A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube? - Page 12

I'm not against an xMac as I've said several times. Its the rational why Apple must provide an xMac.


Gateway and Sony don't seem to understand this.


Just as important a question. When Apple was nearly going out of business the iMac helped save the company. The iMac was one of Apple's best selling computers......why?


InformationWeek
By Antone Gonsalves
June 22, 2007

Apple's share of desktop and notebook sales online and through brick-and-mortar stores rose to 13% from 11.6% in April, according to The NPD Group. Apple notebook sales rose to 14.3% of overall purchases from 12.5%, while desktop sales inched up to 10.4% from 10.2%.

Desktop sales in general were far less than notebooks, neither Apple nor Windows PC vendors showed much progress. "Apple is struggling just like everybody else in terms of getting some growth out of that segment," Baker said. Apple desktop sales, however, were better than for Windows machines.

Since Apple has exactly what you want, you ought to celebrate and stop trying to tell the AI members on this thread why they can't have what they want. Stay off this thread if it irritates you to hear us discussing an xMac. Why does our need for an xMac cause you so much irritation? Go bother someone else for a change. You're not going to change our needs by your constant naysaying.

How about that? I'm really proud of myself. I was able to write that whole paragraph without once swearing at TenoBell.

Gateway and sony aren't the entire windows platform. If someone wants something else, they have other options.


It saved it for a little while then apple began to slide again a couple years later. The iPod saved Apple and is the major reason for its current successes. I will also point that the iMac was positioned as a bottom of the line machine and the prosumers were served by the PowerMac. Since then the iMac has been forced upon the prosumer and the PowerMac has been replaced with a machine that cost almost $1000 more. Why? Apple knows it has a captive audience that will buy whatever computer Apple puts out and whatever price they want to sell it at. The macbooks are selling like hotcakes because they are basically what is wanted in a thin and light at that price range.

No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.

A fact you keep ignoring becuase YOU want an xMac. Thus far you've shown very little other than expensive desktops don't sell much and Apple desktops will always remain expensive because they run at 28%+ margins while the majority of that 95% tower market runs far far less.

Apple's meteoritc growth in laptops is also seen by HP and Dell and those companies sell far more laptops than Apple. Toshiba growth numbers IIRC were pretty good too and all they sell are laptops.

That's another point you folks choose to ignore. There's a top 5 worldwide manufacturer that makes nothing but laptops and they move more machines than Apple (obviously). Apple could DUMP their entire desktop line and STILL grow to match or exceed Toshiba if OSX is the competitive trump card you think it is.

They are likely better off offering a better laptop than a better desktop. An 11" MBP convertible tablet with multi-touch would be a better fit for Apple than an xMac tower. MT is an area Apple can try to own and its much more useful for a convertible tablet than a tower.

Thanks, I had forgotten that the iMac started out as an entry level computer. Also, that Apple had no true workstation class computer at that time. The PowerMac was a prosumer.

So we must be obviously wrong. Because we are the minority. Even though both of us prefer an xMac over an iMac. Shall I remind you of Apple's market share? A paltry 5% or so. But the brighest and most profitable 5%.

Most folks don't appear to care about OSX and can't see the difference between it and Vista other than it doesn't have any good games or doesn't run Outlook without a copy of XP.

No one has yet proven that there some mass appeal of OSX that trancends some of its significant shortfalls (namely no games for the home front and only so-so MS support on the enterprise front...entourage sucks, I still need IE for my timesheets, no MS project, no Visio, etc).

That it's easier to use seem to be largely unimportant to the majority of the computing world. Do you really think a tower form factor is going to make that much of a difference?

Not a current Mac, but I think a chunk of that 95% could switch to Mac OS X is there was suitable hardware, like they hardware they sold before the G5 iMac.


1/5th of all desktops sold are to sold by companies other than the name brand and most of them have higher margins than Apple. Keep believing that all desktops sold outside of the Mac are of the celeron Dell variety

The last Mac workstation before the Mac pro was the 9600. G-series era desktops, but not workstation for high end professionals. Intel era workstations for high end professionals, but no desktops.

This probably isn't the right thread for this, but I did a search and this thread is one of the possibles. The following is an unusual AIO:

The all-in-one dual-core VESA Stand PC mod

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-10533_22-169393-1.html

or a do-it-yourself AIO

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=814&tag=nl.e540

Heh, I have the Umax s900 sitting in my closet which was the exact same stuff as the 9600. Dual CPU and 8 ram slots for a max of.... 1 gig. . I never really got to use it much because that is when the OS X transition was. Biggest waste of money I've ever had.

Just because the entire Windows audience won't want one doesn't make the venture worthless. Someone mentioned before that an xMac would have to treble Apple's market share to be worthwhile as a product. These kind of statements are just ridiculous.

It's really not difficult to see that if among the multitude of ugly, beige, cheap plastic PC towers that have LEDs and disability handles all over them there is a product that serves the same market but is quiet, well designed and Windows compatible that it will sell even with a higher (though not unreasonable) markup. This is apparent in pretty much any market you want to look at.


I could easily believe that one day they will but I wouldn't say because of OS X. The Macbook is only £200 more than the equivalent Mac Mini and for that you get the portability, a screen, keyboard etc.

The Mini looks like it will be first to go according to AI so if they drop the Macbook by £100-200 somehow (not sure what prices Penryn will come in at) then the Mini could easily be replaced (news of both the Mini being dropped and a Macbook update seem to be coinciding). Then when the MBP gets cheap enough, the iMac becomes unnecessary. It's a laptop anyway so if the MBP closes the £350-400 price gap between it and the iMac then the iMac can go.

I reckon they'll leave the Mac Pro with 8 cores+ and when laptops get 4 cores, the consumer desktops will be irrelevant.

That time is not now though and the argument here is that desktop parts that PC manufacturers are currently using are significantly cheaper than the mobile parts Apple are using. In 2-3 years, this won't be the same but it is the case now.


Is that just because *you* want a tablet? What evidence is there to suggest that a tablet or touch notebook would sell well at all? It's one of the most niche computer segments and it's crazy to suggest that Apple would be better off selling a product form factor that sells to probably the smallest PC crowd instead of one that sells to the largest.

At volume the difference to Apple may make it worthwhile to use mobile parts across the line vs adding a completely new parts pipeline.


No, because a) Apple is patenting things related to muli-touch and a convertible tablet is simply a laptop with a special hinge that allows use with stylus or fingers (digitizer and touch sensor) b) they are trading off the advanced features of the iPhone and the buzz of MT and c) because MT is an area not dominated by existing players.

Unlike towers which a) Apple has no special IP to differentiate it from the market other than OSX which hasn't been a "killer app" as yet b) towers are yesterdays news and about as boring as can be marketing wise and c) dominated by HP, Dell and others already.

And of course Jobs doesn't like consumer towers but DOES like multi-touch.

The odds that I would buy a MT Apple Tablet this Jan is zero because I'm no where near my replacement cycle for my MBP. I COULD see myself getting an xMac if offered this next year. So much for your pointless assertion.

I didn't address this. What I meant was I don't see any significant portion of that 95% of the market to be interested in an xMac. I can justify buying a Mac Pro to my bosses because it is price competitive with a Dell Workstation that we would have bought otherwise. An xMac tower that is 15% more expensive wouldn't be as easily justified.

Also, the xMac would need to treble market share based on the lower price point often suggested for the xMac (sometimes as low as $750...half of Apple's $1500 ASP) to actually add to the Apple bottom line. The expectation is that it would significantly cannibalize the higher priced and likely higher margin'd iMac. Apple got away with higher iMac margins before the recent update because...who could really tell? There were no other AIOs that you could price compare with that the iMac wasn't better anyway.

Not so in the tower market. At BEST Apple could keep to the 28% target margins and even then it is unlikely.

Yes, I believe that an xMac is superior to the iMac and that if Apple offered an xMac the iMac sales would tank. What I don't believe is Apple would make much headway selling towers at 28% margins except largely to the same folks that would buy an iMac anyway.

The large majority of that 95% tower base would simply compare a HP tower at 10% margins and figure that OSX is not worth the significant premium over the "free" Vista or even "freer" Ubuntu.

Vinea

How about a MacBook Nano:

Maybe, since Jobs doesn't like towers, he may opt for ALL AIO's

Yah why not, since jobs LOVES AIO so much, and believes it's the future. MAKE EVERYTHING AIO. And watch apple fall hard on desktop sales.

Not even Steve Job's ego is big enough to throw away the pros.

I'm going to try to address this again and hope it gets through the set of blinders over your eyes. Apple would NOT be going after the 10% margin celeron HP/Dells with this product. They would be going after the higher margin $1000 prosumer market between that that market and the high end super professional market that the Mac Pro exists in. AKA the one that you and your type does not even want to admit exists because it would require admitting that there are actually informed users outside the Mac platform.

As for OSX, yes there a lot of current Mac users who buy a Mac because it looks good it it raises or status or some other vanity based reason like that, but there are also a bunch of current and potential mac users who are interested in an operating system much more evolved than the train-wreck that is windows and find that linux/unix variants barely workable. I'm willing to spend more to get something that works better and so are quite a few more. What people are not willing to accept having to get a machine that is a major downgrade in capability to get that better operating system. And before you come with the eventual rebuttal here are the areas that that iMac is a downgrade.

-2.4ghz CPU down from 2.66z Dual core or 2.4ghz quad core at similar price.
-4GB max memory via two DIMM sockets down from 8GB Max via 4 DIMM slots
-One single 8x DVD burner that can use only 5.25" discs verus one or more 18X DVD or 4x Blu-ray/HD DVD burner
-One hard drive vs multiple hard drives.
-265MB Radeon HD2600Pro vs up to 512mb Radeon HD2900XT
-Being stuck with what you got vs ability to upgrade to new tech when it comes out.

The iMac is a great general setup for the average user. It has a good mix of features and power. However it only really comes up to the level of a really good MATX setup. In other words its the Acura TL (luxury version of the Accord) of desktops. The Mac Pro on the other hand is a fully loaded 18-wheeler. A lot of users need something more powerful, up getting the Mac Pro is a complete waste.

It might but it might not. The iMac and laptops are still different products with different designs. The prices don't really suggest Apple make much of a saving relative to other PC manufacturers.


I still see no evidence that it will sell well. You are comparing the iphone to a tablet and assuming the touch functions will translate well to a larger form factor. Applications will need to be specially written and how will Apple maintain display quality and strength at that resolution and size?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see one at some point but I seriously doubt that it's a safer bet to go with a tablet than a mid-range tower.


Design, design, design. Apple has nothing special in any of their products except design. That alone is enough to sell a small tower. People don't want AIOs, the PC world shows this quite clearly and Mac users haven't ever expressed any demand for AIOs. Where were the polls back when Apple didn't have an iMac crying out for an all-in-one design? We were happy with towers and then Apple started shafting us with closed appliances starting at the low end and working up until now we have nothing but appliances short of a workstation.


So let's get this straight, you think Apple should sell a product to the smallest possible market, a market you aren't even a member of and you don't want them to sell to the largest market, which you are a member of. How can that possibly make any sense to you? You want them to sell a product you're not going to buy.

Also, how much extra is this tablet going to be with MT? Will it lack an optical drive? I don't see how a product that will likely be over $6000 (this is the kind of pricing arguments we get from anti-xMac protesters) will sell when the Macbook Pro is way cheaper. Plus the tablet will only have integrated graphics.


But it would obviously cost less than a Mac Pro. If your boss is happy to let you buy a Mac Pro then what does he care if you get a cheaper mac?


The parts are cheaper. It's not as if they are the same parts at a lower price. All we're saying is to use exactly the same margins and simply pass on the savings to us of not bundling a screen and not using mobile components.


And you're defending that kind of thing? You think it's right for Apple to make stupid computer configurations so that it's hard for people to tell how badly they are being ripped off?


So where's the problem? Apple make the sales one way or another and as I've said before, PC users will be far more likely to buy a familiar form factor than an AIO.


Wrong. They will see a much more nicely designed product and weigh up whether or not it's worth paying a paltry 18% more (about £100-200) for a beautiful, small, easily configured machine that can run both OS X and Windows or Linux (though most consumers don't even know what Linux is) and fits better with their ipod/iphone.

Again I don't expect a majority to go for this as the majority want dirt cheap, rock bottom prices. However, it will appeal to the people who want to spend a bit extra for a good machine but the same people who don't want to be ripped off with novelty products that don't satisfy their needs.

The prices include Apple's stellar margins. The price savings is actually for laptops and not desktops as HP, Dell and Toshiba move more volume than Apple and therefore should get better discounts from Intel than Apple does. In the only other area that Apple competes in (workstations) it appears that Apple moves enough volume to be price cometitive with Dell...that and Dell has to make margin somewhere.


There is evidence that MT is better than traditional the WIMP interface for some activities. Multi-touch was not invented by Apple (or Jeff Han) and there has been research for 20 years now.

Yes, applications will need to be rewritten for SOME things but who other than Apple controls both software and hardware so tightly?


Of course it's not a "safer" bet. It is, however, far more lucrative. Any paradigm shift has the potential to level the playing field for the underdog.

Building mid-range towers, however elegant, simply plays to the strengths of the current market leaders. Well entrenched, highly competitive market leaders.


It did not for VAIO. They may have been somewhat less elegant than what Apple might do but far above what Dell and HP typically made.


Because 500K units per quarter is zero demand. Right.


You mean back when Apple SUCKED? With no profit, no vision and no Jobs. Paint me silly but I prefer NOW with the all the illusory "shafting".


Lets get this straight, you were accusing me of wanting a tablet simply because I want to buy one. The point is that I am not in the position of replacing my MBP but would possibly get a tower over a mini. I still don't expect a tower and will likely get a mini or its replacement.

I would buy a tablet from Apple next year sometime. Perhaps even earlier should the release a multi-touch SDK. THIS year, assuming they release a SDK, I'll be trying to get a MS Surface.


You make a whole slew of unsupported assertions.

1) if it is a convertible it will not lack an optical drive unless it is an ultraportable.
2) the product price will not differ all that much from other convertibles on the market, just as the MBP doesn't differ all that much from other laptops in its class. The price delta will only have to include the price of a capacitance or other kind of MT sensor in addition to the digitizer found in current convertibles. The Toshiba tablets range from $1599 to $2599. I would expect a 15" convertible MBP tablet to be $2799 with the same specs as the 15" MBP but with digitizer and MT sensor.
3) There are tablets with more than integrated graphics.


No. Because we actually wanted workstations. The fact it can run OSX is a freebie and in fact they are in bootcamp mode nearly 100% of the time. Your xMac is not a workstation. We buy plenty of normal desktops from Dell too but the xMac would be 10%+ more expensive.


That the margins are the same does not mean that Apple makes the same amount of money. 30% margins on $1000 is $300. 30% margins on $2000 is $600. Therefore you need to sell 2 $1000 machines to make the same $600.


I guarantee you that if Apple made towers folks would directly compare them against the equivalent Dell and HP and notice right away the "Apple Tax" and ignore the fact that Apple has to build its own OS and ecosystem to maintain that Apple ease of use.

For the iMac you also pay for the elegant form factor and reduced footprint at the cost of mobile parts. These features are unique enough that they defy direct comparison with competitor products...like towers.


The problem is that Apple makes less money which means it has less money to invest in in new products like the iPhone and aTV. Note that one is a hit...and the other not. It also has less to invest in improving OSX.


A paltry 18% more? Small and easy to configure TOWER? Nay, I say the folks that care about the form factor to have a tower also don't want to pay a "paltry" 18% more for a machine that they will need to install XP/Vista to play games.


So buy a frigging Dell if Apple is ripping you off. As I've said in other threads, the only thin Apple needs in the lineup is a $1699 Mac pro single Xeon.

Vinea

Yes, I know. You have been saying this for quite some time. Now remind me why it could not be built with common CPU and RAM, rather than workstation components, which cost a lot more?

Is it simply because it takes a new motherboard? What else could be the reason?

If Apple used the CAD files for the Mac Pro motherboard, the modifications could be made easily. This is cheap way to get a new mobo, and I have done it several times. It's just the normal process we go through every time a board is revised during engineering development.

Apple can also omit two of the four HDDs, and leave just two PCI-e slots. Then, use a lower wattage power supply. The power supply vendor could keep the same case and board, but use lower power components.

If this stripped down Mac Pro sold well, which I think it would, Apple can give it a whole new design further down the road.

No such setup exists. The xeons use a different pin design than the desktop core 2 duos.

And many do. Apple catering only to your kind is keeping the Mac platform back. The benefits of the mac should be available to all, not just intolerant elitists.



Such a machine would underpowered, overpriced, and oversized for what it does. The only thing that that a single core xeon machine would accomplish is to create a machine that would be so uncompetitive with desktops and other single core servers that the zealots could turn around and say "see, nobody wants this".

Sorry you're wrong... they make 775 xeons as well as 771 xeons.

Here is a conroe and a kentsfield, both Xeons

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117105
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117127

I honestly don't see the point...

PC/Mac price comparisons happen all the time, everyday, and have as far back as I can remember. Nothing would change.


This reminds me of a PowerMac they quietly released a couple years back. It was spec'ed identically to the iMac at the time, but cost $500 more than the iMac for no apparent reason. ($500 more, plus no monitor.) It's as if some middle management type wanted it to fail to say, "See? nobody wants midrange desktops!"

They have different chipsets for each.

The P35 chipset is for "regular" C2D, C2Q, C2E
The 3000 series chipset is for single processor servers (dual-core, quad-core Xeons) 775 not 755
The 5000 series chipset (Mac Pro) is for dual processors servers/workstations (5000 series Xeon processors) 771 socket

P35 + C2D = very cheap = $100 for the motherboard + the price of the CPU
3000 + single Xeon = not so cheap = $200 + the price of the CPU
5000 + dual Xeon = expensive = $400 + the price of two CPUs

I agree with nowayout11. Whatever computer Apple makes, it will anyway be compared to PCs, it has been this way since 1984 (if not before). Before Intel, they were compared based on price or size, now they can also be compared based on CPUs and chipsets and segment, whatever.

Except with the current desktop line up the Mac either wins (Mac pro) price comparisons or is so different you can't say it loses because its in a different weight class (iMac).

Compare a $1200 xMac against an $1100 HP and the HP will be $100 cheaper and have better specs given the difference in margins and cost savings for HP due to volume in Conroe based sales. That comparison sucks.

A single Xeon Mac Pro is a lower entry point for a tower and would STILL be price competitive with a Dell Precision single CPU Xeon. Same weight class, competitve price and few would directly compare a workstation to a mid-range consumer tower. Different market segment.

Vinea

So avoiding criticism is more important than actually selling something?

The xeon 3000 series are core 2s repackaged for entry level servers. Plug a Xeon 3085 into a computer and its literally going to be identified as a C2D E6850 as are the same exact chip.

You're waiting for Apple to make a gaming machine..? Yeah, good luck with that.

If you're doing high grade Photoshop work, then you can afford a Mac Pro. If you're not then the expandability you gain doesn't help.

This discussion has been done to death.

Yeah, it's not like anyone could possibly want to swap their DVD drive for a BR one to watch some movies, put in a hard drive larger than 250GB, want a computer without a display attached to it because they already have a display/TV/projector and possibly no room for a new display, run a music visualizer smoothly for a party, play a game, or use whatever screensaver they like without worrying that it'll crash or make the computer sound like a taxiing jet.

Real farfetched scenarios.

That comparison can't be done (yet), but the xMac may look better and be better designed (like the Mac Pro interior) than an equivalent Dell or HP AND it will have Mac OS X.

Then using only one CPU in a dual-cpu motherboard will bring the performance so down that this configuration (at whatever price) will really SUCK vs real single processors desktops/workstations (that use single processor motherboards Xeon 3000 series or desktop 30 series).

Yet you still fail to understand that the cost savings are coming from the quantity of each SKU, not from the family of products (expect for the chipsets that can be used with multiple cpus, but the chipsets cost only a fraction of the price of the cpu $50).

The advantage Apple has vs Dell/HP/Others, is that they don't have to offer all kinds of different computers (let's say desktops), at all kinds of price points, that mean using multiple chipsets/motherboards (AMD and Intel) and a tenfold of chips from AMD (old and new) and Intel (Celeron, Pentium, Core,etc...). So even if HP/Dell/Others sell 10x more desktops than Apple, they have more than 10x more configurations to deal with, I don't even think they get better prices from Intel than Apple does with the few chips/chipsets they buy.

I am pretty sure Apple can come up with a very competitive desktop if they wanted to.

Agrreed. Pretty simple isn't it.

Great observation. Having consumer desktop computers targeted at niche markets only contributes more barriers to switchers that already include software investments and fear of learning a new OS.

To some extent your arguments fail because Apple does not sell an inexpensive laptop. Even the Macbook is considered expensive by Windows standards. This alone makes the fact that Apple is capturing market share for laptops even more remarkable.

And yes Mac OS X is an attraction to the switchers, expecially when you consider that the laptop form factor between Apple and the rest of the world is virtually identical and on top of that Apple only sells in the upper end of the price range.

Obviously I do think that "tower form factor is going to make that much of a difference". And even if it didn't the risk reward benefit is ridiculously low. If Apple introduced an attractive consumer tower and it failed to increase sales, market share and/or profits they could discontinue it in a heartbeat.

Unfortunately, I actually see Apple doing this more likely than introducing any form of a consumer tower.