or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread - Page 5

post #161 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by tensdanny38
just because 27% of the users who use photoshop use a mac does not mean that 80% of their sales don't come from mac users.

Most people that buy photoshop are pros. Pros use macs. How many people do you know that have photoshop? I can think of about 20 off of the top of my head. How many of them have bought it? zero. How many use windows? all but one or two.

Yes melgross is right. It's 27% of sales go to Mac users. I only know like 2 people that don't have it, and BTW. I bought mine.

Damn spell checker will get you every time mel.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #162 of 947
I know I'm a bit late to the party but, IF apple is looking to increase market share and IF they are trying to get them from windows users, they don't have enough product offerings IMO. Many PC users are used to going to Dell or Gateway website and being able to configure a system to their needs and tastes. Right now apple doesn't give many of them enough options. I'm not sure the best way to fill the gaps, but there needs to be a configurable system between iMac and Powermac. With the switch to intel this is easily possible. Why not look at Pent Ds to fill this need? I know that they are not the best technology available but it is familiar to many pc users and intel is aggressively dropping prices. A pent d 820 is now $165. I think Apple is boxing themselves in unnecessarily by only using intel's core chips. I wouldn't buy it but that's me. It may be appropriate for others.
post #163 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I know I'm a bit late to the party but, IF apple is looking to increase market share and IF they are trying to get them from windows users, they don't have enough product offerings IMO. Many PC users are used to going to Dell or Gateway website and being able to configure a system to their needs and tastes. Right now apple doesn't give many of them enough options. I'm not sure the best way to fill the gaps, but there needs to be a configurable system between iMac and Powermac. With the switch to intel this is easily possible. Why not look at Pent Ds to fill this need? I know that they are not the best technology available but it is familiar to many pc users and intel is aggressively dropping prices. A pent d 820 is now $165. I think Apple is boxing themselves in unnecessarily by only using intel's core chips. I wouldn't buy it but that's me. It may be appropriate for others.

This is one of the biggest complaints PC users who are interested in Macs have. Apple doesn't seem to care.
post #164 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
This is one of the biggest complaints PC users who are interested in Macs have. Apple doesn't seem to care.

And with good reason.
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #165 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
And with good reason.

And what might that reason be? Since so many of us long time Mac users are complaining as well, as you may have noticed.
post #166 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
And with good reason.

Such as?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #167 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
This is one of the biggest complaints PC users who are interested in Macs have. Apple doesn't seem to care.

Biggest complaint from a very tiny minority.

It's not worth it right now for Apple to change their model to accomodate maybe 5% of users. Maybe they'll care when they've got 15-20% of the market share...disappointing, maybe...a bad move by Apple, absolutely not.
post #168 of 947
Trolling and flaming Pentiumchips for over 10 years
is a good reason not to use them.

[edit]
Anyway there isn't much space pricewise between the iMac and the "PowerMac".

There is space for a 23"iMac though
and there is space for another $1,499 stripped down Conroe "Powermac/Mac Pro"
Like the november 2004 1.8Ghz PowerMac G5.
(But than without the hardware bugs)
[/edit]
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #169 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
. Maybe they'll care when they've got 15-20% of the market share...disappointing, maybe...a bad move by Apple, absolutely not.

You miss my point. I doubt they will get 15 or 20% market share with their current products. Their current products are geared towards a niche market. That's ok for the mac faithful, but with boot camp they really seem to be going after market share. They need more product offerings to entice windows users than what they currently have, IMO. With the switch to intel and the help they are supposedly giving Apple in product developement, is it that hard or that expensive?
post #170 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Biggest complaint from a very tiny minority.

It's not worth it right now for Apple to change their model to accomodate maybe 5% of users. Maybe they'll care when they've got 15-20% of the market share...disappointing, maybe...a bad move by Apple, absolutely not.

They can't get to anything like that with the selection they have now.

It isn't a tiny minority either. It's a fair amount of people. Quite a few people don't want to have to go from a Mini, to an iMac, to a Powermac.

They need catagories between these three.
post #171 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
You miss my point. I doubt they will get 15 or 20% market share with their current products. Their current products are geared towards a niche market. That's ok for the mac faithful, but with boot camp they really seem to be going after market share. They need more product offerings to entice windows users than what they currently have, IMO. With the switch to intel and the help they are supposedly giving Apple in product developement, is it that hard or that expensive?

I conquer.

Going back to the situation of the first half of the nineties with tons of different overlapping productlines, makes things unnecessary complicated for consumers.

Keep it simple.
People need clarity to make their choices.
Adding new categories won't help.
Apple could ad products to existing productlines to fill those gaps.

Bootcamp is not the troyanhorse you're hoping for.
I don't really believe people will pay another $199 for a copy of windows XP above the "Mactax".
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #172 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by gar
I conquer.

Going back to the situation of the first half of the nineties with tons of different overlapping productlines, makes things unnecessary complicated for consumers.

Keep it simple.
People need clarity to make their choices.
Adding new categories won't help.
Apple could ad products to existing productlines to fill those gaps.

Bootcamp is not the troyanhorse you're hoping for.
I don't really believe people will pay another $199 for a copy of windows XP above the "Mactax".

I think it's debateable the impact that boot camp will have on market share. I think there is growing dissatisfaction with the windows os, but that's just my impression, not supported by data. My point is that boot camp is a bold attempt to lure windows users to the mac platform. The software bait is there but the hardware isn't. Again, for mac users the current offerings are by in large adequate for the niche market it serves. Inadequate for going after switchers.
post #173 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Biggest complaint from a very tiny minority.

It's not worth it right now for Apple to change their model to accomodate maybe 5% of users. Maybe they'll care when they've got 15-20% of the market share...disappointing, maybe...a bad move by Apple, absolutely not.

Right now Apple's market share is the "tiny minority". I doubt very seriously that Apple could come anywhere near 15 - 20% market share with their current line-up.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
They can't get to anything like that with the selection they have now.

It isn't a tiny minority either. It's a fair amount of people. Quite a few people don't want to have to go from a Mini, to an iMac, to a Powermac.

They need catagories between these three.

I agree, but for one small addendum; For many the iMac AIO isn't even considered an option, so, your quote becomes, "Quite a few people don't want to have to go from a Mini to a Powermac." Then you're looking at a gapping $1200 hole in the line-up.

Don't get me wrong, I like my iMac, but it isn't what I wanted. I bought it because it was the best solution Apple offered me, but I am addicted to OS X.

However, potential switchers aren't addicted to OS X. Most potential switchers find Windows serviceable, if not somewhat a pain. NOTE that I said potential switchers, which in all probability is a minority of Windows users, most Windows users are content with Windows. Apple must lower the barriers as much as possible to attract potential switchers.

Intel helped, Bootcamp helped, combined I fully expect Apple's market share to climb somewhat, but not to 15 - 20%. IMHO that is a pipe dream, unless Apple offers an additional model(s).

Then again I could be wrong, I hope so, because I really don't think Apple will ever offer what is the most recurring, perpetual topic on Mac centric bulletin boards and quite frankly I don't think Apple cares one whit.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #174 of 947
about windows gaming on a mac...

since the games are immersive and in a game you aren't really using the total windows operating system (not explorer, not bundled software etc.) I wonder if it would be possible to just boot into a partial windows system seemlessly. Maybe Parrallels could sell some sort sort of partial windows driver system so that PC games would run on a Mac. Instead of paying $199 for the whole operating system maybe Parrallels could sell some sort of $100 PC gaming loader. Who would know about this?
post #175 of 947
My 15-20% market share comment was nothing more than to show you guys that it's not gonna happen. I'm glad you all figured it out.

Apple's never gonna reach 20% market share (at least not in the next 10 years)...so it's totally unnecessary to cater to a very select few people that would like to have very specific hardware in their machine.

Complain, cry, whine all you want...it's not gonna happen.
post #176 of 947
I think the real reason Apple refuses on going back in history to get processors is because there will be no new games playable on a Pentium D with a mediocre graphics chip in a year. Your computers will be so far behind in a year if you buy that junk you'll be disgusted with your self for being such an idiot.
Intel is ready to start moving all their processors to 4 cores in the spring of next year with the kentsfield leading the way. And your talking about buying Machines to last you a few years that are not using the core architecture? The Core Solo is the last single core processor your probably ever going to see, and it spanks a Pentium D doesn't it?

Some of these requests seem absolutely ridiculous to me I am sorry.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #177 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
My 15-20% market share comment was nothing more than to show you guys that it's not gonna happen. I'm glad you all figured it out.

Apple's never gonna reach 20% market share (at least not in the next 10 years)...so it's totally unnecessary to cater to a very select few people that would like to have very specific hardware in their machine.

Complain, cry, whine all you want...it's not gonna happen.

I agree that it's unlikely, but look at the damage AMD did to intel. Still 10% may be doable and would keep developers in the platform.
post #178 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I think the real reason Apple refuses on going backwards on processors is because there will be no new games playable on a Pentium D with a mediocre graphics chip in a year. YOur computers will be so far behind in a year f you buy that junk you'll be disgusted with your self for being such an idiot. Intel is ready to start moving all their processors to 4 cores in the spring of next year with the kentsfield leading the way. And your talking about buying Machines to last you a few years that are not using the core architecture? The Core Solo is the last single core processor your probably ever going to see, and it spanks a Pentium D doesn't it?

Some of these requests seem absolutely ridiculous to me I am sorry.

I don't know how a core solo stacks up against a Pent D. The Pent D 820 is a dual core chip. Anandtech had a review on it recently and felt it was a nice bargain at $165. Again I wouldn't be buying any of Intels netburst chips but for switchers it may be attractive at the right price. Again, if apple is serious about attracting switchers, and boot camp suggests they are, they need to increase their product offerings. Below is link to anandtech article.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2736
post #179 of 947
I believe apple could absolutely use a "dull little box" in their product line.

It's what most people expect/want when switching because it's all they know.

Apple just needs to find a way to give it a nice deisgn and not much of a premium.

And no, the Cube was not it. It's not the same thing when it comes to customization, servicability, look and especially price.

They need for once to make a REGULAR computer, but with an apple design.

If it was just a regular shaped pc tower that way it would have the upgradability that people THINK they need but with nice apple styling switchers would appreciate that.

Obviously to accomidate that the product line would need to change a bit (the mini would have to cheaper like 699 MAX) but it could fit.

I'm talking:
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo
512MB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Trayloading SuperDrive
128MB ATI Graphics
AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth

In a tower for $999 but with nice apple case design.

That would kill switchers, most don't want more than a basic computer and get confused or afriad of different sizes or everything built in.

Most people aren't computer savy at ALL.

They just want a computer that works, and that looks like a computer.

I've seen a lot people think the PM G5 was it. They ooh and ahh and leave once they see the price tag. To them this is the closest thing to a "normal computer" that apple offers.

If Apple built it, they would come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #180 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
I believe apple could absolutely use a "dull little box" in their product line.

It's what most people expect/want when switching because it's all they know.

Apple just needs to find a way to give it a nice deisgn and not much of a premium.

And no, the Cube was not it. It's not the same thing when it comes to customization, servicability, look and especially price.

They need for once to make a REGULAR computer, but with an apple design.

If it was just a regular shaped pc tower that way it would have the upgradability that people THINK they need but with nice apple styling switchers would appreciate that.

Obviously to accomidate that the product line would need to change a bit (the mini would have to cheaper like 699 MAX) but it could fit.

I'm talking:
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo
512MB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Trayloading SuperDrive
128MB ATI Graphics
AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth

In a tower for $999 but with nice apple case design.

That would kill switchers, most don't want more than a basic computer and get confused or afriad of different sizes or everything built in.

Most people aren't computer savy at ALL.

They just want a computer that works, and that looks like a computer.

I've seen a lot people think the PM G5 was it. They ooh and ahh and leave once they see the price tag. To them this is the closest thing to a "normal computer" that apple offers.

If Apple built it, they would come.

Why put in the ICD? Most PC switchers would be happier with a cheaper Pent D. IMO. Throw in a Pent D 820 or a Pent D 805, cheaper still at $130.
post #181 of 947
I just went with Core Duo becuase I didn't think apple would use Pentium D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #182 of 947
Oops double post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #183 of 947
My ignorance of Intel's naming scheme practically voids my last post. I thought a Pentium-D was a pre-core processor like the Pentium-M. The similarity in the naming scheme had me believing it was old tech. If backtomac hadn't mentioned it I would have had no idea.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #184 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Why put in the ICD? Most PC switchers would be happier with a cheaper Pent D. IMO. Throw in a Pent D 820 or a Pent D 805, cheaper still at $130.

No they wouldn't. They'd be happy with the price. Then a week later they'd hate it. And Apple would have an instant reputation as a terrible computer maker.

Then, they would only make $10 a computer. Which seems fair. Except that the engineering, advertising, stocking, etc., would cost a couple million. And it probably wouldn't sell as much as you think it would. And it probably would steal a few sales from a higher model computer.

It's a lose-lose situation. If you want to be cheap, by a second-hand computer.
post #185 of 947
Well I think Apple could offer a cheaper machine with the dual core pent d. As I recall the ICS is still over $200, I could be wrong. These pent ds are either $133 for the 805 or $160 for the 820. With all that Intel has to offer, why limit yourself to two chips? A pent d mac wouldn't be a screamer but for $800-900, what do you expect?

An article at macworld discussed how macs were poised to double market share but need more low cost options. Link below.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04...rand/index.php
post #186 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
No they wouldn't. They'd be happy with the price. Then a week later they'd hate it. And Apple would have an instant reputation as a terrible computer maker.

Then, they would only make $10 a computer. Which seems fair. Except that the engineering, advertising, stocking, etc., would cost a couple million. And it probably wouldn't sell as much as you think it would. And it probably would steal a few sales from a higher model computer.

It's a lose-lose situation. If you want to be cheap, by a second-hand computer.

I think you are being overly critical of this chip. Annadtech felt it was a good deal for the money. Only the dual core opteron and dual core athlon did better and were signicantly more expensive.

IMO a persons opinion about their computer is based more on stability than raw speed. In this regard, I would think a mac with a Pent D would be well liked by most users.
post #187 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
My ignorance of Intel's naming scheme practically voids my last post. I thought a Pentium-D was a pre-core processor like the Pentium-M. The similarity in the naming scheme had me believing it was old tech. If backtomac hadn't mentioned it I would have had no idea.

The Pentium D is a two-core version of the Pentium 4, and as such uses the Netburst architecture.

The Pentium M is the predecessor of the Core Solo/Duo (though it only exists as single-core). The Celeron M is a lite version of the Pentium M.

Apple is unlikely to use any Netburst-based CPU, and they'll all be extinct during the course of this year anyway.
post #188 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
The Pentium D is a two-core version of the Pentium 4, and as such uses the Netburst architecture.

The Pentium M is the predecessor of the Core Solo/Duo (though it only exists as single-core). The Celeron M is a lite version of the Pentium M.

Apple is unlikely to use any Netburst-based CPU, and they'll all be extinct during the course of this year anyway.

Well I learn more, and more as this thread goes on. You are right though. It's just as bad to suit up a netburst processor with a macintosh around it when it's all dead technology. Put it this way. If PC users want to switch into old technology Apple will have some in a few years (via ebay). There you go.

I'm not trying to offend anyone by that, but Apple is not in the habit of buying parts from a previous run to make their machines. (unless they were constricted by motorola) They will continue to use the newest processors, and many people will sell their MBP when Apple puts a merom in new ones. It wont be long before we start seeing MBP's on ebay for a better price.

On that note... Don't expect to get them cheap either. Macs hold their value like you would not believe. If I bought a $3,500.00 PowerMac 2x Dual Core system when they came out I could probably get close to, or better than $3,000.00 for it on ebay a year, and a half later. And that's with no reserve.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #189 of 947
Apple has very expensive custom cases. They either use heavy 12 qauge anodized aluminum, or expensive clear polycarbonate. These cases cost, at the retail level, somewhere in the $300 range.

If you don't believe that. You can look at some aluminum cases from a couple of PC case manufacturers. They cost about $225 to $250. These are much cheaper, thinner 18 gauge. They don't include the power supplies either.

I mention them, because whenever these "good" cases get reviewed on ExtremeTech, or other technical sites like it, the posters scream about how expensive the cases are, and how they can get cases "just as good" WITH the power supplies, for $50.

Apple can use cases that don't cost as much. They could cut perhaps $200 off the price, and still have a better case.

Every bit helps.
post #190 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Apple has very expensive custom cases. They either use heavy 12 qauge anodized aluminum, or expensive clear polycarbonate. These cases cost, at the retail level, somewhere in the $300 range.

If you don't believe that. You can look at some aluminum cases from a couple of PC case manufacturers. They cost about $225 to $250. These are much cheaper, thinner 18 gauge. They don't include the power supplies either.

I mention them, because whenever these "good" cases get reviewed on ExtremeTech, or other technical sites like it, the posters scream about how expensive the cases are, and how they can get cases "just as good" WITH the power supplies, for $50.

Apple can use cases that don't cost as much. They could cut perhaps $200 off the price, and still have a better case.

Every bit helps.

An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.
post #191 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.

The only problem is the will on Apple's part.
post #192 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The only problem is the will on Apple's part.

Actually the problem is the lack of margins. Nobody is making money in this portion of the market (much less the lower end machines). The iMac mini is Apple's contribution at this price point, I wouldn't count on much more.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #193 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.

An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.

It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.

All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #194 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Actually the problem is the lack of margins. Nobody is making money in this portion of the market (much less the lower end machines). The iMac mini is Apple's contribution at this price point, I wouldn't count on much more.

Margins are everything. But, when you use less expensive materials that cost less to work, the margins can be the same.

Polycarbonate costs three times as much as more standard plastics used for cases. It also costs much more to work, as it requires a temp of about 500 degrees, rather than the 220 or so most other plastics do. The polished surface also is much more expensive to manufacture. Molded in color is also much less expensive than the extra steps required in spray painting the interior.

The same thing is true about the heavy qauge aluminum they use.
post #195 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
[B]An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.

Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.

So, by your logic, all Apple should produce is the MacBook Pro, and the Powermac.

But, it doesn't work that way. Far more sales are generated by these products than are taken away from the more expensive lines.

Quote:
It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.

While I hear less complaints about the Mac's price that I have been, on forums , there is still a large number of people who are turned off by either the prices, or by what Apple offers for the prices that they do.

Thr truth is that the box the machine comes in is just an expensive wrapper. There is no evidence that the materials used, or the extensive custom designs add to anything other than the looks and price.

If Apple produced a less expensive machine, then people who would not have considered buying a Mac, might change their minds. Many people I know in the PC side of things REALLY want to see at least a removable graphics card.

If Apple did produce that $800 to $900 machine, brought their monitors down in price a bit, and came out with an affordable 19", like everyone else has done, people would buy the computer and the monitor. Apple wouldn't lose anything.

Quote:
All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.

You're making a bad assumption that this would have to be bad.
post #196 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.

It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.

All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.

Would they be stealing sales from the iMac or getting a pc user to switch? I don't know the answer to that question but as I mentioned in an earlier post, Macworld has a an article from a report that suggests that macs are poised to double their market share BUT need more offerings to entice windows users to switch. The mini is a good option IMO but some users prefer the old mini tower. I don't know why. My dad falls into this category. I've tried to get him to get a mini but it just doesn't look like computer to him.

As far as quality, I judge it by the stability of OS more so than anything else. But also I look at how things fit together ect.. Even the MBP has had some issues here and it costs significantly more. I'm not sure how much of a role cpu speed plays in one's perception of quality.
post #197 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.

Um, no. Mini sales don't take away from the iMac, because the iMac is nearly twice as expensive. It caters to a different group. It has a significantly faster overall design, with a 3.5-inch drive, a very good graphics chip, a high-quality built-in screen, a built-in camera, and so on.

iMac sales won't take way from the Mac Pro either, because, again, there's a large price gap. The Mac Pro will offer customizability, much, much higher performance (quad config), high-end graphics options, multiple drives, the ability to drive two 30-inch displays, etc.

Likewise, the MacBook Pro has distinctive features over the MacBook.

The current product matrix is very well-designed in that no product cannibalizes another's sales much at all. A low-end customizable headless Mac would dramatically change this.
post #198 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.

So, by your logic, all Apple should produce is the MacBook Pro, and the Powermac.

But, it doesn't work that way. Far more sales are generated by these products than are taken away from the more expensive lines.

#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?

I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #199 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?

I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.

I wouldn't want Apple to put out a pos either but would a mini tower enclosure with a dual core pent d (820 or 805) and intel IG be a pos in your opinion? To me it would just be a larger form mini. I bet it would perform about on par with a ICS. Certainly no screamer but perhaps not a pos. I've been trying to find a comparison between an ICS and a pent d820 but no luck so far.
post #200 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Um, no. Mini sales don't take away from the iMac, because the iMac is nearly twice as expensive. It caters to a different group. It has a significantly faster overall design, with a 3.5-inch drive, a very good graphics chip, a high-quality built-in screen, a built-in camera, and so on.

iMac sales won't take way from the Mac Pro either, because, again, there's a large price gap. The Mac Pro will offer customizability, much, much higher performance (quad config), high-end graphics options, multiple drives, the ability to drive two 30-inch displays, etc.

Likewise, the MacBook Pro has distinctive features over the MacBook.

The current product matrix is very well-designed in that no product cannibalizes another's sales much at all. A low-end customizable headless Mac would dramatically change this.

That was in a response to someone who had ideas in that direction.

Actually, I don't hink that too many sales are taken by any one single model from another. But, it does happen. Sometimes people shift their purchases upwards, and sometimes downwards.

Apple does have gaps in their lines.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread