or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again? - Page 33

post #1281 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

$399-$799 price points you have since abandoned (but I doubt Mr. H has)

Indeed I haven't. Neither you nor anyone else said anything to convince me that they would cannibalise sales of the iMac any more significantly than the current Mac Mini.

I have already suggested that my proposal would impact negatively on revenue and earnings for the first year or so, but in a minor fashion, and then start to impact positively. I don't believe iMac cannibalisation would be so severe that there would be no point producing it any more.

I have no interest in trying to convince you that the $399 - $799 models I propose (which would have laptop CPU and RAM, don't forget) wouldn't severely cannibalise iMac sales. We already know the situation. You think cannibalisation would happen to a significant degree, I don't.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1282 of 1658
Quote:
Neither you nor anyone else said anything to convince me that they would cannibalise sales of the iMac any more significantly than the current Mac Mini.

Well......there is a glaring reason for that. Unless you already have a monitor and keyboard it makes little sense to buy the Mac mini.

The mini offers few of the advantages of the iMac or MacPro.

I have admitted the xMac I propose for $1699 will cut into the 24" iMac and MacPro sales. Obviously a Mac with discreet graphics and PCI open PCI slots will offer competition against these models.

I know for sure my xMac proposal would cut into MacPro sales and probably sell better than the MacPro. That is why Apple should position and price such a computer just under the Mac Pro.
post #1283 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H


Damn right! Your costings are way off. You must have missed the fact that we know Apple's gross margins on computers are around the 28% point.

Ah, as usual Mr. H, you are correct. I believe my costs are for completed components in the computer, such as a finished motherboard, completed mechanical parts for the enclosure, and so on. Manufacturing cost would also include all assembly costs, testing and other direct labor charges. This would still be less than the cost on which gross margins are calculated, which typically include all direct sales cost, distribution and other direct costs. So please forgive me for the error; it was an early job I had, before switching careers.

For those reading who are unfamiliar with direct and indirect costs, a direct cost is associated with a particular product sold, such as a commission. TV advertising would usually be an indirect marketing cost not include in the product cost. There are few hard and fast rule how a company does it, just so it is done consistently.

Regardless of which of those three cost we use, however, the result will be the same. The tower can sell for $75 dollars less than the iMac I chose, the 17 inch at $1199. The performance would be comparable, but it would have the advantage of a replaceable graphics card and another HDD bay.



Quote:

I understand your proposal that the gross margin of the mini tower could be increased such that the absolute $ profit is the same as that achieved by the iMac, but, as Vinea points out, you then ignore the fact that price comparisons to the competition would then be seriously dire.

Here I must disagree with you, on the second point, that the tower would be priced too high to compete. This is what you mean, right?

I don't want to approach this with price examples on the Windows side, but let's just consider how switchers and Mac users would look at it. Obviously, the $1199 iMac is selling, so customers are reasonably satisfied with the price for its performance and features.

What you are saying is that few people would buy the same performance and features in a mini tower that sells for less, $1124, because it does not have a 17 inch monitor to go with it. I believe this follows logically, unless you say a tower must sell for a lot less just because it is a tower. I never did follow that argument at all, and I don't believe you ever said it either. Others have however.

I believe many would choose the tower for $1124. They can pick up a pretty good 17 inch LCD for $150. So for the extra $75 they pay, the buyer gets probably 3 PCI-e expansion slots, an easily replaceable graphics card, an extra HDD bay, and likely a form of computer the buyer prefers.

Now, if someone wants to do the comparison using a 20 inch iMac, the tower would be cheaper yet compared to the iMac because the 20 LCD panel costs more. However, the end result, the price of the tower with comparable performance, shouldn't change.

Now, what am I missing? I doubt that anyone who likes a tower would think twice about that choice. Not only would a tower be superior for these buyers, but they can choose a model or configuration with even higher performance and better features, for an appropriately high price.

I've been hit pretty hard on some of my ideas, which I don't mind. If there are truly valid points where I am way off base I want to know about them. Yet so far, I have not been convinced I'm wrong. As you may have guess by now, I don't knuckle under easily.

post #1284 of 1658
That was uncalled for

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #1285 of 1658
Quote:
The tower can sell for $75 dollars less than the iMac I chose, the 17 inch at $1199.

And if I were your average switcher looking to get a Mac, I would see the iMac that looks cooler and has a monitor for only $75 more and NOT buy the tower.

That's my main concern - not cannibalization so much, but just the fact that if you price the tower at or slightly below the iMac, nobody will buy it. Cube Revisited. Apple will not be thrilled about that.

Of course if you DO price the tower low enough so that adding a 17" monitor is in total cheaper than the iMac, THEN it will cannibalize the iMac because it is cheaper. Apple does not get thrilled about that either.

I think that sums up my explanation of why Apple has not put a headless machine in the lineup. There is no place to put it.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1286 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647

That was uncalled for

Yep. Ad hominem attacks are not tolerated.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1287 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

I think that sums up my explanation of why Apple has not put a headless machine in the lineup. There is no place to put it.

There are a lot of people in this thread that disagree with that. I personally feel a $1500 tower wouldn't be a cube all over again. It would be like the low end powermacs in the g3 and g4 days. Every powermac started at 1500. Not $2200. That is 700 more than the oldschoolers were used to buying low end powermacs. About every 2-3 years I was buying a new powermac. Actually this trend started with me in 1993 when I bought a powermac 6100 for 1500. Up until the dual 2.0 g5 I bought for 2k in 2004. Every mac I bought between those dates were towers and between 1500 and 2000. These were well selling machines. All of this seemed to change with the switch to IBM... the 1500 dollar tower seemed to disappear! Why? Probably because the cpu's skyrocketed in price. That is about all I can think of. Or apple wanted more profit?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #1288 of 1658
Well, I do hope that you guys who would want the slots and the bays get them. They had a single 1.8 G5 up there as well as a single 1.6 and they both got discontinued very soon because everybody either went for the iMac or the dual PowerMacs.

As for the $1500 tower, that's the price of the 20-inch iMac. It doesn't matter if it cannibalizes at that price, but it won't sell, as people will go for the small footprint and included 20-inch LCD for the same price.

For what it's worth, I myself would never buy an AIO because I am like you and want the expandability. Surprised? It costs me more for the Mac Pro but that is what I am going to get. OF course I am not the average home user.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1289 of 1658
I'm waiting for MWSF... do I think anything will come out there? Not at all. But at this point i might as well wait. When the xMac isn't released.. I'll suck it up... and order a mac pro... *throws money at apple to watch them pick it off the floor as I walk out the door WITH MY SERVER HARDWARE IN A TOWER DESIGN*

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #1290 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

I have no interest in trying to convince you that the $399 - $799 models I propose (which would have laptop CPU and RAM, don't forget) wouldn't severely cannibalise iMac sales. We already know the situation. You think cannibalisation would happen to a significant degree, I don't.

Right, we agree to disagree on that point. If you are correct then your model makes sense. If not then it doesn't. Since there's no real way to tell unless Apple tries there's no point in spinning in circles again. IMHO they'd have to bet the farm and go whole hog on the strategy. Win and you get more desktop share and perhaps get into the Dell and HP ranges. Lose and they end up like Gateway (#3 but not very healthy).

There is the other point we disagree on is that I don't feel that Apple has the right corporate mindset (or leadership) to compete well in the $399 PC market and that it would have a negative impact to the brand unless done very well. You point out the iPod as a counter example. Which is well and good but I consider the iPod line, even the most inexpensive shuffle, to be on the elite end of the MP3 player spectrum. Eh. They show they can be a market leader but even in the iPod launch Jobs noted there was no current MP3 player market leader...which made that a lot easier.

That's why I lean toward tablets, ITV and other potential markets with no current market leaders.

Vinea
post #1291 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

I don't want to approach this with price examples on the Windows side,

That's because if you actually looked at the pricing there isn't much rebuttal you can make. They look really bad.

Quote:
but let's just consider how switchers and Mac users would look at it. Obviously, the $1199 iMac is selling, so customers are reasonably satisfied with the price for its performance and features.

And form factor. There is a certain elegance to a AIO and if you want to be different from the pack it certainly makes that statement.

But it is style over substance...something branding can let you get away with IF the direct comparisons aren't easily made.

Quote:
I believe many would choose the tower for $1124. They can pick up a pretty good 17 inch LCD for $150. So for the extra $75 they pay, the buyer gets probably 3 PCI-e expansion slots, an easily replaceable graphics card, an extra HDD bay, and likely a form of computer the buyer prefers.

No...not for an extra $75 but an extra $250 and a smaller monitor.

Quote:
Now, if someone wants to do the comparison using a 20 inch iMac, the tower would be cheaper yet compared to the iMac because the 20 LCD panel costs more. However, the end result, the price of the tower with comparable performance, shouldn't change.

Actually your best case is the 17" as the competing towers have roughly the same CPU but a smaller monitor but is now almost $500 cheaper or 50% cheaper. Granted the 20" is a WS so the cheap 19" monitor being offered is much smaller but the cost difference between a 20" WS dell and 20" ACD is significant.

But that's not what folks see...they see free 19" vs nothing, $900 vs $1400 and the same CPU, memory and HD. Even worse they see either a 20" WS display for $1028 or a 24" WS display for $1368.

Going Apple would cost them either $2100 ($1400 your tower + $699 for a 20" ACD) or $2400 ($999 for a 23" ACD). Even using the 17" iMac as the base price is unpalatable...$1900 or $2100.

It gets worse...Dell actually gives you $160 credit if you go no monitor...so you can get the Dell with the 30" WS display ($1275) for the same price as your tower with 20" ACD (around $2K total).

Major suckage.

Quote:
I've been hit pretty hard on some of my ideas, which I don't mind. If there are truly valid points where I am way off base I want to know about them. Yet so far, I have not been convinced I'm wrong. As you may have guess by now, I don't knuckle under easily.

Knuckle under or not your logic is still flawed and I'll still continue to pick them apart.

Vinea
post #1292 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647

I'm waiting for MWSF... do I think anything will come out there? Not at all. But at this point i might as well wait. When the xMac isn't released.. I'll suck it up... and order a mac pro... *throws money at apple to watch them pick it off the floor as I walk out the door WITH MY SERVER HARDWARE IN A TOWER DESIGN*

Well...there may not be an xMac but hopefully there will be a cheaper Pro. It should at least be $300-$400 cheaper based on previous G5 towers. Who knows maybe a cube...

Vinea
post #1293 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy


And if I were your average switcher looking to get a Mac, I would see the iMac that looks cooler and has a monitor for only $75 more and NOT buy the tower.

Depend on what you want. A tower with a decent 17 inch LCD display for $1274, or a 17 inch iMac for $1199 -- otherwise, comparable performance and features. The PCI-e slots, extra drive bay, replaceable graphics card -- all together these are worth more than $75 to many of us.

As far as the iMac looking cooler, I have great faith in Apple's industrial design team. I think a mini tower from Apple would look great, and be bate to lure switcher's.

post #1294 of 1658
Sent via PM.
post #1295 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

And if I were your average switcher looking to get a Mac, I would see the iMac that looks cooler and has a monitor for only $75 more and NOT buy the tower.

That's your choice and it's perfectly fine. But I think Apple should let the consumer decide. Right now they're making the decision for them.
post #1296 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Well...there may not be an xMac but hopefully there will be a cheaper Pro. It should at least be $300-$400 cheaper based on previous G5 towers. Who knows maybe a cube...

Vinea

How about just releasing a Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo chip instead of Dual Xeons? Start the price at $1,999, and you've got my money.
post #1297 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by csi95

How about just releasing a Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo chip instead of Dual Xeons? Start the price at $1,999, and you've got my money.

Sure. Why not. The only caveat I've had with that is that it's a lot simpler for Apple to simply remove a Woodcrest than build a new MB and Conroe line. Plus they get to maintain their server part volume if not increase it a bit.

Other than the FB-DIMM slowdown a single 3Ghz Woodcrest isn't a shabby machine...

Vinea
post #1298 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

I have already suggested that my proposal would impact negatively on revenue and earnings for the first year or so, but in a minor fashion, and then start to impact positively. I don't believe iMac cannibalisation would be so severe that there would be no point producing it any more.

I got curious so I took 5 mins and ran it through excel.

Assumptions:
  • 2M desktop units a year to start
  • 12%/year growth rate for desktops under Mr. H's product lineup (based on Apple's current growth which is pretty good)
  • 0%/year growth rate for desktops under current product lineup
  • $499 bottom end machine (vs $399)
  • $1400 current avg unit price (from that article linked a few pages ago)
  • 50% budget machine sale mix (from another article that said the desktop market was 50% entry machines).
  • $950 new avg unit price - ($1400 + $500)/2. The assumption is that half the machines would be cannibalized but the remaining half of the machines keep Apple's current average.

So the baseline is: 2M units per year * $1400 avg price * 0.28 margin = $784M

Results: Year, # units, gross profit, delta from baseline, running delta from baseline

1 - 2.24M units, $595M, (-188M), (-188M)
2 - 2.5M units, $667M, (-116M), (-304M)
3 - 2.8M units, $747M, (-36M), (-341M)
4 - 3.14M units, $837M, 53M, (-288M)
5 - 3.52M units, $937M, 153M, (-134M)
6 - 3.9M units, $1,050M, 266M, 131M
7 - 4.4M units, $1,176M, 392M, 523M
8 - 4.9M units, $1,317M, 533M, 1,056M
9 - 5.5M units, $1,475M, 691M, 1,747M
10 - 6.2M units, $1,652M, 868M, 2,616M

So for the first 3 years you make less money after which you make up the difference. For 5 years you're negative overall but year 6 forward you make more money. Lots more money by year 10...and like all such growth patterns it accelerates.

Assuming you can maintain 12% annual growth over 10 years. Give Apple any growth with their current line up and the years gets pushed outwards a bit. About a year per percentage point of average growth. 4% growth pushes breakeven out to year 9.

Very back of the envelope via Excel but you see the general pattern. Sure, if you can maintain the growth eventually you make massive bucks. But it'll be half a decade, not one year, of running in the red. Year 3 is the worst where you are $344M in the hole. One thing is for sure...if Apple adopts this strategy sell your shares...the first year will be nothing but "Apple profits stunted despite increased sales" reports. Buy it back when the stock bottoms.

Change some assumptions, move the years and $$$ around a little. The key will be sustained growth rate.

Mmm...I dunno. I don't think Apple can maintain 12% growth even in the laptop space for 5 years. We had a banner year because of pent up demand. We'll likely get another in 2007 from iPod/iPhone halo and pent up Mac Pro demand.

After that?

It seems to require Dell, HP and Gateway not responding effectively. For a decade. Huh.

Microsoft could also impact the desktop space. Imagine if MS made a "Pro" version of the 360 and sold MS Office as a $200 "game" for it? The 360 makes a heck of a thin client. It's already a MCE.

So parents don't have to buy a desktop computer and a console...just a 360. MS can tout reduced TCO to businesses because of the "new" thin client architecture. Big Windows servers in the back, thrifty user (and virus) safe consoles in the front. Ellison gnashes his teeth as MS beats Oracle to the network computer. Intel has kittens.

Too gutsy for MS and too fraught with danger. But 10 years is a long time to not expect some paradigm shift. We're overdue I think.

Vinea
post #1299 of 1658
Your biggest error is
"0 new avg unit price - ($1400 + $500)/2. The assumption is that half the machines would be cannibalized but the remaining half of the machines keep Apple's current average."

No way will a $499 machine cannibalize half of the iMac sales. A low end machine in the $499 range might add sales or cannibailze Mac mini sales, but no way would half the buyers of iMacs buy this machine.
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 #1300 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

Your biggest error is
"0 new avg unit price - ($1400 + $500)/2. The assumption is that half the machines would be cannibalized but the remaining half of the machines keep Apple's current average."

No way will a $499 machine cannibalize half of the iMac sales. A low end machine in the $499 range might add sales or cannibailze Mac mini sales, but no way would half the buyers of iMacs buy this machine.

As I said, change your assumptions change the outcomes. I picked that because it was easy and I didn't know the current mix of mini and iMacs.

But let me put this out there:

First we can probably agree that most mini sales will go to the new xMac $399-$1499 lineup. I padded the number by $100 to $499 rather than pick the $399 number.

Most of the 12% growth will be from the xMac. It probably isn't unreasonable to say half will be in the $500 category since that's an industry average. Even if you disagree it isn't unreasonable to assume that the majority lives under that $950 average unit price.

Apple is rumored to be doing some AMD chips. That seems silly to me unless the Intel supply hiccup is more than a temporary glitch but you can do a AMD X2 for cheap...within the $399 pricepoint (Dell's slim tower C521 is a AMD64 X2 3200 for $371). That's not too shabby a machine...probably as good as the current low end minis when you factor in the faster desktop drive performance.

You can do a Conroe 1.86Ghz with GMA X3000 (hey these are out? I guess it's the mobile version that isn't yet) for $599 (the E520 just dropped in price today...no free monitor though). These will trash your 17" $999 iMac sales. They won't do a whole lot for your $1299 17" iMac sales either. I'm guessing we're being a bit generous here with only 50% cannibalization of these two AIO models...

The Dell 2.13 Conroe is now $649 (no monitor). The Apple version will be around $700-$750. This isn't going to do much for your 20" or 24" iMac sales.

The bulk of your sales will likely be in that $700 2.13 Conroe tower. You'll likely lose a few Pro sales to a $1200-$1400 higher speed Conroe from Mr. H's lineup which will push average price down a tad.

So that $950 average unit price doesn't look so terrible despite originally being a rough formula dumbed down for simplicity's sake. Move it up a little if you like but you probably can't move it up by that much. Add in some monitor sales and the numbers get better but its still not just a 1 year hit. All the other stats I think are generous to Mr. H.

0% desktop growth vs 12% is the most important assumption. Any slump there and the breakeven dates change a lot more than fiddling with the other numbers.

Vinea
post #1301 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

As I said, change your assumptions change the outcomes. I picked that because it was easy and I didn't know the current mix of mini and iMacs.

But let me put this out there:

First we can probably agree that most mini sales will go to the new xMac $399-$1499 lineup. I padded the number by $100 to $499 rather than pick the $399 number.

Most of the 12% growth will be from the xMac. It probably isn't unreasonable to say half will be in the $500 category since that's an industry average. Even if you disagree it isn't unreasonable to assume that the majority lives under that $950 average unit price.

Apple is rumored to be doing some AMD chips. That seems silly to me unless the Intel supply hiccup is more than a temporary glitch but you can do a AMD X2 for cheap...within the $399 pricepoint (Dell's slim tower C521 is a AMD64 X2 3200 for $371). That's not too shabby a machine...probably as good as the current low end minis when you factor in the faster desktop drive performance.

You can do a Conroe 1.86Ghz with GMA X3000 (hey these are out? I guess it's the mobile version that isn't yet) for $599 (the E520 just dropped in price today...no free monitor though). These will trash your 17" $999 iMac sales. They won't do a whole lot for your $1299 17" iMac sales either. I'm guessing we're being a bit generous here with only 50% cannibalization of these two AIO models...

The Dell 2.13 Conroe is now $649 (no monitor). The Apple version will be around $700-$750. This isn't going to do much for your 20" or 24" iMac sales.

The bulk of your sales will likely be in that $700 2.13 Conroe tower. You'll likely lose a few Pro sales to a $1200-$1400 higher speed Conroe from Mr. H's lineup which will push average price down a tad.

So that $950 average unit price doesn't look so terrible despite originally being a rough formula dumbed down for simplicity's sake. Move it up a little if you like but you probably can't move it up by that much. Add in some monitor sales and the numbers get better but its still not just a 1 year hit. All the other stats I think are generous to Mr. H.

0% desktop growth vs 12% is the most important assumption. Any slump there and the breakeven dates change a lot more than fiddling with the other numbers.

Vinea

Vinea,

I know I'm a bit late to the discussion but why position the new tower at the low end? Wouldn't it make more sense positioned as a 'prosumer' machine? Say with a 2.4 ghz conroe and a 2.6 ghz conroe one expansion slot and priced starting at say $1200 USD. (I know I've not put in all the specs)
post #1302 of 1658
"First we can probably agree that most mini sales will go to the new xMac $399-$1499 lineup. I padded the number by $100 to $499 rather than pick the $399 number."

And the margins and net profit on an xMac in this range would be better than the mini's(ie: cheaper cpu, cheaper/faster hard-drive)

I commend your attempts and numbers, but without meaningful data on the % sales of each model of iMac and Mac mini and what Apple's margins and net profits are on each model, we could argue these numbers endlessly and come to no real conclusions. uh, er, oh wait that is what we have been doing, nevermind, continue, your analysis is interesting.
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 #1303 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647

There are a lot of people in this thread that disagree with that. I personally feel a $1500 tower wouldn't be a cube all over again. It would be like the low end powermacs in the g3 and g4 days. Every powermac started at 1500. Not $2200. That is 700 more than the oldschoolers were used to buying low end powermacs. About every 2-3 years I was buying a new powermac. Actually this trend started with me in 1993 when I bought a powermac 6100 for 1500. Up until the dual 2.0 g5 I bought for 2k in 2004. Every mac I bought between those dates were towers and between 1500 and 2000. These were well selling machines. All of this seemed to change with the switch to IBM... the 1500 dollar tower seemed to disappear! Why? Probably because the cpu's skyrocketed in price. That is about all I can think of. Or apple wanted more profit?

I agree with you 100% The last Mac desktop I bought was a Blue and White G3. Best Computer I've ever owned by far. Nothing that Apple's made since has been able to live up to it for the equivalent price. I've owned all in ones before I've used iMacs before and quite frankly the experience wasn't so great. For novices or light duty users the iMac is a great machine. The problem is that there is more to the computer industry than novices or professionals. Apple has nothing in between, so I'm stuck with a laptop for the light duty stuff and a PC doing the heavy lifting.
post #1304 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

Vinea,

I know I'm a bit late to the discussion but why position the new tower at the low end? Wouldn't it make more sense positioned as a 'prosumer' machine? Say with a 2.4 ghz conroe and a 2.6 ghz conroe one expansion slot and priced starting at say $1200 USD. (I know I've not put in all the specs)

That's what I'm kinda calling for, except for foregoing the extra engineering costs and using the Mac Pro case. The novices are well covered.
post #1305 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Sure. Why not. The only caveat I've had with that is that it's a lot simpler for Apple to simply remove a Woodcrest than build a new MB and Conroe line. Plus they get to maintain their server part volume if not increase it a bit.

Other than the FB-DIMM slowdown a single 3Ghz Woodcrest isn't a shabby machine...

Vinea

Yes, it's a great machine, but $3300 is about double of what I'm willing to spend.
post #1306 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

"First we can probably agree that most mini sales will go to the new xMac $399-$1499 lineup. I padded the number by $100 to $499 rather than pick the $399 number."

And the margins and net profit on an xMac in this range would be better than the mini's(ie: cheaper cpu, cheaper/faster hard-drive)

No, using Mr. H's model (as I understand it anyway) Apple maintains the 28% margins and simply moves prices down accordingly to gain share. I can pretty much be safe in assuming that Dell/HP/et al AREN'T making 28% margins in this price category.

Quote:
I commend your attempts and numbers, but without meaningful data on the % sales of each model of iMac and Mac mini and what Apple's margins and net profits are on each model, we could argue these numbers endlessly and come to no real conclusions. uh, er, oh wait that is what we have been doing, nevermind, continue, your analysis is interesting.

Like I said, its a rough analysis. Lies, damn lies and market projections...you can make those look like anything.

Heck, if you put growth rate at 50% it's an instant no brainer. Make that spreadsheet as favorable to Mr. H as you like.

Here's the rub...we have lousy visibility into these numbers. Apple has much better visbility and much better models than simple multiplication in a spreadsheet. Its easy to show that if you can sustain X+1% growth its a no brainer long term over X% growth.

Yet Apple doesn't do this. Why? Because they like leaving $2B on the table? That can't be the right answer. They're timid? Doesn't seem that way. Steve Jobs/Apple is too idealistic to do real man's business (the Michael Dell theory)? Um. Perhaps partially...but Dell is eating them words today. Market projections of rapid growth in a mature market against entrenched market leaders is risky risky business? Bingo.

Vinea
post #1307 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Yes, it's a great machine, but $3300 is about double of what I'm willing to spend.

Eh...a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box from Dell is $2K. By Q2 with the quad cores in full swing you might get a 3Ghz for that or less with the 2.66 Ghz hopefully down to that $1700 price point. Meh...we'd have to see Intel's speed roadmap for 2007-8 to guess when the price drops would be.

Vinea
post #1308 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

Vinea,

I know I'm a bit late to the discussion but why position the new tower at the low end? Wouldn't it make more sense positioned as a 'prosumer' machine? Say with a 2.4 ghz conroe and a 2.6 ghz conroe one expansion slot and priced starting at say $1200 USD. (I know I've not put in all the specs)

I guess that these machines lives in Mr. H's xMac line up at those price points so the "why not" is covered in those long winded analysis above.

The short version is I think iMacs get trashed and the average unit price takes a dip unless you can make it up in monitor sales leading to keeping the same margins but Apple making less profit overall.

The primary advantage in the low end Pro is a) it meets the need a little better for those that want a tower but don't want to spend $2K+ and b) Intel discounts on volume and keeping to the more expensive Xeons keeps your volume up a bit for better discounts while still offering a $1600-$1700 machine.

Vinea
post #1309 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Eh...a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box from Dell is $2K. By Q2 with the quad cores in full swing you might get a 3Ghz for that or less with the 2.66 Ghz hopefully down to that $1700 price point. Meh...we'd have to see Intel's speed roadmap for 2007-8 to guess when the price drops would be.

Vinea

I configured two dell workstations, the 390 and the 490, with the exact same same set up single 2.66ghz CPU with 1GB 667mhz RAM, a 250 GB hard drive, 16x DVD-burner and the low end video card.

The Xeon based 490 came in at $2227
The C2D based 390 came in at $1742

An approximately $500 difference for a second CPU slot, workstation motherboard, and extra 8GB of ram which would be of no use to a prosumer. If you want the Xeon name, Conroe is also available as the Xeon 3000 series.
post #1310 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy


And if I were your average switcher looking to get a Mac, I would see the iMac that looks cooler and has a monitor for only $75 more and NOT buy the tower.

I'd like to add a comment to my first reply. I was focused on component cost for the 17 inch LCD panel and was ignoring the added assembly and testing costs associated with the iMac display. I now think the "equal dollar profit" price of a mini tower would be closer to $100, not $75. It's a minor point, but a tower could sell for $1099 as opposed to the $1199 iMac, with comparable specifications.

post #1311 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H


Indeed I haven't. Neither you nor anyone else said anything to convince me that [$399 to $799 towers] would cannibalise sales of the iMac any more significantly than the current Mac Mini.

I agree, and it seems obvious. Mac users can purchase the Mac Mini right now, so we know the market split between the Mini and iMac, or at least Apple has these figures. Why would a little tower with almost identical specifications and performance change anything? I am assuming the cheap tower, being cheaper, would replace the Mac Mini.

Now the only real marketing difference I see is that a little tower might be more attractive to switchers, but those would mostly be additional sales, not sales taken away from the iMac.



Quote:

I have already suggested that my proposal would impact negatively on revenue and earnings for the first year or so, but in a minor fashion, and then start to impact positively.

I don't think there would be any negative impact. To the contrary, attracting more switchers could only be a positive impact. Unless of course you are suggesting a lower profit. Personally, I'd go for the same dollar profit strategy here, even if it mean raising the $399 starting point.

I have a few observations here. First, I had been proposing a redesigned, larger Mac Mini for the entry level, using standard drives and CPUs to keep cost down. Yet, the tower concept is appealing to me also.

I do not believe your low-end tower should be anything like the mid range prosumer tower we have discussed in this thread. I now see this prosumer version starting at $1099, going up to about $1999, for typical upgrades in CPU, graphics card, HDD capacity, second HDD, and RAM. The case and power supply for this model would cost more than necessary for an entry level box.

I sort of like the idea of a micro tower, maybe no more than 8 inches high. The case could be a strong white plastic, and it may be restricted to just one PCI-e card. Apples industrial design team could come with a beautiful design on this I think, though it would lack the 'class' of the prosumer tower.

Basically, the micro tower would have integrated graphics, which could be upgraded with the PCI-e slot, if it is not used for something else. The power supply need not equal the prosumer tower supply, with only one slot on board. I may differ with you in that I suggest a desktop CPU over laptop, to keep cost down. With the tower configuration, there should be no problem cooling the lower performance CPUs.

post #1312 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

I configured two dell workstations, the 390 and the 490, with the exact same same set up single 2.66ghz CPU with 1GB 667mhz RAM, a 250 GB hard drive, 16x DVD-burner and the low end video card.

The Xeon based 490 came in at $2227
The C2D based 390 came in at $1742

An approximately $500 difference for a second CPU slot, workstation motherboard, and extra 8GB of ram which would be of no use to a prosumer. If you want the Xeon name, Conroe is also available as the Xeon 3000 series.

Wierd...mine came out to $2,348 and $1723 with those specs. Mmmm...difference business segment? I must have picked something different. I didn't bump the disk drives when I had that closer to $2,0xx number.

Anyway, yes a Conroe would be cheaper. And I've got no objections to the notion that Apple could offer a $1699 E6700 machine.

The caveat is the for whatever reason Apple's 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box is a better deal by $400 than you can get at Dell and the BTO pricing moving up and down don't seem to match Intel's price list. Still, $2027 > $1742 even if you give Apple a magical $200 price break.

The other minor point is that Dell sells a lot of Conroe boxes. I'm going to guess they will pay less than Apple for the E6700. There's no way Apple gets the same volume discount.

Vinea
post #1313 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

I sort of like the idea of a micro tower, maybe no more than 8 inches high.

And 8 inches wide and deep? Its called a Cube. Sell it for $1499 with a 2.33 Merom, GMA X3000, 250GB HD, wireless, bluetooth, remote and a single 16x PCIe slot and it should be a winner. A bit pricey but not nearly as bad as the original cube.

If you think its too pricey with a GMA toss in a mid range vid card and allow folks the BTO that away.

Vinea
post #1314 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea


Apple is rumored to be doing some AMD chips. That seems silly to me unless the Intel supply hiccup is more than a temporary glitch but you can do a AMD X2 for cheap...within the $399 pricepoint (Dell's slim tower C521 is a AMD64 X2 3200 for $371). That's not too shabby a machine...probably as good as the current low end minis when you factor in the faster desktop drive performance.


Vinea

What about a MAC PRO GAMER
AMD 4x4 system
High end video
SLI with 2-4 video cards AMD 4x4 can use 4 video cards at x16 x8 x16 x8 as A BTO
High end sound blaster XFI
Hard ware SATA II Raid card in on of the pci-e slots as A BTO?
DESKTOP RAM Up to 4 gig / 8 gig?
4 gig-e ports with hardware offloading and teaming are part chip set for AMD 4X4
post #1315 of 1658
I just want to restate the bulk price of the CPUs we're talking about:
MEROM- - -CONROE
1.66 $209 - 1.86 $183
1.83 $241 - 2.13 $224
2.00 $294 - 2.40 $316
2.16 $423 - 2.66 $530
2.33 $637 - 2.93 $999 or quad 2.66 $999
- - - - - - - future quad 2.40 $851

You can see that Conroe is cheaper than Merom at any speed.
And there are no mobile GMA X3000 yet (will come with Santa Rosa...). So no Merom with GMA3000.
The choice today if between a 945 motherboard (Yonah/Merom) or a 965/975 motherboard (Conroe/Kentsfield).
If the enclosure is big enough to passively cool a Conroe, it would certainly be a better choice, faster for the same price, and a faster FSB too (667 vs 1066).
Whatever enclosure would be chosen, cube or small tower, it would cost less than any iMac enclosure+display. And to simpify the comparaisons, lets say other components cost the same...

I believe we would have the following battles:
17" 1.83 iMac vs 2.13 xMac $999 (512MB RAM, Combo, GMA, etc...) -$17 on the CPU
17" 2.00 iMac vs 2.40 xMac $1199 (1GB RAM, Superdrive, GMA, etc...) +$22 on the CPU, but GMA vs X1600 GPU
20" 2.16 iMac vs 2.66 xMac $1499 (1GB RAM, Superdrive, 7300GT, etc...) +$107 on the CPU but cost of 20" LCD vs 17" LCD
24" 2.16 iMac vs 2.93 xMac or quad 2.66 xMac $1999 (the same) +$576 on the CPU, but cost of 24" LCD...

So for the same price you could have:
- a faster computer without display,
or
- a slower but very good looking and silent all-in-one.

Have a display, need/want room for expansion... buy a xMac.
You just need a computer with everything inside... buy an iMac.

And if you bundle the 2.13 xMac with a 20" Apple display, it will cost $1698 which is more than the 20" iMac.
And if you bundle it with a real cheap 17" display (ViewSonic VA702SB Silver-Black $169), it will cost already $1168, for $31 more you can have the 2.00GHz 17" iMac...
I didn't used the 1.86 Conroe because it is only $41 cheaper than the 2.13 version.
And the future quad 2.40 could use the sweet $1799 spot.

I think this would please both the iMac lovers and the xMac fanatics.

?
post #1316 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

What about a MAC PRO GAMER
AMD 4x4 system
High end video
SLI with 2-4 video cards AMD 4x4 can use 4 video cards at x16 x8 x16 x8 as A BTO
High end sound blaster XFI
Hard ware SATA II Raid card in on of the pci-e slots as A BTO?
DESKTOP RAM Up to 4 gig / 8 gig?
4 gig-e ports with hardware offloading and teaming are part chip set for AMD 4X4

Not sure how much you're keeping up on the Quad SLI, but all tests so far have rendered NO increase in performance. Refer to Maximum PC last month. They weren't sure if it was a driver issue or a software issue or a hardware issue. But they were pretty underwhelmed.

I really don't know how often mac users will even use SLI. I can see 3d developers use it. And the gamers that use windows on their macs. Also I see absolutely no reason to go with AMD over intel. The cpu's are about the same price yet intel stomps on amd in performance. AMD x2 5000+ is about the same price as the e6600. Why would apple want to kill their quantity discount with intel in order to have a weaker desktop? BTW this is coming from an ex-amd fan. The sound card is interesting. I do think apple needs a better sound processor. Realtek just doesn't cut it.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #1317 of 1658
mjteix,

I agree.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #1318 of 1658
Quote:
You can see that Conroe is cheaper than Merom at any speed.

No they are not. The 2.66 and 2.93 Conroe is more expensive than all Merom choices.

The xMac should roughly be here:
2.4GHz Conroe for $1249
2.66 Ghz Conroe at $1699
2.93 Ghz Conroe at $2499

They need to sit between the iMac and MacPro.
post #1319 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell


The xMac should roughly be here:
2.4GHz Conroe for $1249 , , ,

Very close to my choice, which should keep the dollar profit on the xMac the same as the iMac. Sell a 2.13 GHz Conroe xMac for $1099.

post #1320 of 1658
I think 1249 is a cool price.... but I want to go on record and say I'd pay up to 1600 for such an animal.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?