon Bon Bon has just joined the party...) and a 600 G3 with 384 megs of ram.

Clearly, Apple's current OS and software and pushing this G3 to its limits.

Not that Mrs. Lemon Bon Bon notices.

But Mr. Lemon Bon Bon does. Especially after using that Athlon Tower of mine... Hmmm. Strange how I'm using this rather than the switched off Athlon tower.



And that's the point of my experiential annecdote. We know Apple has the quality, the experience in software and hardware.

However, their performance and price (in terms of desktops) needs work. It's a moot point anyhow. We know Apple's going to address the performance issue. The question is will they address the price issue.

While I agree with many of the posts so far, I think it's to Apple that we can look for to provide answers.

Fred Anderson has gone on record regarding the 'power'Mac issue. Apple's own internal report acknowledges the 'mhz' thing has damaged sales.

Fred said or intimated that Apple will address the 'power'Mac issue, with further aggressive price reductions building on those introduced in January! And also improving the performance issue which is a big hint re: a cpu/mb boost. Now this, I gotta see. Especially as they move to 970 Cpus. Of course a version of Quark 6 may also help which he also indicated. This is Apple themselves saying this. And dropping major hints about a software blitz (which is in itself an admission that they can't just rely on hardware revenue as they chase growth...)

So, they may reduce hardware margins and compensate with more low-end and mid-range priced software and services. A good move in my opinion. Because, Apple kit is good. But Apple software? Is excellent. (I'm using Safari and thinking, 'Geez, look at those little touches...isn't that clever....this is the way it SHOULD be...)

The days of selling £2k boxes in order to get decent performance are over. Apple's top end 'power'Mac price cut was tantamount to a bucket of cold water in Apple's face. ('Hallo...we needed that...what were we thinking...') A decent PC only costs £1k ish. Apple's train track protects them up to a point...but the fact that PC buyers are going into Apple stores with cold hard numbers and news clippings of their competitors suggest that Apple Stores will bring a modicum of reality to Apple's multimillion endowed upper -echelon.

Recent Apple moves on price re: eMacs, monitors, laptops, towers suggest a trend.

Moves to assemble and buy a greater bulk of components in Taiwan suggest Apple maybe squaring up to Dell to a degree. So instead of being 50%-100-150% more pricey that a PC Apple may be able to get that down to 10-30% without monitor ( ) I'd be very happy with a mere 10% Apple hardware premium. And a less rigid approach to their desktop line-up. If I want a Geforce Ti in an eMac why can't I have one?

The proof of the pudding will be the next round of tower 'updates'.

All round? I think current desktop prices should be 10% lower than they are.

As for the 970 lineup.

I'd be happy to see a single 1.6 and 1.8 making up the low-end, under and just over a K. Then dual 1.6 and dual 1.8 making up the 1.5k and 2K end.

That's four towers from just under a k to up to 2 K.

Plenty of room there. And really address the mhz thing at the 'low end'.

Lemon Bon Bon 8)

...and I don't think anybody is really suggesting that the 970 or a mini-tower or an iCube Dell buster, each on their own, or any other single strategy is going to propel Apple forward to growth.

No. No magic wand. Obvious.

However, a combination of above (clearly, Apple's desktop offerings need a little more variety and imagination...with a more price conscious but not Wallmart cheap approach...)

And that software? Software is why we use Apple. It is key to them offering superior solutions. It's why Quartz looks better. Software is what Apple does best. By offering compelling solutions in this regard that will swing the argument from just 'mhz' or performance.

Clearly performance isn't dire. But it's not great either on the Mac at the moment. 970 will offer more breadth of options in Apple's desktops.

As Apple stores head the front line of New Apple, it will be interesting to see where we are a year from now in terms of Apple software, cpu, variety of desktops and price.

Another eg. I hope Apple haven't done away with the 5 gig iPod to replace with the 10 gig iPod at same price. Use the 5 gig to drive prices down further...so more people can join the party. Otherwise, when people catch up (as they did with Apple in the 80s and 90s...) Apple will get thrown on their ass and lose the market. Sacred cow: critical mass. Can Apple tackle their inner-demon once and for all as they also square up to their nemesis, M$ with iWorks for Office?

2003. I can't wait for the rest.

Lemon Bon Bon

better performance would go a long way towards fixing the price problem, but the simpe reality is that compuers are getting cheaper at a faster pace than Apple would like. Or anyone, I imagine, but they compete.

If I hated Apple or the mac, I wouln't have nearly as much complaining to do, I'd just wouldn't think about what they do or how they choose to do it. But I'm around, hoping they'll do better.

The complainers are NOT the people you simply won't ever get to "switch," they're the first, and perhaps only legitimate, immediate switch candidates -- people for whom the mac still resonates but for one reason (price) or another (options/flexibility) can't move to buy the machine. The indifferent will not switch, they simply don't care, are content with the prices and performance and style of their windows machines, and will go on using them no matter what Apple does. You can't win them over, they're lost untill M$ does something to drive them away (hello licensing practices!).

People who are complaining aren't "cheapskates" or "whiners" who'll just never switch, they're people who are thinking about it, much harder than anyone on these boards ever gives them credit. That's the pool of people Apple can most easily grow into, closet mac-o-philes.

Apple, win them over, don't frustrate them past the point of caring.

Once they stop following, bashing, complaining etc etc, they're gone, at that point they really don't care, they aren't coming back. Far from being a sign of weakness, or a futile target, the whiner demonstates that there's still potential for the mac to grow.

Once again, we're back to the cheap tower as the only imaginable form factor for a computer.


Since you keep banging on this drum despite the universally reported upon uses to which Dell puts their R&D research, I'll spell it out for you: Dell spends money trying to figure out how to make boxes cheaper. The fallacy in your argument is that you are assuming that just because both budgets are labeled "R&D" that they're both spent on the same things. But the reason Mike Dell can go in front of a bunch of people and call himself an innovator with a straight face is that Dell is constantly innovating on the logistics and manufacturing front. So you start with an ATX or mini-ATX tower - solely and exclusively because that's the standard, and it's designed for ease of assembly - for the benefit of the manufacturer, not the end user. You spend $600M a year trying to figure out how to make them as automatically and efficiently as possible, so that you can simultaneously conduct a price war and keep sane margins. There's actually a test production line in every Dell factory, always looking for a way to shave off a few pennies. This research pays for itself by cutting costs and restoring something as close to Dell's traditional 20% average margin as they can manage while sinking Gateway and Compaq. There are various other cost cutting measures, like the cheap, flimsy plastics on my OptiPlex that Apple would be publicly crucified for using.

Apple, obviously, targets their R&D in entirely different directions, some of which are plainly aimed at ease or cost of manufacturer (case in point: The LCD iMac), but which are instead aimed at user friendliness or size efficiency or some other design goal that Dell has never given a moment's thought to. Obviously, they are concerned with making things efficiently, and they've got one of the best guys in the industry working on this (Tim Cook), but since they aren't nearly as single-minded about efficiency, and they're not a commodity box maker, their costs are higher.

Which is exactly what I'm saying. The purpose of R&D is to increase profitability. Having used many Dell boxes I can honstly say that they are both very well made and very reliable, and anyone who gives WinXP an honest appraisal can only say that while it tries a bit too hard to get in your way, it works very reliably (as have 2000, and 98SE.) Dell's R&D money has been well spent and perhaps Apple should learn a thing or two from them. The plastic is as pretty as it needs to be, and the twoers are as accessible as they need to be, why not learn how to make that case for 50 dollars less, rather than cook up something new?

If you want to say that it all goes into the software, so be it. But we know it doesn't, and that the software isn't that far ahead, while it is very very nice, it has problems. The browsers are still slow, the number one piece of software everyone needs is an utter joke, AppleWorks??? come on Apple. (this does seem to be coming along in pieces though, with both a much better browser and a serious Powerpoint competitor in their early adolescent phases.

If Apple actually provided a full fledged Office killer and a better out of box warrantee with each new machine, even their curent prices would seem to me "not too bad at all."

And, they very well may be on their way to supplying such a suite, though they're going to do it in bits, it seems. IF, big if, they supply said wares free with each new mac, at least each new "pro" mac, color me satisfied, for now, provided they manage such a feat in the next two years.

...The purpose of R&D is to increase profitability....

That's where your interpretation of Apple's business fails. Whereas your point may be partially true of equipment manufacturers, it does not apply to an integrated company such as Apple.

Impossible. It's true 100% by definition. The purpose of a company is to make money. It spends money to make money, R&D is an expenditure. R&d is spent to facilitate making money. We call that profitability. Mebbe they think they can make more profit by making better interfaces or supplying better industrial design, but the purpose is always, by definition, to make more money. If you expenditures let you make proportionally more money, then they're good expenditures, if they don't, then they aren't.

The purpose of research is to find new ways to do "something". The something varies with companies.

But why would Apple sell their Top Computer for such pittance?

The Top of the line loaded computer should always eclipse $3k. Hell people used to pay $5k for the Top Mac. I'm all for good prices. I'm not rich. But I think that Apple could subsist nicely off of Powermacs that range from $1399-$3499. I may not have the money but people who's livelyhoods depend on their computer in many cases wouldn't balk at $3499 for the top PM loaded.

Just as you like saving your money in the bank. So do Apple. They are no different than any of us. They have their balance sheet and the numbers gotta jive.

From Dot.com failures to Gateway and their 3rd Reorg it's PAINFULLY obvious that you cannot sell items for little margin and hope to survice. Consumers can quickly become buzzards..picking over the remains of companies that have much such foolish decisions.

You will not see significantly lower prices on Mac Hardware until Apple has set up some additional revenue streams. .mac is here to stay and the Music Service just may be popular but it will take more.

I'm happy with Apple progress. Not only are they making good product but their are strategically acquiring IP that will extend the benefits of choosing the platform.

As with any transaction...there has to be something in it for you and Apple.

matsu your right, but apple has to add R&D money to the price of HW for the OS. Win XP does work very well, its speedy even on older computers and very stable. But it is still windows and has the problem of apps being made poorly UI wise. I dont mind using XP, its alot better looking then an other windows but it can't compare to OS X.

For the OS, clean UI, and thought that most mac apps have put into them i am definatly willing to pay more


the problem is like you said people rn't cheapskates but how do you put a price on that...unless you are used to it, its nearly impossible. You can't describe it well, only give examples that sound like...well, examples. You don't get a feeling for it. I didn't mean anything by my post earlier about how you always say the same thing, you have good reason to and give logical posts. I am just saying its well worth it, apple's problem is how do you portray it.

dell wants the same as apple: stay in bussines.
for apple it means something else than for dell.
increasing profitability is indeed a way to stay in bussines as is innovation. something i never ever saw in a dell box.

oh wait, dell wants to delete the floppy, that's a lot of innovation indeed and costs a lot of R&D to do so.
(how do we sell a pc without a floppy-drive... think, think, think)

It's clearly not the only one. But an option Apple are lacking in my view...along with one or two others. It is also a popular one. Every PC shop I go into, every PC owning friend I have or know...every catalogue...Towers...and the majority offering more bang for buck than the Apple equivalent. (Where in the world? PeeCee World...) Maybe Amorph and a few apple-loyalists are projecting their wishes in not wanting to see cheaper Apple towers. But they won't keep Apple in business or grow their cake share.

As for giving away towers Haymuch. Defying reality is a sure fire way to lose money also. Apple clearly agree as they've reduced the price of their towers. Perhaps in light of staggering tower sales, oops, losses. While, in comparison, the reasonably priced ibook is vying for Apple's sales flagship. Gee, maybe its the economy or the fact people are dumping their underperforming G4 towers for a laptop machine that underperforms by only a little less...

I think four towers stepped every 250£ is a good idea. A 1.6 single 970 isn't going to be that impressive by the time the 970 finally ships. 2.5-2.8 gig Pentium 4 towers are already going cheaply. My suggestion was merely catch up on the low end. I'll stand by my idea. It will be interesting to see what Apple does in light of their promises to address price and performance. Clearly they are indicating they don't agree with you Haymuch. If they want to get to 5% then Apple clearly has their work cut out. And selling 3K towers with outmoded G4s wasn't going to do it.

We'll see.

Lemon Bon Bon

...all I'm asking for is choice. Apple already makes a product with a performance level I'm willing to accept. A 800MHz G3 is damn fine by me as a business machine. I don't need anything more. A 1GHz G3? Fine if IBM has'em, I'll take one.

But how hard is it to simply stick in one PCI slot and 1 AGP? It would actually make Apple's life a little easier. If everyone was buying headless iMacs with an AGP slot, if Apple decides it wants to introduce SupaFly MegaQuartz Extreme but only on 'puters with 256MB GeF-FX's, then the level of bitching will be a bunch less cuz anyone will be able to simply upgrade their video card.

Its not performance. Its not even necessarily cost. Its FORCED obsolesence. I have an MDD Dual 1gig at home, but at work I have a six year old 9600 that I refuse to part with because I can upgrade it more readily than a new $1800 iMac. How bout just a super slim tower with a vertical slot loading CD-ROM, 1 PCI slot, and 1 AGP slot on riser boards, ala the Xserve? Thin, sleek, quiet, affordable AND upgradeable. In case you want something like USB2 or FW800, simple $50 upgrades you can't make on an iMac.

Make that and I'll buy 2, maybe 3. I won't pay $1500 for a Pro tower I don't need. And I won't buy an AIO iMac either.

making a tower liek that would only work if you had to buy the upgrades from apple...and yet that would cause even more b***'n

it would be nice though...but if u are serious enough to be upgrading you should probably have a tower...i am a consumer, not a professional really, and I will definatly go for a tower...it sets u back a little more yeah but its just nicer in general

I know what you meant. Matsu has just as much right to voice his opinions as the rest of us, and at least he's more coherent (and usually polite) about it than some.

You want choice, but you won't accept the choices provided. You can buy any of the preconfigured crop of MDD PowerMacs for less than the price you paid for your beloved 9600. In terms of performance, any one of these MDDs will blow the doors off your 9600. Apple sells the iMac to those who need a computing applicance. You pull it out of the box, plug it in and get to work. It is not meant to be particularly customizable. For that, Apple sells the MDD Power Mac G4. There has never been a better time to buy a PowerMac.

I like Matsu....even when I don't agree with him.

It is also funny when someone mentions kormac and he gets all red in the face.

Anyone who spends this much time coming up with ideas and suggestions and ways for Apple to improve is more valuable then many of us.

...really? I bought my beloved 9600 used for $150 and put a 700 MHz G4 in it for $280 for a total of $430. So much for that theory.

As for performance, I have a Dual 1gig MDD AND my 9600. I know what the performance difference is. I also know that running Microsoft RDC, Filemaker Pro, Office, and AccountEdge 3 all run acceptably fast under OS X on my 9600. So I don't care about "blowing the doors off my 9600." I just want a modern upgradeable Mac that doesn't start at $1500. You have to spend even more to get an upgradeable PowerBook. A PC card slot should be a given in a modern notebook.

Face it, the PowerMacs are selling like crap. So how could selling a midrange consumer tower possibly do any more damage than has already been done? You can defend Apple all you want on this, but the market is speaking. Quit trying to force configurations on the customers.

Don't you know that Apple's forced upgrade plan actually works against it. If you have to buy a whole new PC to just upgrade the video or monitor, that is another opportunity for that consumer to be move to a PC to avoid such as situation again.

Why should you have to buy a whole new iMac, a computer you paid nearly 2 grand for to upgrade a freaking video card? Its stupid, its dumb, its ignorant, its poor business, and it pisses customers off.

What if, after coming out with 970 Powermacs with a new case, Apple sold G4 Powermacs with the current case for less than $1000? Then, you would get a really fast but expensive high end, and also a really cheap, upgradeable low end.

...that would sound great.

Well if they currently have a 25% margin on the low-end ~$1500 PowerMac at the moment (I don't know if they do -- does anybody?), then $1000 would be a 33% reduction in price resulting in an 8% loss per unit. That wouldn't be too smart, would it?

The iMac fares somewhat better -- $1800 less the cost of the 17" LCD panel (say $500?) in a cheaper case. The arrival of the 7457 will hopefully improve yields and thus reduce the cost of the G4. The iMac's form-factor probably means they can't use the cheapest parts for things like power supplies and hard disks so a more standard case design might allow costs to be pushed farther down. Cut the margins down to ~10% to hit the low end... sub-$1000 for a >1 GHz should be doable.

I have to agree... I would really like to see a headless iMac, even if it is in the same price range. I bought one of the original 15" LCD's, and really the only complaint I have is the monitor size. I had a 19" CRT with my old computer and i really miss the size.

Not being able to upgrade that one feature is the only real drawback to the design for me... for what it is. My old computer I upgraded for about an added 3 years of life, for a total of about 8 years. But that's all it could handle. This one I'll need to replace after 3 to 4 years... no upgrade possible. With this machine, I believe, I would have to change video cards, too, if it were possible to upgrade the monitor. So my wish list for the new iMac line would change the design slightly to accomidate....

Upgrade Monitor and Graphics Card (8x AGP Slot)

With Firewire I haven't needed a PCI slot with this machine. On my old box I used one of the three PCI's for USB and Firewire capabilities and one for a graphics card. The only other thing I would use a PCI slot for is Professional Audio Input or SCSI. The new iMac really isn't that market share. But everyone, I believe, would like the ability to change monitor size and capabilities as easily as upgrading RAM. Even at current prices (minus the monitor) I would buy another iMac for my household, as well as a new 970 tower for my professional usage.

I will point out that with all the claims about how Apple must be competitive with Dell, it should be pointed out that nobody in the PC world is competitive with Dell, either. (Or they are, and are losing their shirt.)

IBM basically abandoned the desktop market as beyond salvation. HPaq is losing money in the PC division hand over fist. Gateway is going under for the third time.

The reality is that unless you have a product that you can charge a 20-30% premium over the base Dell price (think what Sony, Toshiba, etc. are trying for), then you are not going to survive in the PC market.

In the end, there will be the whitebox market for the supercheap, the Dell market, and perhaps the premium box market.

If PC's become entirely a commodity market, then there will be the same premium market for PCs that there is for say high voltage electricity cable (i.e. none). It will also mean, that like any other commodity, the only real metric of value will be the price. Dell is depending on it. As Amorph said, their R+D is devoted to only one thing, keeping the price down. They sure as heck don't invest in the user experience. And to be honest, it looks like, for the Wintel world, they guessed right. Only MS can significantly change the user experience, and they do it for everyone equally.

Anyway, if Apple can be competitive with the premium brands of the Wintel world, I will be very happy. I'd love to have them be competitive with Dell, but I'd hate to see them gamble the company on trying it. Everybody else (who doesn't have to spend a penny on user experience) who has tried it is going under.

I'd have to track this down to provide a link, but Fred Anderson did say at one point that the 'margin' for _each_line_ is aimed at being 27%ish.

That is, the cheapest iMac doesn't have a 27% margin, and the most expensive iMac doesn't have a 27% margin, it's only when you run it across the iMacs sold that the margin _averages_ 27%.

Though that fluctuates some, and is _somewhat_ different by product line also. And I can beleive that the 'plan' is in somewhat of a shambles with the PowerMacs being outsold by home tonsillectomy kits.

The SEC filings and the papers I get from Apple as a shareholder do not seem to provide enough information to give a per-line margin calculation.

So what that means is I don't think the margin on the $1500 MDD machine is 27%. It _should_ be lower, if they're following their avowed planning. Each line is designed to get people upgrading to the next model - the lowest priced iMac is _not_ the best selling model. (The lowest priced PowerMac _was_ when it was a dual... and note that the Dual867 stopped pretty fast.)

....I don't want Apple to compete with Dell. Dell's boxes start at $400. I have a dead HP and a dead Shuttle SV25 both sitting here in pieces. Both motherboards crapped out. Thats what cheap gets ya. But I think a 100% increase in cost is reasonable for Apple's entry level machine. I'm not asking for a $399 e-Machines. I believe Apple can make a quality product and still maintain high margins at a $800-900 price point.

Um, what's left of the market is waiting for budgets and personnel to stop getting cut, Quark, and one of: A small, quiet but reasonably powerful workstation, or a balls-out Pentium crushing monster. A midrange G4 tower would interest a few hobbyists, but the PowerMac isn't selling well for reasons that don't have a lot to do with its cost of entry. The simple fact is that for anyone who uses their machine to earn income, $500 here or $1000 there is a perfectly reasonable investment if it means that you get that much more work done. If a machine with a $1K premium saves you about a week of work over the course of its life as a primary workstation then it's paid for itself.

All a midrange PowerMac would do is muddy the lineup. What the PowerMac needs is power; the rest (Quark, unemployment and budget constraints) is out of Apple's control. If Apple is going to release a midrange thing, it would be more along the lines of the Cube (only with a 970), which, if it was reasonably priced, would get snapped up by audio engineers, DTP and Photoshop users, and people looking for higher-end office computers.

Expandability is craved by hardcore gamers, old school IT techs (who, I note, have not had enough of a voice to prevente Dell from shipping onboard Ethernet in just about everything) and hobbyists. I'm not going to say that those aren't legitimate markets, but they're not very big. I wouldn't expect more than a slight uptick in market share if a machine like this was released, accompanied by a fair amount of consumer confusion.

Well, if the 'cost of entry' isn't stopping Apple getting customers then how come apple themselves cut price of their 'power'Macs (by 200£ on the low end and 700£ on the top end)? And have indicated they will do so again.

You're articulate Amorph. I'll give you that

But you're dead WRONG(!) on the cheaper tower. You were proven WRONG when Apple cut the price by 200£. And you'll be proven wrong again if Apple cut prices further. I don't think it muddies the product line at all. The only problem with the Cube was it plain old vanilla wasn't cheap enough. Sure, Amorph could afford one (and I hope you're still enjoying it... ) BUT alot couldn't. And that wasn't for not wanting one. Now, Apple can merely extend their tower line down an extra couple of models or introduce a new mini-tower. Personally, I think Apple's desktop line is crying out for something. I don't think cheaper towers will affect those who want an iMac2 either. There's clearly a need for a cheaper tower...or people like Mooseman wouldn't be gagging for one...and he explained his case better than I did mine. As for me or anybody else projecting are wishes, let's face it, aint that we we're here?

When Apple themselves come out and say they have to address the 'power'Mac issue, they are clearly admitting that cost and performance do matter. We're no longer living in the days of a £4k or £3k towers. (And if Apple fancy doing that with the 970 launch they'll only dampen a sure fire seller like they did with the iMac2's steep price...)

Mooseman just about sums up the frustration felt by buyers such as myself. I think it's well possible for a sub K Apple tower. Hell, they're only 10% away now! That's less than their legendary margins. So why are we arguing about it? Go on Apple, just do it. I'm fed up with this one. It's just such a no-brainer. Keep it single cpu and the rest can single, dual, dual from there. Four standard tower configs. From just under a k to about 2K. How hard can that be?

Most decent PC towers can be got for a grand. You don't have to spend thousands anymore. Apple are facing up to this reality (fingers crossed as he says this...) can Amorph?



Lemon Bon Bon

Not very big?

So not big that Apple, previously oblivious to this market, has started paying attention to this market (they even have there own games site at Apple if you've been, you've been, right?). Gee, they're quick to point out Quake framerates on their top tower (which is crushed by most 1K towers or less I might add...)

A market that rivals movie sales in size. If 'hardcore' gaming is such a niche market, then why are Sony, M$ and Nintendo in it for the long haul?

There's a strong case for a cheaper tower with an option to stick a decent graphics card in it. Apple (chief niche chaser...) can chase even more of this 'niche' (worth billions) market. Which would make more sense than chasing the music player market before Apple started doing that...

I'd venture that the 'ipod market' is worth considerably less than the 'hardcore' gamers market.

So why are Apple chasing that? Sorry, I forgot, because it's a niche market. (S'funny how alot of people ridiculed that before Apple launched ipod and started selling truckloads...)

You know Amorph, for such a clearly intelligent guy, I find myself vexed (but not too much... ) by your positiion on the Apple 'mini-tower'/games issue. You're not playing devils advocate secretly wishing it to come true now, eh?

Lemon Bon Bon

You are not making any sense at all. EVERY manufacter from Dell to Gateway to whoever has Computers over $2k

It would require Apple to "have no brain" to squeeze their lineup between 1-2k. That simply makes no sense.

It's not about being the cheapest. That is not what Apples about nor have they EVER been that way. Back when they could have saved a few bucks by dumping the auto eject floppy for the cheapo push button models they refused. Apple is a company that has a base technology set that they refuse to go under. They will not drop the price for people who cannot or will not allow themselve to afford a Powermac. You want expandability...you want the most speed you buy a Powermac or you go enjoy Bill Gates creation.

Prices are set by the market. The market doesn't care if you make a mint or lose your shorts on the product. It will only pay what it is worth at that moment. Power Mac prices are down because the product does not merit higher prices.

But Apple computers do merit prices higher than PCs.

In the enterprise, Macs cost about $170 a year to support, according to Apple. The Gartner group released a study in June 2002 that showed that PCs in the enterprise market cost $510 a year to support.

That means for every year that a business owns a PC, it pays (on average) $510 to simply keep that PC in use.

Let's say I buy a dual 1.42 G4 for $2,899 (1GB total RAM + $2,699 base model). We'll ignore tax since the rate would be the same for any computer. I keep the G4 for five years. My support costs will be $170X5 = $850, according to Apple. Cost of purchase+support = $3,749

Let's buy a $699 Dell PC with comparable RAM, HD, DVD-R, Win XP Pro, and the slowest P4 available (2ghz) = $1448. This includes built-in video (not Radeon 9000, like the Mac). But I'm not going to add the cost of the video card. Let's subtract the $100 rebate and we start with a $1,348 purchase cost for the PC. I keep it for five years (I doubt it, but I might). My support costs, according to Gartner are $510X5 = $2,550. Cost of purchase+support = $3,898.

If you keep them only four years, then the PC beats the Mac by about $200.

This assumes that the PC will last as long as the Mac.

Total cost of ownership is a sensible thing and has thus little to to with reality!

Out there in the real world, if I buy a PC it is far more easy to get illigal copies of software than for a Mac this lowers the cost of having a PC. People bying a PC does not expect to get viruses and strange hardware conflicts and do not calculate support costs into buying a computer.

Apple does not have to compete with Dell but they should be comparable with Sony and other premium brands. A top of the line Sony Vaio tower has a faster CPU than a G4, FW and USB ports also at the front, multi channel sound and stuff currently not aviable from Apple. If Apple had parity in features and performance, they would sell well.

The fact that Apple tower sales has dropped dramatically over the G4 era reflect the percived value of these towers, among Apple customers, compared with previous G3 towers and with Windows towers.

If Apple can make towers that feture wise are on par or better than win boxes and use CPUs that gives them performance on par or even better than the Intel/AMD the tide away from the towers will turn.

First up you need to distinguish between the console market and the computer market because they are very different. Home consoles aren't designed to specifically target hardcore gamers either they are designed to target the home entertainment market.

Secondly the game industry as a whole challenges the movie industry (why wouldn't it? It's much better value for money in terms of entertainment really.) but console game revenues out pace PC game revenues by a factor of 4 (from memory). Further more PC game sales, and PCs are the traditional home for the hardcore gamer, are seeing decreasing games sales while consoles continue to see growth.


If you speak to the people over at ATI and NVIDIA they will tell you that the hardcore gaming market accounts for very little of their major income sources. In fact if you speak to most major computer producers they'll back that one up. The big income makers for graphic card companies are the more economical cards further down the line and the OEM contracts that they get for them.

For computer manufacturers the money has and always will be the enterprise markets. The only people that think the hardcore gamer market is the centre of the IT world are gamers themselves.

That isn't to say Apple shouldn't develop gaming technology for their computers for the average person but to chase the "hardcore" gaming market specifically is a waste of time because that group isn't leaving the Wintel world anytime soon. And gamer worth a cent is going to go where the library of games are and the mac platform simply doesn't have it. Apple would be better served creating offerings that are more appealing to the enterprise markets and trying to finally get themselves taken seriously (their advertising needs to change first though).


The music player market is definitely not a niche market and definitely worth billions (consider worldwide sales of mp3 players alone exceed 40 million and that doesn't include the people who still buy discmans).

The iPod itself is a marvel of low cost design and engineering and if it serves to attract consumers to the platform then it's a far more valuable area to invest than "hardcore" gaming.

The cost of ownership numbers are certainly skewed and probably have more to do with IT depts running away with the budget because no one knows exactly what they're up to, rather than the inherent reliability of the platform. The whining around the net from IT people suggests that this little problem is finally getting adressed in the form of long overdue IT cutbacks and wage controls.

"According to Apple..." what exactly does Apple account for? I'd rather see a third party analysis, I bet it's quite a bit higher.

When Lemon Bon Bon taked about 1k-2k range I think he was thinking in pounds (GBP), at least he used pound signs. That would be US $1,575-$3,150, not a lot different from what we have now. I'm confused

The original CRT iMac (bon voyage, old buddy!) wasn't the cheapest, but a nearly so. Let's face it, it saved Apple from the brink of bankruptcy a few years ago. But can something like this happen again? Of course, that is what innovation is all about. Will it be another cheap all-in-one? No way! Why not? The iMac was right for the time. People wanted to get on the internet, not deal with the cluster-f**k that was/is Windows and getting the modem to work right with their ISP, blah blah blah.

No, that was a totally different time than today. Today, a lot of people have a computer at home (some a home network) and are fairly good at understanding how computers communicate with each other. Seeing the scenario unfold, what is it that would be a killer product in such an environment? Digital Hub. Not an iMac either. That works in such an environment, but wasn't truely designed for such tasks.

It will be an interesting next couple of years to see what Apple delivers for the true Digital Hub

I think we both agree, and probably most of the IT people on AI, that Apple needs to focus more on the corporate world, since it is the easiest, fastest way to gain more market share. Home users are a bit tougher to win over at this point. I don't think that was true when the iMac first graced the scene. The thinking is different these days (no pun, I swear) as to what users want. I think that corporate people are sick of babysitting a Windows installation and sick of paying through the nose to sustain such a beast with SMS and various other 'support systems'. Things that Apple has generously included with OS X Server (unlimited client licensing is a major selling point for it!) I think to complete the puzzle, Apple needs a killer corporate machine, which is not to say the most powerful, but quite a simple machine. OS X can sell itself, I've said it countless times, and the box is virtually irrelevant in a workplace. Access to an optical drive is the only reason most people even touch theirs, and if you are pushing applications over the network, an end user rarely even does that. Simple, understated, inexpensive and effective. IT budgets are being scrutinized, and Apple needs to adjust to this phenomenon.

Matsu,

Apple did an internal audit of their costs to come up with the $170 (Actually $167) figure. This represents Apple's support costs for supporting their own Macs across their enterprise. Either they lied about their own internal numbers or they told the truth. In my experience with business Mac and PC users, I would generally agree with Apple's numbers: that Macs cost about 1/3 the support cost of PCs.

Non-tech PC users tend to pay more for support (instead of successfully doing it themselves). A major advantage of the Mac is that non-tech users can more easily perform support functions, and are, in fact, encouraged by Apple and the Mac community to do so. If a Mac user installs his own RAM instead of paying a tech to do it, that's $25-80 bucks saved.

I have not seen a PC manual lately, but for a long time, only Mac user manuals featured EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE how-to's on adding RAM, Hard Drives, PCI Cards, etc. That's lots of IT support that Mac users NEVER need.

Can PC support costs be less than $510 a year? Yes. But that number is from the third party Gartner study. It also reflects what I have seen in the business world. For non-enterprise businesses, that number might be much bigger - since small businesses often put off support until there is a catastrophic breakdown.

I buy the numbers.