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 9

post #321 of 1658
Quote:
Not everyone feels as you do. You also probably want something simple, yet powerful. In that regard the iMac excels.

What exactly is so difficult to understand in a sentence like "I don't want an AIO"?
And if the iMac had dual Woodcrest and 4 PCIe slots and 4 HDD bays: I don't want an AIO!
post #322 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

Yes, it is but there is no middle ground...

Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...

Apples only option is to buy a full RV (the iMac) whos trim (monitor) isnt as good as the one i have.

Ummm...that's like saying that Porsche needs to offer a pickup because you want one. You're lucky they offer you a high end SUV and soon a sedan. Even if they did offer a pickup it certainly wouldn't be cheap.

A $999 tower from Apple while Jobs is at the helm is a pipedream. It kills the iMac and if they wanted to do that they'd done so during the switch and just offered a mid-tower at that price point.

Vinea
post #323 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

Well, some people in this thread are talking about $1500 to $1700, but that's just too expensive (and unnecessary to achieve 28% profit margin) for a Conroe tower with limited expandability. There is no reason the line couldn't start at $999.

This was rebutted as to the loss of total revenue unless you dramatically increased sales. For each of these $999 mini towers that you sell instead of $1699 20" iMac you lose $197 ($479 profit you would have made - $279 you did make). For each $2100 Mac Pro you cannibalize you lose $309. For each 17" iMac you cannibalize you lose $85.

On the plus side, for every 1.66 mini you cannibalize you gain $55.

This is just to break even...not make any additional money or offset the risk of having spent the engineering dollars to build great AIO packages at now much reduced sales that you might as well have not bothered.

What's also interesting is that you're insisting you have a 28% margin at $999 despite being only $100 more expensive than a whitebox PC with roughly the same specs and hundreds less than the equivalent Dell or Gateway conroe box but having a top end enclosure and build quality suitable for Apple products.

Vinea
post #324 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Ummm...that's like saying that Porsche needs to offer a pickup because you want one. You're lucky they offer you a high end SUV and soon a sedan. Even if they did offer a pickup it certainly wouldn't be cheap.

A $999 tower from Apple while Jobs is at the helm is a pipedream. It kills the iMac and if they wanted to do that they'd done so during the switch and just offered a mid-tower at that price point.

Vinea

Then Apple going anywhere is a pipe dream. Also the reason why Microsoft doesn't have to be better than Apple to beat them, they pretty much just have to show up.
post #325 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

As I outlined in this post, Apple could easily achieve the following spec. for $999: . . .

If Apple offered the usual options for wireless, HDD, RAM, optical drive, GPU, and the choice between 1.83 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz Conroe, this could realistically scale up to $2499. . .

Wow. It looks like I made a lucky guess a while back, $1000 to $2400.
post #326 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

This was rebutted as to the loss of total revenue unless you dramatically increased sales. For each of these $999 mini towers that you sell instead of $1699 20" iMac you lose $197 ($479 profit you would have made - $279 you did make). For each $2100 Mac Pro you cannibalize you lose $309. For each 17" iMac you cannibalize you lose $85.

On the plus side, for every 1.66 mini you cannibalize you gain $55.

This is just to break even...not make any additional money or offset the risk of having spent the engineering dollars to build great AIO packages at now much reduced sales that you might as well have not bothered.

What's also interesting is that you're insisting you have a 28% margin at $999 despite being only $100 more expensive than a whitebox PC with roughly the same specs and hundreds less than the equivalent Dell or Gateway conroe box but having a top end enclosure and build quality suitable for Apple products.

Vinea

Penny wise, pound foolish. That kind of thinking is great if you want to remain stagnant, yet remain in the game. It doesn't factor in prosumer sales that might have gone to Apple, if there was a suitable computer or further iMac/Mini sales because that prosumer recommends Apple instead of Dell.
post #327 of 1658
what does microsoft have to do with hardware sales decisions?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #328 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

Where did I compare the XPS 700 to a Mac Pro?

You don't but the top end of the consumer line is more expensive than the cheapest Mac pro.

Quote:
No, I define the mid to upper end consumer line, without a monitor, to extend from $799 to $1299+
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=188
The fact that Dell currently does not offer a comparable machine to the ones at Tiger Direct, without a Monitor bundled, makes comparisons hard. The XPS 410 comes bundled with a 20" monitor, 500 GB hard drive, 2 GB ram. These machines are more for the professional market as is the XPS 700.

No, these machines are for gamers as they only appear in the home and home office stores. Go into small business and you get the Precision and not the XPS.

If you want to define the market your way, that's fine.

If you prefer you can use Area-51 3500 as the start of your upper end consumer line at $949 topping out at around $1799 Area-51 7500 with the Area-51 ALX being an outlier at $6K.

Can Apple be price competitive against an Alienware priced at $1799 or the XPS 700 series? Perhaps but likey not with the same gamer focus (ie a cheaper $1599 tower without SLI).

Vinea
post #329 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Also the reason why Microsoft doesn't have to be better than Apple to beat them, they pretty much just have to show up.

How is that true at all?? By beating Apple does that imply selling more computers? Because they have been for a while now. Apple is higher quality, IMO. And that makes them better. Sales does not imply better quality. Theres just alot more pc companeys. Theres only ONE Apple, and theres only ever going to be one Apple!
post #330 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Penny wise, pound foolish. That kind of thinking is great if you want to remain stagnant, yet remain in the game. It doesn't factor in prosumer sales that might have gone to Apple, if there was a suitable computer or further iMac/Mini sales because that prosumer recommends Apple instead of Dell.

Prosumer or enthusiast? Prosumer they will possibly address with a $1599-$1799 Mac pro.

Enthusiast? I haven't seen any indicator they want to go after that or the gamer market.

Stagnant? Um, only if you think Mini-Tower advances the state of the art any. There are other markets and Apple likely want's to retain the cachet of their branding. A $999 Apple tower would likely sell as well as a $25000 Porsche. Note that there aren't any models despite the popularity of the inexpensive 924 back in the 70s.

I'd rather see a mini-av and a iTablet than a mid-tower to compete against the ranks of Dell, HPs and whiteboxes.

In any case it was hypothetical numbers and if you want to show the pro side you also need to show that you can mitigate the con side beyond "if you build it they will come".

Vinea
post #331 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Ummm...that's like saying that Porsche needs to offer a pickup because you want one. You're lucky they offer you a high end SUV and soon a sedan. Even if they did offer a pickup it certainly wouldn't be cheap. . .


Everything you have been posting makes perfect sense, . . . IF Apple were just another vendor selling Windows computers!

Heck, in that case Apple could offer just one model AIO if they wished, or just an AIO and a Pro tower. What Apple didn't offer customers would not hurt the Windows platform because there are plenty of other vendors to plug the holes in the product line.

BUT, Apple is selling a platform, the Mac platform, not just individual boxes. Car analogies always break down because of this difference. Apple needs to satisfy most of the customer needs with some kind of Mac. Few customers are willing to maintain two separate platforms, no matter how easy some people say it is.

I kept bringing up this point about a platform versus individual models earlier. Evidently you and some others believe it is unimportant.
post #332 of 1658
Vinea,

I'm not one to get mad easily, but would you please stop with the car analogies? They do not work because there is no OS/platform equivalent and market share for auto manufacturers doesn't matter.

Now, if you really think my costings are unrealistic, the onus is on you to indicate where you think I've gone wrong. To just say "uh, Apple can't do it for that price, because other people can do a similar thing but with higher specs for $100 less, so you must be wrong" is not a very good argument (and actually, Dell don't have a proper equivalent to this proposed tower. the XPSs are a lot more because they come standard with much higher specifications, or didn't you notice?).

Secondly you seem absolutely dead-set that the only thing that this machine would do is cannibalise sales of other Mac models. What possible justification do you have to come to that conclusion when it is so obvious that the bulk of the computer desktop market is towers costing under $2000? You really think Apple is competing well here? The numbers are all against you.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #333 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

Secondly you seem absolutely dead-set that the only thing that this machine would do is cannibalise sales of other Mac models. What possible justification do you have to come to that conclusion when it is so obvious that the bulk of the computer desktop market is towers costing under $2000? You really think Apple is competing well here? The numbers are all against you.

Numbers don't matter to the hardcore Apple AIO fans...the fact that in the life on the iMac, from 1998 to right now, I could get a faster preformance from an equal priced PC, and while the price of PCs since 1998 has been cut in about half, the mother fucking iMac has DOUBLED!
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #334 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

iMac has DOUBLED!

The original iMac cost $1299
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #335 of 1658
OK: what is so bad about the notion of doubling the height of the MacMini, adding a PCIe GPU slot (a single would work, no double wide needed here), a desktop optical and HD Drive, and maybe something spiffy like FrontRow for $999?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #336 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

OK: what is so bad about the notion of doubling the height of the MacMini, adding a PCIe GPU slot (a single would work, no double wide needed here), a desktop optical and HD Drive, and maybe something spiffy like FrontRow for $999?

I think that might be a bit ugly. Apple would have to do a bit of work on the styling.

Something that I think confuses people is that good aesthetic design doesn't actually significantly increase the cost of a tower on a unit by unit basis. It just means that the development costs are higher. But that's part of the reason why Apple has 28% margins: to pay for that extra development cost.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #337 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

The original iMac cost $1299

I stand corrected: I somehow remembered the CRT iMac costing like$699
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #338 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

I stand corrected: I somehow remembered the CRT iMac costing like$699

At one point it did. That was for the low-end version of it.

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply
post #339 of 1658
post #340 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

Vinea,

I'm not one to get mad easily, but would you please stop with the car analogies? They do not work because there is no OS/platform equivalent and market share for auto manufacturers doesn't matter.

So tell me if car analogies make you SOOOO irate why didn't you lash out at a_greer's ford ranger/semi/F-150 analogy? You even stated that you agreed with the analogy.

Bit of a double standard temper tantrum there don't you think?

In any case, market share does matter to auto manufacturers that deal with volume. The US big 3 wouldn't be in such bad shape (or simply owned by someone else) if they still commanded the same marketshare that they did before because they make money on volume. Niche/upper end auto makers like Porsche don't care as much about market share as long as some minimum volume is maintained.

So no. If those that argue the other side wishes to bring up car analogies first I guess you'll just have to grit your teeth or advert your eyes when I respond in kind.

Quote:
Now, if you really think my costings are unrealistic, the onus is on you to indicate where you think I've gone wrong. To just say "uh, Apple can't do it for that price, because other people can do a similar thing but with higher specs for $100 less, so you must be wrong" is not a very good argument (and actually, Dell don't have a proper equivalent to this proposed tower. the XPSs are a lot more because they come standard with much higher specifications, or didn't you notice?).

Yep, I question your costings because they seem very aggressive in comparison to the market. The Gateway E6610D SB is pretty close. 1GB vs 512MB RAM. X1300 vs X1600. Comes with a free 19" LCD that they say is worth $225. Total is $1349.

Gateways gross margins are what? 5.5% in Q2 06 ranging up to 10% Q2 05. The numbers we use here are all averages since we don't know the numbers for each model but I'm going to hazard Gateway is more agressive than Apple on pricing.

Since you're pulling your numbers out of your rear I'd say the onus is on you to show that a $999 conroe box does indeed have 28% margins when other, more agressive, companies can't seem to hit that mark and super agressive whitebox makers with low overheads can barely beat it by $100.

Quote:
Secondly you seem absolutely dead-set that the only thing that this machine would do is cannibalise sales of other Mac models. What possible justification do you have to come to that conclusion when it is so obvious that the bulk of the computer desktop market is towers costing under $2000? You really think Apple is competing well here? The numbers are all against you.

If you wish to destroy one segment of the Apple line up (the AIOs) then I'd say that your gains in switchers must offset the losses from cannibalization which should be pretty steep IF we accept YOUR assumptions that AIOs are poor values and not desireable by the majority of computer users (ie mini-towers are better for the majority of users).

It is up to you to show that you can offset the loss in revenue and show greater overall profits by capturing more marketshare after writing off the engineering costs for developing the AIO's that will likely start selling in the range the cube did since, as you argue, the bulk of the market desires towers and computers less than $2000 (and in fact less than $1000).

See your assertions cut both ways.

You can also show that the loss in volume in purchases of notebook parts used in the iMacs don't hurt the laptop and Mac mini margins for bonus points.

As far as the "numbers being against" me...shall we compare the margins and profitability of Gateway and Dell to Apple again? I say that Apple is doing quite well in its overall strategy...and that INCLUDES the desktop segment. You want to change course...I'd say the "onus" is all on you.

You also want to show that Apple can gain significant share in 2006 in comparison with early 90's when arguably MacOS held a greater advantage over Windows 3.0 than OSX has over XP. Especially given that Apple's worst times were when they pushed the lower cost Performas to the forefront to gain marketshare.

Vinea
post #341 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi

$799 here
http://web.archive.org/web/200002291...cts/AppleStore

The first rev of the iMac in 1998 was $1299.
post #342 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

OK: what is so bad about the notion of doubling the height of the MacMini, adding a PCIe GPU slot (a single would work, no double wide needed here), a desktop optical and HD Drive, and maybe something spiffy like FrontRow for $999?

Might be okay with Merom and the iMacs go Conroe. Still will likely see cannibalization AND whining about the new Cube not being conroe.

I dunno that the PCIe GPU slot would fit a standard sized card with that form factor from just doubling the mini height.

Vinea
post #343 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

As far as the "numbers being against" me...shall we compare the margins and profitability of Gateway and Dell to Apple again? I say that Apple is doing quite well in its overall strategy...and that INCLUDES the desktop segment. You want to change course...I'd say the "onus" is all on you.
Vinea

Sorry but I can't agree with that.
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters (the only numbers I felt like looking into) at around 650,000 units per quarter, but desktop sales were down to less than 530,000 units last quarter. While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, the quarter in which notebooks sales were really better than desktop sales.
Here are the numbers from Q1-2005 to Q3-2006:
Desktops: 623,000 608,000 687,000 602,000 667,000 614,000 529,000
Notebooks: 423,000 462,000 495,000 634,000 587,000 498,000 798,000
The Intel transistion of the Mac mini and the iMac didn't help in raising desktop sales (q2 and q3 show a decrease in desktop sales), but the introduction of the Intel MacBook made the notebook sales increase by 300,000 units (!!!) from the previous quarter.
I don't believe the Mac Pro sales, even if great, will make this kind of increase in desktop sales.
The Mac mini and the iMac are past due to an upgrade, and I hope Apple will make the choices needed to bring back up the desktop numbers.
I'd love to see 800,000 numbers for both the notebooks and the desktops, next quarter or the following one.
post #344 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

The first rev of the iMac in 1998 was $1299.

Yeah I know. The other guy just said he remembered a certain price so I found a link.
post #345 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix

Sorry but I can't agree with that.
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters . . . While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, . . .

Thank you for providing some facts, which can't be argued against. This agrees with my visit to an Apple store where I heard that it's the Mac Book that has been selling really well, which is the lower priced, consumer notebook. I would expect the same thing to happen in the Mac desktop market if we got a lower priced, consumer tower. It would be selling really well.
post #346 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

OK: what is so bad about the notion of doubling the height of the MacMini, adding a PCIe GPU slot (a single would work, no double wide needed here), a desktop optical and HD Drive, and maybe something spiffy like FrontRow for $999?

Apple tried something like that once and it was a complete failure. As would something like this. You don't always have to reinvent the wheel, sometimes you just have to make your wheel better. Apple already has a superior case. Why not use it.
post #347 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

Numbers don't matter to the hardcore Apple AIO fans...the fact that in the life on the iMac, from 1998 to right now, I could get a faster preformance from an equal priced PC, and while the price of PCs since 1998 has been cut in about half, the mother fucking iMac has DOUBLED!

The iMac as originally envisioned and the iMac as of now are somewhat different animals. The original iMac is closer to the EDU iMac that for some illogical reason Apple doesn't sell to the public. Offer it for $999 and at places where people actually buy computers and Apple might sell a few. Then again, it's apple and they seem to love shooting themselves in the foot.
post #348 of 1658
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Might be okay with Merom and the iMacs go Conroe. Still will likely see cannibalization AND whining about the new Cube not being conroe.

I dunno that the PCIe GPU slot would fit a standard sized card with that form factor from just doubling the mini height.

Vinea

I'm just not sure I understand why you are so high behind this "cannaibalization of the iMac sales" idea. It couldn't be because you know as well as some others of us that people aren't buying the iMac because they want to... but because they have no other choice? are you trying to say that there just are not that many people willing to purchase an Apple computer that sales of both iMacs and an inexpensive Mac Pro can't be supported? Do you really think there aren't people out there who are holding back, that won't buy an iMac at any price, that just do not have that extra $400-$500 to step up to a full Mac Pro but could let loose of $1600 to $1800 for something in the middle that isn't an AIO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

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

Not all of us have the resources to afford this more than $6550 system you mentioned in a previous post (though I doubt anyone would claim not to dream of such!). Nor can all of us swing the $2200-$2500 entry price of the Mac Pro. But dear God we do want a Macintosh! What is wrong with asking that Apple address this pent up demand by offering something we want, can afford, and would buy in a New York minute if available?
post #349 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix

Sorry but I can't agree with that.
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters (the only numbers I felt like looking into) at around 650,000 units per quarter, but desktop sales were down to less than 530,000 units last quarter. While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, the quarter in which notebooks sales were really better than desktop sales.

While the dip is hefty in Q3 year to year the overall flatness is expected given that IDC projects a 4.5% drop in desktop sales coupled with a 24% increase in laptop sales.

Overall strategy seems solid relative to industy. Apple likely sees a magnified effect on the transistion from desktop to laptops given the larger percentage of their sales into the edu market compared to companies with a much stronger business presence. A 6% drop vs 4.5% is likely on par given the pent up demand for the Mac Pro and the wait for a Conroe/Merom iMac given intel's announcemnts.

Vinea
post #350 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anklosaur

I'm just not sure I understand why you are so high behind this "cannaibalization of the iMac sales" idea. It couldn't be because you know as well as some others of us that people aren't buying the iMac because they want to... but because they have no other choice?

Yes.

The question isn't whether a headless mac would be good for you or me as an individual but whether it would be good for Apple in comparison to their current lineup.

Would it be great to have OSX on a $999 headless computer? Sure. Unless it impairs Apple's ability to self fund further innovation because you've reduced its overall revenue stream.

I like OSX. I prefer Apple stay very healthy and its current path is healthy. Proponents of the cheaper tower advocate a different path...so the burden of proof is on them to show that Apple is even healther afterwards.

If Apple was executing poorly (like right after the Cube debacle) I could see the rationale for calling for change. Right now its hitting the ball out of the park and being very agile in response to change/markets. Hence my assertion that they are executing well.

Quote:
are you trying to say that there just are not that many people willing to purchase an Apple computer that sales of both iMacs and an inexpensive Mac Pro can't be supported? Do you really think there aren't people out there who are holding back, that won't buy an iMac at any price, that just do not have that extra $400-$500 to step up to a full Mac Pro but could let loose of $1600 to $1800 for something in the middle that isn't an AIO?

Sure. The question is whether this number of folks makes up for the difference in revenue and what else they might be satisfied with beyond a $999 Mac mid-tower.

In any case, I haven't argued against a $1600-$1800 Mac Pro all that much except in terms of timing and whether its required RIGHT NOW.

Quote:
Not all of us have the resources to afford this more than $6550 system you mentioned in a previous post (though I doubt anyone would claim not to dream of such!). Nor can all of us swing the $2200-$2500 entry price of the Mac Pro. But dear God we do want a Macintosh! What is wrong with asking that Apple address this pent up demand by offering something we want, can afford, and would buy in a New York minute if available?

Eh, I could easily have named any Dell PC...for example the 3 year old workstation that was replaced by the Precision. It just happens to be what I have. The relevent portion is that I have both a Dell tower and will have a Mac laptop connected to a Dell monitor. You don't lose the capital investment in the expensive monitors by going Apple, even one with a screen. I dunno that I would choose an iMac but a MBP seems like a good compromise.

Vinea
post #351 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Thank you for providing some facts, which can't be argued against.

Please, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Without showing laptop vs desktop trends in the overall market the flatness of the desktop sales in comparison to the gains in laptops is not an indicator by itself that Apple is executing poorly in the desktop arena.

So the two of you believe that a company that transitioned its entire desktop line from PPC to Intel ahead of schedule while improving performance across the board and keeping prices more or less the same is executing poorly in the desktop arena? Not only that but picked the right moment where Intel is beating AMD for a change to do that transition? With software emulation and universal binaries that appears to work?

Executing poorly is 2000 with the Cube. I'm sure Apple will stumble again in the future but it isn't occuring right now.

Vinea
post #352 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

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. . .


Holy Cow! How did I miss this post of yours? I just spotted it as I was searching back for something.

Let me reword my opinion. It has been said by two or more people now that a Mac mini tower would be competing head to head with Dell and other Windows vendors. The notion seems to come from the belief that since a Mac now runs Windows software very well, it then must compete directly with all the other Windows computers. I happen to disagree with that, although it may be partly correct sometime in the future, if and when the buying public ever has a different view of the computer marketplace. But that's another topic for another day.

I have been trying to point out that Windows and Macs compete on the basis of their platform, not individual models. When someone is in the market for a computer today, they are looking for either a Windows PC or a Mac. Buyers tend to buy the same platform they have been using, providing they are satisfied. So in this regard, a Mac mini tower would not compete with a Windows mini tower. A Mac is not even an option to most Windows buyers. Also a Windows mini tower is not an option to most Mac buyers. In the case of Mac buyers, they are currently out of luck if they want a brand new 'consumer tower.' However, there is always eBay if they can be satisfied with the G5 or newer G4s. As someone pointed out, eBay is likely Apple's biggest competitor.

Now, once someone declares himself or herself to be a Mac user, all the Mac computers compete with each other for attention. It is simply like this. Yet, if the mini tower is correctly price, it will compete with other Macs but take only a few sales from them. It will take Mac sales away from eBay, however, and attract many of those switching. This is what Apple would like. Most of the sales it will take away from other Macs will be customers who really want a mini tower, but have given up hope. Today these customers settle for a Mac Pro if they have the money, or an iMac if they can talk themselves into an AIO, or a Mini if they want to go cheap until Apple gets their act together and offers a mini tower.

I hope this clarifies my position. Obviously I think a Mac mini tower is a good idea, and in fact want one or two of them for myself.

Jerry
post #353 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

So the two of you believe that a company that transitioned its entire desktop line from PPC to Intel ahead of schedule while improving performance across the board and keeping prices more or less the same is executing poorly in the desktop arena? . . .

No, not at all. Apple is executing very well, but not building the right product yet.
post #354 of 1658
I agree I don't think Apple is doing bad right now at all. And that has to do with a lot of things. So I think right now is a good time to strike. To bring out a machine that may not fill any particular price gap but certainly a perception gap.

Dell isn't exactly suffering by selling certain machines cheaper. As much as people want to call their machines cheap crap, that isn't the case with all the machines they make. While Apple certainly doesn't need as extensive of a line up of hardware as Dell sells, it's about time they offer more then just 6 machines. And a good place to start is a consumer tower. Personally I think Apple is going there, they just haven't announced anything yet.
post #355 of 1658
Plus just to add you have to keep in mind this isn't the Apple of the early 1990's. They are in a much better hardware and marketplace position. They can once again afford to expand their line.
post #356 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Apple tried something like that once and it was a complete failure. As would something like this.

Was the Cube expandable? NO

Did the Cube have PCI slots? NO

Did the Cube have free hard disk bays? NO

Did the Cube have open optical bays? NO

Did the Cube have a replaceable graphics card? Yes, but you couldn't fit a full-length card in there, it had to be specially made for the Cube

Did the Cube cost less than the Power Mac? NO, it cost MORE!

What does the Cube have in common with the proposed mini-tower?

... it's small?
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 #357 of 1658
Btw, I'm not interested in some clone of PC Tower.
I'm interested in a Mac wich could have some expansions capacities without being to much as is Mac Pro.
I don't want a cheap computer, I want a quality computer wich I could upgrade in the usual three upgrades :

Memory : 4 slots (so I could use 4*1Gb).
Hard Disk/Optical : Second slot.
Graphic card : remember actual top standard graphic card are PCI 16 AND of huge size, thanks to allow me to use the future middle range in taking the same dimension in account (for power too), and allow me to use a standard graphic card, not a spcecially designed for the Mac.

Some kind of iMac wich the possibility to put an X1900XT in ... And if engineering would be so kind to make it easy to upgrade, even in making the case a bit to great (as mac Pro), I would be happy.

For me the price, with an 20' monitor, can be a bit higher as the standard 20' iMac in same configuration.
post #358 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinglewood

Btw, I'm not interested in some clone of PC Tower.
I'm interested in a Mac wich could have some expansions capacities without being to much as is Mac Pro.

Which would differ from an average PC tower exactly how?

Which Apple could make a high profit margin from exactly how?

Which Apple could market exactly how?

Quote:
4*1Gb [..]*20'

4 Gigabits of RAM and a*20 feet screen, I see. *
post #359 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinglewood

Btw, I'm not interested in some clone of PC Tower.
I'm interested in a Mac wich could have some expansions capacities without being to much as is Mac Pro.
I don't want a cheap computer, I want a quality computer wich I could upgrade in the usual three upgrades :

Memory : 4 slots (so I could use 4*1Gb).
Hard Disk/Optical : Second slot.
Graphic card : remember actual top standard graphic card are PCI 16 AND of huge size, thanks to allow me to use the future middle range in taking the same dimension in account (for power too), and allow me to use a standard graphic card, not a spcecially designed for the Mac.

Some kind of iMac wich the possibility to put an X1900XT in ... And if engineering would be so kind to make it easy to upgrade, even in making the case a bit to great (as mac Pro), I would be happy.

For me the price, with an 20' monitor, can be a bit higher as the standard 20' iMac in same configuration.

Like I said, Apple already makes a case. They just don't offer a conroe version. Is a conroe professor and a GeForce 7600GT in the Pro Mac really too much to ask of Apple?
post #360 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

No, not at all. Apple is executing very well, but not building the right product yet.

Apple needs two things, a $1k-2k tower profesional/consumer, and a mobile workstation to complete their lineup.
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?