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 3

post #81 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous

Allow me to quote this. 3 times, for effect.

Cool, I got quoted THRICE, you just made my day
post #82 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Wow, what a great rebuttal. I'm utterly convinced by that.

There may have once been a market for non-expandable desktop machines, but nowadays those customers are increasingly going for laptops instead. If what you're getting is functionally equivalent to a laptop anyway, why not just get a laptop and have that portability?

Let me try to explain this in a way that you might understand. Now I know that there are a bunch of people who insist that any analogy automatically sucks if it has a car in it. To those people I say just bear with me for a minute, okay? Try to listen to what I have to say, and maybe even understand it.

Suppose you have a well-beloved car company with a fanatical user base. This car company offers a wide range of automobiles, until one day when they decide to offer only these choices: 1) a cheap, tiny, Smart Car-like vehicle (yes, I know that real Smart Cars aren't that cheap. Bear with me for a moment) which is very efficient but has no frills, no luxuries, a V4 engine, and no cargo space or passenger space to speak of (Mac mini), 2) a mid-range sports car with lots of creature comforts, great handling and speed, but still no cargo space or passenger space (iMac), and 3) a massive, Hummer-sized tank with a V10 engine, way more space than most people would ever need, terrible fuel economy, tons of really expensive luxuries including built-in entertainment systems and everything, and costing the price of a small house.

Now, consider your average Joe customer. He's not rich, but he has maybe a couple of kids that he needs to drive to school and back, so he needs a car with a back seat, which neither the Smart car nor the sports car have, and maybe he wants to go to the grocery store once in a while to buy food and other generic supplies. Is he going to mortgage his house just to be able to afford the Hummer, or is he going to go buy a normal freaking car from one of the company's competitors? And what would this mean for the company? Ultimately, this company would have a low market share made up primarily of 1) the most basic users who don't need anything more than what the lowest-end car offers, and 2) their existing fanatical enthusiast user base, who will either a) just suck it up and buy the Hummer to get access to basic abilities that the competitors offer in normal cars costing less than our company's mid-range sports car, or b) settle for the sports car, install a spoiler on it, and just force the kids to sit on the back of the car and hang onto the spoiler real tight. Of course, some of these enthusiasts are going to get fed up and go to the competition, causing a gradual dwindling in market share, and the company's not going to gain much market share, because the other car companies' users are going to be turned off by the lack of features in the first two models that they can get from the other guys for a tiny percentage of the price of the Hummer. If this car company would offer a normal, non-huge car with a little non-monstrous amount of space, for a reasonable price, a lot of the other guys' customers might actually be able to buy one instead of only being tempted.

Look at Apple's recent market share gains - I'll bet that most of those gains are attributable to laptops, the one market segment where none of this matters. Apple's desktop machines haven't sold all that well for some time now. The reason is that Apple doesn't deliver what people expect in a desktop machine. Sometimes you just want a normal freaking car.

That car analogy makes no sense in comparison to computers.

This isn't about speed or power, it's about expandability.

You are honestly going to sit there and tell me that there are 295,734,134 americans and that the majority of them actually even open, let alone upgrade their machines?

You sir are crazy.

I guarantee that probably about %1 of computer owners upgrade their machines, especially beyond the capability of what a mini or imac can do

mini = hd, ram, display

imac, hd, ram, processor

That's why your analogy doesn't work there is no technical need for a mid size sedan computer for the vast majority of users.

They buy what seems reasonable for the their budget at the time and use that. Then one of two things happen.

1) it sits there until it's incredibly old and is a piece of shit before they're forced to replace it.
2) they place higher value on computers or have more money so they can upgrade more often.

That's it.

Round up EVERYONE you know and ask and you'll see.

I used to work at a best buy I've seen how product moves. People come in with "my computer is slow" or "my computer is old". And decide "i need a new computer". I say "maybe it just needs more ram" or "maybe you need more hard drive space" or "maybe you need a new graphics card so your daughter/son can play the sims".

They say either:
1)WTF, how do I do that?
2)What type do I need, I've got an HP(yeah like that means something)
3)I just need a new computer it's too slow/old

People live wasteful lifestyles and most people don't bother to learn what they currently own let alone, how to fix it or care for it, or make it better. I remember one time a lady came in one day and bought a printer an then came in the next and said it didn't work so she had to buy a new one(she didn't even return the printer she bought the day before)! She didn't even want to listen to me ask about drivers.

Both you and ME would like a mid range prosumer(or whatever name you want) tower mac.

But we can't pretend it's what the market actually wants or cares about just to prove a point.

Hell people would probably buy the mid-range tower mac, and still never upgrade it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #83 of 1658
Having worked in corporate and retail environments selling computers I can vouch for Apple's actions. Do people ugrade their computers ..yes but the numbers are so small. Why do you think ATI and Nvidia kept such low stock of Mac specific SKUs? Because they hear the Mac geeks talking about upgrading their cards and yadda yadda but the sales results never matched.

The iMac isn't for everyone. If you need more then Apple gives you the good Desktop stuff. Not cosumer chipsets but the workstation stuff.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #84 of 1658
i think the real issue is the ultra niched mini, who is that product for anyway?

the imac is a great product for making people switch from their old compaq and bulky crt to something mean and clean, but it's not very good for the pros that used to buy the biggest and baddest available, im talking about the pros looking for a new photoshop machine.
nowadays the mac pro is too much, the mini is too little and the imac's screen is not good enough.
in a situation what can you do but to go to dell?
born to lose, live to win
Reply
born to lose, live to win
Reply
post #85 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous

Allow me to quote this. 3 times, for effect.

I have not insulted the iMac, ever. Heck, I even own one, a 20" G5.

I like to have an external internal drive for backups and the ability to boot from an alternate drive, I like to have a second optical drive to burn CDs a rate much faster than the Superdrive is capable of doing, without having wires all over my desktop. I would like the option to keep my monitor and purchase a computer separately. If on a whim, I want to give Apple more money to upgrade my video card at the time of purchase, for no apparent nor logical reason, I want that capability. Or if my firewire or USB ports crater why should I not have the capability to add a card with those features(I did it on the 7500 I had) And I'm not alone, I'm part of the vast majority of computer buyers.

Expandability can also mean upgrade at the time of purchase, in addition to after market upgrades. Maybe expandability is not as important as it was in the past, but consumer expectations for that capability apparently still exist and to deny it is incorrect. Remember perception is everything and looking at the vast majority of computers sold I believe consumers expect this capability.

I never said,"iMac is a low capability computer". For its' intended target market, there is no better computer at such a reasonable price. The only problem is, is that it is a niche market.

And no I won't duplicate "the obvious bait to incite angry responses" and repeat my statements 3 times.

It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #86 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison

Having worked in corporate and retail environments selling computers I can vouch for Apple's actions. Do people ugrade their computers ..yes but the numbers are so small. Why do you think ATI and Nvidia kept such low stock of Mac specific SKUs? Because they hear the Mac geeks talking about upgrading their cards and yadda yadda but the sales results never matched.

The iMac isn't for everyone. If you need more then Apple gives you the good Desktop stuff. Not cosumer chipsets but the workstation stuff.

I personally believe ATI and Nvidia keep not only the stock of Mac video cards low but also the number of SKU's low is because Apple only sells one line of computers that even accepts video cards. But that's just me, I could be wrong.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #87 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

...
This isn't about speed or power, it's about expandability.

They quite often are the same thing, or at least intimately related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

You are honestly going to sit there and tell me that there are 295,734,134 americans and that the majority of them actually even open, let alone upgrade their machines?

I'm not going to say that, but I will say that based on what is currently being purchased, the consumer overwhelmingly expects that capability.(see previous posts on Windows AIO sales)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

You sir are crazy.

I could be crazy, but that doesn't change the fact that the iMac and Mac mini are niche products. In fact, sometimes I like to think I'm crazy, because in today's world it might make life worth living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

I guarantee that probably about %1 of computer owners upgrade their machines, especially beyond the capability of what a mini or imac can do

I'd bet that more than 1% upgrade their computer at the time of purchase. Check out Fry's, the back counter is constantly busy upgrading computers consumers have just purchased. Don't even start me on Dells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

People live wasteful lifestyles

I may be crazy, but that's a depressing thought and a very negative opinion of your fellow man/woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

Hell people would probably buy the mid-range tower mac, and still never upgrade it!

So? They bought what the wanted "or perceived what they needed or expected from a desktop". Still money in Apple's pocket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

Both you and ME would like a mid range prosumer(or whatever name you want) tower mac.

I like the term upper end consumer model.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #88 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

I have not insulted the iMac, ever. Heck, I even own one, a 20" G5.

I never said,"iMac is a low capability computer".

If you would have read my original post, you would have seen that this was a reply to noah93, but nevermind that.
I have to disagree with you on your basic assumption, that it would be a good idea for apple to sell a mainstream desktop tower.
The idea behind apple's consumer desktops (and laptops, for that matter) is to set a new standard for what a computer can and should be:

A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.

to function in such a way appliance, it should be a device with AS FEW SEPARATE PARTS AS POSSIBLE. This is a Major design focus behind apple's consumer computers. It is the reason and motivation for every AIO apple has ever made. According to this design philosophy it would be just as crazy to put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics to live in a separate box/tower under or on your desk. They made a big concession to all those people and potential switchers out there not yet ready for this change by bringing out the mac mini, and I honestly believe apple hates to have to sell them.

Now I CAN relate as to why geeks (I consider anyone that visits a website about computers such as this a geek which would include me....) want direct access to the electronics of your favorite playthingie, but for the average non-geek consumer, the apple strategy for consumer computers just is the best.

Laptops have cleared the trail. Computers will blend away into the background and slowly but surely move out of those big grey boxes and into the fabric of life, where no consumer should need to worry about replacing or upgrading parts.

To get back to the old car analogy:

The design view apple has for consumer computer is as basic as a car:
A long time ago, when the very first car was invented, the relatives of the inventor first laid their eyes upon it.

"But where do I attach horses to it?"
"You no longer need separate horses in front of it, there is a small machine hidden inside that makes it work, and you don't need to worry about it....."


edit: punctuation for clarity
post #89 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag


. . . It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.


Yes! Apple may intend the iMac to be the mainstream consumer Mac, but wishful thinking doesn't make it so. Consumers have a mental image about what they want, and no matter what we or Apple says it will not change. No logic or reasoning is going to change them, at least quickly. Right now I believe the mini tower is what most people have in mind for a desktop computer. This can change, and maybe two or three years from now more people will want the iMac. At such a time, however, they will be buying more Windows AIOs too.

What consumers want and what they say they want are often two different things. Apple needs to look at what people buy, not what the say they want. Sure, not everyone upgrades a mini tower, but they buy them just the same.

Jerry
post #90 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

If you would have read my original post, you would have seen that this was a reply to noah93, but nevermind that.

I did, I knew, I didn't see where any one here insulted the iMac

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

I have to disagree with you on your basic assumption, that it would be a good idea for apple to sell a mainstream desktop tower.
The idea behind apple's consumer desktops (and laptops, for that matter) is to set a new standard for what a computer can and should be:

A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.

to function in such a way appliance

It's a whole heck of a lot easier to sell a customer what they want, than to teach them what you(Apple in this case) thinks they need. In fact, some people might just find this a very arrogant attitude on Apple's part.

I don't think a computer can be compared to an appliance. Computer technology is increasing rapidly, software is improving rapidly. This isn't happening to my washing machine or dryer. And I can expect 10 - 20 years out of most of my appliances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics

It is if you consider the AIO TV with built in VCRs and DVD players. Niche markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

Now I CAN relate as to why geeks (I consider anyone that visits a website about computers such as this a geek which would include me....) want direct access to the electronics of your favorite playthingie, but for the average non-geek consumer, the apple strategy for consumer computers just is the best.

Except, it is what the consumer expects in a computer whether or not they are a geek by any definition of a geek.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #91 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Again, the Mini is not adequate for some people's needs.

I never said it was, I only stated that someone wanted this new "Mac" to cost $800, I guess you should read abit more before you post


Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesSUm, I thought I've made it pretty much clear that I'm not talking about people who need workstation-class machines. In fact, I was pretty clearly talking about people for whom the entire [i

point[/i] is that they don't need workstation-class machines.

Yes I understand your point and I do agree I would love if Apple did realease one, but to compare it to a $350 Dell that offers old pentiums, about 256 MB of Ram, Intel Inetgrated Graphics and a crt moniter is just insane... and before you ask my GF and her best friend recieve those little catalogues from Dell so I know what they offer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Having an extra drive bay and a PCI slot are not workstation-class features, and it is ridiculous to expect people to buy a workstation-class machine in order to get these basic things. The fact that other manufacturers offer these abilities all the way down to the $350 shitboxes proves this.

No it doesn't all these boxes (or atleast 90%+ ) have intel integrated graphics, that right there kill any and all expandability

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Exactly. These machines are designed only for the most extreme high-end users who would buy that decked-out Dell if they were buying a PC. That is not most users, though.

I agree 100% but instead of bashing Apple why not give them credit for making the ultimate Pro machine something all Pros have been asking for and not compare them to $350 boxes. Plus it might not be most users but the Pro market isin't that small either and it is very profitable one for Apple!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Yeah, I know. The point is that for a large segment of the userbase, pretty much all the options currently suck for them on the Mac platform...

Not true when it comes to Notebooks it's quite good in my opinion (thats why Apple has a 12% market share here) and should get better if rumors are true and in the Desktop market it's really good because theres the Mac mini which is perfect for pretty much everyone, there the Mac Pro which covers the Pro market and the iMac covers another part of the home market.

Of course if Apple did release the Mac eXpress ($1599 base price) I think Apples line would be complete and would be perfect, there would be a computer for everyone.

So ya while I agree one more Desktop "might" be needed, but saying that Apples line sucks for "everyone" because you don't have a computer YOU and a few others want is a bit childish.
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
post #92 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

If you would have read my original post,
A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.

to function in such a way appliance, it should be a device with AS FEW SEPARATE PARTS AS POSSIBLE. This is a Major design focus behind apple's consumer computers. It is the reason and motivation for every AIO apple has ever made. According to this design philosophy it would be just as crazy to put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics to live in a separate box/tower under or on your desk.

edit: punctuation for clarity

Will apple keep puting laptop cpus in a home system?
Will they ever put a MXM card in the AIO?

Even with a TV alot of people still need to have a cable box / dvr / vcr / sat box near it And cable card TV's don't have dvr's and cable card does not work if PVP and other new cable stuff like on demand.
post #93 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

It's a whole heck of a lot easier to sell a customer what they want, than to teach them what you(Apple in this case) thinks they need. In fact, some people might just find this a very arrogant attitude on Apple's part.

BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!

Apple is - and wants to be - a trendsetter in design and usability of hardware and software. Therefore apple indeed wants to show (and sell!) people what a computer should be like! Sure that gives them a tendency to come across as arrogant.

It is also the exact and very reason for their survival to this day.

The reason why apple (a computer company, for heaven's sake) has the extremely loyal and supporting fanbase it has!!

Not selling "what the consumer expects in a computer" but instead selling the consumer what apple believes is best for him/her is exactly what makes apple apple.

"what the consumer expects in a computer" is a grey/black box with a grey/black monitor, a grey/black keyboard and a grey/black mouse. Running windows.

You could not have described any better what apple is not and should never become
post #94 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Apple's current business model, as regards its desktop machines, seems to be to gouge the absolute hell out of its customers and make them pay $2500 for basic functionality that every other computer manufacturer will give you even in their cheapass $350 boxes. You don't see just a little something wrong with that?

When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.

And a $1700 conroe mac tower changes that equation how?

The examples thus far have been cheap $350-$600 Dell towers. You guys argue for the $1700 tower but what you really want is that tower to be a heck of a lot closer to $999.

How many folks that can afford a $1700 mac tower can't afford another $400 and get quad core goodness? That last $400 buys a lot of future proofing. And $1700 IS workstation pricing today. The base Dell 690 is $1729. Desktop pricing is $800 less. XPS 400 is $890.

Tell me people wont be whining to the moon if there was a $1700 Conroe mac tower when the equivalent Dell conroe tower is $900.

At best we might get a cube. There's no way that Apple is putting out a $900 tower that will kill iMac sales. There's no way a $1700 conroe workstation will fly when a quad core woodcrest workstation is $400 more.

I'd love a Conroe cube with 1 slot, a 3.5" HD, 4 DIMM slots @ maybe $1500 but I sure don't expect one. The Mac family is complete.

Vinea
post #95 of 1658
"Mac" has become synonymous with Apple. It is a reference point for Apple's computers, Apple software, Apple related third part software, Apple's OS, and Apple related third party Games, i.e. Mac or Windows. In a sense Mac = Apple, so when you hear Mac, you think Apple.

Hence there are different types of "Mac's", i.e. Apple Computers: Mac Mini, iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro and Mac Pro.

It makes no sense to call any Apple computer in the future simply "Mac". It would be too confusing for nubies and pros alike.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #96 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.

The Mac mini and the iMac are not niche products. They're mainstream products. They serve 99% of the population's needs flawlessly. When you call that niche, people point and laugh at you because you're a retard.

What you are looking for, a customizable tower with a shitty processor, is niche, because anyone interested in performance will just go for the Mac Pro. I really can't think of anyone that seriously wants a shitty computer to upgrade later. Unless you get a really good processor later, it's still gonna be a shitty computer with a shitty motherboard. I can't think of a more niche product.

The Mac Pro starts at $2,199 for two 2.0 Xeons. Take one of those out and you're only saving $350, so the Mac Cheapo would be at least $1850. Taking out some bays and ports will only save a couple bucks, if that in parts, but would cost a whole lot more in terms of marketing and production and diminished economy of scale. The same for another board supporting a cheaper chip like a Conroe.

What you people are asking for IS NOT FEASIBLE or even useful.

I also don't know of anyone that's going to go over to Dell over $350, especially when the Dell's in the price range don't even compare to the Mac Pro.
post #97 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea


. . . You guys argue for the $1700 tower but what you really want is that tower to be a heck of a lot closer to $999. . .

Vinea



Apple is marketing their Mac Pro differently. They have one standard model that sells for essentially $2500. The $1700 price tag is just one configuration example that happens to be a round number half way between a 20 inch iMac and the Mac Pro, if we include cost of display. It was an effort to keep the example simple, and show the big price gap that exists between the iMac and Mac Pro. That price gap leaves lots of room for adjusting pricing and features.

A mini tower Mac could cover the whole price range of $1000 to $2000, and even higher with some costly built-to-order options. Discussion of what is included in a mini tower Mac could get very lengthy and not cover the essential issue of whether such a Mac is needed or not. It could be configured to be a general home computer all the way up to a mini workstation.

Jerry
post #98 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!
Apple is - and wants to be - a trendsetter in design and usability of hardware and software. Therefore apple indeed wants to show (and sell!) people what a computer should be like! Sure that gives them a tendency to come across as arrogant.

Apple offering an upper end consumer computer, that is not AIO, does not inhibit Apple's desire to be a trend setter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

It is also the exact and very reason for their survival to this day.

The reason why apple (a computer company, for heaven's sake) has the extremely loyal and supporting fanbase it has!!
Not selling "what the consumer expects in a computer" but instead selling the consumer what apple believes is best for him/her is exactly what makes apple apple.

I contend that the reason Apple is in existence today is due to their software and not their hardware. In fact, it is a continuing theme in threads concerning this topic, that people feel like they are settling for an Apple computer in order to use Apple's software.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

"what the consumer expects in a computer" is a grey/black box with a grey/black monitor, a grey/black keyboard and a grey/black mouse. Running windows.

You could not have described any better what apple is not and should never become

No, I contend that consumers desiring a computer in the ~$800 - ~$1400 range expect some expansion capabilities and the ability to upgrade at the time of purchase. They do not expect nor want an AIO. It would be interesting to see what market share the Windows AIO captured. I don't have a clue but guess that at best it is the range of 2% - 5% of the Windows market. Any one with numbers feel free to correct me(on thin ground here).

Switching from Windows is an impediment because consumers have vested in learning Windows, purchased software they use is Windows that may not have Mac versions. By raising an artificial barrier with only offering niche products Apple is reducing their chances of gaining market share, and Apple has stated on more than one occasion that they want to increase market share.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #99 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

No, I contend that consumers desiring a computer in the ~$800 - ~$1400 range expect some expansion capabilities and the ability to upgrade at the time of purchase. They do not expect nor want an AIO. It would be interesting to see what market share the Windows AIO captured. I don't have a clue but guess that at best it is the range of 2% - 5% of the Windows market. Any one with numbers feel free to correct me(on thin ground here).

Dell's computers in that price range use integrated graphics... so the only things you can upgrade are the processor, hard drive, and RAM... oh wait, you can do that with the faster Mac mini for a lot less money.
post #100 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

The Mac mini and the iMac are not niche products.

Yes they are, look at the sales numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

They're mainstream products. They serve 99% of the population's needs flawlessly. When you call that niche, people point and laugh at you because you're a retard.

No they're not. Apple worldwide has ~2% market share and in the US ~ 5%. Over half the computers Apple sold last quarter were laptops(not a niche product), which captured ~ 12% of the retail market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

What you are looking for, a customizable tower with a shitty processor, is niche, because anyone interested in performance will just go for the Mac Pro. I really can't think of anyone that seriously wants a shitty computer to upgrade later. Unless you get a really good processor later, it's still gonna be a shitty computer with a shitty motherboard. I can't think of a more niche product.

No I'm not looking for a $&*^^y processor nor a $&*^^y computer. You are totally confusing the definition of "niche". Being a niche product is not bad, it means that a product only targets a small segment of the market or only a small segment of the market is buying the product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

What you people are asking for IS NOT FEASIBLE or even useful.

The vast majority of consumers disagree with you when they purchase computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

I also don't know of anyone that's going to go over to Dell over $350, especially when the Dell's in the price range don't even compare to the Mac Pro.

I can't argue this, because I can't parse what you are saying.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #101 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

Yes they are, look at the sales numbers.

No they're not. Apple worldwide has ~2% market share and in the US ~ 5%. Over half the computers Apple sold last quarter were laptops(not a niche product), which captured ~ 12% of the retail market.

You really think Apple releasing a boring Dell look-a-like is going to instantly change Apple's marketshare?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

No I'm not looking for a $&*^^y processor nor a $&*^^y computer. You are totally confusing the definition of "niche". Being a niche product is not bad, it means that a product only targets a small segment of the market or only a small segment of the market is buying the product.

Right, and niche products are only good if they're high-margin. A cheapo computer is not high margin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

The vast majority of consumers disagree with you when they purchase computers.

No, the vast majority of consumers buy computers with consumer chips, like in the Mac mini or the iMac. Just because Dell doesn't bother putting them into smaller packages doesn't mean that the user is ever going to upgrade it. Also, as I pointed out, most of the computers in the price range you specify use unupgradable integrated graphics.
post #102 of 1658
in a perfect world, this "new" apple thing of "1 Model which can be configured 5,000,000" ways would be how we all purchase computers. But, it isn't.
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
post #103 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Dell's computers in that price range use integrated graphics... so the only things you can upgrade are the processor, hard drive, and RAM... oh wait, you can do that with the faster Mac mini for a lot less money.

At the time of purchase you can upgrade the integrated graphics or you can purchase discrete graphics cards to put in the available PCI or PCI-e slots.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #104 of 1658
All that I've heard from nay sayers is that the entire desktop market below the Mac Pro is adequately covered by the Mac Mini and the iMac. That is a bold statement and I see no evidence that it is true, or even a reasonable guess. I would say that sales of these two products certainly do not support your claims. What other evidence can you provide that shows low end desktop sales will improve following Apple's current strategy?

On the other hand, there is adequate evidence that people are buying mini tower to meet their computing needs. Visit any retail store. Ask the sales people what their customers are buying.

The iMac may begin to sell well someday, if and when people change their image about the kind of computer they want. I would not stake the success of my company on such hopes however.

One market that is being ignored is business, and the ubiquitous office computer. If business begins using the iMac, it may catch on in the home market too. But, if Apple wants to sell computers now, they need something else. A mini tower would make a good next Mac for their product line, and that opinion is base on what kinds of computers are selling right now.

Apple wants to be a trendsetter for tomorrow, but it should not be at the expense of sales today.

Jerry
post #105 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackilroy

Because, as has been said before, it would cannabalize sales of the iMac. Why should Apple render one product line defunct by making another computer that undercuts it in price and beats it in specs?

That's assuming they'd buy an iMac and not a PC. I do have to admit, while I love the Mac platform, having an AIO as the only midrange option is causing me to take a serious look at the Core2 Duo based Velocity-Micro Vector GX. I don't want the iMac at all. It's alright as a family machine, but I want a little something more. If Apple broadened their horizons and realize the goldmine of a case they're sitting on, they might gain some new customers. The again, it's the user's responsibility to change to suit Apple, right?
post #106 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

You really think Apple releasing a boring Dell look-a-like is going to instantly change Apple's marketshare?

You know Apple would never release a Dell look alike. Why do you say such a thing?

An Apple Mac mini tower would be a work of art.
post #107 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

You really think Apple releasing a boring Dell look-a-like is going to instantly change Apple's marketshare? .

http://images.apple.com/macpro/image...er20060807.png
Wow, Dell's looking really good! Stick a P965 motherboard and a Core 2 Duo in here and you're all set.
post #108 of 1658
Something that's confusing me:

Folks who don't think that Apple has any need to make a non-AIO expandable box for around iMac money are arguing two things simultaneously.

One, that no one wants that outside a few niche tweak heads, and

Two, that offering that wouldn't make sense because it would cannibalize iMac sales.

So which is it? If no one wants it, how does it impact iMac sales?

And if it does impact iMac sales, then Apple is clearly not offering a configuration that its customers actually do want in order to protect margins, which is, of course, its right to do, but is a very different matter from Nobody Wants or Needs a Less Expensive Tower So Shut Up, Already.

At any rate, I'm not quite getting why offering a "low end" Mac Pro is being treated as somehow violating the very fabric of What Apple Is and What She Stands For, when exactly that was part of the line-up until very recently.

I'm still running a $1500 Sawtooth with a lot of replaced parts that got dropped in over the years, and I know for a fact that a lot of us on these very boards did that because we used to talk about it a lot.

Now if the thinking is that Apple doesn't want us to do that anymore-- that either we need to spend spend upwards of two grand or any "upgrade" is going to have to be new machine-- then OK, I don't like it but I can see the logic from Apple's perspective.

But dismissing people who do want that as whiny fringe dwellers or people who "just don't get it" strikes me as some kind of weird mass amnesia.

BTW, the argument "If you can spend $1700 you can spend $2000" is dumb. Why off a 17" iMac, since anyone who can swing that must be able to swing a 20"? Why offer $2500 Mac Pro, since anyone who can afford that can afford $3000?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #109 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

The again, it's the user's responsibility to change to suit Apple, right?

Something like that. The CEO has a certain vision for computing. Thus far that vision is executing rather well in comparison with the previous CEO's vision which did include mid-ranged towers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

All that I've heard from nay sayers is that the entire desktop market below the Mac Pro is adequately covered by the Mac Mini and the iMac. That is a bold statement and I see no evidence that it is true, or even a reasonable guess.

It also happens to be Apple's current position. That's not saying there might not be a $1700-$1800 conroe Mac Pro in the future at the low end of the pro series but that's not quite the same as the mid-range Mac you spoke of earlier that spanned the $1000-$2000 range.

Quote:
I would say that sales of these two products certainly do not support your claims. What other evidence can you provide that shows low end desktop sales will improve following Apple's current strategy?

What evidence do you have that Apple would be more successful deviating from their current strategy of AIO with good margins? AIO and SFF computers provide Apple the differentiator to compete in the mid range and low range and avoid direct comparisons with Dell and maintain margins.

Why would they wish to improve low end desktop sales with small margins at the expense of higher margin iMac and Minis?

Quote:
The iMac may begin to sell well someday, if and when people change their image about the kind of computer they want. I would not stake the success of my company on such hopes however.

The market seems to disagree with your opinion of Apple's long term prospects. It seems they are pretty successful and profitable.

Quote:
One market that is being ignored is business, and the ubiquitous office computer.

Its being ignored because its not a segment they are chasing at the moment and there's little margin in it except at the workstation and server level. Gee...it seems we have a price competive Mac Pro and XServe for that segment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Something that's confusing me:

Folks who don't think that Apple has any need to make a non-AIO expandable box for around iMac money are arguing two things simultaneously.

One, that no one wants that outside a few niche tweak heads, and

Two, that offering that wouldn't make sense because it would cannibalize iMac sales.

So which is it? If no one wants it, how does it impact iMac sales?

That's because there are multiple people in the same thread with different positions. If that's confusing then internet forums are not for you.

A cheaper tower would cannibalize iMac sales because its a better value proposition. Even with the same margins you end up with less revenue and you risk a monitor sale. Apple monitors are high margin and folks are likely to go elsewhere. This also leads to Apple selling fewer LCD panels leading to higher cost (lower profit) on every LCD they do sell.

It is debatable if the targetted demographic that Apple is chasing adds much to their Macs that can't be handled by external devices with the exception of video cards.

Quote:
BTW, the argument "If you can spend $1700 you can spend $2000" is dumb.

Mkay...if you can sell all the $2000 computers you can make why do you need to offer a $1700 one?

Is a $1700 Conroe all that great a deal? Sure, if you can't some up with the $300 that's what you'd get. But how many sales are lost from that 15% price difference vs the opportunity costs of the investment required to create and support a new line at this time? Their engineering staff can handle creating only so many models at one time and increasing staff increases cost. Perhaps in the future they will offer one as they have in the past.

We're still in the 32bit to 64bit transition phase with the MBPs and iMacs needing a new rev soon. MBP should be reasonably easy. iMac may require more work depending on which chip they go with.

Vinea
post #110 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

That's because there are multiple people in the same thread with different positions. If that's confusing then internet forums are not for you.

Hmmm..... possibly not. This one seems afflicted with pointless contentiousness. Nevertheless, those two and contradictory ideas are being presented in the thread as if they were self evident facts and I'm merely pointing out they can't both be true.

Quote:
A cheaper tower would cannibalize iMac sales because its a better value proposition. Even with the same margins you end up with less revenue and you risk a monitor sale. Apple monitors are high margin and folks are likely to go elsewhere. This also leads to Apple selling fewer LCD panels leading to higher cost (lower profit) on every LCD they do sell.

How is that a problem if the tower you buy instead costs as much as the iMac? As far as margins go, the whole point would be to sell more computers, not just shift around some absolute number of buyers, yes?

Quote:
It is debatable if the targetted demographic that Apple is chasing adds much to their Macs that can't be handled by external devices with the exception of video cards.

Yes. Debatable. As in "you don't really know". Neither do I, but this notion is being brandished as if it were well established truth.


Quote:
Mkay...if you can sell all the $2000 computers you can make why do you need to offer a $1700 one?

Um, because you can sell all of those, as well? Apple sells all the 20" iMacs they make. Why offer the 17"?

Quote:
Is a $1700 Conroe all that great a deal? Sure, if you can't some up with the $300 that's what you'd get. But how many sales are lost from that 15% price difference vs the opportunity costs of the investment required to create and support a new line at this time? Their engineering staff can handle creating only so many models at one time and increasing staff increases cost. Perhaps in the future they will offer one as they have in the past.


But its all in the specifics, isn't it? You've argued that a tower cheap enough to be competitive, or satisfy this den of braying fools, or something, would cannibalize iMac sales, while a "$1700" tower wouldn't make any sense when a "much better machine" is available for $300 more.

So what about a $1500 tower, since that was the entry level tower price until recently? Has Apple's business model and economics really changed that much?

$1500 + monitor makes that comfortably more expensive than an iMac, and if we accept the notion that "most people" don't really want or need expansion capacity (which I don't necessarily, but then I'm not the one who's putting it out there) such a model wouldn't do much to cannibalize iMac sales, would it? "The demographic that Apple is chasing" would presumably prefer AIO designer goodness with its simplicity and ease of set-up, yes?

And a $500 jump seems plenty big enough to moot the "why not go for the next model up" argument, which personally I don't find persuasive even at the $300 gap, but that's just me. So it looks like the real question is whether such a model would cannibalize more expensive tower sales.

So you drop some firepower on the lower end model, as has been suggested, just like any line-up, to encourage the up-sell. I don't know exactly what that configuration would be, but I find it hard to believe that if Apple can sell a $2200 box that undercuts Dell they can't make a "competitive" box at $1500 that doesn't directly compete with quad core workstation.

If it does-- if Apple can't sell a less powerful box at $1500 because too many people would get that instead of quad core workstation, then it's merely true that Apple is kinda screwing us by forcing anyone who wants anything more than an iMac to go big. Way big.

We can talk all we want about Apple's sales model or business plan or what people actually do or do not want but there is undeniably a big-ass gap in the pricing scheme now that didn't used to be there.

Quote:
We're still in the 32bit to 64bit transition phase with the MBPs and iMacs needing a new rev soon. MBP should be reasonably easy. iMac may require more work depending on which chip they go with.
Vinea

If you're thinking that cheaper towers emerge when the dust settles that would make sense, but you seem to be saying the whole idea is an abomination.

Well, maybe not an "abomination", exactly, but at the very least unwise!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #111 of 1658
Wow! I am honestly in awe that people can look at Apple's current desktop line and think "yup, that's it, perfect". You are just in denial about what sorts of computers people buy.

Apple's market share of desktops is ridiculously low. There are plenty of barriers beyond machine configuration that stop people from switching from Windows to Mac, but Apple's recent significant laptop market share uptick shows that if Apple make machines that people actually want, a lot more people will buy them.

Two more things that the "Apple's desktop lineup is currently perfect" people are missing:

1.) It is absolutely possible for Apple to produce a tower that starts at $999 and has the same profit margins as an iMac:

A 20" iMac has the following spec:

20" screen
Built-in iSight
2.0 GHz Core Duo
512 MB RAM
250 GB Desktop HDD
Slot-load Superdrive
ATI-RADEON X1600 graphics
$1699

a 28% gross margin on this implies parts + construction costs of $1223.28

A 20" cinema display costs $699. A 35% margin implies parts + construction costs of $454.35.

Now let's assume that the construction cost of a 20" cinema display and a 20" iMac are about the same (I think we can all agree that it's more expensive to put an iMac together, but making this assumption makes it even harder for the nay-sayers to dispute my reasonings)

That means the parts costs of a 20" iMac without the display is $1223.28 - $454.35 = $768.93.

The tower that I would propose would have a base configuration as follows:

No Screen (price reduction accounted for above)
No iSight (-$5)
1.86 GHz E6300 Conroe processor (-$111 see Intel's latest price list here)
512 MB RAM (+$0)
160 GB HDD (-$20)
Draw-loading Combo Drive (-$40)
ATI-X1600 (+$0)

which results in a parts cost of $592.93. A $999 price with 28% margins means parts + construction costs of $719.28.

So, I've got $126.35 to buy me:

More expensive motherboard (2 x PCI-e slots, etc. +$25 difference from iMac motherboard)
Casework (tower, 1 optical drive slot, two HDD bays, PCI-E slots etc. +$60)
Construction (+$41.35).

Done.

So, now I've a tower that starts at $999 and can scale to $2499 (more powerful processors, extra RAM, storage etc.)

2.) No-one who is advocating a mid-range tower from Apple is suggesting that we do away with the iMac. The two machines serve two different sets of people.

Finally, would any of the "Apple's desktop lineup is perfect" crowd like to state in advance that they will point, laugh, name-call and shout at Apple for being silly idiots if they come out with a desktop Mac similar to the one that people in this thread are calling for?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #112 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

...

The iMac uses a much cheaper LCD than the Cinema displays.
post #113 of 1658
How about mid-range in both price and specs?

I already have a monitor and I think tying a monitor and computer together inextricably is absolutely foolish, so the iMac is out.

I actually want more than one hard drive in my computer. I might want to upgrade the graphics card in 2 or 3 years. I might want to add RAM without hassle. I might even want to swap processors if the motherboard will allow it, so the Mac Mini is out.

I don't have a Mac desktop, and it's not because I don't know anything about computers.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #114 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Something that's confusing me:
One, that no one wants that outside a few niche tweak heads,

By that argument, Apple shouldn't even be making computers. It might be 10-15% of the market, but what the iMac account for, 1.5-2?
post #115 of 1658
Mr.H, u spoke my mind.
Definitely a midi box would be very welcome - slightly larger cube with a little more expandability that I can still put on the top of my desk rather than banish it by the legs. And at that price point, it would definitely make it much better drop-in replacement for existing ailing desktops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

Wow! I am honestly in awe that people can look at Apple's current desktop line and think "yup, that's it, perfect". You are just in denial about what sorts of computers people buy.
post #116 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

Wow! I am honestly in awe that people can look at Apple's current desktop line and think "yup, that's it, perfect". You are just in denial about what sorts of computers people buy.

Is it about what sorts of computers people buy or what sorts of macs people buy? Because most folks will buy cheap computers.

The line up isn't "perfect" for some users. The question is are the changes desired in this thread better or worse for Apple from a business perspective. A $1700 tower might not be bad but its also not going to be a bang-for-the-buck winner that the current tower is in relation to competitors.

I'm going to guess a lukewarm reception for a $1700 Conroe tower.

Quote:
Apple's market share of desktops is ridiculously low.

And yet apple is a profitable company that is executing well.

Quote:
There are plenty of barriers beyond machine configuration that stop people from switching from Windows to Mac, but Apple's recent significant laptop market share uptick shows that if Apple make machines that people actually want, a lot more people will buy them.

So they are gaining marketshare in a more profitable segment of the market as opposed to competing with Dell for the less profitable segment which they choose not to direct to much resources at.

Quote:
Two more things that the "Apple's desktop lineup is currently perfect" people are missing:

1.) It is absolutely possible for Apple to produce a tower that starts at $999 and has the same profit margins as an iMac:

A 20" iMac has the following spec:

...

$1699

a 28% gross margin on this implies parts + construction costs of $1223.28

...

The tower that I would propose would have a base configuration as follows:

which results in a parts cost of $592.93. A $999 price with 28% margins means parts + construction costs of $719.28.

Congrats...you've just converted $476 into $279. Margins are the same, revenue is not. You need to make enough sales to generate another $197 in profit just to break even.

On the plus side, the mini sales will likely also drop to near zero if there was a $999 mac tower.

On the minus side, you also have to figure on losing some of those $2000+ Mac Pros as well.

Quote:
2.) No-one who is advocating a mid-range tower from Apple is suggesting that we do away with the iMac. The two machines serve two different sets of people.

If you drive the volumes down low enough you might as well do away with it.

Quote:
Finally, would any of the "Apple's desktop lineup is perfect" crowd like to state in advance that they will point, laugh, name-call and shout at Apple for being silly idiots if they come out with a desktop Mac similar to the one that people in this thread are calling for?

Nope. If they come out with a $1500-$1700 Mac tower that's great for the users. It should be interesting to see the effect on sales of other models though. Especially the higher priced Mac Pro if it uses the same case.

One thing the company has is cachet...iMac, Mac Pro, Macbook, MBP, Mini. All reasonably unique machines that don't quite fit the mold. The $999 tower you describe? Eh.

I'd rather see a $1500 cube. Limited upgradeability but less probability of direct comparisons with Dell and less likelyhood of trashing the iMac and Mac Pro lineup. Fits 90% of the upgrade desires that the Mini doesn't have (3.5" drive + video slot). Probably wont sell well though.

Vinea
post #117 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

The iMac uses a much cheaper LCD than the Cinema displays.

Source? AFAICT, they're the exact same panel and backlight.
post #118 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

I'd rather see a $1500 cube. Limited upgradeability but less probability of direct comparisons with Dell and less likelyhood of trashing the iMac and Mac Pro lineup. Fits 90% of the upgrade desires that the Mini doesn't have (3.5" drive + video slot). Probably wont sell well though.

I agree, except that video probably needs to be upgradeable, and maybe a slot or two for more expansion. The cube was interesting, but I don't really see that form factor coming back because it was part of the reason it didn't sell well--it was an iMac without a screen, but without the ability to upgrade it sufficiently (IIRC).

But I think the biggest reason why the cube failed is that in Apple's previous processor lineup there just wasn't room, with only the G3 and G4, or G4 and G5 at any given time. Now's a completely different story, and if the iMac stays Merom, then Apple will almost definitely release a headless Conroe machine to fill the lineup. If iMac goes Conroe, it gets harder to add a machine, but not impossible, and I still think it would be coming down the road.
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
post #119 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Hmmm..... possibly not. This one seems afflicted with pointless contentiousness. Nevertheless, those two and contradictory ideas are being presented in the thread as if they were self evident facts and I'm merely pointing out they can't both be true.

They don't both need to be true do they? If one is true then it should be sufficient to view the addition with a little caution.

Personally, I don't care all that much either way. I DO care that someone with a vision is leading Apple. If that vision doesn't include mid-ranged towers I can live with that given they are executing well.

Quote:
How is that a problem if the tower you buy instead costs as much as the iMac? As far as margins go, the whole point would be to sell more computers, not just shift around some absolute number of buyers, yes?

You have to show that you will sell more computers. Folks aren't now switching just because there's no mid-range tower. Especially if the mid-range tower costs $1500+.

Quote:
Yes. Debatable. As in "you don't really know". Neither do I, but this notion is being brandished as if it were well established truth.

If Apple was floundering I'd say the burden of proof was on the folks that want to stay the course. Since Apple is executing well I'd say the burden of proof is on those that say if you build it, they will come is true.

Quote:
Um, because you can sell all of those, as well? Apple sells all the 20" iMacs they make. Why offer the 17"?

They sell a $2100 Mac Pro too.

Quote:
But its all in the specifics, isn't it? You've argued that a tower cheap enough to be competitive, or satisfy this den of braying fools, or something, would cannibalize iMac sales, while a "$1700" tower wouldn't make any sense when a "much better machine" is available for $300 more.

So what about a $1500 tower, since that was the entry level tower price until recently? Has Apple's business model and economics really changed that much?

Eh...were reviews of the lowest end G5 Power Mac all that positive?

http://www.macworld.com/2004/11/revi...rmac/index.php

"It cant be the Good, the Better, or the Best model, so just where does the new $1,499 Power Mac G5 fit into Apples pro desktop lineup? Slowest is one way to describe it. Cheapest is the other."

Wow, that's a glowing review.

"There's a new single-processor 1.8GHz Power Mac G5 in town, adding an affordable ($1,499) option to the Power Mac line. But based on our testing, the new Power Mac is essentially an iMac G5 in a tower caseit doesn't provide the performance boost we're used to seeing when moving from the iMac to the Power Mac family."

http://www.macaddict.com/issues/2005/3/reviews/powermac

Would a $1500 Mac Pro cannibalize iMac sales? Probably not. Would it set the Mac world on fire? Probably not. Should Apple offer one? Maybe later.

Quote:
We can talk all we want about Apple's sales model or business plan or what people actually do or do not want but there is undeniably a big-ass gap in the pricing scheme now that didn't used to be there.

October 4 2004 to June 2005 for the $1500 1.8 PowerMac.

Quote:
If you're thinking that cheaper towers emerge when the dust settles that would make sense, but you seem to be saying the whole idea is an abomination.

Well, maybe not an "abomination", exactly, but at the very least unwise!

I'm saying a $999 conroe tower is unwise. I'm saying a $1500-$1700 conroe tower will be so-so. I'd rather see a $1700 23" iMac (Conroe) first. Leave the 17" with Merom and label it the eMac. I'd rather see a cool looking cube...but hey, if they make a $1500 conroe using the Power Mac case I'd be very tempted to buy one but will likely get a GMA X3000 based Mini instead.

Vinea
post #120 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Source? AFAICT, they're the exact same panel and backlight.

The cinema displays have a 178 deg. viewing angle. The 17" has a 140 deg. horizontal and 120 deg. vertical viewing angle.

The 20" does actually have a 170 deg. viewing angle, so it might be the same. I've only ever used the 17" and the screen is noticeably lower quality than my 17" studio display.

edit: Argh. Stupid vBulletin can't handle Unicode.
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?