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 36

post #1401 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

A simple "okay" would have been sufficient.

Again, your article didn't support the points you were making. If you don't like people pointing that out, then find the right articles that support your point the first time instead of getting offended.

Quote:
There was a long drawn out argument about whether or not $999 really satisfied the under $1000 price tag. I don't care either way except to say that $1300 is clearly above $1000 and far above the $699 machine you listed.

There was?! I never heard of that - "under $X" is pretty much standard parlance for describing just about any product that cost $X - $1 (or $X - $0.01). If a product is $19.99, then it's "under 20 dollars!" even though after sales tax, it'd be slightly over. It's maybe a bit silly, but that's the way it's always been.

And for the last time, the iMac competed with the under $1000 machines because it included a monitor, which some $999 machines didn't. One of the articles I quoted said so.

One thing I really hate is having to repeat the same thing over, and over, and over...

Quote:
Fine I was wrong. I do seem to recall that the discussion was about the iMac being the cheapest ever but perhaps I recall incorrectly.

Well, you never would have heard that argument from me, at least, because the Performa 410 back in 1993 was cheaper than the iMac, and so were certain members of the UMAX C500 series back in the clone era (I think I pointed the latter out a few times in this thread, in fact). It was the cheapest at the time it came out, though, by far, and it was also the cheapest machine from Apple in recent memory.

Quote:
No the basis of my argument is that your assertion that $500 computers did not exist in 1998 is wrong and the only evidence was that you presented were articles that were incorrect.

And I retracted that argument, which was based on only one of my articles. You do seem to like to keep dwelling on it, though.

Quote:
And I didn't make up the $750 number either. So what? Doesn't make either of us any less wrong about a point of fact.

You were the one trying to make some sort of distinction there. I was replying to "you don't have the excuse that a historical site got it wrong." I had an article, rather than a web site, but you decided to accuse me of making it up and/or lying. I don't appreciate that.

Quote:
Probably because you'd rather deal with the personalities of this argument now that your factual position has been shown incorrect.

One part of the argument, which wasn't even a main point. You still haven't convinced me that the iMac was in the upper range of the consumer market (which is what the prosumer market is, fyi), or that the market hasn't changed a bit since 1998.

Quote:
Strawman. I've never claimed that the mini was low end even at $499.

You were claiming that $500 was the cut-off.

Quote:
It does fit into that under $500 price category by a dollar but again, there was an argument about whether that counts.

There was?

Quote:
Again, I don't have an opinion either way but the lowest end is again $275-$300. Percentage wise the Mini is far above with less capability.

Funny how "under-$500" was the low-end until I pointed out a Mac that was under $500, and now that's not enough anymore. So in order to qualify for the low-end segment of the market, the machine must be equal in price to the absolute lowest product in that segment of the market?

What about a $450 Dell? Is that not a low-end machine? After all, it's under $500, but only by $50! What would you call it?

What about a $400 Dell? It's well under $500, but still more than your $300 machines! Is it not low-end?

Taking the cheapest Dell, the $360 one, and adding the most basic service plan that they offer (which includes such luxuries as 30-day telephone support) brings the total to $587. Does that suddenly make it not a low-end machine?

What happens if you take one of your $300 machines and custom-configure it to add features like some more RAM, a bigger hard drive, XP Pro instead of XP Home, or whatever and bump the price to $501? Does that magically transform it into a different class of machine?

Do you understand that these classifications are subjective?

For the record, I agree that the mini is overpriced. Doesn't make it not a low-end machine, though. Look at the parts it's made of. Look at the audience it's targeted against. Look at what it's intended to be used for. It's a low-end machine, for people who'd like a low-end machine but are willing to pay a little extra for a better OS (after all, even Dell's cheapest machine, at $360, becomes $510 if you go with XP Pro).

Quote:
Doesn't matter. They wanted to drop it below $800 I believe but realized there was simply no competing in a sub-$500 entry market or even the sub-$1000 value market. Again $999 does not compete well with $699.

Apparently it did compete well - the original iMac was a huge seller for a really long time. Again, for quite a few months it was the highest selling desktop model on the entire market.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1402 of 1658
The additional $100 added to the mini price wasn't only to increase its margin or due to increased cost of goods sold - it was to make the jump to the iMac shorter. That is the purpose of the mini in the first place.

Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.

That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1403 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

The additional $100 added to the mini price wasn't only to increase its margin or due to increased cost of goods sold - it was to make the jump to the iMac shorter. That is the purpose of the mini in the first place.

Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.

That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.

If that were true, iMacs would be selling like hot cakes. The truth is that while Mac laptops are selling very well, desktop switchers are taking a look at our options and deciding to stick with their PCs most of the time. The iMac doesn't give them what they want and the Mac Pro is way too expensive. What you may consider a deal maker or a small thing you you can live with, someone who has different wants may consider it a deal breaker. Computers aren't one size fits all.
post #1404 of 1658
Quote:
Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.

I agree but they should offer it anyway.

Quote:
desktop switchers are taking a look at our options and deciding to stick with their PCs most of the time. The iMac doesn't give them what they want and the Mac Pro is way too expensive.

Can you cite any market research that supports this?

Quote:
"Not surprisingly, the iMac and Macbook were mentioned most often (mentioned by 70 percent and 65 percent, respectively) as the best selling Macs so far this quarter," the analyst wrote.

This is the report from Apple retail channels.
post #1405 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

The additional $100 added to the mini price wasn't only to increase its margin or due to increased cost of goods sold - it was to make the jump to the iMac shorter. That is the purpose of the mini in the first place.

Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.

That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.

That depends on what is powering the xMac.
If it's a Merom chip, OK nothing to see here, move on.
But if it is a Conroe/Kentsfield, with a mid-range motherboard/chipset, upgradable graphics card, and everything a mid-range desktop computer could offer... I think it would be more attractive to some user than the current iMacs. I'll take a 2.13GHz Conroe-based xMac with a 7300GT video card and some room for expansion over any 2.16GHz Merom-based iMac.

The more I look at what's possible in the desktop and workstation area, the more I think Apple should really split the Mac Pro line in two, with a desktop line of single CPU models (Conroe/Kentsfield and later next year Wolfdale/Yorkfield) and a workstation line of dual CPUs models (Woodcrest/Clovertown).
- single CPU models, dual or quad core starting at $1499,
- dual CPUs models, dual dual-core or dual quad-core starting at $2499.

About the Mac mini, I don't think Apple choose to make a computer available just so that you'll buy a more expensive one. They choose to make a really small yet powerful and complete computer, the component and size choices make it not that affordable vs. the 17" iMac. I think it has been Apple's mistake, if they had make it just a little bigger and with standard components (mostly the hard drive), it would still be priced at $499 today.
post #1406 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix

That depends on what is powering the xMac.
If it's a Merom chip, OK nothing to see here, move on.
But if it is a Conroe/Kentsfield, with a mid-range motherboard/chipset, upgradable graphics card, and everything a mid-range desktop computer could offer... I think it would be more attractive to some user

some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.
Quote:
than the current iMacs. I'll take a 2.13GHz Conroe-based xMac with a 7300GT video card and some room for expansion over any 2.16GHz Merom-based iMac.

Yes, you would and I would (I have always bought Mac towers). Apple's research on the Mac II showed that more than 90% of owners never added a NuBus card. And that is even less likely today with everything on the mobo already.
Quote:
The more I look at what's possible in the desktop and workstation area, the more I think Apple should really split the Mac Pro line in two, with a desktop line of single CPU models (Conroe/Kentsfield and later next year Wolfdale/Yorkfield) and a workstation line of dual CPUs models (Woodcrest/Clovertown).
- single CPU models, dual or quad core starting at $1499,

I'm just sayin', at that price only the geeks will buy it, as the regular consumer will compare the iMac and see the 20" monitor for the same price. Dual-core? check. DVD/ethernet/wireless/bluetooth/FireWIre/USB/? Check. Remote? Hmmm... Same price but with a 20" LCD? Hmmmm....
Quote:
About the Mac mini, I don't think Apple choose to make a computer available just so that you'll buy a more expensive one.

That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.
Quote:
They choose to make a really small yet powerful and complete computer, the component and size choices make it not that affordable vs. the 17" iMac. I think it has been Apple's mistake, if they had make it just a little bigger and with standard components (mostly the hard drive), it would still be priced at $499 today.

Maybe it could be, but that is too far away from the iMac to generate a sell-up. Plus, as discussed, Apple buys so many laptop drives that as far as we know they may be cheaper for them than desktop drives.

Any sales or marketing textbook will tell you that selling price has virtually nothing to do with cost, as long as margins are made. Selling price is designed to generate sell-up and prevent cannibalization of higher margin products.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1407 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Can you cite any market research that supports this?

Almost every potential switcher I talk to.
post #1408 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.

Any market research to back that up? And the cost of PCI slots is inconsequential, standard practice on almost all motherboards made. It also gives the manufacturer the ability to sell virtually the same machine at many price points to attract a broad range of consumers..

Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

Yes, you would and I would (I have always bought Mac towers). Apple's research on the Mac II showed that more than 90% of owners never added a NuBus card. And that is even less likely today with everything on the mobo already.

NuBus was expensive and not the standard of the industry. There are hundreds of thousands of upgrade cards sold for video, USB 2 upgrades, Firewire upgrades, wireless router upgrades. Anyone who doesn't see this is in denial. When Apple introduces iTV and my G5 iMac is incompatible, what am I to do? Virtually every PC user that bought a $500 Gateway will be able to pop in a new inexpensive wireless card and they will be good to go, me be screwed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

I'm just sayin', at that price only the geeks will buy it, as the regular consumer will compare the iMac and see the 20" monitor for the same price. Dual-core? check. DVD/ethernet/wireless/bluetooth/FireWIre/USB/? Check. Remote? Hmmm... Same price but with a 20" LCD? Hmmmm....

$1499 is way to high a starting price point for the mythical xMac.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.

Maybe it could be, but that is too far away from the iMac to generate a sell-up. Plus, as discussed, Apple buys so many laptop drives that as far as we know they may be cheaper for them than desktop drives.

Actually, I don't think the mini Mac exists solely to bait and switch. It is a good machine for its' target market. But using your argument then --- Great, every one does it so it makes it a good ethical practice. In the long run, trying to pull the wool over your customers eyes is a bad practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

Any sales or marketing textbook will tell you that selling price has virtually nothing to do with cost, as long as margins are made. Selling price is designed to generate sell-up and prevent cannibalization of higher margin products.

Again, great..... Our centers of higher education are teaching the youth and hope for a better future to be hucksters and flim-flam artists.
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 #1409 of 1658
Quote:
Almost every potential switcher I talk to.

Not really considered reprentative market research.


Quote:
some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.
Any market research to back that up?

Yes, the far majority of computer purchases are for sub $1000 machines with integrated graphics.

Quote:
Our centers of higher education are teaching the youth and hope for a better future to be hucksters and flim-flam artists

You actually thought business is an honest profession?
post #1410 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

..
You actually thought business is an honest profession?

Not since Harvard introduced the MBA program during the 40's. And what I think is irrelevant concerning the ethics taught in business schools. Planned obsolescence, bait and switch, hidden costs are still not ethical. In the long term these tactics cost the companies. Perfect example is the American Auto industry with its' planned obsolescence.

edit spelling
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 #1411 of 1658
Quote:
Any market research to back that up?

I assume Apple does tons of market research - they always have. If that research showed "expandability" at the top of the list of wanted features, you can bet the products would have expandability.

Better to ask: is there any market research to "back up" the claim by "expandability advocates" that it is a highly-desired feature by anyone except computer geeks like us?
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1412 of 1658
I see nothing unethical about offering a low-priced product and a better product for a few hundred more.

This is not "bait and switch" - that phrase refers to advertising a product that does not exist, and then switching the customer to the real product.

The Mac mini exists and customers may purchase it if they wish. There is no deception going on here - just simple marketing strategy.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1413 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

I assume Apple does tons of market research - they always have. If that research showed "expandability" at the top of the list of wanted features, you can bet the products would have expandability.

Better to ask: is there any market research to "back up" the claim by "expandability advocates" that it is a highly-desired feature by anyone except computer geeks like us?


Market research is useless without demographics. It makes a big difference depending on who was asked. If Apple just asked the Mac faithful, expandability would probably not be too high on the list. Design and the Apple logo are more important than speed and expandability to that crowd. As the PC crowd and you'll get different answers. Apple's desktops are fine if they want to hold on to what they have. However, unlike laptops, the Mac desktop userbase isn't getting any bigger.
post #1414 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

I see nothing unethical about offering a low-priced product and a better product for a few hundred more.

This is not "bait and switch" - that phrase refers to advertising a product that does not exist, and then switching the customer to the real product.

The Mac mini exists and customers may purchase it if they wish. There is no deception going on here - just simple marketing strategy.

http://www.investorwords.com/389/bait_and_switch.html
Definition
Bait and Switch
An illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product.


lundy

Maybe I misused the term bait and switch. But

here is your statement I was responding to:
Quote:
That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.

and here is my response:
Quote:
Actually, I don't think the mini Mac exists solely to bait and switch. It is a good machine for its' target market. But using your argument then --- Great, every one does it so it makes it a good ethical practice. In the long run, trying to pull the wool over your customers eyes is a bad practice.

I actually don't buy into the argument that the mini Mac exists soley or even primarily to [strike]bait and switch[/strike] entice consumers into the store only to be sold into buying a higher priced iMac. And yes your statement implies unethical behavior by Apple.

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 #1415 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Market research is useless without demographics. It makes a big difference depending on who was asked. If Apple just asked the Mac faithful, expandability would probably not be too high on the list. Design and the Apple logo are more important than speed and expandability to that crowd. As the PC crowd and you'll get different answers. Apple's desktops are fine if they want to hold on to what they have. However, unlike laptops, the Mac desktop userbase isn't getting any bigger.

You sincerely believe that Apple spends millions on incompetent research?

Of course they get an even sample of all potential customers.
post #1416 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

You sincerely believe that Apple spends millions on incompetent research?

Of course they get an even sample of all potential customers.

I believe Apple has a tendency to see everything how it thinks it should be rather than it is.
post #1417 of 1658
Does anyone actually have any example of this "market research," any links, or any evidence at all, or is this just an argument that Apple's a really big company, so they must be doing this really excellent market research?
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #1418 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Does anyone actually have any example of this "market research," any links, or any evidence at all, or is this just an argument that Apple's a really big company, so they must be doing this really excellent market research?

Most recently I saw this article @ itwire.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7425/52/

However, earlier I did say, "I don't have evidence, but in more than one of these threads here and at other websites it has been postulated that Apple does not do significant amounts of market research. I could be wrong here, no real evidence."
here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=491
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 #1419 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

is this just an argument that Apple's a really big company, so they must be doing this really excellent market research?

That's actually a very good argument. The problems with really big companies coming out with crap products is never do to a lack of market research, it's due to the unwillingness of execs to act on what the research shows.
post #1420 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Citing preliminary data from market research firm IDC, an analyst for PiperJaffray said Thursday that Apple's share of the personal computer market fell to 2.4 percent during the three-month period ending December, down from a 2.8 percent share two quarters earlier.

"While Apple gained share year-over-year (from 2.1 percent to 2.4 percent), it lost share sequentially," analyst Gene Munster wrote in a note to clients. "Mac market share is generally higher in September quarters, due to strong education-related sales."


Is it time to dust off this old thread? APPL stock is down, evidently due to low sales of Macs. Record profits and outstanding iPod sales didn't keep the stock from sliding. Evidently people want something other than a laptop, Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro. Got any suggestions?

post #1421 of 1658
LOL good point snoopy!

 

 

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 #1422 of 1658
Yeah, put a 1.6 ghz core duo in the mini and price it a $499. Keep the other models. Cheap sells in this country.
post #1423 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Is it time to dust off this old thread? APPL stock is down, evidently due to low sales of Macs. Record profits and outstanding iPod sales didn't keep the stock from sliding. Evidently people want something other than a laptop, Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro. Got any suggestions?


Yes, because the usual profit taking and Apple at 90+ means Apple dropped the ball on its product line.

The fact that Apple changed its name from Apple computers makes it even LESS likely you'll ever see a new tower much less a cheap one. Did you notice the complete lack of ANY Mac talk after the first 4 minutes 43 seconds of the keynote at MacWorld?

They sold 800K macs to new mac users...yes, they truly f'up the Apple product line.

New Mac models are going to be geared toward home media center integration. That MIGHT mean a tower with a bunch of drives but I really doubt it. Probably a new Mini and a Cube sized NAS.

Vinea
post #1424 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Yeah, put a 1.6 ghz core duo in the mini and price it a $499. Keep the other models. Cheap sells in this country.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Celeron-M 420 based retail only value series consisting of a Mac Mini, an iMac, and a Macbook.
post #1425 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Apple dropped slightly to fifth place in rankings of US computer sales during the fourth quarter of 2006, according to preliminary Gartner data obtained by AppleInsider.

The Mac maker dropped a full percentage point to 5.1 percent of the domestic market between the third and fourth quarters of the year, trading places with Toshiba, which climbed from 5.1 to 5.3 percent. Apple remained out of the top five in the world rankings, but a similar set of data released by IDC on Wednesday puts its international share at 2.4 percent.


Since Apple laptop sales have been very good lately, it is safe to assume that the slump in market share is due to low sales of desktop Macs, specifically the Mac Mini and iMac, since the Mac Pro is in a workstation class of computers.

Apple surely has market data showing the type of PC that business and most consumers buy today. Why Apple does not act on their own data is a mystery to me. I'm not suggesting that Apple copy the Windows market, but must be close enough to satisfy the desires of potential customers. It seems to me that the Mac Mini and iMac currently appeal to niche markets. It's possible that their popularity will increase, but Apple can't afford to wait that long if it wants better market performance.

Some say the desktop market is drying up, that the move is to laptops. "Keep you eye on where the puck is going, not where it has been, bla bla bla." Cute sayings don't change the facts. The desktop market is huge and will not go away anytime soon.

Another saying is that low end desktops computers are a loss leader, a money sink. This need not be the case for an Apple product. The Mac Mini produces a profit for Apple, but simply does not sell well enough. Change the Mini or make a second model low end Mac to sell along side it.

I don't believe the entire engineering staff at Apple is tied up with new consumer goodies like iPhones right now. A pretty small team could come up with some Mac desktops that sell well: a low end Mac and prosumer mini tower. Apple needs both.

post #1426 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Since Apple laptop sales have been very good lately, it is safe to assume that the slump in market share is due to low sales of desktop Macs, specifically the Mac Mini and iMac, since the Mac Pro is in a workstation class of computers.

Actually Mac Pro sales were soft and attributed to lack of universal CS suite. I don't disagree with your desire for Apple to increase it's consumer offerings. I wish they'd make the mini a litle bigger and use desktop parts so that they can offer it at a lower price. The mini is just to expensive IMO.
post #1427 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Actually Mac Pro sales were soft and attributed to lack of universal CS suite. I don't disagree with your desire for Apple to increase it's consumer offerings. I wish they'd make the mini a litle bigger and use desktop parts so that they can offer it at a lower price. The mini is just to expensive IMO.

Is there any evidence that "laptop parts" cost Apple more than "desktop parts"? Given the enormous number of "laptop parts" that they purchase, that may not be a valid assumption.

What's the absolute cheapest Dell desktop computer, not counting rebates/specials/sales/etc ?
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1428 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Apple surely has market data showing the type of PC that business and most consumers buy today. Why Apple does not act on their own data is a mystery to me.

They do act on that data. Everyone and their mother is only interested in laptops.
post #1429 of 1658
That's not true at all. Laptops are great and have their purpose. But there will always be a need for desktop computers (and not just in the workplace, but in home as well). I've been doing my work off of a powerbook and 20" widescreen for the last year and it's killing me. Course I need dual 20" to be happy. Older people will always need desktops. With most of their eye sight and back problems, looking down at a smaller screen isn't optimal. Desktops will never completely go away.

 

 

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 #1430 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Is there any evidence that "laptop parts" cost Apple more than "desktop parts"? Given the enormous number of "laptop parts" that they purchase, that may not be a valid assumption.

What's the absolute cheapest Dell desktop computer, not counting rebates/specials/sales/etc ?

I did assume that desktop parts are more expensive. That's pretty commonly assumed. I don't mean to pick a fight, but do you have any evidence to suggest that laptop parts are the same cost or cheaper? I think that the base model mini should come in a $499. I think thats a psychological price point, but it's just my opinion.
post #1431 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Is it time to dust off this old thread? APPL stock is down, evidently due to low sales of Macs. Record profits and outstanding iPod sales didn't keep the stock from sliding. Evidently people want something other than a laptop, Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro. Got any suggestions?


I don't think the drop has much to do with its' computer sales. If I were a betting man, I'd place my bet on #1 the guidance for the upcoming quarter, #2 profit taking.

Oh wait, I am a betting man, I sold my stock anticipating the downturn.
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 #1432 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Is there any evidence that "laptop parts" cost Apple more than "desktop parts"? Given the enormous number of "laptop parts" that they purchase, that may not be a valid assumption.

What's the absolute cheapest Dell desktop computer, not counting rebates/specials/sales/etc ?

First, HP and Dell each sell more 945GM/PM chipsets than apple, so they can't be getting that big of a discount. Second these are the prices at similar speeds.

1.87ghz E6300 $183/ 1.83ghz T5600 $241
2.13ghz E6400 $224/ 2.17ghz T7400 $423
2.4ghz E6600 $316/ 2.3ghz T7600 $637

Seeing that the last two are close to double the price of their desktop equivalents, I think it's safe to say that unless Intel is giving Apple laptop parts basically at cost, they're paying more for laptop parts.
post #1433 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

First, HP and Dell each sell more 945GM/PM chipsets than apple, so they can't be getting that big of a discount. Second these are the prices at similar speeds.

1.87ghz E6300 $183/ 1.83ghz T5600 $241
2.13ghz E6400 $224/ 2.17ghz T7400 $423
2.4ghz E6600 $316/ 2.3ghz T7600 $637

Seeing that the last two are close to double the price of their desktop equivalents, I think it's safe to say that unless Intel is giving Apple laptop parts basically at cost, they're paying more for laptop parts.

Though I agree with your main point, I'd like to point out that we have no idea how much apple gets their supplies from intel compared to other companies. The exclusive move to intel could have something in the contract promising the same prices as their competitors. Unless I missed the contract somewhere.

 

 

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 #1434 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Though I agree with your main point, I'd like to point out that we have no idea how much apple gets their supplies from intel compared to other companies. The exclusive move to intel could have something in the contract promising the same prices as their competitors. Unless I missed the contract somewhere.

Intel went on record some time ago (around the time that AMD started its anti-trust suit against them) that all of their customers get the same pricing, with discounts based on volume of chips bought.

i.e. If Dell and Apple both want 1,000,000 E6300s, they will be charged the same price as each other for those chips.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1435 of 1658
Well that's lame =). Apple makes intel look a lot better than Dell does

 

 

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 #1436 of 1658
OMG this thread is still going! 36 pages and over 1400 posts! Y'all are freaking NUTS!

Long live the Headless Mac thread!
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #1437 of 1658
Just Mac
---------------------------------------
E6700 65 nm 4MB L2 2.66 GHz 1066 MHz (upgrade option to quad core)
1 X 1 GB RAM (upgrade option to 4GB)
320 GB SATA 7.2K HDD (upgrade option to 500/750GB)
256 MB GPU
Super Drive

$1299

Half the tower of Mac Pro, some new cool form factor ...

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #1438 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn View Post

OMG this thread is still going! 36 pages and over 1400 posts! Y'all are freaking NUTS!

Long live the Headless Mac thread!

Nuts like a fox!

It just shows there is a big demand for this xMac. I won't bring up old stuff by repeating people... ..... ....... ......... yah I will..... there needs to be a middle headless machine between mac mini and mac pro. K everyone... ready set go

 

 

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 #1439 of 1658
After reading a few pages on this thread, I can see there are a some people who do want the 'xMac', but how many people are there in the PC buying world that want this? You have to do a cost analysis on this, as in if there is a significant profit to be made by producing the headless Mac. Example:

Say you have 100 people that want to buy a Mac. The 100 people are a ratio of the total people buying, (like 1 person would equal 10 people out of the 'real population' of 1000). 50 would like to buy the $1500 iMac and 50 want to buy a $3000 Mac Pro. We will also say that the product cost is 50% of the sale price, or $750 for the iMac and $1500 for the Mac Pro. If the xMac comes out at a even $1500 as well, with a cost of $700. It will really depend on how many want to buy.

if 10% will switch:
Original=(50*$1500+50*$3000)-(50*750+50*$1500)=$225,000-$112500=$112,500 profit
New=(45*$1500+45*$3000+10*1500)-(45*750+45*$1500+10*700)=$217,500-$108,250=$109,250 profit

if 20% will switch:

Original=(50*$1500+50*$3000)-(50*750+50*$1500)=$225,000-$112500=$112,500 profit
New=(40*$1500+40*$3000+20*1500)-(40*750+40*$1500+20*700)=$210,000-$104,000=$106,000 profit

Now these calculations are extremely simple to make a basic comparison that shows that by losing iMac customers to a xMac if it is similarly priced, but less costly, then the company will make more profit. However, the more customers that drop from the Mac Pro to the xMac will cause lower overall profit, especially if the cost to making the Mac Pro is not very high.

There is probably an entire finance department devoted to the case analysis of a xMac, once they find a way to not to lose profit, it will come . On the other hand, you can always turn your old Windows machine into a headless Mac, but it is not entirely legal. http://www.insanelymac.com, Steve Jobs even said to think different, sometimes you have to, to get what you want >_>.
"Did your house just explode?"

"Its the most fun in the park, when your laughing in the dark."

"You better watch yourself, or the Crimson Clown will get you."
Reply
"Did your house just explode?"

"Its the most fun in the park, when your laughing in the dark."

"You better watch yourself, or the Crimson Clown will get you."
Reply
post #1440 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShadowWolf View Post

After reading a few pages on this thread, I can see there are a some people who do want the 'xMac', but how many people are there in the PC buying world that want this?

Your post is basically providing a few numbers and a new angle on the cannibalisation argument that we agreed to drop several pages back, because people had agreed to disagree.

What your analysis fails to do is account for extra people that an xMac could attract to the platform - i.e. extra sales that don't take away from iMac sales or Mac Pro sales.

So the argument comes down to this:

Will an xMac attract enough new users to the platform to offset any cannibalisation that may occur in the installed user-base? Some people (like me), think yes it would, others, like Vinea, think no it wouldn't.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
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?