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 7

post #241 of 1658
<dons asbestos underwear>


Bloody heck, yall people are getting straight goofy! undenyable, irrefutable fact number one:

THE MARKET IS NOT A PIE

the concept of "Stealing Sales" is utter rubbish. Quit talking nonsense. To assume that sales could be stolen is to adopt an illogical and false postulate that there are a limited number of sales available in the first place. I mean COME ON, you can't limit the number of possible sales to ANY limiting factor. Not even the human population is a reasonable limit, since, as well all know, ANY French Poodle who is ANYBODY just HAS to have an iMac!

Seriously though, the concept of limited available sales is silly. Apple can NOT force consumers to buy the computers it sells. The economy works in the oposite way. The market dictates what any particular company will manufacture. PEOPLE DO NOT BUY WHAT THEY DON'T WANT. Yes, I'm aware of buyer's remorse.

There's nothing mystical or majikal about the iMac. It's just an innovative computer which has had great success in it's time. Just like any successful product. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF NOONE EVER BUYS ANOTHER IMAC, because, believe it or not, Apple IS capable of producing computers other than the iMac. iMac had a major part in Apple turning itself around a few years ago, and as a result, many of us have lost our grip on reality, and have begun to believe, "The iMac saved Apple!" rather than seeing the truth of, "Apple saved itself with iMac!"

ok, I could rant for much longer on this, but I don't feel like it, so

#include <rant.h>

And Chucker, you're clearly an intelligent person, and one who gives the world of technology a great deal of thought. Which is why I am absolutely flabbergasted by the imaturity and illogical nature of some of your posts.

So lets all try an exercise right now. Everyone must participate, or your left eyebrow will fall off. Here it is: Everone reflect on all the posts you have ever made, all the arguments you have ever presented. Good, now, in unison, everybody say with me,


"It's OK for me to be wrong!"


Ahhh, now wasn't that nice? Relieved a lot of stress I think.

Hopefully now we can get this thread back into the realm of DISCUSSION and away from 3rd grade arguments of, "Nuh uh! I didn't say it so it's not right, so there, PBBBBBBBBTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!"

<dives into foxhole>
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 #242 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

No, it'd be more like Ferrari making a hydrogen engine and not letting anyone else have it. In the end everyone loses except the oil companies (aka Microsoft).

It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.
post #243 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow

It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.

just a thought: hydrogen isn't really all that dangerous. Much safer, in some respects, when compared to gasoline. For example, what would happen in a fuel tank rupture + ignition?

Hydrogen: a jet of fire that goes out in one direction and, depending on the size of the hole, is very intense and goes out quickly, or is small and lasts a while. Hydrogen, being a light gas, will naturally rise toward the upper atmosphere.

Gasoline: fire EVERYWHERE. Gasoline is a liquid and will spread all over the place.

and yes, I've seen a video of it.

Perhapse hydrogen gets a bad rap as a dangerous materal because of the Hindenburg?

Also, remember that most (of what I've seen anyway) of the hopes for hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline involve fuel cell tech, not internal compustion engines. Here's another thing: The US Army is heavily researching fuel cell technology... as a power source for each individual soldier. That's right, a can o' hydrogen strapped to your butt, and a Darth Vader looking fuel cell strapped to your chest!

And, no, I have no sources to back that up. I AM the source.

*edit* dang it, I hate it when I post before I'm done thinking.

another example of hydrogen:

Lets say you have a tank of hydrogen under pressure. Now lets say that, for some bizzare reason, there is a small electronic device inside that tank which, when a button on the exerior of the tank is pressed, produces a spark.

Trackin?

Good. Now push the button.

















Nothing happened.
Why? because Hydrogen combusts by combining with oxygen in the air to create water: 2H2 + 02 -> 2H2O

In the absense of oxygen or any other potential reactants (which the tank material is not) no chemical reaction can take place, regardless of how hot the spark is. The perfect example of this is... The Sun! It's a giant ball of hydrogen (with innert, aka totally non-reactive, helium mixed in) whose temperature is in the millions of degrees, and yet NO COMBUSTION takes place. The sun produces heat and energy by nuclear fusion, which is not possible under eartly conditions. takes massive pressure and heat to make it happen. but I digress (hee hee, I've always wanted to say that!), the point is that there are massive ammounts of hydrogen at very high temperatures all in one place and it's not exploding, for the sole reason that there is nothing to make it explode. No oxygen (again, ignoring other possible reactants), no explosion.

Coincidentally, I think it would be really fun to ask Bill Nigh The Science Guy, "Why doesn't the sun explode?" Would be a great episode!
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 #244 of 1658
okay let's wrap things up: people buy a mac pro and quit crying, you're just angry it's too expensive. :P
post #245 of 1658


This is what I would like, and what some people here are talking about.

Specs:

One CPU, either Core Duo or Core 2 Duo, in the range of 2.0-2.4 GHz

Two standard disk bays with the same system as the Mac Pro, except stacked one over the other. They would plug in directly to the main board, which would be vertical on the inside right of the machine as seen from the front. (note the left side removable panel).

Two standard DIMMs.

One PCIe x16 slot, vertical towards the back with DVI plug facing the bottom. Not for full-size cards but mid-range single-width 3D cards would fit. About three grade levels ought to cover it.

The machine would cost between 1100 and 1500.

Apple is also missing a 17" monitor, which they could sell fairly overpriced (profitably), and people would buy anyway on aesthetic grounds. It could be bundled with this machine (as well as the 20" on the upper end).

Despite appearances this would NOT be a Cube. It would be more powerful and easier to upgrade disk and memory. It would be way less expandable than a Pro, yet a distinct step up from a Mini, with more desktop hardware, namely the disks, DIMMs and graphic card.

It would cut somewhat into the iMac, as well as the top end of the Mini, and the bottom of the Pro. But it would also add sales at a key price/performance point, particularly for Windows refugees who already own a really nice monitor or for whatever reason want a separate monitor without having to opt between the Mini's low-end graphics and the Pro's professional feature set.

As Apple grows market share, a more finely grained product mix is a no-brainer, and the engineering for this machine would be very simple indeed.
post #246 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

He said input not output.

And to answer his question, the reason there isn't one is because it would be expensive, and a feature that hardly anyone would use. You can get external Firewire solutions.

Could you tell me what this solution is ?I've Googled this and everything points to there being no solution.
post #247 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow

It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.

You might want to read the post in the figurative sense instead of literal. It was pick an alternative fuel engine and hydrogen was the first thing that came to mind.
post #248 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez



This is what I would like, and what some people here are talking about.

Specs:

One CPU, either Core Duo or Core 2 Duo, in the range of 2.0-2.4 GHz

Two standard disk bays with the same system as the Mac Pro, except stacked one over the other. They would plug in directly to the main board, which would be vertical on the inside right of the machine as seen from the front. (note the left side removable panel).

Two standard DIMMs.

One PCIe x16 slot, vertical towards the back with DVI plug facing the bottom. Not for full-size cards but mid-range single-width 3D cards would fit. About three grade levels ought to cover it.

The machine would cost between 1100 and 1500.

Apple is also missing a 17" monitor, which they could sell fairly overpriced (profitably), and people would buy anyway on aesthetic grounds. It could be bundled with this machine (as well as the 20" on the upper end).

Despite appearances this would NOT be a Cube. It would be more powerful and easier to upgrade disk and memory. It would be way less expandable than a Pro, yet a distinct step up from a Mini, with more desktop hardware, namely the disks, DIMMs and graphic card.

It would cut somewhat into the iMac, as well as the top end of the Mini, and the bottom of the Pro. But it would also add sales at a key price/performance point, particularly for Windows refugees who already own a really nice monitor or for whatever reason want a separate monitor without having to opt between the Mini's low-end graphics and the Pro's professional feature set.

As Apple grows market share, a more finely grained product mix is a no-brainer, and the engineering for this machine would be very simple indeed.

I like.
post #249 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Now true, it might be an image issue if the Apple mid-tower cost more than a Dell mid-tower, but 1) Apple seems to have shown that they can compete with Dell with the Mac Pro at least, and 2) there's already an image issue, because switchers are going to compare what Apple would give them to what they could get from Dell, and currently for a mid-range desktop user that'll be about $1000 vs. $2124. No contest.

Apple competes with Dell on price only in those segments that are profitable. That they can sell a workstation that is price competitive simply means those models have the largest margins in the industry.

Likewise with notebooks. Both MBP and MB are relatively high end.

An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.

Vinea
post #250 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

. . . An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.

Vinea

You guys just don't get it. An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower. Those looking for low to mid priced Windows computers will buy Windows. Those looking for a low to mid priced Mac desktop can choose a Mac Mini or an iMac today. A Mac mini tower would only compete against these.

Here, read this again:

Quote:
Apple can price a Mac mini tower however they wish. If the price is too low, it will take sales from other Macs. If it is too high, a mini tower will not sell. Any particular model Mac is not competing with its Windows equivalent model. The competition between Macs and Windows PCs is a platform wide competition. A particular model Mac, or model Windows PC, competes within its own platform environment.

Now, concerning platform competition, the selection of models within a platform could influence a consumers decision to switch or not to switch. So, let's say a guy has been using Windows, but is looking at Macs. If he happens to like or need a professional, high performance workstation, he will look at what the Mac Pro offers. If he wants a mini tower and Mac doesn't have one, it presents a hurdle. He must see whether there is another model Mac that would satisfy him. Needless to say, the prospect of him switching to a Mac is less in this situation.

Since such a large number of Windows users seem to prefer a mini tower, the lack of a Mac mini tower means Apple is not getting the number of switcher that they could. However, Mac users will mostly stay Mac users and figure out the best way to cope, if they happen to want a mini tower. Some will just pay the difference and get more than they need in a Mac Pro. Others will be reconciled with an iMac or Mac Mini. Still others will make do with an older Mac from eBay or live with what they already have.
post #251 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

And they will never get much more than 5% because of it no matter how much better they are than Microsoft.

Yeah, right...because the Windows market is dominated by $1500 dollar desktops and not $500 desktops.

If it bothers you that much run ubuntu on a mini-tower instead. Jobs is almost as much an idealist as RMS except that he doesn't come across as a nutjob. Railing against his vision of computing will be as productive as railing against RMS' vision of free software.

Besides, Vista wont be that bad. There are plenty of very smart folks working very hard in Redmond. I'm sure it will be an adequate 80% solution.

Vinea
post #252 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Apple competes with Dell on price only in those segments that are profitable. That they can sell a workstation that is price competitive simply means those models have the largest margins in the industry.

Likewise with notebooks. Both MBP and MB are relatively high end.

An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.

Vinea

Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business.

Again, having to spend over $2100 for a machine with any expandability at all reinforces the "Apple is a bad value" perception far more than any mini-tower would, no matter how they priced the mini-tower. As it is, you have to pay over twice as much for an expandable Mac as you would for an expandable PC. So what if you get a killer quad-processor setup, expensive RAM, etc.? If you're not going to actually use those features, then all they amount to is a waste of money.
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 #253 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

You guys just don't get it. An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower. Those looking for low to mid priced Windows computers will buy Windows. Those looking for a low to mid priced Mac desktop can choose a Mac Mini or an iMac today. A Mac mini tower would only compete against these.

Here, read this again:

If all it does is cannibalize sales of iMacs and Mac Pros what is the huge incentive for Apple who is already selling what they want to sell to this already captive audience?

Other folks proposing the mini-tower IS using switcher sales as the rationale for a mini-tower so skip the "you don't get it" line. We get it. We simply don't agree and neither do some of your allies.

That a mini-tower will increase sales to some degree is hard to argue with. The real question is to what degree and it is sufficiently more profitable to move Jobs?

As I said earlier, he's an idealist and has some vision of computing. Yes, it can limit market share, but its also what makes Apple what it is.

Vinea
post #254 of 1658
[QUOTE=snoopy]You guys just don't get it. An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower. Those looking for low to mid priced Windows computers will buy Windows. Those looking for a low to mid priced Mac desktop can choose a Mac Mini or an iMac today. A Mac mini tower would only compete against these.

With all due respect, I think you don't get it. It's about bootcamp and virtualization and the rest of it. It is now possible to move to the Mac without losing that one special application/game or whatever that has you stuck in Windows.

What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons. Intel Macs + bootcamp are real game changers for this market. It's not a big market relative to the overall PC market, but it's definitely worth two, three, or maybe five percentage points, which means it can kick up Mac sales to over 7%.

But among our legacy stuff we've got plenty of nice new monitors purchased during the past year or two, and we are also used to swapping disk drives or adding storage space quickly. For some of us a Pro is not a good idea. There is the cost issue, but there is also space and power consumption. If you are a green this is an issue, and separate monitor configurations are also an advantage since you don't need to obsolete a perfectly working monitor in order to get a newer machine. In a work environment the idea that you lose access to your machine if your monitor dies is also bad. It's much better to quickly swap the monitor and keep working. With the iMac you have to service the entire unit.

Don't get me wrong; I love the iMac. It's a great setup for home users and students, and it is a great piece of design. My dad bought one on my advice. But it has certain limitations in other environments and you shouldn't have to get something as powerful and large as a pro when all you want is a bit of flexibility.
post #255 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business.

Really? The Powermac G4 (Firewire 800) was $1499. It appeared from January of 2003 and discontinued by June of 2003 and replaced by the PowerMac G5. The earlier Quicksilvers, G4 and G3s were $1599 at the low end. The white PowerMacs like the 6500 were $1,700. $1599 barely fits your "range" and many years the lowest end were more expensive.

What were the expandable $1200 mini-towers? You have to go back to the Sculley days for a $1200 headless mac in the Mac LC/Performa series. It was hardly a mini tower and had 1 PDC slot though some later ones had additional comm and TV slots (today built into the mini or via USB).

Quote:
Again, having to spend over $2100 for a machine with any expandability at all reinforces the "Apple is a bad value" perception far more than any mini-tower would, no matter how they priced the mini-tower. As it is, you have to pay over twice as much for an expandable Mac as you would for an expandable PC. So what if you get a killer quad-processor setup, expensive RAM, etc.? If you're not going to actually use those features, then all they amount to is a waste of money.

Countered as they did with "Compare to the equivalent Dell it's $XXX cheaper". Almost every current model Apple makes is price competitive with the equivalent Dell.

Apple has just been very choosy where to do the competing. Sorry, I prefer the Jobs vision over the Sculley vision.

Vinea
post #256 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea


If all it does is cannibalize sales of iMacs and Mac Pros what is the huge incentive for Apple who is already selling what they want to sell to this already captive audience? . . .


You make some assertions that you do not demonstrate or prove. You claim a Mac mini tower would cannibalize iMacs and Mac Pros sales. Not necessarily so. Apple can price a mini tower so it does not. A mini tower equipped like an iMac should sell for more. The iMac will continue to sell because it is a better deal for those who want that level of performance and don't need expandability.

However, let me give you a personal example of Mac sales that would be severely impacted by a new Mac mini tower. A few month ago, I switched from Digital Performer to Logic for a music workstation. My music computer did not meet the system and performance requirements. I needed another Mac, and would have gladly purchased a mini tower if it had been available. It was not, but I found a Mirror Drive Doors PowerMac, the newest model with quiet fans, on eBay. It has dual 1.25 G4 CPUs. I am satisfied with my 'newer' Mac from eBay, and it will be sufficient for several more years I'm sure. It was a lost sale for Apple however.

So it seems that Apple is not selling what potentially could be sold to 'this already captive audience.' Steve is the one who doesn't get it. Not only losing sales to Mac users but sales to potential switchers. Throughout history, there have been great generals who had blind spots that keep them from being all they could have been.
post #257 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez

What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons.

...

But among our legacy stuff we've got plenty of nice new monitors purchased during the past year or two, and we are also used to swapping disk drives or adding storage space quickly.

Eh...I'll have a 17" MBP KVM'd to a 24" or 30" WS Dell monitor alongside a Precision 670.

Depending on what you do a NAS might be better for more storage. Some folks hate external storage so I won't even suggest firewire.

Would I have gotten the iMac? Probably not. I have need for a powerful laptop and a powerful desktop for work.

At home? Probably if there was a 23" WS iMac. Coupled with my existing Dell 19" I can span to 2 monitors. As is, for home, I'll likely go the route of a Mini with the next gen integrated graphics.

Vinea
post #258 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez


With all due respect, I think you don't get it. It's about bootcamp and virtualization and the rest of it. It is now possible to move to the Mac without losing that one special application/game or whatever that has you stuck in Windows.

What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons. Intel Macs + bootcamp are real game changers for this market. . .


Sorry, you are right. I don't get your point at all. The discussion is about Apple hardware, I believe, so what is your point of bringing up Bootcamp and Macs running Windows apps? A Mac mini tower would do that too. Toward the end of your post you also seem to be agreeing with me?
post #259 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Steve is the one who doesn't get it. Not only losing sales to Mac users but sales to potential switchers. Throughout history, there have been great generals who had blind spots that keep them from being all they could have been.

Riiiight. I'm pretty sure that Steve's place in computer history is pretty well set and it ain't in the "loser" or "might have been" column.

Have fun with your MDD. Its still a nice machine if it meets your needs and it should have been very inexpensive.

Vinea
post #260 of 1658
Can someone answer me this. If the imac is built out of laptop parts and uses a 17" screen why isn't there a 17" laptop available for $1299? There is no purpose to owning a desktop that has no upgradablity. Not in this day and age. You should be able to take that on the go with you. Think about it.

There is total room for a an upgradable desktop on the low end.
post #261 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea


Riiiight. I'm pretty sure that Steve's place in computer history is pretty well set and it ain't in the "loser" or "might have been" column. . .

Vinea


Don't misunderstand me. Steve is the best CEO Apple ever had. I just believe he makes his share of mistakes, like everyone. Having blind spots and making mistakes does not stop anyone from being great.
post #262 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

If all it does is cannibalize sales of iMacs and Mac Pros what is the huge incentive for Apple who is already selling what they want to sell to this already captive audience?

Other folks proposing the mini-tower IS using switcher sales as the rationale for a mini-tower so skip the "you don't get it" line. We get it. We simply don't agree and neither do some of your allies.

That a mini-tower will increase sales to some degree is hard to argue with. The real question is to what degree and it is sufficiently more profitable to move Jobs?

As I said earlier, he's an idealist and has some vision of computing. Yes, it can limit market share, but its also what makes Apple what it is.

Vinea

And I'd be more than happy to go elsewhere if Apple doesn't want my business, but steve doesn't want that either. My choices are laptop on stick, expensive workstation, or windows and none of those sound all that great to my ears.
post #263 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez

...Windows refugees...

lol, I love that part!
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 #264 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

And I'd be more than happy to go elsewhere if Apple doesn't want my business, but steve doesn't want that either. My choices are laptop on stick, expensive workstation, or windows and none of those sound all that great to my ears.

If your business is a $300-$1300 tower Steve doesn't want your business from all the evidence to date. Mr. Dell does.

A $1499 tower is possible although it has only happened once that I can recall and only for 6 months. You also have the option of a small form factor computer.

Vinea
post #265 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower.

Yes, that's exactly what it competes with. A MacBook competes with a Dell Inspiron, a MacBook Pro with a Dell Latitude, and a Mac Pro with a Dell Precision. A Mac mini competes with with an eMachines CrapXL2488, and an iMac competes with whatever the fuck Gateway calls them.
post #266 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

You make some assertions that you do not demonstrate or prove. You claim a Mac mini tower would cannibalize iMacs and Mac Pros sales. Not necessarily so. Apple can price a mini tower so it does not. A mini tower equipped like an iMac should sell for more. The iMac will continue to sell because it is a better deal for those who want that level of performance and don't need expandability.

However, let me give you a personal example of Mac sales that would be severely impacted by a new Mac mini tower. A few month ago, I switched from Digital Performer to Logic for a music workstation. My music computer did not meet the system and performance requirements. I needed another Mac, and would have gladly purchased a mini tower if it had been available. It was not, but I found a Mirror Drive Doors PowerMac, the newest model with quiet fans, on eBay. It has dual 1.25 G4 CPUs. I am satisfied with my 'newer' Mac from eBay, and it will be sufficient for several more years I'm sure. It was a lost sale for Apple however.

So it seems that Apple is not selling what potentially could be sold to 'this already captive audience.' Steve is the one who doesn't get it. Not only losing sales to Mac users but sales to potential switchers. Throughout history, there have been great generals who had blind spots that keep them from being all they could have been.


couple things, only loosly related: How do you increase the value of a mac midtower so that it is out of the mini/imac range, but still competative with pc equivalents? Add stuff.

What stuff?

Windows XP. Call it a SwitchMac. :P

<watches as the entire forum recoils in horror> See? The only ones who would want it are those who specifically DON'T want the ease and simplicity of mini/iMac.

But that's just a random thought. The point is that Apple could, I suspect, if it were to bring such a device to market, add enough good stuff (NOT talking bout win here) to clearly define it as a mid-point in the product lineup.

Ok, next thought:

Why are we still talking about switching? Switching implies giving up the old. No one has to do that anymore. The concept, functionally, of switching, has evaporated, thanks to boot camp + intel. Now it's down to simply, "Who makes the better PC?" Which Apple clearly does, on both the Aesthetic, value, and, now, price grounds.

Switching has become a moot point.

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 #267 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Don't misunderstand me. Steve is the best CEO Apple ever had. I just believe he makes his share of mistakes, like everyone. Having blind spots and making mistakes does not stop anyone from being great.

Seconded
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 #268 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Yes, that's exactly what it competes with.

One-and-a-halfted.

A Mac Midtower would compete directly agains PCs within the PC market segment, but ALSO would compete against other macs within the Mac+PC and the Mac Only markets. PC market is much bigger though.
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 #269 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn

Why are we still talking about switching? Switching implies giving up the old. No one has to do that anymore. The concept, functionally, of switching, has evaporated, thanks to boot camp + intel. Now it's down to simply, "Who makes the better PC?" Which Apple clearly does, on both the Aesthetic, value, and, now, price grounds.

Switching has become a moot point.

Extra points for a good remark 8)

Although I keep my doubts, maybe me and all the other tower-nay-sayers are in for surprise, apparently apple is waiting for some secret massive shipment

Like the sound of that?!
post #270 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Yes, that's exactly what it competes with. A MacBook competes with a Dell Inspiron, a MacBook Pro with a Dell Latitude, and a Mac Pro with a Dell Precision. . .


I'll grant you that it may be going in this direction because the Macs can run Windows software so much better. Possibly this was the point being made by Alonso Perez that I missed. However, I believe that it will remain a competition of platforms for quite some time yet, not head to head competition of individual models of Macs and Windows PCs.

I don't think we are to the point where someone says, "I want a new mini tower. I think I'll look at what Dell, Apple and HP have to offer." It's either Windows PCs or Macs that people want. Unless someone has a job where both platforms are required, people don't usually don't own a mix of platforms, like, "My desktops are from Dell but my laptops are all Mac Books." It could be going that way, but certainly not overnight.

It is in this regard that I said a Mac mini tower competes with other models of the Mac, not with Windows mini towers.
post #271 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

It is in this regard that I said a Mac mini tower competes with other models of the Mac, not with Windows mini towers.

Now I can't even tell which side of the argument you're on. You seemed to be all in support of this idea, and now you're saying that such a machine would only compete with Apple's own machines? If you think that, then you really should also think that there's no point spending $$ developing such a machine in the first place.

The point is, that I'm sure lots of people do consider the/would like to switch from Windows to Mac, but find/know that Apple don't offer a desktop machine that they want and therefore don't switch. I'm also sure that some people leave the platform (i.e. switch Mac to Windows) because Apple don't offer the machine that they want.

The point of a $999 - $2499 (why's everyone else obsessed with a $1499 entry point? That's not low enough in my opinion, and I've already explained in detail how Apple can maintain their high margins even at $999) is to attract more switchers and to stop others leaving the platform, thereby increasing market share and therefore significantly increasing units sold.

If all a mini tower did was reduce sales of iMacs and Mac Pros, it would be a bad move.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #272 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn


Switching has become a moot point.


Has Apple caught on to this? I really don't know. I seem to remember Apple switching ads on TV recently. In any case, it will take a while for the general public to change their way of thinking IMHO. The average Joe still thinks of either Windows or Mac, and never the two shall meet.
post #273 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

If your business is a $300-$1300 tower Steve doesn't want your business from all the evidence to date. Mr. Dell does.

A $1499 tower is possible although it has only happened once that I can recall and only for 6 months. You also have the option of a small form factor computer.

Vinea

Low end PowerMacs got down to $1299 during the G4 days. Prices and the performance gap have been getting higher since the g5 was introduced.

What I want:
1.83ghz Core 2 Duo
1gb DDR2 SDRAAM
250GB Hard drive
256mb 7600GS video card
16x Superdrive

I can get such a machine from Velocity Micro (who has a similar quality rep) for $899. I'd willing to pay $1299 for such a machine from Apple and put it the second optical drive myself.
post #274 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

I don't think we are to the point where someone says, "I want a new mini tower. I think I'll look at what Dell, Apple and HP have to offer." It's either Windows PCs or Macs that people want.

I don't really think so, especially since all mac's can now run windows. If you walked into a computer store expecting to buy a computer for around a $1000 and you saw a bunch of HP's, Gateways and a smaller Mac tower all for the same price, give or take $100, the mac would certainly have a fair shot. More so then it ever has in the past. I bet you the Mac would look prettier and that would help sell it even if the costomer was told they had to install windows themselves or the geek squad could do it.

But as it stands right now both the imac and the Mac Mini look kind of foreign to people, so they don't trust it. But if it was s standard tower-like design (albeit prettier) then it would sell. People aren't all that bright when it comes to computers. They expect desktops to look a certain way and they expect laptops to look a certain way. Apple doesn't have a problem with it's laptops since they fit the bill, and considerign their laptops sale have increased since switching to x86 it just goes to show you that philosophy stands.

In my opinion the PC user right now has the best scenario. They can buy any computer on the market. They have the most chocies. They can buy a Dell or an HP or a Gateway or a Mac and be perfectly happy running Windows XP. The people who are in a bind are the current Mac users who have a to find a way to wedge themselves and their needs into one of Apples current (and limited) product heirarchy because they want to stick with OSX. PC users don't know what they're missing with OSX, so they don't really care what they use and hence have the most choice. So to make PC users mac users you have to offer them what appears to be a nice PC like everything else (aka what they want) and have to market Mac OSX as a bonus feature you can't get with any other vendor.

Salesperson
"Windows, yeah, they all can run it, but you can only get OSX on a mac"
post #275 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi


But as it stands right now both the imac and the Mac Mini look kind of foreign to people, so they don't trust it.


Bingo! I like the way you said that, because it is a big factor in in buying, 'consumer perception.' Windows users are comfortable with a tower / mini tower form factor.
post #276 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Yes, that's exactly what it competes with.

No, the biggest competition for a Mac is the second hand market.
Especially for the towers.
Don't need all the processing power of the current high end? Buy the high end from 1-2 years ago! That would make a G5 DP 2.0-2.5GHz.
post #277 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Bingo! I like the way you said that, because it is a big factor in in buying, 'consumer perception.' Windows users are comfortable with a tower / mini tower form factor.

Even tho they might be more comforatable with towers/mini towers they shouldn't be. I think the iMac and Mac mini are the most consumer friendly computers. Think of the percentage of people that upgrade there towers. Its TINY. When I was little I never understood why there were two boxes. Then the iMac came out and I thought thats perfect, you get rid of all those extra wires that get in the way.

So I understand why some people might want a mid range tower, but the percentage of people that would just rather have a computer and a screen all in one is so much bigger. So I don't think apple will make a mid range tower.

I do think tho that they will make the iMac 17" the educational iMac, and make the top line iMac a HD 23".
post #278 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky

So I understand why some people might want a mid range tower, but the percentage of people that would just rather have a computer and a screen all in one is so much bigger. So I don't think apple will make a mid range tower.

If that were true the PC world would be filled with iMac ripoffs and people wouldn't want towers. But that's just not true. When it comes to desktop computers, consumers typically want towers and they want to be able to buy new monitors without buying new computers. Whether they upgrade or not. Otherwise you might as well buy a laptop if you want something that comes with the screen built in.
post #279 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky

Even tho they might be more comforatable with towers/mini towers they shouldn't be. I think the iMac and Mac mini are the most consumer friendly computers. . .


Sorry. It was a poor choice of words on my part. ApplePi said, "look foreign . . . so they don't trust it." It doesn't matter what you and I think, it is what Windows buyers expect in a computer. It also doesn't matter whether they upgrade a tower or not. If it's what they want, it's what they'll buy.
post #280 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi

If that were true the PC world would be filled with iMac ripoffs and people wouldn't want towers. But that's just not true. When it comes to desktop computers, consumers typically want towers and they want to be able to buy new monitors without buying new computers. Whether they upgrade or not. Otherwise you might as well buy a laptop if you want something that comes with the screen built in.

To add something to that, what a person really needs and what they want and are subsequently willing to buy are two different things. To quote an old college professor of mine, sales is the practical application of psychology.
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?