or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple ever make this machine?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Apple ever make this machine? - Page 5

post #161 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Mac Pro Core 2 Duo
P965 chipset.
2.4ghz core 2 Duo (2.13, 2.67 BTO)
1GB DDR2 667mhz RAM (4 slots, up to 8GB)
250GB hard drive (3 extra slots)
16x superdrive
256mb GeForce 8300GT (256mb 8600GT, 640MB 8800GTS BTO)
3 PCI-E x1 slots.
Bluetooth/Airport Extreme-N BTO
$1499-1699.

I like that, nice config and good price for gamers and like market.

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

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

Reply

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

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

Reply
post #162 of 362
There is a group of professionals who don't need a dual Xeon workstation, and would prefer not to pay for it if we didn't have to. I do a couple of things that put me in this category - I am a landscape photographer, professional naturalist and educator at the University level, as well as a doctoral student in Environmental Studies. I work with very large still images on a professional basis (I made 500 16.7 megapixel images in a recent weekend, leading a University trip to Acadia National Park), but I'm not a professional video user (I do own a camcorder, but it's worth about 5% of what my still camera system costs). 3 GB of RAM is a pretty serious limit for large still images (mine open at 100 megabytes, and grow from there, as I add layers and interpolate up (with Genuine Fractals) to print at 16x24 - even without layers, my print-size files are 200 megs). I'm also increasingly worried about laptop cooling systems as I drive my computer hard...
I presently use a MacBook Pro 15" with an external 30" display and a load of external hard drives. I'm contemplating a Mac Pro (dual 2.66) somewhat unhappily instead of upgrading my laptop RAM from 2 gigs to 3 and adding yet another external drive. I'm not sure 3 gigs will be enough (Photoshop grabs every byte I have as soon as I start serious work right now), but I don't need dual Xeons or a 16 gig RAM capacity.
If only Apple would make a $1500 tower with a RAM limit in the 4-8 gig range, one fast Conroe (2.66 or2.93?) and decent capacity for internal storage, photographers would beat a path to their door... The features I don't like about the Mac Pro, apart from the price, are the extremely expensive RAM (it's literally twice as expensive as Precision 390 RAM) and the huge size - the thing is the size of a small pedestal server, which makes sense when you look at the hardware, because it IS a small pedestal server in almost every respect.
I just test-configured a Precision 390 to the specs that might make a decent Apple base configuration, and it was $1753 with a $200+ Quadro 550 graphics card (Dell only offers Quadro and FireGL graphics on that model, while Apple would probably allow a cheaper Radeon or GeForce).
For $1753, the competition is selling -
Conroe 2.66
1 GB RAM
250 GB SATA drive
Quadro 550XL
DVD burner
4 DIMM slots (regular ol' DIMMs, NOT FB-DIMM)
4 hard drive bays
Vista Business
Eliminate the Quadro, replace Vista with Tiger, and you have a seriously fast $1699 Mac with very good expandability (4 GB of RAM is a $200 upgrade, 8 GB is possible, but a $800 upgrade because of expensive 2 GB DIMMs) - hard drive expandability is the same as the Mac Pro.

Does Apple not make this $1700 computer in order to force people to buy a $2500 machine that takes overpriced RAM? The Mac Pro is actually a better deal (Apple's $2500 machine is $3000+ from Dell), but it would be nice to have the $800 cheaper option for those of us who don't need the monster.

Right now, Apple's product line runs

laptop derived(Mini)->laptop(MacBook)->laptop derived(iMac)->Laptop (MBP)->BIG workstation(Mac Pro.) There's room for a true desktop or small workstation for people who work their computer hard enough to worry about a laptop's expandability and cooling, but don't need a dual Xeon monster... Many of us are 34 year old photographers, NOT 17 year old gamers...

-Dan
post #163 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wells View Post

Does Apple not make this $1700 computer in order to force people to buy a $2500 machine that takes overpriced RAM?

Apple does it because they have a fanatical user base who, for the most part, will not question having to buy a workstation to get a desktop. For non-fanatic Mac users (specially those who can remember all the way back to the PPC days when we had these kind of systems) and switchers this presents a problem for both Apple and us. For Apple, they instead of gaining $1000 in extra sale, end up losing $1500 when the sale goes to either a PC or a second hand Mac.
post #164 of 362
The reason why Cube fail was simply becoz it was too expensive or does not offer that much value.
With recent tech like DTX size or BTX size Mb, discount from Intel on chips and dirt cheap DRAM surely 1K cube is feasible. And BTW the mini is EXTEMELY EXPENSIVE for its spec.

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply
post #165 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

Apple does not "sacrifice" its margins on the Mac Pro. Dell simply cannot be profitable without having some high margin items in its lineup. It has high margin items in its workstation and servers. Apple competes with Dell only in these areas. Not where the margins are thin. Why? Because it fits their corporate strategy and strenghts.

How is this hard to understand? Apple targets 28% margins across the entire lineup, higher ASPs and smaller volume. Dell shoots for higher volume, low ASPs and margins that range from razor thin in the $300 PC market all the way beyond Apple levels at the high end.

It is highly unlikely that Apple (or anyone) can get 28% margins in the $1000 tower market and it sure as hell is true that Dell ISN'T getting 28% margins in their $1000 towers. Yet most if not every proponent of the xMac INSISTS that Apple can magically make $1000 towers at 28% margins and gain share.

You will have to prove to me that Apple gets 28% on each computer they sell. That's just silly, stop making stuff up.
Dell's margins on their workstation are higher than Apple's
For what possible reason would Apple not target those higher margins? The obvious answer is to promote sales. Your conjecture that Apple is doing it to maintain some mythical 28% margin across each product is wrong. You want evidence, explain the just announced quarters 35% margins.
Yes, I understand. Occam's razor and all.
Your arguments is another example of the shear unbelievable lengths to which the anti xMac posters have to go to in order to justify their rationalizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

It has been documented that Intel has stated they make no discounts except on volume to avoid any more legal entanglements.

Intel can add. That's the entire point. They can see that 2M units of mobile parts is larger than 1.5M units of mobile parts. They don't CARE if Apple uses them for notebooks or AIOs. All they care about is volume.

Dell and HP make more notebooks than Apple. Their notebook growths are also no anemic. The 500K notebooks/qtr only helps level the field and delay the inevitable.

You keep mentioning quantity price breaks that manufacturers get.
QUOTE THEM FOR CLARITY
Apple's laptops are quite competitvely priced, yet I do believe other manufacturer's volumes are higher. Wouldn't that mean that Apple again is sacrificing margins for sales?
Or would you have us believe that other manufacturer's margins are higher than Apple's for comparable laptops, but even then this would mean that Apple is sacrificying margins for sales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

Sony has had an AIO in their line up for a long time. Thier AIO is far less capable than the iMac and more expensive. That's hardly "willing to do so at lower margins".

The article does not speak to the AIO but rather the towers they had and their media centric strategy.

The point is that only the AIO remains and not the towers...not even the Sony faithful purchased Sony towers and they were actually pretty nice.


Sony had mid-priced VAIO towers. Just look at reviews for them in the 2000-2004 timeframe.

Vinea

OK, I believe you, Sony has had AIO for awhile. SO WHAT, it doesn't sell, it won't sell, the vast majority of consumers don't want it and in the Window's world there are plenty of options. This proves nothing.
Why they dropped towers is beyond me. Here's my pet theory. They are trying to more closely integrate their computer line-ups wtih there other product lines, camcorders, dvd players, stereo systems, TV's creating a natural synergy. So what, tens of millions of people are buying mid range towers that have more than acceptable margins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

PS Don't like being "milked"? Don't buy. Let the market decide. Somehow though, it seems Apple is doing awesome with its current strategy.

I own a Powerbook and iMac, I like OS X, I know OS X, I like Final Cut Express. I accept Apple's pathological resistence to providing hardware that is consumer friendly.

What the anti xMac crowd does not seem to grasp is THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT IT, and when trying to capture market share, WHICH APPLE HAS STATED THEY WANT TO DO, they must conjole, attract, appeal to CURRENT WINDOWS USERS, that have not been limited to niche market AIO, ultra small Mac minis. By and large they have rejected them en mass.

Yes, Apple is doing awesome, I agree. They were also doing awesome with mind boggling margins in the 25 - 35% range, when they lost the computer and OS wars. In board meetings they laughed about the low margins of their competitors back then and I'm sure they are now.
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 #166 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

Dell was looking for a strategy to not suck. It wasn't the greatest aquisition for them but not the worst. For whatever reason they couldn't seem to get their XPS brand as cool as Alienware.

Why they cared...I dunno. Read the Alienware interviews. They had always been undercapitalized and only moved like 50K units a year.

And your point?
I believe they bought them because there are people buying these computers that won't buy from Apple because Apple doesn't offer anything close. There is a market for a mid to upper level tower, just not for Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

As a commodity PC maker with thin margins yes. As a "premium" brand like IBM or Apple? No, don't think so even if they still have the powerful ThinkPad brand.

er, um you might want to look at this http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4574045&EDATE=
From the article:
"Gross margins were 43% in the first quarter of 2007 compared to 36% in the year-ago
period and 42% in the previous quarter."
EVEN YOU MIGHT CONCEDE 43% IS NOT TOO SLIM.


OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

Mkay. So what of IBM, Toshiba and Apple? No clearly these guys have no clue about the PC markets.
Vinea

Apparently not since they got out of the business.
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 #167 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

So why are you being dumb and getting "milked"? Do you REALLY think OSX is that much superior to Ubuntu or Vista that you're a willing rube?

Apple is no more "milking" the faithful than BMW or any other premium brand. Yes, you do pay more for an incremental gain over commodity items. Do you really think the 3 series is actually twice the car as the civic? Or designer clothing, while better made with better materials, is really worth the premium of the label?

No.

These are luxury items for most and if you're buying it for professional reasons then you are only doing so because it represents good value vs their competitors.

Vinea

As a matter of fact, I don't think Apple is milking the faithful. It's your reasoning that is backing up this argument. I happen to think that the iMac and the original G4 Mac mini were quite a good value for the money(re: currently the Mac mini isn't such a great deal with the Yonah, but that's another argument). THEY JUST ARE NICHE MARKET COMPUTERS.

And NO, Apple computers can not be compared to BMW, they now use the same industry standard insides that the other manufacturers use. More than ever, now since the switch to Intel. They just include more stuff in them than the stripped down versions the rest of the industry offers.

What can be considered BMW-like from Apple is the SOFTWARE, including OS X, iApps, Final Cut Express/Studio, etc.
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 #168 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lucrative

I'll agree that the low and mid end tower market isn't all that profitable.

Prove it.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4574045&EDATE=
"Gross margins were 43% in the first quarter of 2007 compared to 36% in the year-ago
period and 42% in the previous quarter."

My evidence is above, were's your's?


OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%
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 #169 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;

...
The advantage of OSX over Windows is ZERO or negative for the majority of folks. Any UI, stability and inherent OS advantages are far outweighed by Windows market share. You want to play many games? Windows. Interact with many web sites? Explorer.
...
Vinea

Then why in the heck is Apple banging the drum in their advertisements on the virtues of Mac OS X over Windows?


Your attitude here is completely defeatist and negative, as is many of the anti xMac arguments. Almost to a poster, the advocates for an xMac are optimistic, having faith in Apple to provide a competitively priced product that might substantially increase Apple's desktop market share and not adversly effect profits.

As Oddball was oft to say," Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves.".
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 #170 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


Yes we are talking about the viability of a Mac prosumer tower. Hence the discussion of how it fits in the product line, the impact to Apple revenue, the impact of the prosumer tower to the branding and whether the product would sell in enough volume to bother.


Then let's talk about how a Mac prosumer tower would fit into Apple's product line, and not be so concerned about how it compares with its Windows counterparts.

First, a Mac mini tower would take no sales from the iMac because of price, when someone compares an iMac to a tower plus a display. An AIO will always be cheaper. I think most of us would agree with that.

A prosumer tower would take sales from the iMac, however, because not all shoppers will need a display too. In addition, there are those who prefer a tower to an AIO, and it doesn't matter why. These shoppers would buy the Mac mini tower if it were available. So why is this considered to be a bad thing? It is giving the customer a choice that he or she does not have today.

I think most of us know why Apple is following the AIO strategy, and not offering a mini tower. Apple, or Steve Jobs specifically, is determined to keep the sales of iMac as high as possible. It is his baby, and he's determined to make it succeed. Steve does a lot of brilliant things, but he also makes some stupid moves. Nobody's perfect.

Second, would a Mac prosumer tower sell enough to make it worthwhile? It's almost a joke to discuss this. Consumer and prosumer towers are the most popular forms of PC there are on the Windows side. To repeat what I've said at least twice now, when we move from Windows to Mac OS X, we don't suddenly change our hardware preferences. We simply look at what Macs are available, rather than what Dell and HP are doing.

Cost wise, a Mac mini tower could bridge the iMac price, and give customers a real choice. That is, the mini tower with a display would cost a little more than a comparable size iMac. Without the display, the tower would be cheaper. That is what I mean by bridging the iMac price.


Quote:

A $1500 Mac Pro would be perceived as a better value than a $1200 xMac because you cannot go directly to the Dell site and configure a better machine for less.


Then, to begin with, Apple would not have to worry about a Mac mini tower robbing the Mac Pro of its sales. Regarding the price of Dells, since Mac users are not choosing between an Apple Mac and Dell, it doesn't matter what a Dell sells for. It would be for curiosity only.

post #171 of 362
one more thing and important thing about xMac or Mac Cube

we are living in two different ERA, IBM's PPC and intel's Core

there is enough space between Conroe (xMac) and Xeon processor (Mac Pro)

if price is rite, xMac will be successful compared to Mac Cube

It is time one of these could happen, Apple cannot just close one eye keep continuing

1. Conroe in iMac
2. xMac
3. worst still, put Conroe in Mac Pro and drop the price, xServe becomes Xeon class machines ( i do not exactly know the performance difference between Conroe Quads Versus Xeon Quads considering the price difference)

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

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

Reply

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

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

Reply
post #172 of 362
I personally think it should just be called "Mac".

Introducing the "Mac".
post #173 of 362
Just "Mac" - Cool

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

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

Reply

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

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

Reply
post #174 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoganT View Post


I personally think it should just be called "Mac".

Introducing the "Mac".


If you didn't have so few posts, I'd accuse you of trying to resurrect this older and long thread on the subject.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=65570

post #175 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

You will have to prove to me that Apple gets 28% on each computer they sell. That's just silly, stop making stuff up.

It was said at one of the quarterlies. I'll look for it later when I have a moment.

Quote:
Dell's margins on their workstation are higher than Apple's
For what possible reason would Apple not target those higher margins? The obvious answer is to promote sales. Your conjecture that Apple is doing it to maintain some mythical 28% margin across each product is wrong. You want evidence, explain the just announced quarters 35% margins.

The reason the margins were high is because component costs dropped and Apple didn't reduce price. They like thier prices and I presume the expect that when they do a rev of the hardware for leopard that the costs will go back to expected levels.

Most of the line up could use a refresh...certainly by the time Santa Rosa rolls in.

Quote:
You keep mentioning quantity price breaks that manufacturers get.
QUOTE THEM FOR CLARITY

Given that the specific numbers are trade secrets that would be difficult. However when there was that spat about Dell, special pricing, monopoly, etc with Intel eventually Intel said they only discount on volume, nothing else.

Quote:
Apple's laptops are quite competitvely priced, yet I do believe other manufacturer's volumes are higher. Wouldn't that mean that Apple again is sacrificing margins for sales?
Or would you have us believe that other manufacturer's margins are higher than Apple's for comparable laptops, but even then this would mean that Apple is sacrificying margins for sales.

Apple's margins for the notebooks it sells is on par with others. How many times do I have to repeat that the notebook market hasn't become a commodity market yet?

Note that Apple does not compete in the ultra-cheap notebook market. That market is growing quickly though. Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO.

Quote:
OK, I believe you, Sony has had AIO for awhile. SO WHAT, it doesn't sell, it won't sell, the vast majority of consumers don't want it and in the Window's world there are plenty of options. This proves nothing.

Why they dropped towers is beyond me. Here's my pet theory. They are trying to more closely integrate their computer line-ups wtih there other product lines, camcorders, dvd players, stereo systems, TV's creating a natural synergy. So what, tens of millions of people are buying mid range towers that have more than acceptable margins.

That integration, ease of use, etc were not compelling enough to sell towers at the rough prices we would expect Apple to sell towers at and at the margins Apple would expect to seel them.

As far as "acceptable" margins, Apple appears to disagree...along with IBM, Sony and Toshiba.

Quote:
What the anti xMac crowd does not seem to grasp is THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT IT, and when trying to capture market share, WHICH APPLE HAS STATED THEY WANT TO DO, they must conjole, attract, appeal to CURRENT WINDOWS USERS, that have not been limited to niche market AIO, ultra small Mac minis. By and large they have rejected them en mass.

Apple has been asked many times these last few quarters of bumper margins whether they would reduce margins to capture more share. Consistently they have said no, they are happy with current growth.

So Apple has stated they want capture more share. ON THEIR TERMS.

Quote:
Yes, Apple is doing awesome, I agree. They were also doing awesome with mind boggling margins in the 25 - 35% range, when they lost the computer and OS wars. In board meetings they laughed about the low margins of their competitors back then and I'm sure they are now.

At no time did Apple have commanding share. Apple vs IBM was a no win for Apple in the business market. The branding of IBM was far too strong in the business arena and their margins were no leaner than Apple's.

The markets that Apple had a shot in, they still are in today (content creation, edu, upper end consumer) with strong share numbers.

Vinea
post #176 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%

Don't worry about it. Everyone has done that before.

But yeah...expect your margins around the 13-18% region for Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, etc.

Apple can make about the same money with lower support and infrastructure costs and a smaller, more agile company. Great if you can do that...and without Jobs Apple was UNABLE to do that.

The guy has some quirks but overall I can live with them.

Vinea
post #177 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post

one more thing and important thing about xMac or Mac Cube

I think a merom cube would do very well...I also doubt Apple would try a cube soon...a shame really.

Vinea
post #178 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Then let's talk about how a Mac prosumer tower would fit into Apple's product line, and not be so concerned about how it compares with its Windows counterparts.

First, a Mac mini tower would take no sales from the iMac because of price, when someone compares an iMac to a tower plus a display. An AIO will always be cheaper. I think most of us would agree with that.

I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that Apple should have a prosumer tower in the price range of $1499-$1699. It is just my opinion is that the easiest way to offer such a tower is to simply have a single Xeon Mac Pro BTO.

With a really slooooow xeon you can get down into the $1250 range. If you agree that the xMac must always be more expensive than a comparable iMac then $1250 is at the bottom end of your range anyway given a $1250 xMac + $679 24" Dell WS display is less expensive than the 24" iMac.

This machine would offer prosumers with all the expansion possibilities they want except as a top end gamer platform.

Vinea
post #179 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I think a merom cube would do very well...I also doubt Apple would try a cube soon...a shame really.

Vinea

Sounds good to me. I have two large monitors on my desk now and can't use an iMac. What about a larger Mini - with all the goodies that an iMac has or more. It could be 1, 2, or more inches taller, but it could have the same footprint.
"Super Mini"; MiniPlus; Mini2; -whatever - with 'room' to grow with an 'Elegant" way to open like the MacPro. Sorry, just daydreaming.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #180 of 362
^^^ even just being able to whack a 3.5" hdd in for large capacity storage and i'd be sold.
post #181 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

That's all well and good for Apple and its' shareholders, of which I am one.

As to whether Apple cares to increase market share, well, that's another story completely. Most people looking to buy a computer that I know don't ask themselves how much profit Apple made as opposed to Dell or HP. They do check their wallet though and the Mac mini and iMac are form factors they are not familiar with on top of being very expensive.

Not in all cases. When I was a PC user, seeing designs like the iMac, Mac Mini, etc. upon wandering into an Apple Store are what grabbed my attention for the sheer fact that they WERE form factors I was unfamiliar with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.
post #182 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD86 View Post


Not in all cases. When I was a PC user, seeing designs like the iMac, Mac Mini, etc. upon wandering into an Apple Store are what grabbed my attention for the sheer fact that they WERE form factors I was unfamiliar with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.


I'm glad you brought that up. There is no doubt that the iMac and/or Mac Mini are attractive to a lot of people. It's easy to forget this fact when you are in the other half of Mac users, or potential switchers from Windows, who do not want either an iMac or Mini. Apple could afford to start covering all their bases by now.

post #183 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post



"Super Mini"; MiniPlus; Mini2; -whatever - with 'room' to grow with an 'Elegant" way to open like the MacPro. Sorry, just daydreaming.


That is what I've been hoping Apple would make, in addition to a prosumer mini tower.


Quote:

What about a larger Mini - with all the goodies that an iMac has or more. It could be 1, 2, or more inches taller, but it could have the same footprint.


I'd suggest a wider and slightly deeper footprint, but not much taller. In this way, I could set my monitor on top of it.

post #184 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that Apple should have a prosumer tower in the price range of $1499-$1699. It is just my opinion is that the easiest way to offer such a tower is to simply have a single Xeon Mac Pro BTO.


Well, I agree that the easiest way to develop a prosumer tower is by using existing Mac Pro hardware. With the sales I'd expect a prosumer tower to have, however, Apple could afford to develop a uniquely different mini tower that has more appeal to this segment of buyers. In addition, manufacturing cost could be lower, allowing more flexibility in establishing price and profit.


Quote:

With a really slooooow xeon you can get down into the $1250 range. If you agree that the xMac must always be more expensive than a comparable iMac then $1250 is at the bottom end of your range anyway given a $1250 xMac + $679 24" Dell WS display is less expensive than the 24" iMac.


I believe $1000 is a good bottom end price, or $999 for those who like to price that way. The bottom end mini tower might have a smaller HDD than the 20 inch iMac, and a combo optical drive. Add $600 for a 20 inch Cinema display and the iMac would be a better deal.

post #185 of 362
Quote:
I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

Quote:
Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

I wasn't aware that other manufacturers made Macs.

Ouch, I'm sorry, but you asked for that. Nice response iPeon.

Personally I'm not that interested in a computer like the one being discussed on this thread. I tend to go to extremes in my computer buying and keep a small notebook and a powerful desktop.

However, I can see why there is a desire out there for something like this. You are not the only one. Most people have no need for a powerful desktop; a great many people want them, for whatever reason (I.e. games), but only a fraction of those people truly need them. Still, if you're like me and you can have what you really want for $500-$1000 extra, you save up and buy it and probably increase the time until you need to upgrade.

People who don't really want anything more in a laptop than what they need don't have much of an option here except for the Mac Mini. The Mac Mini uses a processor designed for a notebook, and it's small form makes it hard to include many of the perks, like loads of ports, that desktop owners want.

So, is there a market for a Mac Tower, using a Desktop CPU, with lots of ports and all the traditional trimming associated with a desktop? Sure there is, but it's a niche market. Most people can make do with the Mac Mini, iMac, or Mac Pro. There's not a very big demanding market for what you want, that doesn't mean people wouldn't choose it over the other things if it was available, but at this point they are still BUYING the other things.

I could see them possibly expanding the options a little on the current Mac Pro into a lower range. That would allow you to make it into a desktop instead of a server by choosing the Kentsfield and other lower range options. I could also see them doing what someone else said and making a Mac Mini Pro or something similar; they could double the height and add other things. Just don't hold your breath for either of these things to happen, they're pretty unlikely. Even more unlikely is that Apple would decide to make something completely new.
post #186 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

The reason the margins were high is because component costs dropped and Apple didn't reduce price. They like thier prices and I presume the expect that when they do a rev of the hardware for leopard that the costs will go back to expected levels.

Most of the line up could use a refresh...certainly by the time Santa Rosa rolls in.Vinea

Which means they didn't meet their target of 28%, they exceeded it, or they really don't have a set target for 28% on each product they sell, or they target 28% across the complete product lines. Me, I think the last option is the most reasonable allowing them to adjust pricing. I'd venture to say they do the same things with the iPods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Given that the specific numbers are trade secrets that would be difficult. However when there was that spat about Dell, special pricing, monopoly, etc with Intel eventually Intel said they only discount on volume, nothing else.
Vinea

Point is you don't know and I don't know. I'm suggesting that the price breaks when in Apple's volumes for Core Duo cpus don't significantly differ from Dell's, Toshiba's, Compac's, Sony's, Lenovo's, with or wihtout iMacs and Mac minis included.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Apple's margins for the notebooks it sells is on par with others. How many times do I have to repeat that the notebook market hasn't become a commodity market yet?

Note that Apple does not compete in the ultra-cheap notebook market. That market is growing quickly though. Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO.
Vinea

Whether or not the notebook market is a commodity market is irrelevant. Apple's most recent gains in market share(except the current quarter) were exclusively due to laptop sales. This means there are switchers, there are people who are attracted to Mac OS X. They just are not buying Apple's desktops, why? Because Apple does not offer a desktop they would buy.

So, you're saying, Apple has exited the traditional desktop market and no longer desires to increase desktop market share. When laptops become a commodity, you're saying Apple will exit this market too. What does that leave? Exiting the computer market completely?

High priced niche market computers is not sustainable. Apple is currently trying to branch out into the phone market, AppleTV market. Without computer's both these ventures will fail.

Again you present the milk the faithful argument = " Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO"

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

That integration, ease of use, etc were not compelling enough to sell towers at the rough prices we would expect Apple to sell towers at and at the margins Apple would expect to seel them.

As far as "acceptable" margins, Apple appears to disagree...along with IBM, Sony and Toshiba.Vinea

Well, without IBM, Sony and Toshiba maybe less competition means more opportunity. Look on the bright side. Other companies are making profits and the mid to upper end sales are the low hanging fruit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Apple has been asked many times these last few quarters of bumper margins whether they would reduce margins to capture more share. Consistently they have said no, they are happy with current growth.

So Apple has stated they want capture more share. ON THEIR TERMS.Vinea

So, I guess they really don't try to target 28% for each product.
What growth?
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03...php?lsrc=mwrss
Apple notebook market share falls in fourth quarter

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

At no time did Apple have commanding share. Apple vs IBM was a no win for Apple in the business market. The branding of IBM was far too strong in the business arena and their margins were no leaner than Apple's.

The markets that Apple had a shot in, they still are in today (content creation, edu, upper end consumer) with strong share numbers.
Vinea

They are losing edu, especially in the K -12 market. Over the years they have also lost content creation, remember Adobe recommending other manufacturers computers? Apple has gained some in video, only because of Final Cut. Adobe Premier had crippled Apple versions.
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 #187 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

Which means they didn't meet their target of 28%, they exceeded it, or they really don't have a set target for 28% on each product they sell, or they target 28% across the complete product lines. Me, I think the last option is the most reasonable allowing them to adjust pricing. I'd venture to say they do the same things with the iPods.

Mmmm...okay to be strictly pendantic then no, 28% is not an absolute target. However, historically, Apple has never shifted pricing downward to pass saving on to consumers and has margins in the 25-28%+ region.

They typically have guidance for that range so you certainly can say they target that for their product lines as a whole. What is certain is that you cannot sell a large volume of low margin items and STILL have 28% gross margins.

But its rather odd for you to be arguing that Apple doesn't strive for high margins when the only examples you have are when they have even HIGHER margins in a quarter. Historically Apple's margins have been quite high and the only way to get that consistent behaviour is for them to actually be targetting high margins.

So arguing that NO! APPLES MARGINS ARE 35% and not 28%! THEREFORE THEY SHOULD OFFER PRODUCTS WITH 5-10% MARGINS! is just...silly.

Quote:
I'm suggesting that the price breaks when in Apple's volumes for Core Duo cpus don't significantly differ from Dell's, Toshiba's, Compac's, Sony's, Lenovo's, with or wihtout iMacs and Mac minis included.

So you're saying that the price is the same for 1.5M vs 1M? Mkay.

Quote:
Whether or not the notebook market is a commodity market is irrelevant.

It's not irrelvant if you're trying to guess how long Apple will stay in the notebook market. Also the fact that it is not yet a commodity market means the margins are still high enough for Apple to remain competitive.

Quote:
So, you're saying, Apple has exited the traditional desktop market and no longer desires to increase desktop market share. When laptops become a commodity, you're saying Apple will exit this market too. What does that leave? Exiting the computer market completely?

Well...they DID drop computer from their name.

But yes, I would say that when laptops become a commodity then Apple will be reduced to the MBP for the high end, an ultraportable and a multi-touch tablet within the notebook segment.

They will then be into...who knows, wearable computers? The iPhone and aTV are certainly indicators of where they intend to put OSX next.

Quote:
High priced niche market computers is not sustainable. Apple is currently trying to branch out into the phone market, AppleTV market. Without computer's both these ventures will fail.

Again you present the milk the faithful argument = " Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO"

You say milk the faithful.

I say provide luxury computing and lifestyle products. At some point notebooks wont be in those categories but something else will. Apple will offer those and not notebooks except for some niche ones just as they do in the desktop market.

Quote:
Well, without IBM, Sony and Toshiba maybe less competition means more opportunity. Look on the bright side. Other companies are making profits and the mid to upper end sales are the low hanging fruit.



Quote:
So, I guess they really don't try to target 28% for each product.
What growth?
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03...php?lsrc=mwrss
Apple notebook market share falls in fourth quarter

By 7/10s of 1 percent. But they do have growth in total sales and I dunno what point you're trying to make.

You say Apple wants more market share and use that as "proof" that they should reduce margins to capture more share.

I point out that folks have asked Apple just that in their quarterlies and they said "No". So gee, maybe that means that repeating the mantra that "Apple has stated they want more share" doesn't meet with the reality of Apple's actual behavior. Yes, they would like more share, no, not enough to reduce margins even from a lofty 35%.

I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.

Vinea
post #188 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.

Vinea



To have a fruitful discussion one has to have some basic agreements. There ain't any here.

post #189 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.


Strange that you bring up the word "lucrative" here, when I suspect you are the one not getting the subtile differences in meaning. You seem to use the word as a synonym for profitable, which misses the nuance of lucrative.

If you had a marginally profitable business and went to the bank for a loan, saying your business is lucrative, it might raise a few eyebrows. Most of us use lucrative to convey producing a great deal of profit, which is the meaning shown by the dictionary on my Mac.

It can also be used to mean yielding a profit, large or small, that is easy to come by. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says it is wealth or profit acquired, received, or had without burdensome conditions or giving of consideration.

Okay, here is how you used it in your post.

Quote:

If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting then explain why IBM sold it off to Lenovo, Sony only has AIOs in its remaining desktop lineup and Toshiba bailed entirely?


A rhetorical question that seems to assume we believe the Windows tower market is extremely profitable. You attempt to show we are wrong by pointing out how IBM and Sony got out of the tower market. You imply the market has little or low profit, and is not lucrative.

In my reply, I point out that we never claimed that the market for Windows towers is lucrative. I went on to explain that low profits on the Windows side does not mean that Apple could not make a very good profit on the Mac side, saying:

"On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far. You could argue that Mac users don't want a mini tower, but who will believe you?"

"Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out."


To which you reply:

Quote:

If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...


So, you say Windows towers are not so lucrative. When I say essentially the same thing, you say I don't know what lucrative means. Yes, maybe a sensible discussion is impossible.

post #190 of 362
I think Vinea's argument comes down to four things.

1. There is not enough difference between Mac OS X and the iapps and their windows counterparts to warrant coming to the Mac for operating system alone.

Having used windows extensively, I can can tell you the difference is that great.

2. If its not the operating system, Mac users must come to Apple soley for the cutting edge designs.

There is some truth to this but, it's the not the whole story. There are many who are just plain sick of windows. Nobody else is allowed to make Mac OS X compatible computers, so Apple is the only game in town.

3. Once again, since the operating system doesn't make all that much difference Apple inherently operates in the same cut throat market as windows PCs.

Not true. The cut throat market is the medium to low end market. It's very crowded and the only way Dell or HP or Gateway can make a sale is give the user or company a little bit better deal than the competition. Apple has two main advantages, number one, like I said earlier, they are the only Mac maker, so 100% of those who want the OS have to come to them.

Number 2, they do not operate in the cutthroat value computer market, they operate in the more affluent upper end. Yes, Mac biases might discount this, but there are actually many upscale PC buys who know what they're talking about. These users are looking for the best PC available at the price. If we're talking about a family PC, the iMac makes a good choice or them. If they are looking for something more, Apple has nothing to sell them. They do not take the Mac religiously, so they much less likely to get duped into a workstation for Apple's betterment. They may be small, at 25% at best, but that's huge by Apple's standards. The AIO and SFF desktop markets that Apple deal in perhaps make up a 3 or 4% at best. Is everything that is not a notebook or the Mac Pro to be abandoned because the market is not there on the PC side?

Apple makes its computer profits by high margins and being the only choice. They would still be present in a consumer tower. In fact, since PC companies tend to make up losses on the low end with insane margins on the high end, Apple might actually be cheaper. We see in in the Mac Pro. Why not make a more desirable machine that can lock more people in?

4. If Apple does something it must inherently be the correct action.

Also not true. Steve jobs is more a visionary, than a businessman. He tries to get ahead of trends and predict what users might want in the future. Nothing he does is every lukewarm, it's almost always a spectacular success or a dismal failure. He tries to push the envelope and some times goes so far that he comes up with a machine that is revolutionary, yet ultimately undesirable to the intended audience (see PMG4 cube). He is also a man of many biases and large ego. The all in one form factor has been a pet project of his since the Apple II. Would he do something that could hurt Apple in an attempt to prove himself right? Absolutely.
post #191 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Strange that you bring up the word "lucrative" here, when I suspect you are the one not getting the subtile differences in meaning. You seem to use the word as a synonym for profitable, which misses the nuance of lucrative.

If you had a marginally profitable business and went to the bank for a loan, saying your business is lucrative, it might raise a few eyebrows. Most of us use lucrative to convey producing a great deal of profit, which is the meaning shown by the dictionary on my Mac.

No, I understand the nuance just fine. The point is why would a business invest in a domain that is at best described as "marginally profitable" by its proponents?

Quote:
Okay, here is how you used it in your post.

Of course there is profit in the tower business. Or even Dell and HP would have exited as well. The point is that a commodity market is NOT lucrative even though it can be profitable...but you sure have to work pretty hard at it.

Investing in the tower market, windows or mac, doesn't seem like a great use of time or resources by Apple.

Quote:
A rhetorical question that seems to assume we believe the Windows tower market is extremely profitable. You attempt to show we are wrong by pointing out how IBM and Sony got out of the tower market. You imply the market has little or low profit, and is not lucrative.

In my reply, I point out that we never claimed that the market for Windows towers is lucrative. I went on to explain that low profits on the Windows side does not mean that Apple could not make a very good profit on the Mac side, saying:

Proponents for the xMac repeatedly assert that the majority of the market consists of towers and that is sufficient justification that Apple should also have a tower and that such a tower would increase profits and share. Typically the implication is that profits would increase wildly as Apple took over the world...and Jobs is simply being obstinate in not offering an xMac.

Quote:
"Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out."

YOU may WANT such a product but clearly you have not shown that you are willing to PAY for such a product in as much as the majority of complaints is that the Mac Pro is too expensive and you consistently push for $1000 tower. It is clear that no xMac as Apple would build it (and not Dell with a nicer case) would satisfy you. Every time I suggest a $1499-$1799 Mac Pro we end up right back at the $1K price point. Even $1200 you feel is too high as minimum even though that's a good $200 less than I think would be even vaguely considered by Apple.

Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.

But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.

Vinea
post #192 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.


I certainly wouldn't be lucrative, making a great or obscene profit, but it would be as profitable as say an iMac, and greatly boost Apple's market share.


Quote:

But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.


Like I said: "On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far." Apple can set any profit margin it wishes to for a Mac mini tower.

Well, at least we got the meaning of lucrative settled, I think.

post #193 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

I think Vinea's argument comes down to four things.

1. There is not enough difference between Mac OS X and the iapps and their windows counterparts to warrant coming to the Mac for operating system alone.

Having used windows extensively, I can can tell you the difference is that great.

90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.

Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.

Quote:
2. If its not the operating system, Mac users must come to Apple soley for the cutting edge designs.

There is some truth to this but, it's the not the whole story. There are many who are just plain sick of windows. Nobody else is allowed to make Mac OS X compatible computers, so Apple is the only game in town.

Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.

94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.

OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.

Quote:
3. Once again, since the operating system doesn't make all that much difference Apple inherently operates in the same cut throat market as windows PCs.

Not true. The cut throat market is the medium to low end market. It's very crowded and the only way Dell or HP or Gateway can make a sale is give the user or company a little bit better deal than the competition. Apple has two main advantages, number one, like I said earlier, they are the only Mac maker, so 100% of those who want the OS have to come to them.

The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).

Quote:
Number 2, they do not operate in the cutthroat value computer market, they operate in the more affluent upper end. Yes, Mac biases might discount this, but there are actually many upscale PC buys who know what they're talking about. These users are looking for the best PC available at the price. If we're talking about a family PC, the iMac makes a good choice or them. If they are looking for something more, Apple has nothing to sell them. They do not take the Mac religiously, so they much less likely to get duped into a workstation for Apple's betterment. They may be small, at 25% at best, but that's huge by Apple's standards. The AIO and SFF desktop markets that Apple deal in perhaps make up a 3 or 4% at best. Is everything that is not a notebook or the Mac Pro to be abandoned because the market is not there on the PC side?

And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).

Quote:
4. If Apple does something it must inherently be the correct action.

Also not true. Steve jobs is more a visionary, than a businessman.

Strawman.

My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market. Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.

The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.

xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.

OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.

So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?

Vinea
post #194 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.

Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.



Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.

94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.

OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.



The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).



And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).



Strawman.

My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market. Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.

The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.

xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.

OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.

So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?

Vinea


Seriously, do you actually listen to what people are writing are jsut stick to your preconceived notion that everyone who currently is not on the Mac is some kind of low end ignorant cheapass? [b]For the last time time we are not talking about the people $1000 and below. We are talking about the $1200-$2000 prosumer market. AKA those between the low end/ family (iMac/ Mini) and high end professional (Mac Pro) markets.

Second, Toshiba, Sony, and IBM were never high end makers. They were too expensive for the value market and didn't hold a candle to the boutique makers.
post #195 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

I certainly wouldn't be lucrative, making a great or obscene profit, but it would be as profitable as say an iMac, and greatly boost Apple's market share.

Then you ARE saying it is lucrative...because if it is as profitable as an iMac (margin wise) AND greatly boosts Apple's market share then you are selling a lot more units at 28% margins that no one else has managed to do. Because "greatly boosting" Apple's market share means selling a huge number of machines over the 1.6M/qtr they do today.

If Apple could move an additional 1.4M $1000 xMacs/qtr @ 25% gross margins that $350M more per quarter and $1.4B over the year. At that point no one cares that you just slashed your ASPs...your maintained > 25% gross margins with hugely increased revenues. I don't care who you are or what definition you choose to use...that's damn lucrative...and 25% IS obscene profits in the commodity PC market.

You just can't show that second step because if you COULD show that second step then Apple's board would have overruled Jobs by now and you'd have your xMac tower.

Quote:
Like I said: "On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far." Apple can set any profit margin it wishes to for a Mac mini tower.

Well, at least we got the meaning of lucrative settled, I think.


It sure as heck isn't lucrative if they make an overpriced tower and fail to sell any. I think the cube proved that Apple can't just shove whatever on the market and make it fly.

And no, you still don't get the meaning of lucrative...which ranges from "attractively profitable" in addition to "obscenely profitable".

Vinea
post #196 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Seriously, do you actually listen to what people are writing are jsut stick to your preconceived notion that everyone who currently is not on the Mac is some kind of low end ignorant cheapass? [b]For the last time time we are not talking about the people $1000 and below. We are talking about the $1200-$2000 prosumer market. AKA those between the low end/ family (iMac/ Mini) and high end professional (Mac Pro) markets.

Second, Toshiba, Sony, and IBM were never high end makers. They were too expensive for the value market and didn't hold a candle to the boutique makers.

You aren't the only one in this thread. If you don't like that other folks keep pushing $1000 xMacs into the discussion then instead of staying quiet you could say something to them and NOT me.

Your problem is that you want ONE particular solution...a Conroe based xMac. You have disregarded previous options of Xeon or Merom based towers.

Tough. Most prosumers would be satisfied with either if Apple actually did either a revamped cube (merom based) or a single Xeon BTO.

And saying that IBM was never a high end maker is just silly. They DEFINED the high end market for business. Sony did so for the consumer end with the VAIO line.

Vinea
post #197 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


And no, you still don't get the meaning of lucrative . . . which ranges from "attractively profitable" in addition to "obscenely profitable".


I don't think there is a defined point where a business goes from being very profitable to lucrative. I take producing a great deal of profit, which is the Mac dictionary definition, to be well above a good, normal profit of 30 or so percent. I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying. This is the first time I've ever had to explain it so precisely.



Quote:

and 25% IS obscene profits in the commodity PC market.


I certainly wouldn't consider 25 percent profit obscene in any market. It's a good profit and realistic in most cases. Just because the Windows consumer and prosumer tower market is cut-throat, and no one is making a reasonable profit, this does not mean a normal, good profit here is lucrative.



Quote:

Then you ARE saying it is lucrative...because if it is as profitable as an iMac (margin wise) AND greatly boosts Apple's market share then you are selling a lot more units at 28% margins that no one else has managed to do. Because "greatly boosting" Apple's market share means selling a huge number of machines over the 1.6M/qtr they do today.


My apology for exaggerating, using the word great. I guess because Apple's market share is so low, any increase seems great to me.



Quote:

It sure as heck isn't lucrative if they make an overpriced tower and fail to sell any. I think the cube proved that Apple can't just shove whatever on the market and make it fly.


I believe this issue has been covered adequately, many times, by others.

post #198 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

I don't think there is a defined point where a business goes from being very profitable to lucrative. I take producing a great deal of profit, which is the Mac dictionary definition, to be well above a good, normal profit of 30 or so percent. I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying. This is the first time I've ever had to explain it so precisely.

Gee, you know there's more than one dictionary...and given I've provided a well known alternative you might say that your insistance that there is but one narrow meaning to the word might be a tad...limited.

So...here's a few more:

Wordnet (princeton) S: (adj) lucrative, moneymaking, remunerative (producing a sizeable profit) "a remunerative business"

FreeDictionary: Producing wealth; profitable: a lucrative income; a lucrative marketing strategy.

YourDictionary: Producing wealth; profitable: a lucrative income; a lucrative marketing strategy.

Dict,die.net: adj : producing a good profit; "a remunerative business" [syn: moneymaking, remunerative]

english-test.net: Definition of lucrative (adjective) profitable; gainful; comprehensible

Merriam-Webster: Function: adjective, Etymology: Middle English lucratif, from Middle French, from Latin lucrativus, from lucratus, past participle of lucrari to gain, from lucrum
: producing wealth : PROFITABLE

(Note: Same definition as in the paperback Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary Office Edition)

So ya think that maybe...just maybe there are folks that use the word without requiring "obscene" or "great deal" of profit for something to be lucrative?

Perhaps your narrow usage isn't the common one?

Quote:
I certainly wouldn't consider 25 percent profit obscene in any market. It's a good profit and realistic in most cases. Just because the Windows consumer and prosumer tower market is cut-throat, and no one is making a reasonable profit, this does not mean a normal, good profit here is lucrative.

Obscene is a subjective assessment. Relative to what Dell makes getting 25%+ margins on a $1000 machines is huge/great/fantastic/tremendous/obscene profits. Highly lucrative.

If you can sell any.

Quote:
My apology for exaggerating, using the word great. I guess because Apple's market share is so low, any increase seems great to me.

Any significant change in share means a lot of profit because current numbers relative to the larger market isn't all that high. Unless you assume that you cannibalize the entire current lineup and produce a meager 600,001 xMacs increasing share by .000000001 percent and trashing your revenue in the process.

The point is you cannot BOTH say that xMacs are not lucrative AND assume any significant increase in share.

Quote:
I believe this issue has been covered adequately, many times, by others.

And I disagree. No one has shown that Apple can move $800 towers for $1000 significantly better than IBM, Sony or Toshiba could. There's some handwaving and claims of the superiority of OSX but no substantive argument.

I can argue the "superiority" of Linux over Windows (with great difficulty in keeping a straight face) but the market certainly hasn't done ANYTHING in terms of adoption of Linux on the desktop (given that Win95 still has a higher installed base than Linux). Even assuming that OSX is twice as good as Ubuntu the rate of adoption on the strength of the OS alone is going to be really really meager.

Ubuntu is free. OSX is not.

Vinea
post #199 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Of course there is profit in the tower business. Or even Dell and HP would have exited as well. The point is that a commodity market is NOT lucrative even though it can be profitable...but you sure have to work pretty hard at it.

The mid to upper end consumer machines are obviously not commodity market and this is where Dell tries to increase margins to make up for the low end.

No one here has suggested that Apple get into the commondity market.



Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Proponents for the xMac repeatedly assert that the majority of the market consists of towers

We don't assert this, it is fact not ficiton.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

and that is sufficient justification that Apple should also have a tower and that such a tower would increase profits and share.

NO, we have said that margins might, I stress might be, lower, but the distinct possibility exists that Apple may increase market share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Typically the implication is that profits would increase wildly as Apple took over the world...and Jobs is simply being obstinate in not offering an xMac.

Show me just one reference where any one advocating Apple offer an xMac has said anything close to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

YOU may WANT such a product but clearly you have not shown that you are willing to PAY for such a product in as much as the majority of complaints is that the Mac Pro is too expensive and you consistently push for $1000 tower. It is clear that no xMac as Apple would build it (and not Dell with a nicer case) would satisfy you. Every time I suggest a $1499-$1799 Mac Pro we end up right back at the $1K price point. Even $1200 you feel is too high as minimum even though that's a good $200 less than I think would be even vaguely considered by Apple.

Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.

But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.

No, it is not clear to you.

An xMac with a single Conroe, blah, blah blah priced in the $1499 - $1799 market would not sell. If it had a Xeon, it would not sell even more. This is a redux of the infamous Cube.

Dell averages between 16 - 18% margins, therefore their mid to upper end consumer offering HAVE TO BE HIGHER, MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LOW END $499 MACHINES. What they are, who knows, but considering the volume of the mid to upper end is LOWER, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, than the low end offerings the margins on the mid to upper end in order to skew the average up to 16 - 18% it would seem to be in the 22 - 28% area and maybe just maybe higher. This IS THE LUCRATIVE MARKET YOU KEEP REFERING TO.
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 #200 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


Gee, you know there's more than one dictionary. . . you might say that your insistance that there is but one narrow meaning to the word might be a tad . . . limited.


I'll simply repeat what I said: "I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying." Does that sound like I insist on one narrow meaning of the word?



Quote:

Perhaps your narrow usage isn't the common one?


Many words have taken on a nuance in usage that go beyond most dictionary definitions. It's okay to use lucrative as a synonym for profitable, and when you do, readers will pick up on your meaning from the context. It's also okay to use lucrative to mean a very great profit, a distinction that most dictionaries miss entirely. If I use lucrative in this way, I expect that my readers will pick up on the meaning from the context. Normally, it is no big deal whether the reader sees the subtile difference or not. However, as I alluded to earlier, this is the first time anyone has challenged the way I use the word lucrative.

Many or the references you cited do show lucrative going beyond just being profitable, and there are more yet. Espindle says highly profitable. WordNet says producing a good profit. Answers.com say well paid, which can be translated to very good profit for a business situation. And or course the Apple dictionary which says producing a great deal of profit. All of these go beyond simply profitable. One even gives the usual "profitable" as the first meaning, but give "greedy gain" as a second meaning, the Brainy Dictionary.

We could take a survey to see how other use the word lucrative, but I found one from Google. It gave "profitable" as the meaning and asked for a rating of that meaning, from 1 to 5. When I checked, profitable was being rated below a 2. So, not everybody is happy with simply profitable.



Quote:

Obscene is a subjective assessment. Relative to what Dell makes getting 25%+ margins on a $1000 machines is huge/great/fantastic/tremendous/obscene profits. Highly lucrative.


What you are really saying is that the adjective use to describe profitability of a company depend on what market it's in. I agree that you can do this if you use a qualifier, as you did above: "Relative to what Dell makes." However, if profitability is discussed without a qualifier, I believe a persons use of adjectives ought to be consistent, to not confuse the reader.

By the way, I'm sorry I used the word obscene. I don't think lucrative would imply an obscene profit. Yet everyone is free to use adjectives this way, if it's consistent.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple ever make this machine?