or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube? - Page 13

Poll Results: Cube or Desktop.

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 35% (44)
    CUBE
  • 58% (72)
    True Desktop
  • 6% (8)
    Something I'll explain.
124 Total Votes  
post #481 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

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.

Just my 2¢ previously posted on 08-06-2007, 05:15 PM

Here's where you and I probably disagree the most.

I'll use Dell for my argument, just becasue.

My reasoning goes as follows:
Dell admittedly sells elebantygazillion more "razor thin margin" low end boxen than they do computers in the $800 to > $ 2000 range. Dell's margins, if my feeble brain remembers, hover in the 14% to 18% range(lately on the lower end). At a ratio of elebantygazillion to 1, the margins on the upper end, that being the $800 to > $ 2000 range, have to be in the 28% or higher range.

Michael Dell has in the past admitted that the low end computers are a drag on their margins. This we know. What we don't know is what those margins are. Me I'm guessing in the 5 - 10% range, with Dell hoping for upsale on add-ins. The $800 and up market is what, 10 - 15% of the total market. So for every 1 upper end, they sell 9 lower end.

Completely made up stuff:

$550 = ave. selling price low end
$1500 = ave. selling price higher end

9 units *$550 + 1unit * $1500 = $6000 total revenue
$6000 revenue * .16 margins = $960 in gross margin

assume X = margins for the higher end computers.
assume 10% = margins for the lower end(I'm being generous here)
9 units * $550 * .1 + 1 unit * $1500 * X margin = $960

$495 + $1500X = $960
$1500 x = $465
x = .31 or a gross margin of 31% for Dell's computers selling in the upper end, or in the $800 to > $2000 range.




the fine print: It took me quite awhile to get these numbers to work out in my favor.
__________________

These numbers may not be very accurate, but, it still makes the point that to overcome the razor thin margins of the bulk of computer sales, any computer Dell sells in the >$799 have to be large, sometimes very large.
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 #482 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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

No, as far as consumer desktops it is all they sell. I see no one demanding an AIO at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.Vinea

So, let me get this straight. When Apple decides to compete on price and features they acutally sold a computer that is dedicated to run Windows. Fascinating, this does not help your arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.Vinea

You have no evidence that the 30% margins are attributable to computer sales. If anything, the remarkalble deal Apple had on flash memory for iPods contributed more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.Vinea

I see no direct comparisons between Apple's laptops and Dell's laptops, and even if there are, who cares, Apple's laptops are capturing market share at unheard of rates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.Vinea

This is supposition. My supposition is the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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

I hope Apple doesn't feel this way, bad for 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 #483 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

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.

And yet run slower and cost more than the HP or Dell. The interior is rarely something folks consider outside some geeks.

Quote:
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).

I have no clue what you are responding to here. I presume you don't like the single Xeon 5000 MB that Dell also offers. As far as suckage...lets see...when Ars did their benchmarks the 3.0 single benched relatively closely to the 2.93 C2E X6800.

So much for REALLY suck. Yea and verily there's an occasional 10% memory latency hit for the FB-DIMMs.

Quote:
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).

Lets see...Apple uses exactly 6 Meroms across their entire product line. The 2.0Ghz is shared between the Mini, MB and iMac. The 2.4 between the MBP and iMac. Not being a major OEM, I'm not privy to Apple's deal with Intel but given that these are largely a few Merom types (like 2? I didn't check each one) from different binnings I'd guess they get to count some of those together.

Then common chipsets, memory, etc. and besides the aTV and Mac Pro the product line is very compact.

Quote:
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.

Well for certain that Apple sells zero conroes today vs the millions by HP and Dell. What you are saying is lets take a third of Apple's nice compact volume and spread it to a new CPU, chipset and memory.

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

Not at current margins.
post #484 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

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.

No, it doesn't fail because Apple's notebooks (at least when released, not so much today) reviewed very well against their Windows counterparts in features and price. Expensive but good value.

That's the branding that Apple wants. Might be more expensive but a good value. iMac is expensive but a good value when you consider the slim, non-intrusive form factor. Much better than Gateway and Sony's AIOs. Mac Pro, expensive but better value than the equivalent Dell. MB/MBP, expensive but on par with comparable laptops with equal features (more true when first released and reviewed than today). Mini...um...small. Really small.

xMac, more expensive and less capable. But is pretty. Doesn't fit the story.

Now, given that I'm defending a position against a half dozen folks who believe in slightly, sometimes wildly, different xMacs but at the price level that has been suggested (as low as $700) this isn't a price region Apple is competitive because the rest of the market has far lower margins. Sure as heck not that 31% margins you suggest at "$800+". More like at "$1500+". $800 is still in that mid-tier market and likely in that 14%-18% margin range.

If you want to say that Apple's xMac only has Dell XPS 720 equivalents, i.e. STARTS at $1,599 with a 2.66Ghz C2D E6750 and maybe a 3.3Ghz $2799 QX6850 BTO then that's fine with me. Cannibalize the iMac into dust and it doesn't impact Apple ASP or margins. I would agree that the margins on the XPS 720 line are high.

Heck the iMac might even survive against that xMac. And the xMac, as I've priced it, is at or slightly below the XPS 720 price assuming that Dell is running 31+% margins and Apple would be content with 28% margins.

But folks here want a $700 xMac. No way. There's barely a $700 Mini.

Vinea
post #485 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

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.

The risk is trashing the current high ASP and high margin desktop line (cannibalization) with a lower ASP and same or lower margin desktop line that doesn't result in sufficiently more sales to make it a better business proposition for Apple.

I would say trashing a lineup that has the highest ASPs and margins in the business is a significant risk.

Again...unless you are suggesting a XPS 720 style xMac (not the ugly case, but the specs) starting at $1599. There you might cannibalize some Mac Pro sales but eh...if folks really hate the idea of a single CPU Mac Pro this works at the expense of some efficiencies and it a lot harder for Apple to implement over a Mac Pro BTO change.
post #486 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

No, as far as consumer desktops it is all they sell. I see no one demanding an AIO at all.

Products with zero demand tend to sell nearly zero units.

Quote:
So, let me get this straight. When Apple decides to compete on price and features they acutally sold a computer that is dedicated to run Windows. Fascinating, this does not help your arguments.

It most certainly does. OSX was of zero value. However, Apple was price competitive within the market that I could justify it. That, AGAIN, would not be true for a xMac with 28% margins against a desktop with 18% margins.

At the time, the MBP was in the same boat so I got no friction for ordering one over a comparable Dell.

Quote:
You have no evidence that the 30% margins are attributable to computer sales. If anything, the remarkalble deal Apple had on flash memory for iPods contributed more.

Music products were 40% of their revenue, computers 60%.

Average gross margins were 36.9%. The called out DRAM pricing as part of why their margins were so good in Q3. Assuming that iSuppli is close in its 44% margins on the iPod that implies that Macs can't be too far below 30% and hit 36.9% gross margins.

Why did I pick 30%? Because it was easy to multiply. I'll leave you to do the math to show that if iPod margins were 800% then the xMac margins could be 2.3456% and therefore price competitive with Dell.

Quote:
I see no direct comparisons between Apple's laptops and Dell's laptops, and even if there are, who cares, Apple's laptops are capturing market share at unheard of rates.

HP expects 28% growth in laptops. Dell and Acer the same. Toshiba a tad lower. Lower than Apple percentage wise. Much higher volume wise.

At some point HP and Dell will turn laptops into commodity markets and Apple will bow out just like it did in the tower market. Then Apple will live on "niche" tablets, ultraportables and iPhones for the mobile segment. Notebook prices are dropping rapidly as volume increases.
post #487 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

At some point HP and Dell will turn laptops into commodity markets and Apple will bow out just like it did in the tower market. Then Apple will live on "niche" tablets, ultraportables and iPhones for the mobile segment. Notebook prices are dropping rapidly as volume increases.

Let me get this straight. You are predicting apple will drop out of the laptop market? That is the point in which I (and many other professional users) will drop apple. So no, I don't agree with you if that is what you are saying.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #488 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

But folks here want a $700 xMac. No way. There's barely a $700 Mini.

The Mini starts at $599. The xMac being $700 was simply the suggestion of transforming the Mini into an xMac and maintaining the same price point but using desktop parts, which means Apple make more money on the Mini than they currently do.

The parts would then be user-configurable up until you reach Mac Pro prices.

You also mentioned about people having such varied configurations on what the xMac should be. This is exactly why we need one because people do have different needs and the iMac tries to be a one-size fits all and fails miserably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

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".

They didn't have the ipod/ilife back then nor did they have OS X and they were lumped with highly incompatible PPC CPUs. Apple was failing because of reasons other than not having an appliance-like computer model and no-one was asking for one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

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.

There's a reason why the margins are less on cheaper products though. It's because the audience they are targeting is exponentially larger. The number of people who would buy a $1000 computer is way more than double the amount who would buy a $2000 computer. So yes they need to sell more of them than would buy a Mac Pro but not any more than the number of people who buy the iMac or Mini and since the Mini is going, there is a target audience just waiting (or should I say still waiting).
post #489 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

No, it doesn't fail because Apple's notebooks (at least when released, not so much today) reviewed very well against their Windows counterparts in features and price. Expensive but good value.

That's the branding that Apple wants. Might be more expensive but a good value. iMac is expensive but a good value when you consider the slim, non-intrusive form factor. Much better than Gateway and Sony's AIOs. Mac Pro, expensive but better value than the equivalent Dell. MB/MBP, expensive but on par with comparable laptops with equal features (more true when first released and reviewed than today). Mini...um...small. Really small.

xMac, more expensive and less capable. But is pretty. Doesn't fit the story.

Now, given that I'm defending a position against a half dozen folks who believe in slightly, sometimes wildly, different xMacs but at the price level that has been suggested (as low as $700) this isn't a price region Apple is competitive because the rest of the market has far lower margins. Sure as heck not that 31% margins you suggest at "$800+". More like at "$1500+". $800 is still in that mid-tier market and likely in that 14%-18% margin range.

If you want to say that Apple's xMac only has Dell XPS 720 equivalents, i.e. STARTS at $1,599 with a 2.66Ghz C2D E6750 and maybe a 3.3Ghz $2799 QX6850 BTO then that's fine with me. Cannibalize the iMac into dust and it doesn't impact Apple ASP or margins. I would agree that the margins on the XPS 720 line are high.

Heck the iMac might even survive against that xMac. And the xMac, as I've priced it, is at or slightly below the XPS 720 price assuming that Dell is running 31+% margins and Apple would be content with 28% margins.

But folks here want a $700 xMac. No way. There's barely a $700 Mini.

Vinea

You missed the point. Somehow Apple is capturing market share, but only in laptops. You intimated that Apple couldn't attract a significant portion of the 95% of the desktop market with an xMac.

Why? They have with laptops that are not competing in the low end of the spectrum by any stretch. My conclusion is that consumers are indeed attracted to OS X but see Apple's consumer desktops as a negative.

This reasoning can only fail if for some bizarre reason only consumers that like laptops like OS X and the remaining consumers only like Windows.
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 #490 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

The risk is trashing the current high ASP and high margin desktop line (cannibalization) with a lower ASP and same or lower margin desktop line that doesn't result in sufficiently more sales to make it a better business proposition for Apple.

I would say trashing a lineup that has the highest ASPs and margins in the business is a significant risk.

Again...unless you are suggesting a XPS 720 style xMac (not the ugly case, but the specs) starting at $1599. There you might cannibalize some Mac Pro sales but eh...if folks really hate the idea of a single CPU Mac Pro this works at the expense of some efficiencies and it a lot harder for Apple to implement over a Mac Pro BTO change.

This argument is only valid if you presume that competitors margins on computers in the >$799 range are @ 18%. This low a margin is not possible for a Dell to average 14 - 16% margin across their product line when considering that for every computer sold above $799 there are 9 sold in the econo price range.

In is most likely that competitors margins in the >$799 range are above 25% and possibly higher.
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 #491 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

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.

Most switchers switch to the Mac OS because they already like what they've seen. There mind is already made up, and with windows virtually running natively, or booting into boot-camp within the OS now there is no need to update all their software until they decide it's time to upgrade to the new version.

BTW, Would you two, rickag & vinea, stop posting ten different posts in a row? Start putting it all in one becuase your throwing anyone elses views 2, and 3 pages back by hogging all the available posts on every page. Thank you.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #492 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Products with zero demand tend to sell nearly zero units.

I was not refering to demand as in supply and demand. Because Apple only supplies AIO and Mac mini of course there is demand. However, if you would please refer me to any website or discussion board where anyone was demanding an AIO I will certainly visit it to let them know that is what Apple is all about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

It most certainly does. OSX was of zero value. However, Apple was price competitive within the market that I could justify it. That, AGAIN, would not be true for a xMac with 28% margins against a desktop with 18% margins.

At the time, the MBP was in the same boat so I got no friction for ordering one over a comparable Dell.

I don't agree that computers selling for >$799 have margins below 25%

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Music products were 40% of their revenue, computers 60%.

Average gross margins were 36.9%. The called out DRAM pricing as part of why their margins were so good in Q3. Assuming that iSuppli is close in its 44% margins on the iPod that implies that Macs can't be too far below 30% and hit 36.9% gross margins.

Why did I pick 30%? Because it was easy to multiply. I'll leave you to do the math to show that if iPod margins were 800% then the xMac margins could be 2.3456% and therefore price competitive with Dell.

"Macs can't be too far below 30%" Which would put them in line with what margins are for Apple's competitors in the >&799 range. And this also ignores what margins Apple makes on software, which historically make hardware margins look dismal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

HP expects 28% growth in laptops. Dell and Acer the same. Toshiba a tad lower. Lower than Apple percentage wise. Much higher volume wise.

At some point HP and Dell will turn laptops into commodity markets and Apple will bow out just like it did in the tower market. Then Apple will live on "niche" tablets, ultraportables and iPhones for the mobile segment. Notebook prices are dropping rapidly as volume increases.

Yes, we know, latptop sales are currently increasing more than desktop sales. But the last I heard desktop sales are still increasing, just not at the scale as in the past and at the rate of laptops.

Just how many markets can Apple get out of before they get completely out of the computer business? At some point, some one somewhere is going to have to write code on something. I guess developers could write code on an iPhone but it might be somewhat frustrating.
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 #493 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

.....
You also mentioned about people having such varied configurations on what the xMac should be. This is exactly why we need one because people do have different needs and the iMac tries to be a one-size fits all and fails miserably.

That's about as clear an explanation as I've heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They didn't have the ipod/ilife back then nor did they have OS X and they were lumped with highly incompatible PPC CPUs. Apple was failing because of reasons other than not having an appliance-like computer model and no-one was asking for one.

Thank you, you explain it better than I can.
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 #494 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

This argument is only valid if you presume that competitors margins on computers in the >$799 range are @ 18%. This low a margin is not possible for a Dell to average 14 - 16% margin across their product line when considering that for every computer sold above $799 there are 9 sold in the econo price range.

In is most likely that competitors margins in the >$799 range are above 25% and possibly higher.

Low margin entry level computers are 50% of the market. Not 90%. Your numbers and "analysis" are pulled from thin air and then massaged to make some questionable point.

Dells Q2 numbers were 19.9% gross margins but desktop PCs represent only 34% of thier net revenue.

Gateway makes a whopping 7.6% gross margins. Non-PC revenue was 12% of the total and accounted for 70% of gross margin dollars. There's no way in hell that their margins for the $999 PCs they have are above 25% and they appear at first glance to be price competitive with Dell's $999 models.

Note that Gateways ASPs are roughly in the $700 range. Apple's in the $1500 range. Dell in the $900 range. These are all rough.
post #495 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Low margin entry level computers are 50% of the market. Not 90%. Your numbers and "analysis" are pulled from thin air and then massaged to make some questionable point.

Dells Q2 numbers were 19.9% gross margins but desktop PCs represent only 34% of thier net revenue.

Gateway makes a whopping 7.6% gross margins. Non-PC revenue was 12% of the total and accounted for 70% of gross margin dollars. There's no way in hell that their margins for the $999 PCs they have are above 25% and they appear at first glance to be price competitive with Dell's $999 models.

Note that Gateways ASPs are roughly in the $700 range. Apple's in the $1500 range. Dell in the $900 range. These are all rough.

My numbers weren't pulled from thin air, completely.

I based my numbers loosely on a article published in 2006. You're right to some extent. Computers in the sub <$800 range accounted for approximately 85% of the market not 90%. So yes it isn't 1 to 9 it's 1.5 to 8.5.(re: in your case you round to 30% in my case I round to 9)

I only "massaged" the profit margins on the models in the price ranges of below $800 and above $800 by using comments from Micheal Dell and using Dell's overall gross margins.

My point still stands.

You on the other hand use Apple's overall gross margins and apply them to computers. Where's the difference?

Note that when comparing equally equipped iMacs with Dell computers, quite often the iMac will be price comptetative. This varies depending on the life cycle of the iMac, whether near the beginnig or end of the model. So, either one of two things may be concluded from this. Either Apple's gross profit margins aren't that different from Dell's in this price range or Apple is dramatically more efficient in manufacturing their computers. You tell me which it is.
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 #496 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by esXXI View Post

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.

A Mac Pro for 70% of Photoshop users is total overkill. Weather they can afford it or not. Too many Photoshop users switched to better placed PC's or the MacBook Pro because of it. And word of mouth tells me that too many of them do not want another laptop, which is one more lost Mac user.
Now the graphics card argument is defiantly in play - as is gaming because of Boot-Camp, Parallels, and VMWare. Tests show that Windows itself performs great on the ApplePC. (actually better than on similar spec'd PC's)
There are a lot of users that would prefer to use a Mac, but don't because they are also gamers. There are a lot of Mac users (and would be Mac users) that would also like the opportunity to play some of the "highly anticipated" games. So for many, buying a Mac is waste of money without great graphics. Shit, I don't consider myself a gamer, but there are games I'd buy and play. I'd still like to play half-life 2 competitively some time, but it's not going to happen with these Macs.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #497 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

My numbers weren't pulled from thin air, completely.

LOL...yeah right. Not completely. Just mostly.

Quote:
I based my numbers loosely on a article published in 2006. You're right to some extent. Computers in the sub <$800 range accounted for approximately 85% of the market not 90%. So yes it isn't 1 to 9 it's 1.5 to 8.5.(re: in your case you round to 30% in my case I round to 9)

Except that the low profit computers are in the entry level which is below $500 and that's 50% of the market according to general industry numbers. Not 90%. The $550 and $1500 numbers are pulled out of thin air and you ignore the fact that margins will vary by market segment of which there are at least three (entry, mid and high) for the consumer desktop.

Give it up. Were I so inclined I could also pull a set of random (but semi-reasonable) numbers and massage them as you did to support ANY position I care to.

Heck, you didn't even bother to use Dell's reported units, revenue for PCs and gross margins which might make it vaguely more credible.

The point is that your arbitrary $799 price point is arbitrary. YOu can build a model where low end machines at the $500 price point have low margins, $700 machines have middle margins and high end machines have high margins.

Apple's line up has high margins across the board because they (with the exception of the mini) all exist in the upper end of the PC market. You can see this because Apple's ASPs are $1500ish vs Dell's $900ish.

You, yourself write:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post


the fine print: It took me quite awhile to get these numbers to work out in my favor.
__________________

These numbers may not be very accurate, but, it still makes the point that to overcome the razor thin margins of the bulk of computer sales, any computer Dell sells in the >$799 have to be large, sometimes very large.

But now you want it taken for GOSPEL that every $800 computer has 25%+ margins?

I have no inclination to "take quite a while" to massage a bunch of random number to try to "prove" that Apple's margins are in the neighborhood of what they say they want them to be overall.

Quote:
You on the other hand use Apple's overall gross margins and apply them to computers. Where's the difference?

The difference is that Apple states that they try to average 28% margins and reported 36.9% Not all products will do so but given that computers are a vast majority of thier revenue stream they aren't going to achieve that if 60% of their revenue stream is significantly below 30%. 28% (or 30%) is a good working number and requires no "massaging" whatsoever.

Quote:
Note that when comparing equally equipped iMacs with Dell computers, quite often the iMac will be price comptetative. This varies depending on the life cycle of the iMac, whether near the beginnig or end of the model. So, either one of two things may be concluded from this. Either Apple's gross profit margins aren't that different from Dell's in this price range or Apple is dramatically more efficient in manufacturing their computers. You tell me which it is.

That your premise is incorrect and therefore it isn't a binary problem with only two solutions. Nice try though.

First show that iMacs have been cost competitive with Dell towers. Then tell me that if this is actually TRUE (which it is unlikely except on rare occasions like when Apple moved it intel...the first merom imacs MIGHT have been cost competitive with the first conroe boxes due to availability and launch prices) in general then why then is a iMac considered a rip-off?

Vinea
post #498 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Let me get this straight. You are predicting apple will drop out of the laptop market? That is the point in which I (and many other professional users) will drop apple. So no, I don't agree with you if that is what you are saying.

Yep...that's what I predict. At some point regular laptops will be seen by the consumer in the same way that tower computers are seen by the consumer...interchangable pieces differentiated by price...aka commodity market.

At that point the MacBook will no longer be competitive and Apple will move to only having the Mac Book Pro and iPhones and perhaps a tablet. Will Apple be completely out of the laptop market? Only from the standpoint that Apple is out of the tower market when it just has the Mac Pro left.

A "consumer" laptop like the MacBook will get replaced by something more niche. Given that the MacBook is likely dominated by edu sales then I could see Apple moving to a slate tablet form factor (for note taking in the class...*) with a seperate BT keyboard (for report writing) and a convertible MacBookPro.

All speculative of course but that's the way I see Apple's product line moving in the next few years.

-V

* I could easily see students uploading the prof's powerpoint and their annotating the slides with notes using a stylus while recording the prog via the mic and possibly the iSight camera. A smart school might provide video and voice via wireless streaming for students rather than depend on the built in mic and camera.

Then the class lecture session could also be used to support distance learning and web based classes...
post #499 of 647
Vinea
http://www.currentanalysis.com/r/200...umerpc-4-2.htm
Article title:
"Today’s Consumer PC Market: You Get What You Pay For, and Then Some"

You will notice from the chart titled "U.S. Retail Desktop Sales by Price Class" that computers priced $800 and up comprise about 15% of the market.

You continued use of <$500 priced computers representing 50% of the market does not help your stance at all. This would weight my margin numbers even further down for <$800 computers, resulting in even higher margins required for the smallish % of computers sold above the $800 price range.

Yes I made up numbers, but not as willy nilly as you might have thought. Michael Dell's comment during a quarterly report admitted that "razor thin" margins on the low end had contributed to the less than expected gross margins. I don't know about you, but razor thin means small. I put razor thin at less than 5% but for use of my numbers I upped it to 10%, being the generous soul I am. On top of that you continue to insist that your numbers regarding Apple's margins on the iMac are at or above their overall gross margins, with absolutely no evidence, whatsoever.

After all this, the point is that the upper end of desktop market is a small in comparison to the low end, which have the lowest gross margins, so the margins on the upper end have to make up for the disparity in margins even to get to gross margins in the 14% - 16% range. And yes it is indeed about 8.5 to 1, at least as of April of last year.

As far as price comparisons
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9023959
Quote:
Bottom line: When you configure low-end and midrange notebooks and desktops, you'll find that except at the very bottom of the heap, Windows machines are roughly comparable in price to Macs. There are fewer Mac models, so if your needs vary from what Apple has decided on, you may find a Windows model that costs less for you. But Apple's choices make a lot of sense for most people, and when you do the point-by-point comparison, Apple is actually a better value for some needs.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/11/maga...tune/index.htm
Quote:
I think my comparison is fairer, showing the iMac $70 more expensive than the XPS 410.

http://thesmallwave.blogspot.com/200...-new-imac.html
Quote:
The iMac described in my previous article, stripped of the .Mac membership, tax, and shipping is $2,578. Only $4 difference between them!

I could go to Dell's website and rehash the price comparison arguments, but why? Only the most ardent naysayers believe Apple computers on a feature for feature basis are consistently more expensive than equivalently spec.'d Dells.

As I said, when compared feature for feature Apple's iMac compares favorably with Dell's equivalent models, sometimes a little higher sometimes a little lower, usually depending on where in the life cycle the iMac resides.

So, I ask again, which is it? Either Apple's gross profit margins aren't that different from Dell's in this price range or Apple is dramatically more efficient in manufacturing their computers.
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 #500 of 647
A $2578 iMac is price competitvely with a $2574 Dell. Mkay...so is a Mac Pro because both of those are at the top end of the spectrum with large margins. That doesn't show that $800 machines have 25%+ margins.

Again, if all you want is an xMac that > $1500 that's fine by me. I agree, let's have at it and bring on the towers. If you want to go back down to that $700-$800 market segment then I say its a short term gain (cheaper macs) for a long term loss (weaker Apple). Given Apple is the sole source for machines that don't suck I prefer the status quo.

As far as the rest of your assertions at least you finally posted a source. Feel free to recalculate with 5% margins for 50% of unit sales (<$500), 18% margins for 30% ($500-$800) and whatever for the remaining 20% upper tier ($800-$3000+).

Here's a quick sample:

$400 * 5 = 2000 * 0.05 = $100
$700 * 3 = 2100 * 0.18 = $378
$1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800

Total revenue = $7300
18% gross margins = $1314

Gross Margins from above? $1278

What have I shown? I can take any set of numbers, apply some math and, in this case, 30 seconds with the calculator can show nearly anything. If I need to show some obtuse outcome it would take me longer than 30 secs to "massage" the numbers to something more suitable. I guessed pretty close so the number is only short a little (somewhere between 17% and 18%) and requires me to do no further work in illustrating...well, not a whole lot other than numbers are very malleable while looking very official.

Hopefully I haven't made some embarrasing math error but really, I spent very little time on this.

Vinea
post #501 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

..............
Given Apple is the sole source for machines that don't suck I prefer the status quo.
.....................Vinea

That's a very opinionated statement if I've ever heard one given the fact that this thread is all about that people are sick of how Apples offerings suck for them, and they would prefer something along the lines of a true desktop that is not strictly limited, and confined so that they can actually customize it if they so wish.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #502 of 647
The price comparisons stand.

Your own attempt at gross margins at certain price points yielded $1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800. 25% margins you say, for $1600 computer, what again are the prices of Apple's 20" iMacs? So even after you massaged the numbers you still get 25% margins for Dell in the price range of the 20" iMacs.

$799 is not an arbritrary price point. It represented the base price point for a tower with a Core 2 Duo Conroe with integrated graphics, 3-4 slots, 2 harddrive bays and 2 optical drive bays. Kind of the point of this thread. Which at the time, the Conroe had been newly introduced, therefore, cutting edge and most certainly would have justified greater margins. So, you cheated by dipping down into the $700 range.

No matter how you slice or dice the numbers the fact that the market for computers above the price point of $799 represents only 15% of the market, the margins must be substantially higher than the overall margins of 14 - 16% reported by Dell.

In the end, my numbers regarding speculation on Dell's margins at the price point Apple charges for iMacs is just as valid as yours regarding Apple's gross margins for the iMacs.

Just for your knowledge. You might want to compare these numbers for gross margins.

http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/...&symbol=MSFT.O
http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/...&symbol=MSFT.O

Scan down to the tables "Profitability Ratios".
Microsoft's Gross Margin (TTM)\t79.08
Apple's Gross Margin (TTM)\t33.04
(re: remember that Microsoft's gross margins include the losses incurred for the XBox and Zune.)
\t\t
This might help put perspective on margins related to software and how it may affect Apple's overall gross margins considering they do indeed sell software.
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 #503 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

That's a very opinionated statement if I've ever heard one given the fact that this thread is all about that people are sick of how Apples offerings suck for them, and they would prefer something along the lines of a true desktop that is not strictly limited, and confined so that they can actually customize it if they so wish.

Fine...replace "computer" with "operating system" although we could possibly agree to "computer system" but whatever.

Man what a nit picky thing to object to on an Apple forum. If you think Apple machines suck that much and you're sick of it then buy something else. 95% of the world does.

Vinea
post #504 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

The price comparisons stand.

Your own attempt at gross margins at certain price points yielded $1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800. 25% margins you say, for $1600 computer, what again are the prices of Apple's 20" iMacs? So even after you massaged the numbers you still get 25% margins for Dell in the price range of the 20" iMacs.

YES, I USED 25% MARGINS FOR COMPUTERS AT OR ABOVE $1500. NO KIDDING AND THAT WAS NEVER DISPUTED. WHAT WAS DISPUTED WAS THAT $800 DELL COMPUTERS HAD 25%+ MARGINS.

Clear? Should I pick a bigger font size?

I did no massaging. I picked reasonable looking numbers out of the blue. They came out about right first go because...oh my gosh...I'm not advocating something silly. I simply said cheap computers have low margins (5%), medium computers had medium margins (18%) and expensive computers had high margins (25%). Ohhhhh, how innovative.

If I had thought the goal was 14%-16% margins I'd have picked 15% instead of 18% but whatever...I hit around 17% so hey buddy...guess what? $800 PCs can have mid ranged margins and the sky won't fall and Dell doesn't need to have a chat with the SEC. At least not about that.

You don't like my numbers feel free to waste the afternoon picking new ones and "massage" them to your heart's content.

Quote:
$799 is not an arbritrary price point. It represented the base price point for a tower with a Core 2 Duo Conroe with integrated graphics, 3-4 slots, 2 harddrive bays and 2 optical drive bays. Kind of the point of this thread. Which at the time, the Conroe had been newly introduced, therefore, cutting edge and most certainly would have justified greater margins. So, you cheated by dipping down into the $700 range.

No matter how you slice or dice the numbers the fact that the market for computers above the price point of $799 represents only 15% of the market, the margins must be substantially higher than the overall margins of 14 - 16% reported by Dell.

No...it really doesn't. It only needs to be around that 14-16% margins reported by Dell. You want to fiddle with the numbers so that $800 machines are 15% margins and figure out what the low and high ends COULD be, be my guest. Its rather pointless since you don't have enough data to show that your idiotic model is any more accurate than my idiotic model.

Although with a grand total of THREE price points I can say that my model is 50% more complex than yours. And therefore 50,000X more relevant (ObMath: 50,000 * 0.0 = ?). Whee!

Although, I will point out the obvious here that you seem to not get:

More expensive computers...cost more...and thereby generate more revenue. Taking a bigger slices from bigger pies means you get a heck of a lot more pie from a lot fewer slices than taking many smaller slices from much smaller pies.

Quote:
In the end, my numbers regarding speculation on Dell's margins at the price point Apple charges for iMacs is just as valid as yours regarding Apple's gross margins for the iMacs.

Except that asserting that $800 PCs have 25% margins is really really stupid while asserting that $1500 PCs have 28% margins is just a wild guess, hopefully in the right ballpark. You are just being argumentative right? You don't REALLY believe that Dell is making 25%+ margins on $799 PCs?
post #505 of 647
Thread Starter 
Oops... double post.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #506 of 647
Sigh...I have an extra 2 mins...here you go:

$400 * 5 = $2000 * 0.05 = $100
$800 * 4 = $3200 * 0.15 = $480
$1500 * 1 = $1500 * 0.30 = $450

$6700 revenue with $940 profit
$14% margin

9-1 ratio to boot. Slid the numbers your way as much as wasn't silly and used the 30% number rather than the 25% number. Note these are to be considered "averages" since the $400 covers computers from $300 to $500 and the $800 one from $500 to $1000 and the $1500 one from $1000 to Alienware UberRig.

ASP is a bit low to represent Dell though.
post #507 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Fine...replace "computer" with "operating system" although we could possibly agree to "computer system" but whatever.

Man what a nit picky thing to object to on an Apple forum. If you think Apple machines suck that much and you're sick of it then buy something else. 95% of the world does.

Vinea


Well it is nit picky but so are most computer buyers. And you also bring up a good point in that. The OS is great, but it's only 1/3rd the reason to buy a computer. Hardware, and Applications are the other 2/3rds, and for those two thirds the other side has a better deal. It's not a 50/50 choice over two OS's and Apples is better. The deck is stacked in the opponents favor, Apple has to come to grips with that, this thread, and all the other threads about this all over the net that are of the overwhelming belief of that, and we (forum posters) are just a small minority of the people that believe this.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #508 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Again, if all you want is an xMac that > $1500 that's fine by me. I agree, let's have at it and bring on the towers. If you want to go back down to that $700-$800 market segment then I say its a short term gain (cheaper macs) for a long term loss (weaker Apple).

So are you saying the Mac Mini has weakened Apple somehow? If not then how would making a tower with desktop parts the same spec as the current Mini at the same price be any more damaging? It's cheaper to build.

I wouldn't mind if they were only >$1500 but the point about the xMac is that it can cover the entire range from the Mac Mini right up to the Mac Pro range - in short it covers everyone. Everyone who doesn't want a laptop or a workstation.

This is the great thing about it, Apple don't even have the hassle the iMac has if people want bigger drives installed. The small tower could have an easy open panel for more Ram and drives so upgrade times are cut way down. There could easily be a list of GPUs that people can choose from just like the Mac Pro but gamer cards (maybe 3-4 models) and not quadros etc.

No more returns because of defective displays.
post #509 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

So are you saying the Mac Mini has weakened Apple somehow? If not then how would making a tower with desktop parts the same spec as the current Mini at the same price be any more damaging? It's cheaper to build.

Nope. because a) They didn't sell all that many Mini's or their ASP would be below $1500 and b) because the Mini was carefully positioned not to be much of a threat of cannibalizing iMac sales.

Quote:
I wouldn't mind if they were only >$1500 but the point about the xMac is that it can cover the entire range from the Mac Mini right up to the Mac Pro range - in short it covers everyone. Everyone who doesn't want a laptop or a workstation.

Fine, we're all hopefully in agreement that a $1500+ xMac tower would be grand.
post #510 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

[B][SIZE="4"]...Rantings removed

Point stands, your numbers concerning Apples margins is based on just a specious speculation as mine.

edit: after further thought, no, your latest attempt is way off.

Your numbers have breakdown of 50% at $800 and above(4 @ $800 + 1 @ $1500 ) and 50% below $800(5 @ $400)

The $799 ~ $800 price point represents only 15% of the desktop market, not 50%.
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 #511 of 647
...and the quad 2.4 gig Intel chip is now less than £200 on Micro Direct. Ram and HDs are dirt cheap.

It's a perfect mid-tower chip. Stick a Geforce 8700 GT (or whatever it'll be called...) with it and you have a perfect £1000 'Cube' replacement.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #512 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

...and the quad 2.4 gig Intel chip is now less than £200 on Micro Direct. Ram and HDs are dirt cheap.

It's a perfect mid-tower chip. Stick a Geforce 8700 GT (or whatever it'll be called...) with it and you have a perfect £1000 'Cube' replacement.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #513 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.

... Cube is a glorified mini.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #514 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

Point stands, your numbers concerning Apples margins is based on just a specious speculation as mine.

edit: after further thought, no, your latest attempt is way off.

Your numbers have breakdown of 50% at $800 and above(4 @ $800 + 1 @ $1500 ) and 50% below $800(5 @ $400)

The $799 ~ $800 price point represents only 15% of the desktop market, not 50%.

You have the inability to read anything you don't want to. The $800 point includes all computers from $500 to $1000. Just like the $500 one covers everything from $0 to $500. They match the chart reasonably close. Originally it was $700 but you whined so I made it $800. Again you whine. Whatever.

Don't like those numbers...feel free to play with them yourself.

You can simply repeat "point stands" all you want but anyone with 2 brain cells to bang together realizes that its not "90% of computers at 5% and 10% of computers at 50% margins" but a range. Therefore saying $800 computers MUST have 25%+ margins is dumb as bricks.

We're done with this because while it was amusing to laugh at you for a while but its kinda boring going around in circles because you either don't get it or choose to act dumb.
post #515 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

...and the quad 2.4 gig Intel chip is now less than £200 on Micro Direct. Ram and HDs are dirt cheap.

It's a perfect mid-tower chip. Stick a Geforce 8700 GT (or whatever it'll be called...) with it and you have a perfect £1000 'Cube' replacement.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

... Cube is a glorified mini.

I'd settle for HALF a 13" square CUBE (HWD=13x6.5x13),
with HALF the number of processors,
with HALF the number of optical bays,
with HALF the number of hard drive bays,
with HALF the number of RAM slots,
with HALF the number of PCIs slots (but 3 would be OK too)
of the Mac Pro.
post #516 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

I'd settle for ...................
with HALF the number of processors,
with HALF the number of optical bays,
with HALF the number of hard drive bays,
with HALF the number of RAM slots,
with HALF the number of PCIs slots (but 3 would be OK too)
of the Mac Pro.


Obviously you were not paying attention to this thread. What do you think it was about before Viena, and co. started going at it?
Although if your talking about a something that just suits you alone; in which it does look that way, why even post. Try to be realistic.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #517 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647

Cube is a glorified mini.

I think they could design it without major limitations. As long as the drives (only 2 HDs and 1 optical or 2 opticals and 1 HD), Ram and a PCI slot or two are easily accessible then it could still be pretty small. If they just use a similar setup to the Mac Pro but with less parts. A single quad chip instead of two duals or two quads in the pro. I suspect the pro would be better to move to dual quads completely.

A cube also counters the point about Apple having to offer something more than the competition. There are PC cubes out there but they aren't everywhere - Apple could still have the advantage of a small form factor vs PCs. A well designed larger desktop will sell but having the 'cube' label has some sales appeal and it gives it an identity. Apple wouldn't use the term xMac because that doesn't relate to anything and I've always wondered where that name came from. What would they call a mid-range tower? Just Mac would be good but that will confuse people when it comes to asking for support.

I agree that it shouldn't compromise the computer so if they couldn't build a cube without crippling it then it would have to be a normal desktop but if that's the case then they aren't as good technical designers as they like to believe.

If they can fit dual 2.33GHz CPUs, one 7200 rpm drive and a Nvidia 8600M GT into a Macbook Pro then they can surely put a 2.4 GHz Core 2 quad with two HDs into something at least 2-3 times the size of a mac Mini.
post #518 of 647
Quote:
onlooker
Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.

I wouldn't have put it quite so bluntly, but yes. A revisit of the Cube would not attract many new customers and would be pretty much doomed to failure.

Quote:
mjteix
"I'd settle"

Unfortunately, that's is the position many Apple desktop customers are already doing for the ability to enjoy Apple's software. I settled for an iMac.

Why should Apple expect consumers to "settle" when Apple doesn't have to force such an issue? There are no rational reasons for Apple to do this.

I fear it is a philosophy that dates all the way back when Apple firmly believed that computers for consumers should be treated like appliances. I used to think it had more to do with protecting the margins on the iMacs and professional level computers. This obviously doesn't hold true for the Mac Pro since it was demonstratlby less expensive than competitors, sometimes by a wide margin. But Jobs recent comments have made me a believer, Apple will never offer for sale a consumer level computer with anything closely resembling the flexibility and ease of use of a tower of any kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

You have the inability to read anything you don't want to. The $800 point includes all computers from $500 to $1000. Just like the $500 one covers everything from $0 to $500. They match the chart reasonably close. Originally it was $700 but you whined so I made it $800. Again you whine. Whatever.

Don't like those numbers...feel free to play with them yourself.

You can simply repeat "point stands" all you want but anyone with 2 brain cells to bang together realizes that its not "90% of computers at 5% and 10% of computers at 50% margins" but a range. Therefore saying $800 computers MUST have 25%+ margins is dumb as bricks.

We're done with this because while it was amusing to laugh at you for a while but its kinda boring going around in circles because you either don't get it or choose to act dumb.

I'm not whinning, just pointing out your errors.

Your biggest error is believing that Apple's margins on computers are significantly greater than Dell's in the >$799 price range. You extrapolate from Apple's gross margins to come up with gross margins on computers. You ignore the fact that Apple's laptop and desktop business as of the June quarter less than 50% of their gross sales and what effect this has on overall gross margins.

You claim that the margins on the top 15% of Dells computer line starts at or is in the 14 - 16 % range which is quite frankly nuts. Hard to tell what your talking about because the range you selected $500 - $1000 dollars includes bargin basement computers to the high end of the computer line, reflecting, well, nothing.

You still haven't addressed the fact that iMacs are competitively priced quite often, usually based on where they are in their life cycle and how it is that Apple can maintain better gross margins on computers when compared to Dell.
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 #519 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Obviously you were not paying attention to this thread. What do you think it was about before Viena, and co. started going at it?
Although if your talking about a something that just suits you alone; in which it does look that way, why even post. Try to be realistic.


Keep your engines down a little bit, will you. I know what the thread is all about, and I agree that Vin and co. are distracting. Since the Cube was mentionned "again", I thought it would be interesting to use the term but for a tower design, since I used "half" to describe it, I find it interesting to use it again (and again) to describe more precisely what I think it could be.
Since this is a poll and there's a "something, I'll explain" choice, I'm entitled to my opinion too (or are you already sold on your opinion that the mythical xMac should just be like the slim desktop Dell image you keep posting, that seemed to be YOUR image of a true desktop).
Now you want realistic, here's realistic:
- giving the Xmac somehow HALF the features of the Mac Pro, will make the products differenciation easier.
- giving the xMac dimensions as 13x13" makes using standard mATX motherboards and other components easier to fit in, hence lower the costs of manufacturing. The other dimension (6.5" wide, is reminiscent of the size of the Mac mini, which can be kind of an Apple touch)
- 4 RAM slots are common on desktop motherboard using Intel's recent chipsets (instead of some funny numbers we can find on threads like this one)
- 2 HD bays are some kind on consensus for a midrange/midpriced computer
- only one Optical drive also (as some people are already suggesting that optical drives are unnecessary most of the time)
...

I just appear to have speakers with almost the dimensions I've described (14x7x12", JMLab series 5), I put one close to my display, and it looks good (in black), and it is also smaller that my old PM G4.

I'm trying to be as much "realistic" as I can reading or writing on these threads, but there are way too many jerks, I-know-alls, I-know-betters, I-dont-wanna-knows and I-know-nothing-and-it-shows that you have to take everything with a grain of salt, but still with a sense of humor you seem lacking these days.

To rickag: I didn't settle of an iMac (I have a MB for general tasks, and still use the old G4 for audio). No way I'll ever buy an iMac - in it's current form - for audio work, an used MP yes, but no iMac.
post #520 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post


Keep your engines down a little bit, will you..........[/I]

Unfortunately I still don't think Apple could get away with another computer that looks like a little box design. They seriously need something fresh and inspiring to make the computer world go Ooooh, and Ahhhhh.. again. At this point in time the iron is hot and ready to strike for them. If they confined another system it could, and probably would seal the deal that Apple is not serving their customers. The iPhone was hit and a miss in that respect. It showed they could make an inspiring product but the stink it caused has hit back at their persona.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube?