Originally Posted by Mr. H
I find it odd that you think the xMac so compelling a machine that it would destroy all Mini, iMac and Mac Pro sales and yet would not do more than double sales. You would have thought if the xMac were great enough to obliterate the entirety of Apple's current lineup of desktop machines, that it would attract enough new customers to lead to at least quadruple units shipped.
Right. Prove it and I'm sure Apple will produce an xMac. That's the problem right? Your assertion is that if they build them they will come.
Here are the reasons why I think growth will not be as massive as you think:
Desktops in Apple's primary market are on the decline. Most growth is in notebooks even for Windows. Therefore desktop growth will be limited.
Desktops are a thin margin business and price is often key to sales. Hence the focus on price by HP, Dell, Acer, etc. Most sales are in budget desktops, business machines and game rigs.
1) Apple will never make a "budget" xMac.
2) OSX has limited enterprise support. MS isn't going to help beyond a certain point. Business is not an Apple focus area even today.
3) There are limited games on OSX. Apple doesn't support game development as much as Microsoft does (DirectX, XNA, etc).
Therefore the growth potential of desktops in general are limited and xMac more so.
I understand that. What I don't understand is as I said above, if (according to you) xMac was superb enought to destroy Mini, iMac and Mac Pro sales why would it only double the number of computers sold?
Because the onus is on YOU to prove that it would do more than double sales since YOU claim the xMac is a desired addition to the Mac lineup.
Let's not forget that I think that Apple would sell about the same number of iMac and Mac Pro machines as they currently do and that the vast majority of xMac sales would be additive.
An unproven and arguably untrue assertion.
It could be better.
Yes, everything could be better but it's an idiotic statement when Apple is doing so well and posting 30%+ YOY growth.
Marginilisation doesn't necessarily mean that there are absolutely no options.
Main Entry: mar·gin·al·ize
Pronunciation: \\ˈmärj-nə-ˌlīz, ˈmär-jə-nəl-ˌīz\\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): mar·gin·al·ized; mar·gin·al·iz·ing
: to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group
mar·gin·al·i·za·tion \\ˌmärj-nə-lə-ˈzā-shən, ˌmär-jə-nəl-ə-\\ noun
Tell me that Apple has an unimportant or powerless position within the computing world.
The choice of the word marginalization is deliberately negative. OSX is no more "marginalized" than Lexus or Porsche. It is the best and most successful desktop Unix in the world. It is the second most popular desktop in the world and has far more cache than the leading desktop. It is the only other mainstream desktop operating system.
Often it can mean that the only options are very expensive or hideous after-thoughts ported from a Windows version.
Often it can mean the person that chose the word has some agenda where they'd like to cast a negative light on something.
You didn't answer my question about whether you live in the U.S.
I do. So?
Trust me, OS X is marginalised outside the U.S.
And Western Europe. Largest share of the UK education market. And Sweden I think. In any case, given the dominant position of the US in the computing world (heck even Linus is in the US) what happens here will follow.
When it will not...well, I hope you can learn Chinese but that's a decade out at least.
I wasn't claiming that without the xMac Apple are doomed. That would be rediculous. They are clearly not doomed.
Again with the negative waves. Implications that while they aren't "doomed" they also won't do well. Well, they also don't need the xMac to do brilliantly. Which they ARE doing and will continue to do.