Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo - Page 18

Really? Then why aren't 75% of people who buy desktops buying iMacs?


There's no need to be facetious. The number of whiners has no bearing on which computers you should make.

For the record, my next Apple purchase will be a Merom MacBook Pro. I don't want a desktop at all.


Well, in this case, I do think that Steve is an idiot.


If an iMac is so great (which I think it is), why would this computer cannibilise it? They appeal to different markets.

Lots of people don't want the integrated monitor, or to spend the extra money even though they already have a monitor.

The mac mini is a viable alternative for those people that don't want an iMac and can't afford (whether financially or because of the size) a PowerMac.

Damn straight.

You know, I've been pretty critical of the Mac mini, especially on MacRumors where I've been flamed for my comments. (I'm one of those who's very unhappy about the decision to go with IIG for the mini, without even the option of a model with good OpenGL acceleration)

But I can't agree with all the flaming of Apple for not having a $499 model. Did anyone ever look at the spec of the original $499 models? There has never been a time in the mini's history where I'd either buy one or suggest anyone - and I mean anyone, even the hypothetical "Computer enthusiast who only wants to run iTunes" that the Mac mini is supposedly aimed at, according to the current crop of apologists anyway, buy the $499 model.

It never had enough RAM (as it is, the current models don't either, but let's not get there - I guess the second generation had enough RAM for iTunes, but...), the networking was limited (no BT or Airport), the burner couldn't burn DVDs, and the chances of someone not needing at least one of those features was slim to none. It could probably work as a music hub, hidden in a closet, but as a general purpose machine?

It was there largely for marketing reasons. It allowed Apple to tell everyone "Hey, you can now get a Mac for under $500!"; it succeeded in that, but $599 isn't bad, and the $599 model doesn't require as much upgrading (except RAM, IMO) before it becomes the machine it's intended to be.

It isn't only computer enthusiasts who buy computers, you know. Of course a computer enthusiast wants to do more with their computer, that's what the configurability is for, and it's what other computer models are for. Most people don't really care about computers, but they have one because they want to be able to browse the web and send e-mail.


This is exactly the mistake that you and other people in this thread are making. You are projecting your desires for a computer onto everyone else. I know that I don't want my next computer to be without wireless, Front row, a dual-layer DVD burner, less than a gig of RAM etc. But just because I want those things, doesn't mean that everyone else does. Everyone on this board is a computer enthusiast. But most people are not, but they still have a computer. Why? Because they want to surf the web, send e-mail and maybe listen to some music or manage digital photos. So why force all these extras on to them that they don't want? Why not give them the option of taking out features and saving some money? They have the option if they want to run Windows, but currently do not if they want to run OS X.

edit: I forgot, there is also the fantastically large corporate market, that doesn't have a need for remote controls, wireless (most companies have wired networks, and probably consider bluetooth a security risk), CD/DVD burners etc.

Please don't quote half my sentence. I didn't say that only computer enthusiasts buy computers, I implied the exact opposite and that the apologists for the poor specs of the Intel Mac mini range are aiming the machine at a bizarre market.

No, but I didn't say that everyone wants/needs wireless, a DVD burner, and more RAM. I said that pretty much everyone will want at least one of those.

Personally, I think the connectivity argument is a non-starter. Pretty much everyone wants that today. It may be a mere "convenience" for many buyers, for others it may be an absolute must, but it's as necessary, in today's market, as USB. I'd argue wireless is as useful as CD burning, and more useful than Firewire, in the current climate.

And given it hasn't added a cent to the cost of the Mac mini (it's free with the chipset), it's not as if the added features have added to the price. It's more that the added features have justified the higher price.

I suspect, if you look into it, sales of non-BTO'd $499 Mac minis have rarely approached those of better models, and most of BTOs were to give them Wifi and extra RAM.

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to twist your words or anything. The comment I quoted did imply that you think everyone who buys a computer is a computer enthusiast.

You did say, "the hypothetical "Computer enthusiast who only wants to run iTunes"" This is an oxymoron. Of course someone who only wants to run iTunes is not an enthusiast. I didn't label such people "enthusiasts", you did. By doing so, you included them in the group "computer enthusiasts", leaving no computer-buying people outside said group, hence implying all people who buy computers are computer enthusiasts.

No, it didn't.

Again, you quoted half of what I wrote, even after I told you it was half of what I wrote and explained what the full sentence meant. I'm getting pissed off here.

I wrote, which means the exact opposite of what you claim I wrote:

even the hypothetical "Computer enthusiast who only wants to run iTunes" that the Mac mini is supposedly aimed at, according to the current crop of apologists anyway

Like I said, when I explained the comment to you, I implied the exact opposite of what you claim I wrote, that the apologists for the poor specs of the Intel Mac mini range are aiming the machine at a bizarre market.

Words like "hypothetical", "supposedly aimed at" and "according to {...} apologists anyway" should have been a dead give-away. Instead you deliberately removed them, twice, from your quoting in order to make me look like I was making a stupid, easily proven wrong, point.

Because the all-in-one market is less popular than the tower market. Sony does make a all-in-one V series but likely doesn't sell as many as Apple does the iMac (the prices don't help). Its in the product line IMHO simply because the iMac exists and Sony can afford it.

For Apple the market is captive and used to the all-in-one format for the consumer market dating back to the original Mac. Its better for Apple (and Sony), not necessarily the consumer.

Lets say we had your tower that ranged from a $499 core solo to a $799 1.66Ghz core duo just like the current upper end mini. A 20" cinema display is $799. Total price is $1598.

How many $1699 20" iMacs get sold?

How many folks opt for a UltraSharp 2005FPW 20.1 inch Dell at $529 instead of the $799 20" Cinema Display for a total of $1328 for a 1.66Ghz Core Duo machine?

How many folks opt to get a $499 1.5 Ghz core solo, a $529 2005FPW and a $421 2.0Ghz Core Duo for $1449?

So...how dumb do you still think Steve is? Show me that you can preserve Apple's profitability in your scenario at the $499 price point once you've cannibalzed both the iMac line and the low end PowerMac line with an inexpensive mini-tower.

Vinea

Because they prefer Windows over OSX.

Vinea

Think again. Once size dosn't fit all.

That's fine. I don't disagree with that.

But, I'm not discussing GROSS margins, as you think I am. I'm discussing TOTAL costs.

For Apple to make a 10% overall PROFIT, total costs must be taken into account. The gross margins for each individual product will vary, that's correct. Generally, from about 30% for PM's to around 18% for a Shuffle. The gross margins for software are far higher. When you average it all out, it came to about 28% for Apple last quarter. I could be off by a percent or so, as I'm going from memory. Where does that 28% come from, if the lower margin shullfes and Nanos' are added to the mix? They are bolstered by the software sales.

If Apple claims to have sold 2 million copies of OS X during a Quarter in which they sold one about million computers, they must have sold around one million copies retail. This is approximate, of course, but it illustrates that it isn't that hard to get some handle on this. Even in the unlikely case that, somehow, all of the sales of OS X from retail that quarter merely approched 750 thousand copies, with the rest being bundled with the machines, as well as going to the others areas mentioned, that would still leave around 3 million copies sold at retail for the year, assuming that retail sales didn't increase as time went on. If we average the possible selling price Apple has for the distributors and their own, at list, we might arrive at a price of $100 per box. That would mean at least $300 million for the year. I think that that figure is certainly low.

From the number of people I pol,l upgrading amongst the members of my group alone, there seems to be very good takeup. Better than for any other version. We have about 900 members in our User Group, about 700 of them are using OS X. That number keeps going up as a percentage of our members. Over two thirds of those who didn't buy a new machine upgraded to Tiger this year. I'm sure that the population, as a whole, isn't at that level, but the fact that the upgrading itself is reaching higher percentages over time is certainly a reflection of what is happening elsewhere as well.

Apple does not ship about 1.250 million computers a quarter. The last quarter they shipped about 1.25 million. But, for the year, they shipped about 4.5 million, total. That comes out to 1.13 million per quarter. If you subtract that last quarter from the totals, and then average the first three quarters of the year together, it comes out to just 1.08 million per quarter. When you consider that for the time in question, Apple only shipped about one million, for the quarter, my numbers are pretty good. Most of the increase above one million was for the last two quarters of the year, and most of that was from the last quarter alone, well AFTER those numbers were released.

You are starting to argue a little bit in my favour. If you are so worried about this machine cannibalising the iMac, you are admitting that Apple is failing to make computers that people actually want.

I would not be afraid of cannibalising iMac sales (expanded on below). But, if it made the iMac unfeasible to make, just stop making it.


The $799 tower would still have (compared to iMac): IG, smaller HDD, slower processor, no iSight, not include keyboard and mouse, and not be an all-in-one, which many people do prefer, due to its elegance.


I still think he is failing to address the $399 - $1299 market segment properly. My scenario hinges on an updated Power Mac range (mid-range tower with Conroe and proper high-end workstations with Woodcrest), and expanded market share.

This is what you said:


iMacs run OS X. You can't have it both ways. If someone prefers Windows, they would not be satisfied and happy with an iMac.

Eh? Gar was joking with the 75% number.

If you want to switch you can from $599 to $3299. From fully integrated iMac to dual processor tower to small form factor mini. Where do you see "One Size"?

So Apple is neglecting the cheap tower config.

That doesn't keep the majority of the desktop market switching from Windows to OSX OR Mac lovers from upgrading where appropriate even if the target machine is sub-optimal for their needs (ie iMac vs desktop).

Gamers are forced to get the iMac or PowerMacs. Non-gamer consumers have the option of the entire mac line. Pro users are still stuck on PowerMacs till things go universal.

Laptops are likely where the game is at anyway...which means Apple's current strategy of using laptop parts in their desktop machines isn't hurting them in terms of volume purchases across the entire product line. They probably are on the same par as Dell in terms of the components they do buy.

Effectively they sell mobile laptops, non-mobile laptops (iMac and mini) and PowerMacs.

Vinea

I don't really agree with this. The iMac G3 sold extremely well during a time when Apple offered many towers.

The Sony all-in-ones are ugly computers. The Dell all-in-one and the Gateway all-in-one are all awkward and ugly. The iMacs have always been well designed. I think that makes a big difference.


He's right you are saying Apple refuses to make a computer that people really want. In fact you are saying people don't really want an iMac, but since that's all Apple offers they have to buy it.

Which I don't agree with, the iMac is a great computer in of itself.

But I think Mr. H is wrong in Apple producing an upgradable computer for $499 while maintaining current margins. Something like that would need to be an entirely different computer from the current Mac mini.

No, I'm saying that the product you want doesn't have a very strong business case with respect to Apple's current strategy and line up. Remember A B and C? B = poor business case.

Saying "don't build the iMac" ignores the synergy in their current desktop line up and their laptop lines.

Your machine might make Apple users happier. I doubt Apple shareholders would be as happy.


Perhaps he is addressing it properly by ignoring it and pursuing market segments with better ROI.

Your strategy boils down to "if you build it, they will come" since it is based on expanded market share.

Vinea

Sorry, I got a bit lost there with what you are attributing to who. I did not say that people don't really want an iMac. There are plenty of people who want an iMac, and I don't think the emergence of a configurable low-end tower would change that.


Fair enough.

God save us from anyone who's overzealously religious about it. \

This is apropos:

Familiarity Breeds a User Base

We have to be careful about using words like "prefer" in instances like this.

Most people prefer Windows because that's all they know. Many may not even like it. But it's what they use at work. It's probably what their parents had (have) at home, and it's what they can get "free" software for.

Most people grew up using Windows, and can't even imagine using anything else.

Prefer, means that they have been able to make an informed, non prejudicial decision as to which one they would like to use. Very few people have had that chance.

It's like religion. People are born into what they believe. Or, like language. Most people just stick with what they have, because they are comfortable with it, and most people around them are the same.

Only a few ever break away from that. People in the minority become more fanatical about their choices because they tend to be belittled by the majority.

I know that that seems to be a political statement, and perhaps it is. But it illustrates where the problems are.

People are generally adverse to moving away from something they know well, when they are being assured that it is the only, or best way of doing it.

I've had problems, over the years of getting people in the NY school system for which I'm a technology advisor (unpaid). Even those hired to teach the teachers came from mostly a Windows environment. They had to learn the Mac's themselves first.

But, when they did, they used them as PC's! They didn't bother to learn any of the Mac shortcuts, or ease of use features. Why? Because as they didn't exist in Windows, these people didn't think they existed on Mac's either.

I have to say, truthfully, that if you aren't going to learn "the Mac way", then there isn't much point to moving over.

Little things, such as the one button mouse, used to drive them crazy. You would think, that these people, who were computer technology people, would bother to subscribe to a Mac magazine, as their new jobs required them to know Mac's so intimately, but, no, that didn't happen.

I would have to bring a Logitech trackball in, to show them that you could do this, if you wanted to.

This post might seem like digression, but, it's not. It goes to Vinea's post about WHY people "prefer" things.

And that is a powerful reason why Apple has such a hard time, in addition to all of the other things we have been discussing here.

Actually that was in response to vinea, I was agreeing with you.

No, that was Gar.


Or your mini-tower. When you asked:


Were you only referring to current mac users? Because 75% of people that buy mac desktops is pretty danged small.

The point is that those 75% tower users (a number Gar pulled out of thin air) are windows users and that's why they don't buy iMacs. Not the form factor.

Using that same bogus 75% number for just Macintosh desktop users, the reason they aren't buying iMacs are because they are "pro" or "pro-sumer" users and need (not just want) the expansion capability.

I would also guess that among Macintosh users the majority have purchased iMacs over Powermacs over the last few years.

Vinea

The number of towers sold are less than 50% for even Windows when it is considered that about 50% of all sales are now laptops.

But, in the Windows world, almost all computers that aren't laptops, ARE towers. It's not as though Windows people have much of a chioce there (sound familliar?).

It's just the opposite for Macs, most non-laptops are NOT towers. Same lack of choice, but flipped 180%.

Yes, the iMacs have been well designed and is a great computer. I might even buy one but I think I'll opt for the mini and pair it with a mid-sized HDTV.

Mr. H effectively wants a Core Duo Cube at $499.

Maybe it might fly at $999 but probably would suffer the same "who's it for" issues as the cube at that price point. You effectively need to build in the profit on a monitor into the cube since you have to expect that for each cube you sell you're losing a iMac sale.


http://www.gcn.com/print/vol19_no33/3279-1.html

Which switchers would one get with a Cube over a Mini? Gamers?

Line up killer software game titles first. Get some exclusive titles for the Mac only.

Vinea

The one button mouse drives me crazy. While right mouse is not entirely intuitive <cmd> button is even less so.

Especially since it requires off-hand coordination on a different input device.


So "prefer" was a little bit loaded.

More folks are "used to" Windows.

Vinea

The point about the mouse is that it hasn't truely been an issue, for those who know, for around 15 years.

But, that, and other points, are Apple's fault.

This article, from the Chicago Tribune, about the new Mini, sums up what most people, who are not, like us, already Mac users, will consider when switching.

Some of it applies to all Mac's, of course.

The article is pretty accurate, from a PC users standpoint. And that's what matters.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/techno...ck=1&cset=true

Damn it!

Sorry, I'm really, really tired today.


Not quite; I suppose you could sum it up as a Core Solo Cube at $499.

did anyone figure out how the core solo mini can run at 1.5 ghz with a 667 mhz fsb?

that's one freaky multiplier..

Yeah we know that's not going to happen.


The computer landscape is a bit different today than it was in 2000. A small tower would easily fill in the space for people who want the iMac with exapandability for which the PowerMac is too much.

You are right Apple would loose some monitor sales and lower iMac sales. What they have to balance out are the over all sales. How many people don't buy a Mac at all because the PM is too much, don't want an iMac, but would buy a small tower.


The ultimate problem with the Cube is that the market decided that $1799 was too expensive. Instead of dropping the price Apple dropped the entire computer. $999 - $1499 would be accepted much more readily by the market, even if an Apple monitor is not purchased with it.

Apple made several mistakes with the Cube. One of the biggest ones was placing it as a high mid range machine. The critism was that Apple should have placed the (at the time) much cheaper, but still viable G3 into the machine, instead of the G4.

The second one, is one that Apple has always had. They refuse to explain exactly what their machines are. While everyone who was a techie knew that the machine was highly upgradeable, and had an open slot as well, Apple never made that a widely known fact.

Therefore, I kept on hearing people say, and would read, that the Cube wasn't expandable, or very upgradable.

If Apple had taken the time, and effort, to dispel that rumor, the machine might have sold well enough for it to gather a following. If Apple used the G3 to keep the price down, as well, then it could have become popular.

But, they failed on both fronts.

Apple spent all of their marketing dollars (never enough from Apple to begin with) on how it looked, and the size.

I can't imagine how each cube ("Cube06" - a modern cube) sale would be a loss of an iMac. The two are entirely different machines. I can't see why someone who wants an iMac would buy a Cube06 if an iMac were unavailable, and I definitely can't see why someone who wants a Cube06 would buy an iMac.

I can't ever see myself buying an iMac. Not unless they revert to something like the 2G models, and make the monitor removable, anyway.

If Apple did offer the small tower the best case scenario would be to increase sales while not too negatively affecting sales of the iMac or PowerMac.

The absolute worse case scenario would be if current Apple customers in significant numbers who would have bought a new iMac or PowerMac bought the small tower, while few new Apple customers bought any new Macintosh at all.

Their is somewhat of a risk.

If Apple offered a desktop at $999. This would enable people to buy that computer and a monitor cheaper than if they bought a whole iMac.

The caveat however is you could not buy the $999 small desktop and a really good quality monitor for cheaper than the $1299 iMac.

A Cube06 might possibly affect sales of the cheapest "PowerMac" (or whatever it's going to be called, I guess), I can see how that might work. Even so, the solution is probably to make the PM replacement significantly more powerful. What they've done already with Twin-Dual Core G5s is a good precedent.

I can forsee a line like this:


Mac mini: $599 (Solo), $799 (Duo + SuperDrive, etc)

Mac cube: $999 (Duo, 1gig, gfx), $1499 (Faster Duo, SD, etc)

Mac Pro: $1999 (Twin Duo), $2999 (Faster Duos)

They could probably expand the iMac range in a similar range, as it's rather narrowly focussed at the moment. I'm not sure about a "High end iMac", but a low end iMac, one would have thought, is very possible. A $799 "iMac mini" with a Core Solo and 13" Wide Screen. They could even go the opposite way to that of the mid-market iMacs, and put the circuits in the keyboard.

On the other hand, perhaps those would compete with the iBooks (MacBooks.) Wouldn't be hard though to keep the profit margins roughly equal.

There are machines missing from Apple's line-up, and the current controversy over the 3D acceleration (or lack of it) in the Mac minis has highlighted the lack of certain machines in particular. I doubt there'd be this fury if there was a seperate range of mid-priced ($800-1,200 in today's market) headless Macs.

I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.

I'm not sure if he wants to expand it yet again.

Have, fun guys, I'll be gone for the evening. My daughter's school beckons.

I agree, at this point the only way to get a Macintosh that allows the changing of graphics cards or the use of TV tuner cards is the Power Mac.

I agree people would not care so much about the mini if their were a mid-range desktop.


I'm sure this is of some concern, but I don't think one more computer configuration will hurt.

Well, the problem was that the choices were poor and it wasn't obvious what on earth was what. In terms of what's proposed here, we're actually looking at three computer lines:

Mac, iMac, and Macbook (oh, and Xserve I guess)

That's it. Each line is subdivided to cater for low, mid, and high end. (Well, Macbook mid- and high-, iMac low- and mid-), but you'd expect that in any line.

That was back in the Performa days where the pro and consumer machines overlapped in price and performance a bit more than they do today and covered a much smaller market. I agree that a Mini-Tower/Cube might not be needed today I do think that the market could support one without the "confusion" of the Performas and Quadras. There is, in my opinion, room for a "Headless" mac in the $1499-1699 price range that offers better graphics than the Mini, and if Apple starts competing in the gameing market a graphics card that can be upgraded. I'm less convinced about the need for other upgrade cards, though I can see why people would want them. I think that it would be nice to have an upgrade card mostly for add ons like video in, USB 3, and Firewire 1600 (or whatever the next step is in the evolution).

Just out of curiosity.... Is core solo a real single core....or is it a one core disabled dual core chip?...

I saw one japanese site that posted core duo at 1.5GHz and maybe that was hacked core solo mac mini?......

When the power macs come out perhaps they can have an entry level version that has a core duo processor with nice video card and expansion options. The true power macs can pack conroe cpus. This would fill in that gap that every one is fussing about.