Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again? - Page 10

They couldn't reach $999 with the Mac Pro case, and I think that having the same expandability in the mid-range tower would pose too great a risk of cannibalising sales of the Mac Pro. Additionally, the Mac Pro case is huge and would likely put-off your average consumer.

Better to have a smaller tower with less expandability that can start at a significantly lower price point.

The Prosumer isn't exactly your average consumer. But hey, Apple can play it safe and keep most of what they have. Also know this, the higher end of the consumer market aka prosumer is usually the gateway to the casual users. People don't ask other casual users what they should get, they ask me or my cousins.

Excellent comment. I don't know how many people I know or met in the past that had purchased used Apple towers or desktops and upgraded parts according to their desires. Me I bought a 7500 for $89, added a Sonnet G4, ATI Rage Pro, Firewire/USB card and a second hard drive. It was the only way I could afford to keep up with software advances both in Mac OS and third party software and remain a Mac user.

People, both Windows and Mac users, have been continually amazed at Apple's resale value. It's really simple and you hit the nail squarely on the head. Apple's biggest competitor for tower sales are their own used towers. Kind of ironic.

Who would be interested in a new top of the line iMac HD?
23" screen in Black enclosure
high-end video card
special edition black wireless keyboard, mouse and remote

Optional VESA wall-mount

Actually, now that I think about it what if they apply the white/black, low/high model to the Mac mini as well.

Low-end Mac minis in white, basically same as current ones.

New high-end Mac mini in Black, maybe same footprint but double the height.
Core2Duo instead of CoreDuo
Dedicated graphics instead of intel integrated
Full size SATA HD
$999-1299

Me.

Try the guys over at:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=65786

I would!

and i believe that is largely because, well, you can get good towers from any PC vendor, but you can only get mac os from apple. so where else are you gonna find affordable mac os boxes? ebay.

While a 23" iMac with a mobility 1800 would be a very nice machine, it still wouldn't be a subsitute for a conroe tower.

Or win the lottery so you can actually afford a low end Mac Pro.

Or work 10 weeks at minimum wage...or if you can afford a 20" iMac the delta is about 2 and 1/2 weeks or a part time job somewhere (before taxes). Work at the local Apple store for a couple months on weekends and you have the difference and an employee discount if they have one...

Vinea

'Cause no one is going to need any of that money to pay for other things like, ya know, food, housing, or utility bills. No one has to pay college tuition or support a family or do anything else that requires money, so everyone can just put all of their paycheck towards a frigging computer.

give it a rest. he said if you want one bad enough, get ADDITIONAL income, not spend what you can't currently afford.

So the options for someone who wants an expandable computer are:

1. Work a second job (or a third job if you're already working 2 jobs), take the corresponding hit to your health/sanity if you're already swamped with work, all in order to buy a computer about 1,000 times more powerful than you need

2. Just go to Dell where just about every desktop they have is expandable, including cheap crap starting at $350

Now, which of these choices do you really think your average consumer is going to choose?!

Well, I picked (1), but Apple doesn't really mind if you pick (2), because most home users don't really want expansion, or can be talked out of it. As a said in a conversation today, when 2-4 years rolls around and you're thinking of upgrading, it costs nearly as much to upgrade (better processor for the socket, another HDD, RAM) as it does to just buy the 2x faster computer.

Unless you are a Pro user then a Mac is simply an expensive toy now isn't it? The difference between a $1600 iMac and a $2100 Mac Pro is either not significant to the purchaser of high end toys OR is something worth saving a little longer for. If you're working minium wage for a living then I suggest a $999 tower is also an extravagant purchase.

The point of the minium wage example is to show that its not that much time even with a minium wage job to save the difference between an iMac and a Mac Pro. For most married guys the brownie point delta between a $1600 toy and a $2000 toy is more significant than the actual cash delta.

So the options are:

1. Whine about how macs don't have a $999 tower because you want your toy and you want it now.

2. Go buy a Dell and whine about how XP sucks even with 4 bazillion expansion options.

I may have snazzy gear at work but for my home toys I still run a Quicksilver and hope to upgrade to a Mini in the next rev. I can afford but not justify a Mac Pro...or even a $999 tower. I can run iLife just fine on a Mini. I'll likely get a NAS for all the video I need to archive of the kids.

Vinea

The difference between a 1600 imac and 2100 Mac Pro
Notebook Core Duo vs 2x workstation Xeon 5100
2 SO-DIMM slots vs 8 FB-DIMM slots
notebook superdrive vs 2x full size optical drives
single 3.5" hard drive vs 4x 3.5" hard drives.
mobile 128mb radeon x1600 vs desktop 256mb GeForce 7300GT
20" display vs BYO
underkill vs overkill.

Sounds like you assume everyone uses their computers exactly as you do.

Uh huh, that's why the vast, vast majority of desktop computers sold are expandable towers.


Uh, no it's not.


Except that most potential switchers are used to being able to get expansion abilities even in machines cheaper than the $@#%ing Mini.

For most desktop users, no expansion cheaper than $2124 means no sale. No sale means no market share for Apple. It's that simple.


A $1000 tower isn't nearly as extravagant a purchase as a $2200 tower, no matter what your income level is.


Condescending much?


Good for you. Some people's needs are different.

Since when is talking about something you want considered whining?

I'm not paying over two thousand dollars for a quad core ass chewing king of the cage WORKstation and I'm not going to pay 1700 bucks for a "decent" iMac, or even a little less for less features. I'm done buying iMacs and I'm not spending that kind of money for a computer that I'm not using to make money. At the very best as it stands right now, I might be inclined to buy a mini, as far as desktops go.

I understand where certain people are coming from. Most people don't ever upgrade their machines. Most people would do perfectly fine with what Apple does offer.

But what we are talking about here are really two different groups of people. People who are already mac users and people who are PC users. The people who are already mac users understand Apple quality. And they understand OSX elegance. So to them many are wiling to take what Apple offers them even if it isn't exactly what they want because they want to stay with the platform. To them even the worst of what Apple offers in hardware is still better then what is available on the other side, because of OSX.

The average PC user (not the die hard system builder/windows fanboy) on the other hand doesn't understand the major differences between a PC and a Mac. They know they are different, but they don't know or really care how.

For instance I asked a friend of mine lately if she would use a mac. She said yes it makes no difference to her if it was a mac or a PC. So I asked why she doesn't use a mac instead. She said they were too expensive. Well there is the Mac Mini that's only $600, have you seen that I said. She said she had but she doesn't want a little cube thing. That's exactly what she said and how she described it. And she's not a computer person. If something goes wrong with her current PC tower she's going to come to me or this other guy she knows to fix it. She's definitely not the type to play around on the inside or require anything more then a mini could offer her. But I can only guess (note the word guess) that in her mind it's about feeling like she's getting more for her money with a tower. Just by the way she worded it to me.

It may be impressive that Apple put all that power into a little box and called it the mini. But the average person these days really doesn't care. They expect it. With video game systems and PDA's and cell phone that are all crazy advanced and small the only people Apple really impressed were other engineers and people who read spec sheets constantly. Everyone else expects that if they're going to pay upwards of a thousand dollars they want something that's bigger and resembles a traditional computer. More for your money sort of thing.

So with that said a machine like this $1000 tower is really more for PC users looking for the ideal machine to switch to. Not even switch to (that makes it sound like a huge transtition - like moving to another state or something) but just so happen to buy instead of the HP that was sitting next to on the store shelf, simply becasue they liked the look and the specs of the Mac better. So not exactly for mac users who will stay with the platform no matter what. Apple has already sold those people.

Is $500 and a monitor.


So you're saying that if the Mac Pro was magically $1600 or $999 the machine would suck and not be suitable for you? Because it would be "overkill"?

Vinea

Nu-uh...is so.

So what pray tell makes a Mac tower or any mac such a necessity in your life if you aren't a professional user (of any kind) that needs software that is exclusively Mac?


Which brings us back to the perception that some folks are complaining that Apples should be priced like Dells.

/shrug

A $1600 low end Mac Pro fills the need for a lower priced tower but won't come close to meeting the desire for a switcher wanting expansion in a machine priced like a Mini (or less).


Apple is seeking market share in the laptop market which is a growth segment rather than the desktop that some analysts feel is a declining market. iMacs using notebook components may decrease Apple's cost in building laptops despite selling fewer notebooks overall than Dell with much cheaper notebooks. That might be the only compelling reason to go Merom over Conroe in the next rev iMac but I doubt Apple will do that. Sales of the iMac may suffer too much from the performance hit.

Nothing is "that simple".


Please. If you can't see that a $1000 computer is an extravagant purchase for someone living on minium wage (and not living home with mom and dad) you've never been vaguely poor.


Only to folks that equate a Mac tower to a basic necessity and whine that you need to win the lottery to afford a Mac Pro which is comparatively inexpensive as a Mac tower from a historical basis. $1600 in 1995 is roughly equivalent to $2000 in 2005 (using various mechanisms compute inflation like CPI, GDP, etc).

http://eh.net/hmit/


Needs or wants? I can say I need a 22 year old blond supermodel for "expansion". My wife will say I need a lot more $$$ or look like Brad Pitt to trade up.

Vinea

Eh, I consider it whining when most folks discussing the topic have agreed that a $1600 tower is a Good Thing and should be offered in Apple's line up (some day soon but not likely by Paris) but some folks have moved to the OMG Apple suxxors because they don't have a $999 tower today and will never gain share, are doomed, are executing poorly, are too expensive, etc.

Macs are expensive? The surprise!

Vinea

I certainly understand your point but much of it seems to be a perception issue which can be mitigated by marketing rather than changing your lineup (perhaps with unintended serious consequences). It (perception of branding vs sice) is also susceptible to the iPod halo effect.

With your friend you might say that a mac mini (or iMac) is more like a diamond which is a compressed lump of coal while a low cost tower is more like...a lump of coal.

Vinea

Nice point.

Seems to me that all this talk about low-end, high-end, what people want, what people actually need, whining versus discussing is missing the main point. That Apple has stated they wish to increase market share. If you take them at their word, then Apple needs to identify that additional market segment that best fits their desire for more market share. If I were responsible for this at Apple, it's what I would do.

Business is out of the question. Apple appears to have settled on the laptop 1 to 1 for schools. Enterprise is a very hard nut to crack, although the new xServes seem a good value no matter what operating system they end up running, but with minimal effect on market share, especially since they aren't even desktop computers.

That more or less leaves the consumer. I think that everyone would agree that Apple currently couldn't come close to its' current margins in the low-end box, effectively eliminating this market. That leaves only the mid to upper end consumer market.

What do these people expect in a computer? I say, based on the Windows models currently being sold they expect some expansion capability, whether they need/use it or not. Also, based on the competitive price points of Apple's current line up, I contend that Apple can maintain their current margins with a mid to upper end consumer desktop(re: $799 - $1299+).

Will Apple go out of business if they don't more aggressively go after additional sales, no, of course not. But then all their comments about increasing market share becomes only baseless posturing. I happen to think that Apple executives do intend to capture market share and will introduce a headless xMac and would expect it before Vista ships. But that's just me.

Think about it. The current towers Apple offers are less expensive than the competition and are undoubtedly Workstations. That leaves a gapping whole between the email web surfing Mac mini and useful eye catching iMac, which are targeting small niche markets.

I'll repeat some one else's statement. "Apple, pull the trigger". This opportunity will not last, mind share with iPod, Vista delays, consumer frustration with Microsoft.

AND:



No, actually, that's NOT why the vast, vast majority of Windows models currently being sold are expandable towers. The REAL reason is because they are EASY and CHEAP to assemble. You get a generic case, you slap components into it and you sell it as an OEM machine. In fact, it's nothing better than what any halfway computer-savvy could build off of NewEgg. That's why they're so cheap, and that's why they sell those instead of building computers that actually have to be designed (i.e. spending money to make sure that consumer needs are met). Don't fool yourself into thinking Dell is doing market feedback analysis and finding that people actually like those beasts for a practical reason.

(Just look at the laptops they build. Even those are hardly better...)

In fact the market segment that conciously chooses these machines for some practical, realistic upgradability issue is very small as has been mentioned. The rest of people buying them is just because that's what is available and what is cheap.

Rinse and repeat millions of times a year. Your statement "the market segment that conciously chooses these machines for some practical, realistic upgradability issue is very small as has been mentioned" is completely right, but it is what they expect in a computer. Otherwise, the AIO or the Mac mini clone from AOpen in the Windows world would sell more. And the AIO still exists in the Windows world, why, because enough sell to make selling them worthwhile, just like the iMac sells. It just happens to be a niche market product appealing to a relatively small % of people that use Windows.

However, your statement "The rest of people buying them is just because that's what is available and what is cheap." is wrong when considering a $799 - $1299+ computer in the mid to upper end consumer products.

Yeah that's it exactly. That's exactly what I'm saying.

They don't sell more because 1) They look like crap, 2) Don't fulfill the needs of customers the way Apple's AIO do, and/or 3) Are more expensive than similarly specced towers (because towers don't need any R&D money).

So yes, the only people who buy them in the Windows world have some other agenda- many times just trying to look "innovative."

At some point folks need to realize that to some degree Apple wants to be a premium brand.
Apple isn't looking to switch the WALMART crowd over.
They don't want to sell $400 laptops with a 3-5% profit margin.
These are not the kind of customers you want to build your business on.
People who buy $400 laptops will still not be happy they will always want one more thing for FREE.
They will spend hundreds of hours on tech support lines and 1 day before their warranty runs out demand that they get a replacement because their current machine is a lemon.
Apple doesn't want to go after these folks.

IMHO they wish to increase market share on their terms...which presently appear to include AIOs taking a prominent role in their desktop lineup...not increase share at all costs.

The most likely addition to the lineup is a cheaper Mac Pro and an upgraded Mac Mini into a media center Mini. Both would help close that perceived desktop gap without a mid-tower.

Vinea

That's strange. My impression is that when a mini tower is mentioned many say it will destroy other Mac sales because it must sell cheap with low profit margin.


Maybe one or two, but I believe most of us are pretty upbeat. Regarding Apple executing poorly? I said this before -- they are executing fine, but just not building the right product.

What is not Premium about an Apple designed, Mac mini tower that starts at $999, which is its lowest and cheapest configuration? Such a Mac isn't going to interest the $400 shoppers.

That's exactly what I've been asking for.

Mac pro dual
2.4ghz Core 2 Duo-$316
P965~$150
1gb (2x512) DDR2 DIMM $120
Absolute top the line 500w power supply $100
Total $686

Mac Pro quad
2x2.66 Xeon 5100-$1380
5000x~$500
1gb (2x512) DDR2 FB-DIMM $200
1000w power supply $350
total 2430
difference $1744

Granted this isn't exactly scientific and Apple isn't pay even close to these same prices, but, like I said before, because of material cost differences A conroe Mac Pro would be much, much cheaper. A Core 2 Duo using the same type of margins is very possible for $1499. The margin might actually be a little more.

So we're essentially arguing about $200 between a $1699 Mac Pro Dual which I agree is likely and a $1499 Mac Pro Dual which I think is less likely?

So why even talk about a $686 Mac pro dual?

Vinea

Thanks for your subjective opinion. I remember many Mac fans describing the iMacs as ugly, or do you not remember the big chin analogies.

It does for the people who buy them. Wish I could scrounge up the sales figures for the Windows AIO computers. Wonder if it is the 1% - 2% range that Apple's version is hovering at? I honestly don't know, but might be a very revealing statistic, no?

For manufacturers like Dell, Gateway and HP, this statement is patently false. Each of these manufacturers test the components for their towers and make decisions accordingly. I don't know if the AIOs do in fact cost more than similarly spec.'d towers and if they are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why. Oh heck, I will: On a side note, I have read where Apple is squeezing the most they can from the Mac faithful to maintain high margins, maybe that's the reasoning in the Windows AIOs?

I doubt that and will not assign an "agenda" to people who bought them, other than to say they bought them because they liked them and felt it met there needs(perceived or real). And heaven forbid they actually find them visually appealing.

Their terms aren't working and haven't been working for years for desktops. Like I've said, and other people have said, it is easier to sell people what they want rather than educate them in what Apple believes they need. A lot easier. A whole lot easier. A whole heck of a lot easier.

$686 is retail costs for said parts. Do you ever try to comprehend what other people write or jsut dismiss everything off hand because it doesn't come out of Steve's mouth?