or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple seeing "unprecedented" surge in MacBook demand
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple seeing "unprecedented" surge in MacBook demand - Page 2

post #41 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Nobody would buy the midrange tower if it cost the same or more than the iMac.

Customer: "What's this computer here?"
Sales Assoc: "Oh that's the new xMac. It's expandable."
Customer: "Does it cost less than the iMac here?"
Sales: "Well, they're about the same, but the xMac is expandable."
Customer: "Expandable for what?"
Sales: "You can add PCI cards, extra hard drives, change the video card, change the optical drive..."
Customer: "But it doesn't come with a display?"
Sales: "No, but we have displays starting at $599."

{Customer buys iMac.}

The customer then notices that there is no option for the glossy screen.. gets mad and wanders home with a glossy iMac with tears in the eyes. The customer wanted to save a few bucks and went for the more reasonable sized 20" iMac and realized at home that the vertical viewing angle was like 2 degrees..

The new iMac looks great, but I'm happy I've got the previous version. An xMac would be neat for gamers though.. could work..
post #42 of 132
Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"

Give it up. Apple isn't about to trash its entire desktop line to introduce a lower profit xMac to compete with HP and Dell in a cutthroat market with minimal margins.

I really love the guy that whines that he'll be without a computer because there's no xMac replacement for his iBook. WTF?

Heh...and the guy moving to the PS3 to run Linux because the MacBook is "underpowered"...without realizing that you can't access the PS3 GPU from Linux at this time.

Vinea
post #43 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"

I just need something expandable thats slightly cheaper than the mac pro so I can afford a monitor... It could be $1500 for all I care...
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
post #44 of 132
Quote:
Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"

As how it goes on AppleInsider. From one standpoint I can see what they are saying. I also would like to buy an expandable Mac, but I don't need a Mac Pro.

OTOH I can also see how such a computer may not fit into Apple's busines model. I certainly do not see the logic of viewing Apple's success as proof that they need a midrange desktop. Especially looking at HP and Dell, why in the world would Apple want to follow what they are doing.
post #45 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhill View Post

Sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously there was word out today that Dell was having problem with the paint on their new "Colorful" laptops. It's just goes to show, take a mediocre laptop and slap a coat of cheap paint on it and what do you have? A cheap laptop with the paint flaking off.

And this with Back To School season here. Guess the Apple Stores will be packed and with Parallels, VMWare's Fusion and Boot Camp you can easily run windows if you wanted to really torture yourself.

AND the courts have recently upheld the ban on the chipset for iPhone's competition. Just think of it, your competitors are blocked by the courts and have tons of inventory that has paint peeling off.

It's a good time to be long Apple stock.

The other problem is that supplies for the LED backlighting, as well as for the glass used, is also in short supply. The article in the WSJ mentioned that those supplies were most likely constrained for its competitors as well (Apple anyone?).

So, in case some here are still complaining about Apple not using LEDs for the MacBooks yet, that could be a reason.

It's interesting that Dell is willing to put state of the art technology into its $1,000 laptops, but that Apple is not, relegating them to second best after Dell.
post #46 of 132
Quote:
It's interesting that Dell is willing to put state of the art technology into its $1,000 laptops, but that Apple is not, relegating them to second best after Dell.

With strong MB sales there is no reason for Apple to interupt its supply chain and eat into its profit with limited and expensive LED backlighting.

LED backlight supply will improve and price will go down. Apple will include it in a MB refresh to keep sales strong.
post #47 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Nobody would buy the midrange tower if it cost the same or more than the iMac.

Customer: "What's this computer here?"
Sales Assoc: "Oh that's the new xMac. It's expandable."
Customer: "Does it cost less than the iMac here?"
Sales: "Well, they're about the same, but the xMac is expandable."
Customer: "Expandable for what?"
Sales: "You can add PCI cards, extra hard drives, change the video card, change the optical drive..."
Customer: "But it doesn't come with a display?"
Sales: "No, but we have displays starting at $599."

{Customer buys iMac.}

It doesn't have to be more expensive.

What you're doing here is taking two poor decisions by Apple to make an excuse for them to not have made two good decisions.

I can't figure that one out.

Two proper decisions for apple would have been to, as I've ben saying for years, come out with a mid tower starting around $1,000, or less, and a less expensive monitor line as well. It wouldn't kill them, and would lead to greater sales.

Apple's desktop sales are artificially depressed because they refuse to compete in the largest market segments.

I've always found it to be odd that when Apple comes out with new products such as LCD monitors, its products are LESS expensive than anyone else's, but that it then lets them founder, until competitors have less expensive products, often that perform better.

This is poor thinking on Apple's part. I don't care what their plans are. They are no good.

There is NO excuse for their monitors to cost what they do right now. If they want high end graphics monitors, they should make sure that that line is better in performance than they are now, and then have a less expensive line for everyone else.

It's purely dumbness, and stubbornness, to refuse to have less expensive monitors while trying to sell Minis. Not only does this lose monitor sales for Apple, but it prevents the sale of Minis as well.
post #48 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

With strong MB sales there is no reason for Apple to interupt its supply chain and eat into its profit with limited and expensive LED backlighting.

Nonsense!

That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.

Every time Apple refuses to put features that are standard on PC's, even much cheaper models, people here come out with excuses for why Apple shouldn't do it. If later, Apple does do it, I don't see them complaining that Apple is cutting its profits.

Apple has enough buying power these days to get good prices on these items.

There are those who have complained that Apple's margins are TOO high. This is one reason. Apple milks what it has for as long as it can.

That's why we see 2400's and 2600 Pro's in the iMacs, instead of much better gpu's that cost little more. For example, the 8600GTS is only $50 moreretail, perhaps $25 OEM (or less). To think that Apple couldn't have put that into the $1799 Mac is difficult for me to understand. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to raise the price to $1849 because of it, but really!!!

The same thing with Santa Rosa in the MB. While it didn't improve he power of the other machines it's used in overall, the gpu is better.

Now Intel has released drivers for the 3000 gpu inside to do gpu based vertex processing, a BIG boost.

When will Apple update the drives to utilize that? Probably well after everyone else does.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8519
post #49 of 132
Quote:
That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.

In this case I don't see the great advantage LED backlighting provide that its worth interupting the supply chain and paying more for. When people are happily buying MB the way it is.

Quote:
That's why we see 2400's and 2600 Pro's in the iMacs, instead of much better gpu's that cost little more.

As far as how Apple chooses its GPU. That's a different issue. Really only they know why they came to that desicion. Perhaps it is just being cheap.
post #50 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

In this case I don't see the great advantage LED backlighting provide that its worth interupting the supply chain and paying more for. When people are happily buying MB the way it is.

Here is one important reason for going LED:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-8741-9027

This is a very good article from one of the premier pro photographic sites and digital leaders, Rob Galbraith. Well worth reading.

Quote:
As far as how Apple chooses its GPU. That's a different issue. Really only they know why they came to that desicion. Perhaps it is just being cheap.

Cheap it is!

In times of rising sales, it can be difficult to see an advantage to making the product even more desirable, it's true. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, and that sales wouldn't increase even more.
post #51 of 132
Quote:
This is a very good article from one of the premier pro photographic sites and digital leaders, Rob Galbraith. Well worth reading.

That is a good article and to me is an endorsement of why Apple put LED into the MBP 15" and why they should get it into the 17" ASAP. Where accurate color is more important.

For the MB accurate color is of less importance and LED can wait until its cheaper with better supply.
post #52 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That is a good article and to me is an endorsement of why Apple put LED into the MBP 15" and why they should get it into the 17" ASAP. Where accurate color is more important.

For the MB accurate color is of less importance and LED can wait until its cheaper with better supply.

I know people who can't afford a MBP for Photoshop, but would still like to edit on a MB, that's particularly true in schools where laptops have become common.

The MP is a premier consumer, and school laptop. The top end model, at least, could have one.
post #53 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by satchmo View Post

If Apple wanted to put the final nail into the coffin, they need:

a) SuperDrives across the line
b) a 15" model OPTION
c) remove that premium pricing for black

Absolutely! Particularly the SuperDrives, you'd have to go very low price to find a PC laptop without a DVD burner these days.

IRT Topic:

Dude! You're getting a Mac!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #54 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Typical. News report that Apple is seeing a massive surge in sales. The result is massive whining about "there's no xMac!"

You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?

I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin". I advocate an xMac lineup starting at $499 and going up to $1999; this would replace the Mac Mini and run alongside the iMac. At $499 to $799, the margins would probably be just under 20% and increase to the high twenties once you get to $1999. It's easy when all you think of is Macs to not realise that $499 is not the lowest of the low-end anymore, it's the highest of the low-end / beginning of the mid-range. Below $499 is where the razor-thin margins are, and I nor anyone else here has ever once suggested that Apple should go there.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #55 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?

I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin". I advocate an xMac lineup starting at $499 and going up to $1999; this would replace the Mac Mini and run alongside the iMac. At $499 to $799, the margins would probably be just under 20% and increase to the high twenties once you get to $1999. It's easy when all you think of is Macs to not realise that $499 is not the lowest of the low-end anymore, it's the highest of the low-end / beginning of the mid-range. Below $499 is where the razor-thin margins are, and I nor anyone else here has ever once suggested that Apple should go there.

i don't even think that Apple has to go that low. $799 would get quite a crowd of home and school purchases. business is also looking for a medium priced machine in that range. I also don't think they have to go that high. $1,499 would be a good cap.

So a base machine at $799 that could be loaded to $1,499 would be a good med priced line.
post #56 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

While the laptop numbers are great, the desktop numbers are further evidence that Apple really doesn't understand the market for desktop computers anymore, IMHO...

I don't know about that. These numbers were over a pretty short window, specifically the one right before the iMacs were updated. They simply hadn't updated any of the desktops in a while, so sales were sagging. And even those numbers are going up for apple, aren't they?

Personally, I'd love to see more desktop options from Apple. I just don't agree that this article proves that they're blowing it in the desktop market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Nobody would buy the midrange tower if it cost the same or more than the iMac.

That's true...but who ever said that it should cost more than the iMac? Slots are dirt cheap. Sure, they add a small cost to the machine, but the expense is far less than a 20 or 24 inch LCD. A basic tower shouldn't cost much more than a mini, which has an inflated price due to the laptop components. If you're not paying for the miniaturization, you could put equivalents of the mini components in a normal sized case along with a bigger hard drive, a better DVD drive, an open bay or two and a couple slots.

A simple minitower is probably the cheapest possible machine to manufacture. Apple could easily make one cheaply, sell it for a competitive price, and still make profits comparable to what they're getting on the iMac.

Also, don't forget that apple is only using the Xeon and laptop chips in their "desktop" line. Intel has the Conroe line which has better bang for buck than what apple is using now, and apple has never taken advantage of it. Heck, apple could even take their current tower and just ship a conroe version on the low end (even if that meant it were a dual instead of a quad), and it would be way cheaper.
post #57 of 132
Quote:
You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?

No I don't believe its that simple an explination. Dell/HP sales include business to business sales which is the majority of desktop sales. If this were divided between business to business and buseinss to consumer I'm sure the numbers would change alot. Apple is more business to consumer than business to business.

When you walk into Best Buy these days you see notebooks prominent in the front shelves while desktops are farther back on the wall shelves. Where they place products on shelf space and in easy view means a lot in the retail business.

Quote:
To think that Apple couldn't have put that into the $1799 Mac is difficult for me to understand. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to raise the price to $1849 because of it, but really!!!

Another thought on this. We don't know how much Apple pays Intel. Apple does not buy in the same number as Dell/HP. But Apple has been getting new processors such as the X7900 before everyone else. I imagine Apple has to pay for this exclusivity and may balance out that cost with a cheaper GPU.
post #58 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

No I don't believe its that simple an explination. Dell/HP sales include business to business sales which is the majority of desktop sales. If this were divided between business to business and buseinss to consumer I'm sure the numbers would change alot. Apple is more business to consumer than business to business.

Yes, and that's one reason why business gives for not buying more Macs.

Quote:
When you walk into Best Buy these days you see notebooks prominent in the front shelves while desktops are farther back on the wall shelves. Where they place products on shelf space and in easy view means a lot in the retail business.

Very true.

Quote:
Another thought on this. We don't know how much Apple pays Intel. Apple does not buy in the same number as Dell/HP. But Apple has been getting new processors such as the X7900 before everyone else. I imagine Apple has to pay for this exclusivity and may balance out that cost with a cheaper GPU.

Apple pays whatever any other company about the same size, buying about the same number of chips of that type pays, no more, no less.

I would imagine the advantage to Apple, which is a minor one, is the price of doing Apple's business from the original negotiations with Intel. It may disappear after some set time, or after Apple reaches a certain size.

I think that Apple cuts whereever it can.

They are still not concerned about gaming. As long as people say that Macs are not for serious work, that will continue. I just went through that with someone here on another thread.
post #59 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Nonsense!

That's just another excuse to forgive Apple for what it does.

Every time Apple refuses to put features that are standard on PC's, even much cheaper models, people here come out with excuses for why Apple shouldn't do it. If later, Apple does do it, I don't see them complaining that Apple is cutting its profits.

Not exactly. It seems to me that the people finding "excuses" for apple are really trying to imagine what apple must be thinking. (We may end up sounding like Apple apoligistas because we are up against irrational whiners.)
It shouldn't be that difficult to see that apple doesn't sell an xMac because they don't want to.
It is not because they are idiots as most of the midtower people scream daily.

I think everyone would agree that they would sell a gazilion more computers if they offered a cheep, expandable small desktop. But to sit there whining about it and saying Apple is run by fools is pointless.
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #60 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

Not exactly. It seems to me that the people finding "excuses" for apple are really trying to imagine what apple must be thinking. (We may end up sounding like Apple apoligistas because we are up against irrational whiners.)
It shouldn't be that difficult to see that apple doesn't sell an xMac because they don't want to.
It is not because they are idiots as most of the midtower people scream daily.

You also have to look at history.

When the Mac first came out, it was exactly the same. It was a closed appliance, which is exactly what Jobs wanted to sell.

The industry was selling open machines, as the older AIO market waned with the intro of the IBM PC.

One of the main reasons why the Mac didn't make it big was because of that reason. I knew plenty of others in business who loved the idea of the Mac but simply didn't want a closed machine that couldn't accept an internal HHd, and had an attached 9" monitor.

It didn't begin to sell well until after Jobs left, and Scully came out with the Mac II, with 8 slots. Then business began to take it up in big numbers, but it was too late for dominance.

Even the first iMacs which were released to much acclaim, didn't really sell that well, though better than some of Apple previous products.

Quote:
I think everyone would agree that they would sell a gazilion more computers if they offered a cheep, expandable small desktop. But to sit there whining about it and saying Apple is run by fools is pointless.

It's not that Apple is run by fools. It's just that Jobs has this history. And, as we all know, Jobs can be very stubborn about something. This is one of those things. He doesn't like people inside his machines. When he came back to Apple, one of the first things he did was to reduce the capability of Apple's pro lines, and discontinue Apples home and school lines that had the ability to be upgraded.

You may not remember this, but the early iMacs (crt) had what was called the "mezzanine" slot. That was for internal testing, but developers quickly found that they could add all sorts of hardware to make the iMac perform better, and to add functions that people wanted, but that Apple hadn't included.

What did Apple do? They eliminated the slot!!!

Why does my old G4 tower have room above the optical drive for another 5.25 unit, but instead is totally empty? There is no good reason except that Apple (Jobs) didn't want something up there. Going by the hacks offered by third parties to add extra drives, it could be seen that heat, and power supply limitations, weren't the reason.

No, there is a stubbornness that is present in the current management about these things. It's really hard to understand.
post #61 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You don't agree that Apple's laptop sales are surging whilst their desktop sales are not? You don't think that their current desktop lineup might be the root cause of this?

I'm saying who cares? Do they HAVE to also do well on desktops to be successful? The answer is clearly NO. Yes, you and a few other folks here desperately want an xMac. Heck, I'd even like one. So what? If you folks want one so bad go build one like those tablet folks.

Quote:
I reject the notion that margins on $499+ mini towers are "razor thin".

Fine. Tell me why Dell's margins suck in comparison to Apple's then. And tell me how to get the minimum level of teh snappy on a $499 box with 28% margins because to get to that price range you're using a Semperon.

On second thought...DON'T tell me. I don't care anymore.

Vinea
post #62 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

But Apple has been getting new processors such as the X7900 before everyone else.

Apple didn't get the X7900. The tear-downs show that the iMac uses an X7800. The Core 2 Duo Extreme processors have their processor multipliers unlocked, so OEMs are free to clock them at whichever rate they wish.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #63 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


On second thought...DON'T tell me. I don't care anymore.

Vinea

Sure you do.
post #64 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Apple didn't get the X7900. The tear-downs show that the iMac uses an X7800. The Core 2 Duo Extreme processors have their processor multipliers unlocked, so OEMs are free to clock them at whichever rate they wish.

Estimations I just read say that it's expected that 7900's will be clocked to 3.2 or 3.3 for gaming laptops.
post #65 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I'm saying who cares? Do they HAVE to also do well on desktops to be successful? The answer is clearly NO.

Indeed, no. But the point is that starting from their extremely low share of the computer market, there is the possibility of major upside to Apple gaining share. They could be even more successful than they are. Computers account for around 50% of Apple's profits; think about what could happen if Apple were as aggressive in their computer business as they are with the iPod and iPhone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If you folks want one so bad go build one like those tablet folks.

But then it wouldn't be cheaper would it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Fine. Tell me why Dell's margins suck in comparison to Apple's then.

Because they sell a lot of desktops for less than $500, and a lot of laptops for less than $1100.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

And tell me how to get the minimum level of teh snappy on a $499 box with 28% margins because to get to that price range you're using a Semperon.

Who gives a crap about "teh snappy"? People know that if they spend $499 on a computer, they aren't getting the most powerful thing in the world. If all they want to do is send e-mail and surf the web, that's all they need. If they want something more powerful/capable, they'd have the $599, $699, $799 etc. etc. options to choose from. On top of that, today's $499 computer is faster than a top-of-the (consumer) range computer from 3 years ago. Is everyone with a top-of-the range computer from 3 years ago having a miserable, useless computer experience? I think not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

On second thought...DON'T tell me. I don't care anymore.

Oops, sorry. For the benefit of everyone else, I guess.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #66 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You also have to look at history.

When the Mac first came out, it was exactly the same. It was a closed appliance, which is exactly what Jobs wanted to sell.
...
It didn't begin to sell well until after Jobs left, and Scully came out with the Mac II, with 8 slots.
...
It's not that Apple is run by fools. It's just that Jobs has this history. And, as we all know, Jobs can be very stubborn about something.

Woah. Someone just compared Jobs to Scully and prefers Scully. Speechless. Really. In this thread no less. One that validates Jobs' strategy. Huge irony.

Okay...speechlessness over but the speech now resembles a Sam Kineson act. WTF are you thinking? You seriously think the Scully way is better? Sell your Apple shares and your macs now. You don't deserve any.

Vinea
post #67 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Woah. Someone just compared Jobs to Scully and prefers Scully. Speechless. Really. In this thread no less. One that validates Jobs' strategy. Huge irony.

Okay...speechlessness over but the speech now resembles a Sam Kineson act. WTF are you thinking? You seriously think the Scully way is better? Sell your Apple shares and your macs now. You don't deserve any.

Vinea

Not that I "prefer" Scully. He made his mistakes as well.

The point you missed is that Jobs makes plenty of mistakes because of his "strong" ideas.

It wasn't the iMac that got Apple back on track. It was the iPod.
post #68 of 132
I think one thing should be kept in mind when considering why there isn't an xMac: Apple is trying to guide the industry in the direction it thinks it should go. Apple (Jobs in particular) really likes AIOs. The iMac is their headliner machine, and it's an AIO. MBs and MBPs are AIOs (completely all-in-one, even more so than desktops), and Apple is doing well with those. The Mac Pro? It's a concession to the extremely high end, because those users are willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money. And the Mac mini? I don't think it's really intended as anything but a machine that offers a low barrier to entry for switchers. In fact, according to rumor, the thing is constantly on the verge of being canceled. The fact that existing Mac users buy them is okay, but they'd really prefer established customers to buy either an iMac or a portable.

If you doubt this line of thinking, look at the original iMac. It shipped without a floppy because Jobs figured it was time to ditch it. Did other companies believe so? No, they laughed. Did customers agree? Quite a few of them complained. But Jobs was just a bit ahead of the curve and he used a flagship product to try to guide the industry. Could he have sold a few more machines if he'd just followed everyone else and thrown in a $10 floppy drive? Sure. But he didn't like them and he thought it was time to let them go. And seriously, how useful was a floppy drive even at that time? He was right, floppies were archaic and needed to go.

For the vast majority of customers, a computer really should be appliance-like. They buy the computer they want (usually not through a deep understanding of specs, but because of loosey-goosey ideas of what it can do for them), and they never upgrade the thing. People who really need to upgrade, or who need to use multiple video cards are really getting into the high-end range and just don't want to pay the price for it. Either that or they're spec whores and want to brag to all their geek friends, something Apple doesn't care about. Sure, other manufacturers may offer the ability to do this stuff at a lower price, but that's just because they have no vision of what the vast majority of customers really need -- they just assemble pieces and never stray from the status quo.

Most people's needs are met perfectly by an AIO (including portables), and it is a much more elegant solution than the piecemeal conglomeration of parts that comprises a typical PC. Apple is about elegance, simplicity, and providing a good user experience. They're not about doing the "wrong" thing just to sell a couple more computers.
post #69 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post

If you doubt this line of thinking, look at the original iMac. It shipped without a floppy because Jobs figured it was time to ditch it. Did other companies believe so? No, they laughed. Did customers agree? Quite a few of them complained. But Jobs was just a bit ahead of the curve and he used a flagship product to try to guide the industry. Could he have sold a few more machines if he'd just followed everyone else and thrown in a $10 floppy drive? Sure. But he didn't like them and he thought it was time to let them go. And seriously, how useful was a floppy drive even at that time? He was right, floppies were archaic and needed to go.

At the time there really wasn't a replacement. The time to drop something is generally when there's a viable replacement, not before. USB thumb drives weren't available then. The built-in optical drive wasn't a writer until a couple years later. At the time, modem was the primary means of connecting to the Internet, meaning FTP took forever. The iMac didn't have Firewire. USB drives of any kind didn't exist until a little later. There was no viable, portable means to move files. It seems as if most buyers of the early machines bought a USB floppy add-on when they were available anyways, so Apple saved $10 but the customer paid $40 later just to be able to move files.
post #70 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Who said that the xMac and the iMac would cost the same?

Every time the desired price range is posted, it goes from $1000 up to $1800. If it's lower than that, let me know.
Quote:
They certainly shouldn't, because if you take an AIO, replace the expensive laptop parts with cheaper desktop parts,

and for the eleventy-billionth time, we do not know that for Apple, "desktop parts" are cheaper. Remember Apple orders a shitload of "laptop parts."
Quote:
and take out the monitor, that leaves you with a cheaper, yet more powerful, computer.

What about the "desktop" parts makes it "more powerful?" Are you referring to the GPU again? Consumers don't give a flying shit about the GPU. They don't even know what a GPU is.
Quote:
How much more evidence like that provided in this report do you need before you realise that Apple are failing to replicate their success in the laptop market in the desktop market?

Your contention is that if only Apple made a tower instead of the iMac, that all the Windows users would buy Macs. There is no proof whatsoever for that. In fact, it would be simple for Apple to gather that information from shoppers who did not buy a desktop. If they had learned that those shoppers did not buy a desktop because they wanted a tower, then Apple would have made a tower.
Quote:
They should keep the iMac to cater to those people and also offer a mini-tower to appeal to the other 95% of the desktop market.

95%?? That's due to Windows, not the form factor of the hardware.

As always, I don't care if Apple makes a midrange tower or not. If they think it can help market share, I'm all for it. I only buy towers myself.

But I think it is clear why they don't - there is no market for it.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #71 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post

I think one thing should be kept in mind when considering why there isn't an xMac: Apple is trying to guide the industry in the direction it thinks it should go. Apple (Jobs in particular) really likes AIOs. The iMac is their headliner machine, and it's an AIO. MBs and MBPs are AIOs (completely all-in-one, even more so than desktops), and Apple is doing well with those. The Mac Pro? It's a concession to the extremely high end, because those users are willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money. And the Mac mini? I don't think it's really intended as anything but a machine that offers a low barrier to entry for switchers. In fact, according to rumor, the thing is constantly on the verge of being canceled. The fact that existing Mac users buy them is okay, but they'd really prefer established customers to buy either an iMac or a portable.

If you doubt this line of thinking, look at the original iMac. It shipped without a floppy because Jobs figured it was time to ditch it. Did other companies believe so? No, they laughed. Did customers agree? Quite a few of them complained. But Jobs was just a bit ahead of the curve and he used a flagship product to try to guide the industry. Could he have sold a few more machines if he'd just followed everyone else and thrown in a $10 floppy drive? Sure. But he didn't like them and he thought it was time to let them go. And seriously, how useful was a floppy drive even at that time? He was right, floppies were archaic and needed to go.

For the vast majority of customers, a computer really should be appliance-like. They buy the computer they want (usually not through a deep understanding of specs, but because of loosey-goosey ideas of what it can do for them), and they never upgrade the thing. People who really need to upgrade, or who need to use multiple video cards are really getting into the high-end range and just don't want to pay the price for it. Either that or they're spec whores and want to brag to all their geek friends, something Apple doesn't care about. Sure, other manufacturers may offer the ability to do this stuff at a lower price, but that's just because they have no vision of what the vast majority of customers really need -- they just assemble pieces and never stray from the status quo.

Most people's needs are met perfectly by an AIO (including portables), and it is a much more elegant solution than the piecemeal conglomeration of parts that comprises a typical PC. Apple is about elegance, simplicity, and providing a good user experience. They're not about doing the "wrong" thing just to sell a couple more computers.

I agree with everything you say, except for one part.

What people want to buy is just important is what the need to buy.

If people only bought what they needed, there would be few high quality goods available because people don't need them, they just want them.

We might as well say the same thing about the Mac in general. People don't need them, but some want them.

Do we need a more elegent OS? Do we need more elegent hardware?

No, we don't. But are we happier with them? Yes, we are.

So why not offer a product if people want, it if it will make them happy?

Sometimes you can't force people to do things your way, so why bother?
post #72 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Every time the desired price range is posted, it goes from $1000 up to $1800. If it's lower than that, let me know.

I'm letting you know. The range I keep stating is $799 to $1,499.

Someone else's range is from $499 to $1.999.

Quote:
and for the eleventy-billionth time, we do not know that for Apple, "desktop parts" are cheaper. Remember Apple orders a shitload of "laptop parts."

Yes, we do. Desktop parts are cheaper. You can read that anywhere they make the comparison. Why do you think that laptops are so much more expensive than the equivalent desktops, even they have fewer hardware features?

Why do you think that the 2.4 GHz iMac is faster than the 2.4 MBP? Not all of the iMac is laptop parts.

Why do you think that a 24" iMac is so much cheaper than the 15.4" MBP?

Quote:
What about the "desktop" parts makes it "more powerful?" Are you referring to the GPU again? Consumers don't give a flying shit about the GPU. They don't even know what a GPU is.

CPU speeds are higher, bus speeds are higher, memory speeds are higher. More cache in the cpu's. Bigger, cheaper, faster HHD's.

Not to mention the gpu's of course.

And, many customers do care.

Quote:
Your contention is that if only Apple made a tower instead of the iMac, that all the Windows users would buy Macs. There is no proof whatsoever for that. In fact, it would be simple for Apple to gather that information from shoppers who did not buy a desktop. If they had learned that those shoppers did not buy a desktop because they wanted a tower, then Apple would have made a tower.

no one thinks that all Windows users would move to the Mac, just a small portion that would quadruple Apple's sales over time.

Apple doesn't always make what people want. they make what they want people to want. Sometimes they are right to a certain extent. Sometimes they are right to a large extent, and, sometimes they are just plain wrong.

Quote:
95%?? That's due to Windows, not the form factor of the hardware.

Mostly, but less and less as time goes by.

Quote:
As always, I don't care if Apple makes a midrange tower or not. If they think it can help market share, I'm all for it. I only buy towers myself.

But I think it is clear why they don't - there is no market for it.

That's an odd statement indeed.

There's no market for it, but you only buy towers yourself?

Almost all of the desktops sold are towers. While there are other AIO's out there, they sell poorly. Otherwise, the market would be filled with AIO's.
post #73 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Every time the desired price range is posted, it goes from $1000 up to $1800. If it's lower than that, let me know.

Most say $799+

I say $499 + (with a corresponding reduction in bottom-end power and capabilities, you understand)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

What about the "desktop" parts makes it "more powerful?" Are you referring to the GPU again? Consumers don't give a flying shit about the GPU. They don't even know what a GPU is.

Sure, I agree that most people don't know what a GPU is. But some people do.

Other desktop parts that are more powerful than laptop ones are:

The CPU
The motherboard chipset (faster FSB)
Optical drive


Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

Your contention is that if only Apple made a tower instead of the iMac, that all the Windows users would buy Macs.

No, not all of them. More than are currently enticed by the iMac, though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

There is no proof whatsoever for that.

Indeed. Only observation of the market trends and logical deduction suggest it to be the case. The only way of finding out for sure is to build it and see what happens. I can't prove that more people will switch, and you can't prove that they won't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

But I think it is clear why they don't - there is no market for it.

You have got to be kidding me!

Apple make laptops with best-in-class form-factors. People are switching to them in droves. If the AIO was such a brilliant desktop form-factor that all consumers craved, this effect would be replicated in the desktop space. But it isn't.

Are you really not wondering, even a little bit, why Apple's % retail share of laptops is in the teens, whilst that of desktops is significantly under ten?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #74 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I agree with everything you say, except for one part.

What people want to buy is just important is what the need to buy.

If people only bought what they needed, there would be few high quality goods available because people don't need them, they just want them.

We might as well say the same thing about the Mac in general. People don't need them, but some want them.

Do we need a more elegent OS? Do we need more elegent hardware?

No, we don't. But are we happier with them? Yes, we are.

So why not offer a product if people want, it if it will make them happy?

Sometimes you can't force people to do things your way, so why bother?

Because -- correctly or not -- Apple believes itself to be right. Jobs doesn't like the way current computers are made, and he wants to change things. And he believes that most people who think they want upgradeable, separate-everything computers are just thinking that because of a knee jerk reaction.

If you don't like how something is, you don't change it by catering to it. You make something "better" and try to make it as enticing as possible. Whether you agree that the AIO form factor is better is irrelevant, it's what Apple believes. And I think that Apple is in the frame of mind that it's doing extremely well already, sticking to its guns on where it thinks the industry should go, so why bother caving to the inferior status quo? If their sales started tanking, I'm sure they'd release an xMac. But right now? They're already growing substantially faster than the industry average and they're making more money than they've ever made before.

While Apple clearly wants to make a profit, I think they also want to change the industry for the better. They're trying to balance those two desires here, and making an xMac would basically be sacrificing the latter in favour of the former.
post #75 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post

Jobs doesn't like the way current computers are made, and he wants to change things. And he believes that most people who think they want upgradeable, separate-everything computers are just thinking that because of a knee jerk reaction.

If you don't like how something is, you don't change it by catering to it. You make something "better" and try to make it as enticing as possible. Whether you agree that the AIO form factor is better is irrelevant, it's what Apple believes.

I think nine years is long enough, especially in a fast-paced industry like this one. It isn't happening. The desktop market is not going AIO. And there's good reason. What's the point in going AIO if you don't get the biggest benefit of all the attendant compromises - portability?


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post

But right now? They're already growing substantially faster than the industry average

Only in laptops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post

and they're making more money than they've ever made before.

And I think they could make even more.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #76 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post

Because -- correctly or not -- Apple believes itself to be right. Jobs doesn't like the way current computers are made, and he wants to change things. And he believes that most people who think they want upgradeable, separate-everything computers are just thinking that because of a knee jerk reaction.

If you don't like how something is, you don't change it by catering to it. You make something "better" and try to make it as enticing as possible. Whether you agree that the AIO form factor is better is irrelevant, it's what Apple believes. And I think that Apple is in the frame of mind that it's doing extremely well already, sticking to its guns on where it thinks the industry should go, so why bother caving to the inferior status quo? If their sales started tanking, I'm sure they'd release an xMac. But right now? They're already growing substantially faster than the industry average and they're making more money than they've ever made before.

While Apple clearly wants to make a profit, I think they also want to change the industry for the better. They're trying to balance those two desires here, and making an xMac would basically be sacrificing the latter in favour of the former.

This goes back a long ways. Check my post #60. People have just not taken to AIO's. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter.

My position has always been, and I've stated it here many times, is that most people never upgrade thir machines, and that includes memory or HHD's.

But I know guys who always but full towers, with 8 slots, anyway. Why? It makes them feel better, even if they only use one.

When MS, or other companies, give consumers what they, the companies, want to give them, because they think it's what is best, we get down on them. But, when Apple does it, we find excuses for it.
post #77 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

HHD's.

You know it's HDD (hard disk drive), right?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #78 of 132
Look at this another way: What other industry lets you configure the product you're going to buy in so many ways, or even lets you build your own? Most don't. Most provide you with a set of products to choose from, and that's all you get.

Take cars, for instance. You choose the model you want, and regular operating procedure is to leave it pretty much as is, without upgrades. A very small percentage of car owners pimp their car out, but that's mostly cosmetic. And an even smaller percentage actually get into the guts of their cars and soup them up. But keep in mind, this kind of upgrading is typically not designed for by the manufacturers, and the upgrading is done by people trained to do so (whether professionally or through a personal interest). Aside from a couple models that are "upgrade friendly", you basically have to rip-and-replace components that aren't meant to be replaced. Want a bigger engine? You should have bought a more powerful car to begin with.

Why are computers different? Why is there this overwhelming need to have computers that are designed to have every major component replaced with something else? Can you imagine how ugly and inefficient cars would be if they were designed to have all of their components upgraded with any number of different pieces, many of which will be much larger than the manufacturer originally intended? You'd have big, clunky monstrosities that really wouldn't satisfy anyone aside from mechano-geeks. So instead, car manufacturers decide what goes in their cars, and that's it (aside from little accessory tweaks like popping out the radio for something better).

When it comes right down to it, you technically could take an iMac and upgrade it all to hell. You'd have to know what you were doing, certainly, but it would be possible. You'd also have to choose your components wisely to make sure they fit in the case, unless you were willing to modify the case slightly to fit larger components. But guess what? That's exactly the same as what you'd do to modify a car or any number of other products. You can change a very small number of accessories (a radio in a car, or a mouse and keyboard on a computer), but everything else is pretty much set in stone unless you want to get really down and dirty with the hardware.

Computers are an anomaly in this sense, and they're much more complicated and less elegant because of it. I think Jobs wants to "correct" this.
post #79 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You know it's HDD (hard disk drive), right?

Yeah. Sometimes I make that typo. I can't think why, but I don't always catch it.
post #80 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorD View Post

Look at this another way: What other industry lets you configure the product you're going to buy in so many ways, or even lets you build your own? Most don't. Most provide you with a set of products to choose from, and that's all you get.

Take cars, for instance. You choose the model you want, and regular operating procedure is to leave it pretty much as is, without upgrades. A very small percentage of car owners pimp their car out, but that's mostly cosmetic. And an even smaller percentage actually get into the guts of their cars and soup them up. But keep in mind, this kind of upgrading is typically not designed for by the manufacturers, and the upgrading is done by people trained to do so (whether professionally or through a personal interest). Aside from a couple models that are "upgrade friendly", you basically have to rip-and-replace components that aren't meant to be replaced. Want a bigger engine? You should have bought a more powerful car to begin with.

Why are computers different? Why is there this overwhelming need to have computers that are designed to have every major component replaced with something else? Can you imagine how ugly and inefficient cars would be if they were designed to have all of their components upgraded with any number of different pieces, many of which will be much larger than the manufacturer originally intended? You'd have big, clunky monstrosities that really wouldn't satisfy anyone aside from mechano-geeks. So instead, car manufacturers decide what goes in their cars, and that's it (aside from little accessory tweaks like popping out the radio for something better).

When it comes right down to it, you technically could take an iMac and upgrade it all to hell. You'd have to know what you were doing, certainly, but it would be possible. You'd also have to choose your components wisely to make sure they fit in the case, unless you were willing to modify the case slightly to fit larger components. But guess what? That's exactly the same as what you'd do to modify a car or any number of other products. You can change a very small number of accessories (a radio in a car, or a mouse and keyboard on a computer), but everything else is pretty much set in stone unless you want to get really down and dirty with the hardware.

Computers are an anomaly in this sense, and they're much more complicated and less elegant because of it. I think Jobs wants to "correct" this.

That's an interesting comparison.

But most auto companies do allow you to pick from two or more engines, among other packages.

It's pretty hard to replace that engine once you get the car home though. If it were as difficult to lift the 800 pound HDD to install in your 2,500 pound computer, you probably wouldn't want to change it either.

But, a computer is not a car. It's small, and it's easy to get inside, if it's made that way.

If Apple offered more options in gpu's, and charged less for memory, and HDD's, then there might be less crabbing, but they don't, and so there isn't.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple seeing "unprecedented" surge in MacBook demand