New iMacs offer more value than competition - report - Page 5

Yes. I agree. Before we lived in the fluffy land of the we love kind Apple fan club.

Now we REALISE they are a mean business like M$. BOY do we realise now. You can't call the price jacks a hike.

I call them a Prostate Check.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. It's official. We're being ripped off by Apple. No we're not. I've just closed my wallet.

Keep attempting. We're in a credit crunch and we're being ripped off.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Form over function? You must be kidding.

I'd say that Macs provide both, Form AND function. The OS makes the difference and the hardware definitely compliments the usability and overall user experience.

Which in itself is worth the price of admission. I don't subscribe to the concept that cheaper is better; it leaves out the most expensive component: my time and productivity.

Having used all flavors of Macs and Windows and all major manufacturers hardware for many years, I can say that Apple computers/Mac OS has been the cheapest offering money can buy.

You don't think it a bit dramatic to say you are being ripped off for a product you haven't purchased and seem to have no desire to purchase?

If you don't feel its a good deal don't buy it. Its as simple as that. The reason Apple did not do a further upgrade is because they feel fewer people will buy it.

which the courts have stated they have a legal right to do.

so the answer is simple. if you don't like the hardware, don't buy Apple. if you choose to hack the software don't pretend that you are not violating several of Apple's legal rights, are entitled to do so because Apple won't give you what you want, etc.

but Apple is going to do what THEY feel is the best, which is also their right. And they do not see a market for headless machines as their lead machine. And given how long their imac line has last, they might just be onto something. heck I work in Final Cut Studio and when I replaced my PowerMac last year I got the 3.06 iMac with no issues. I"m about to buy another one -- thankful that this time I don't have to pay extra for the bumps to 4gb of ram and a full 1tb harddrive.

Of course we realize that Apple is a business. Apple had better have their offices filled with computer geeks concerned with spec sheets considering the fact that their business is making computers. Apple, as a business, is counting in part on consumers making purchasing decisions based on emotion and perception. However, many consumers are also businesses or are capable of applying business-like rationale towards their decision on whether or not to buy Apple's "new" product, or wait. Those who need a computer immediately will generally purchase whatever the current model happens to be because that is what their need dictatesthat's always the case. Those who can wait a while will weigh the opportunity cost of purchasing now vs. purchasing future equipment. I think the current lineup has only slightly improved in performance. IMO that means those who were willing to wait up until now will probably continue to wait especially given the current economy. In fact, the modest increase in performance coupled with price adjustments upwards will probably confirm for many that waiting to buy was the right choice and inspire some to wait even longer than if Apple had no new releases at all.

Apple's approach to this line of updates seems to mimic that of many pharmaceutical companies. Take an existing product, tweak it slightly with minimal additional R&D costs or change in manufacturing costs, call it "new" and bump the price up, and attempt to get more mileage from basically the same product they've been selling. This might be a smart business decision, but I can tell you this is one customer that will not be inspired to buy now, unless my current machine dies with no hope of resurrection. IMO, if Apple had no really substantial change in architecture to wow us with this go around of intel chips' performance, they would do better to increase sales in a slagging economy by offering something else to make up for it. More aggressive pricing would be the easiest considering their high profit margin. That is something they have room to play with and may do so later, but I doubt it. They could have changed the form factor or introduced a new product, like a headless mini-tower. A new product comes with some risky new manufacturing costs, but if the things sell, than it would be a worthwhile gamble and would open up a whole new market to Apple .

So Apple, in these hard economic times, has to decide which of the following is the better approach. Is it better to milk their current market and hope a performance bumps in virtually the same products will optimize their manufacturing costs combined with their high profit margin will hold out over slumping sales? Or, should they go after a new market by introducing a new product and go after a significant increase in sales volume. Given how long Apple has allowed the demand for a mini-tower to go unanswered, I think the latter decision would be the best. It would have offered a really new product, reinvigorated excitement about their product lineup in general, and increased the number of switchers and Mac veterans alike who would be willing to spend money in hard-times to get the machine they've been waiting for as long as they feel it represents a good value. That is what I happen to feel would be the better for Apple and the health of their business because, as a consumer, their current lineup is inspiring me to hold on to my cash until the next go-around for the sake of my own financial health.

I said Apple isn't run by a bunch of computer geeks only concerned with spec sheets.


Yes I know many people who use Macs for business. I rarely to never hear any of them talking about processor speeds, or motherboards, or any of that. They buy new computers when they feel they need a new one. They aren't looking at Apple's refresh roadmap.


In the US the iMac is cheaper. International sales are determined more by the vagaries of currency rates and tariffs.


What new market are you talking about? Their is no new market, sales are down for everyone.


The projections don't support your story of events. The projections are that computer growth will be down 12% through 2009, desktop sales are expected to be down 31% through 2009. This is far worse than the last recession in 2001.

Its projected that 63% of computer sales will be notebooks, notebook sales are projected to grow 9% through 2009. The hottest selling computing device is the smartphone, they are projected to grow 11% over 2009.

With those projections what sense does it make to introduce a new desktop line when desktop sales are projected at historical lows.

If this was true then neither Dell nor HP nor Gateway nor Sony would have AIOs.

Sony dumped all towers for an AIO because there's no way to make good margins on low-mid range towers unless you're one of the bug guys (HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo). Even there Lenovo is not profitable at the moment.

Toshiba makes no desktops and still is #5 world wide.

For a review of the debate on the Apple tax, see:

Apple tax on the latest Mac gear: 40 percent @ http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...41629-135.html


The article is less conclusive than the title would lead you to believe. This passage reflects the conclusion of the author (on page 2):

That article is less than genuine. They mention a comparable machine being cheaper but seem to make no mention that the comparable machine would not one of the svelte designs from other vendors using notebook-grade parts, which obviously cost more to get the same price as using desktop-grade components. I have no problem with people not sharing the benefit of having a simple item to set up or wanting to build their own as the Mac offerings clearly aren't designed to fit everyone's needs, but TGDaily should have at least mentioned that they aren't comparing the same types of machines or the same components.

This article clearly states that they feel the Mac mini is too expensive, while they felt the iMac is appropriately priced.

The article compares the Mac mini to the ASUS Nova P22 Mini-PC. The Nova P22 uses Intel GMA X300 and 667MHz DDR2 RAM. But claims the Mac mini is too expensive in comparison.

I clearly missed the Asus mention in my perusing.

yes, and it's annoying as hell. A few years ago, I could read nearly any post and find something intelligent in it - even if it were just X arguing with Y over a point.

"Macs" is a general term. Definitely, Macs have form and function, but certain Macs (in this thread's case, iMac) make compromises for the sake of the form factor. They were pushed thinner, forcing the use of lower-powered laptop parts, and standard quality desktop parts are difficult if not impossible to integrate. More expensive isn't always better either.

About the iMac this is true. A lot of compromises are made to fit its form factor. But their is a reason for this. The iMac is mostly targeted at consumers at best pro-sumers. Its not intended to be a professional machine. With a wide choice of USB peripherals and and high density storage, 8GB maximum memory, their is less need for expansion slots and multiple hard drive slots.

Consumers marvel at the slim AIO nature of the iMac. Apple's desktop sales rose 14% to 936,000 desktop sold. This was the most desktops Apple has ever sold in one quarter. It happened during the quarter of the initial launch of the current aluminum/glass iMac.

Apple was started by, and still headed by computer geeks concerned with spec sheets. You do know who Steve Jobs is don't you? If that guy isn't a spec-sheet lovin' computer geek, than no one is.




The entire creative field is a business. Animation and video editing in general plus 3D for everything from product illustration, architectural rending and animated walkthroughs and multimedia in general, not to mention live HD video feeds for large stage, large auditorium trade shows and conferencing depend on processor intense activities. You must have not included any of them in your conversations because their main objective in upgrading equipment has everything to do with processor speeds and mother boards. They time their purchasing accordingly and those that use Macs are well aware of Apple hardware roadmaps. Just because you have no personal involvement in, or aren't knowledgeable about the needs of an entire industry doesn't make them insignificant.



Who said anything about the vagaries of currency rates and what does that have to do with the US marketI'd say that particular market is of great significance to Apple. People in the US are just as concerned with dollar per performance as the rest of the world when they consider purchasing new equipment.




The market in which mid-range desktops is populated by Dells, HPs, Sonys, etc. The one in which Apple currently has no product to offer. A vertical laptop with the associated premium in parts costs and production but without the portability hardly counts. There may be a current downward trend in that particular market but it doesn't mean it is insignificant or on it's way to irrelevancefar from it. You won't see the above mentioned manufacturers pulling out of it anytime soon. The iMac is obviously very popular in the niche of all-in-ones. However, as a share of the computer market as a whole, all-in-ones are an even tinier market, yet Apple does very well for themselves by maintaining a presence there and has chosen to put practically most of it's computer eggs in that basket. Think of how many more sales they could slice away from their competition if they added the mid-range desktop as part of their lineup. For all intents and purposes, that would be a new market for Apple because they abandoned it some time ago. If you think there is no market for an Apple branded mid-ranged headless Mac I suggest you read more posts here, visit other sites, and read more articles from industry folks who suggest Apple address that void in their offerings. Google is your friend. Portable music players, smart phones, laptops, workstationsApple enjoys success in the products they put forth so far. Again, their share of the entire market is low, but overall market share is obviously no deterrent to their profitability. Their success has more to do with maintaining "enough" market share plus marginal increase and being perceived as an innovator.




It makes sense to have presence in a market where you currently have no presence as long as you make the better product. I'm no expert by far, but I speculate that in times of a shrinking economy, a company that is innovative in finding ways to expand sales and remain nimble will do better than one that is too slow to react, contracts too much, or develops a strategy based on a fear of numbers. It doesn't matter if a market as a whole is shrinking as long as you are increasing your own sales with in it. A re-alinement of the percentage of desktops vs. the percentage of laptops in computer sales as a whole does not mean the desktop market is insignificant or becoming inherently unprofitable for every computer mfg. who gives it a go. The percentage of people relying on bicycles as their primary means of local transportation went down drastically with the advent of the automobile, yet people still purchase bicycles. If you enter that market with a better bicycle, you can still be a winner in that segment. Trek is probably doing better than GMC right about nowthings change ;-).

The same goes for computers and widgets. Apple still exists today because it excels in carving out it's own niches. There is a saturation point for the niche marketer in any industry, so a company that excels in niche products needs to find new niches if it wants to protect it's profits. Netbook sales, although currently slow, are bound to increase with the current down turn, but Jobs has stated his express desire to give that market a pass. What area is left for Apple to quickly rise as an innovator during an economic crisis? Which is better, create an entirely new product that doesn't exist, or create a different version of something you already make aimed at a market you could excel in? Apple did it with MP3 players, phones, and all-in-ones. Why not do it again with desktops? One could easily argue that a shrinking desktop market is actually in Apple's favor because it means the their competitors are struggling, all Apple has to do is be better at selling Macs. The number of windows desktop computers is shrinking: the number of desktops running OS X has shrunken too much. Again, Apple only needs to have a profitable presence to increase it's own sales, not rescue an entire from factor for an entire industry.

I visit Mac forums and PC forums alike. Anecdotally, the thing I read most that keeps PC users who are interested in Macs but are on the fence about switching is they can't afford a workstation, the mini isn't powerful enough, and they don't want an iMac because it doesn't suit their needs. I've also read quite a few posts from life-long Mac users considering joining Darth Gates and going over to the dark-side for the same reason. An economic downturn and the choice between a workstation or a machine you don't really want will only increase that pull for those who won't ooh and ah over an iMacand there are plenty of Mac users who don't like iMacs for a number of reasons, even though there are many who do.

I work with several high end post production facilities in New York. What you often find in places like that are a mix of machines used for differing purposes. They have some old and some new machines depending on the job that machine needs to accomplish.

I know of one commercial post house that refreshes its machines around every 18 to 24 months. The Mac Pro has gotten to the point where they can get a lot out of it before they feel they will need to get another.



Apple lowered iMac prices in the US. The only area I've seen prices raised are internationally where price fluctuates more.




Mid-range desktops are not a money making market. Dell and HP use midrange desktops to fight for marketshare and brand loyalty. Consumers desktop purchase is quickly declining, enterprise and business purchases are largely propping up desktop sales. Apple is more of a consumer company than enterprise and business company.






You are making a largely circular argument to avoid the simple truth. Desktops are not the profitable portion of the market. That is the simple truth. Notebooks and smartphones are the growing and most future profitable parts of the market.


You miss the reason why desktop sales are declining. The future is about portability. Desktops are not portable. There is no way to innovate around that.

Smartphones are projected to sell 192.8 million units this year.
Notebooks are projected to sell 155.6 million units this year.
Desktops are projected to sell 81 million units this year.




There are always people who complain, you cannot please everyone. These people you speak of are not representative of the market as a whole. The sales numbers are overwhelmingly against mid-range desktops.

It's not about legality, there are limits of what consumers are willing to accept. If they sold the Mini for over £1,000 would you use the same argument? It's legal for them to do it but it's not very good for customer relations. it's not just about purchases but recommendations. I would probably still recommend their laptops to others but nothing else. A reasonable premium makes sense to me and I can justify it to people. When a PC user wants a high end rendering machine and they say they can get a PC to do this for £500 or so, what do I tell them? That they can get that experience if they pay just 360% more for Apple's cheapest quad?


What they are onto is a way of holding out the inevitable stopping point for the entire computer industry growth. They do this by using mobile components, which don't progress nearly as quickly as the desktop components. They divert the selling point from performance value to aesthetics.

The iMac only lasts because Apple have a loyal following and also target a small subset of users to whom simplicity trumps even the highest price tag. Look at how AIOs flop in sales on the PC side. The iMac would do the same if Apple had a good value desktop.


If you mean number shipped, that's not true. Apple and AIO models sell a fraction of the number of mid-range towers. The definition of mid-range get a bit blurry though when you consider that Apple's high end iMac (£1800) is half the speed of a PC manufacturer's base-level quad core (£550).

That's the reason we exist in a free market, where consumers have the ability to choose.



Dell nor HP can compete with Apple on AIO design. Apple used to sell desktops that were not much more expensive than the iMac. Under these circumstances the iMac sold well.


The context of my statement was about general desktop sales. Shipping numbers are going down year over year.

You keep mentioning the mythic quad core PC that is twice as fast and half as cheap as the iMac, but you never seem to present an actual machine or benchmarks that prove its performance.

I think your logic is flawed. I don't see desktops from any vendors (except maybe vendors that cater to gamers) thriving. Desktops keep losing marketshare each year and there is no reason to expect that their will be a mass exodus back to segmented desktop setups. People seem to prefer the compactness and potability of notebooks with the iMac at least giving the compactness aspect with ease of setup.

Your logic would dictate that if AIOs are so unattractive to the consumer then their sales percentages shouldn't be growing while other vendor desktop sales percentages are shrinking. Are you insinuating that the look of the machine is selling it, but it's not being used? Or that Mac OS X is selling it despite people not wanting them? How does your argument fall to notebooks which are, in themselves, true All-In-One machines.

If the AIOs are such a flop, why do Dell, Sony, HP and Gateway all offer them? Are they all idiots?

I don't understand any comparison of performance to a desktop machine running using desktop-grade components that don't have the same size, noise, heat and power constraints that the iMac and Mac Mini has. If all they want is the best cost for performance without any other qualifiers then there is no Mac that will fit their needs.

They are not comparable at all. Specs: http://promos.asus.com/US/evensite/Nova/index.htm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=

And let alone the cheapest version of an inferior OS, i.e., Vista Home Premium.

But then again, I may be a little biased, not knowing things like the following are available: http://www.shopping.com/xPF-Tiger_Ma..._v10_4_3_Tiger

No 4 processors? No sale for me. I guess I'll be waiting until fall to buy a new iMac.

Probably because those consumers are satisfied with their machine. Mac Pro owners don't upgrade much either.


http://www.overclock.co.uk/product/E...g-PC_6719.html

£842

Now ok, it doesn't include a display but you can add an E-IPS for £200. The 3.06GHz mobile chip iMac is £1800.

benchmarks:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-965-review/10

The faster 3.16GHz desktop Core 2 Duo desktop gets 7526, the Core i7 920 gets 15211.

Therefore, a current i7 PC tower is twice as fast and around half the price if you budget your display choice properly.


Same reason they offer netbooks so early on. They want to cater to all markets.

You are combining 2 different markets to make your argument. Commercial sales is not the same market as professional use. Enterprise and business use is not "propping up" desktop sales, it's a subset. Design houses and the like do not, and will not, buy a laptop for design purposes—portability and the added cost of it is of no use in that setting, it is for consumers who want to take their computers to work in starbucks, or on an airplane. How many of those design houses you mentioned are using laptops on the desks of designers? A key market for Apple is still and always has been the design industry, that puts Apple in the business of marketing to business. Unfortunately, the only desktop, that fits in the budget of many design firms is the iMac. Many buy it, but only because it's the only choice. Many are just switching to PCs. I can almost guarantee you, that if Apple made a headless mac in the price range of the iMac minus the premium of using laptop guts or offset by a bump up in performance, their sales to the design industry and the turn around of upgrade in that industry would go up dramatically. Your argument is the circular argument. If Apple can be profitable selling to the smallest subset of desktops (AIO) which has the least appeal of any form factor overall, they can be even more profitable creating the computer legions of designers would use in the more desirable form factor overall. They don't care about portability, they care about performance for money without the cost of switching all their applications from the mac OS to windows. Again, Apple's success is not dependent on following the same strategy as windows PC sales. In fact, it goes directly against that model. Quoting the numbers of sales trends that represent PC sales is not all that relevant for Apple. If it was, using your logic, the best thing for Apple to do with their measly market share in a shrinking industry would be do do away with their computers all together and just sell iphones and ipods—that would be a very dark day. Fortunately, Apple's success in the computer arena fly directly in the face of the very numbers you are so fond of quoting.

No. It's because AIOs are more profitable than towers and they do sell. If they didn't sell they wouldn't bother (i.e. flop). Heck, they keep bringing out new versions to boot.

Netbooks sell like crazy...but not all that profitable.

Vista is going to be a bit boggy on 1GB. OSX seems happy. Need to order a 4GB kit.

I don't think the new low-power C2Qs have enough production to suit Apple's needs for this launch, but as some on this forum speculated Apple may be waiting until the SL launch before moving to these desktop chips. Since we know that SL will give a boost over Leopard I would expect the C2Q would come about 6 months after the SL release. That look to be about a year from now.

How can you say that? What are you basing that on? Well yes, technically you can say Apple is more profitable selling iMacs than mini-towers. That's only because they don't produce any mini-towers. Within the desktop market as a whole, (AIO) is a tiny, tiny market. Given the form factor and the added cost associated with using laptop parts in a cramped desktop format and associated thermal design constraints, I'm guessing the cost of producing an (AIO) vs. the cost of a minitower is higher. Lower production costs generally equal higher profits. As far as non-laptops go, Apple only sells workstations, (AIO), and what amounts to a beefed up desktop version of a netbook. They don't sell a mid-range headless Mac so how do you know it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so? If the number of posters on the various design and photo forums I see desperate for one is any indication, I think they'd fly off the shelves.

Fly off the shelves, yes, but be highly profitable, perhaps not. As Vinea has been stating, unit sales do not equal profit. Apple has shown that it does not want to enter into the high-volume, low-profit, cut-throat markets that are killing many of the other vendors. They don't compete with cheap notebooks either. I think the same reasons why Apple doesn't sell a $400 16" notebook with VGA and PCMCIA ports applies to why Apple doesn't want to sell a headless Mac.

While I will agree that desktop parts are cheaper than the mobile parts used in the iMac. Looking over this machine. There are a few more nitpicks that would slightly increase the price. This machine has 3GB of RAM and a 500GB HDD. The iMac comes with 4GB of RAM and a 1TB HDD.

Over all people have a choice if they feel comfortable buying a computer from an unknown company with an unknown customer service track record, they are free to do so.

Looking at the benchmarks. You pick the benchamark that tests 3D rendering to show the speed difference between Core i7 and Core Duo. Core i7 has an advantage with 3D rendering in that the software is optimized for quads and hyperthreading.

Looking at the clock for clock comparison the Core 2 Duo E8500 gets a 3905.0, the Core i7 920 gets 3751.0. Straight processor for processor a faster Core 2 Duo still beats a slower Core i7.

Since the far majority of desktops are not being used for 3D rendering. For most practical purposes this still does not show a desktop that is half the cost of the iMac at twice the performance.

Yes these are two different markets, but over all PC sales numbers don't delineate between the two. My over all point is that consumer desktop sales are plummeting.



I addressed this in my last post. Design houses are still using the Power Mac G5. The machines still works fine and they don't update until they really feel they need to. Design houses will use a machine for years and only replace it when they feel they need to.



Design houses are a fairly small market and don't purchase that many machines, they don't need a specially designed machine.


Everyone is using notebooks these days. Everything doesn't happen in one office and you cannot haul a desktop everywhere you go.



PC means personal computer, Apple is in the personal computer business and is effected by the long term sales trends.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion Apple should do away with computers. The numbers show computers are a profitable business. Parts of the market are more profitable than others.

Its clear how Apple is adjusting its products to meet the long term sales trends. Notebooks and smartphones are the biggest sellers. Apple has just had a major refresh of its notebooks and the iPod Touch. Apple will likely introduce a new iPhone in the summer.

Apple margins vs HP and Dell margins. Apple ASPs vs HP and Dell ASPs (average sale price).


No technicality. Dell's profits tumbled 48%. HP's fell 13%. Apple? Record profits. Gross margins 34.7%.


A "tiny tiny" profitable market. Somewhere around 600-700K/qtr. (29% of 2.5M macs last qtr.)

2.4M machines per year with around a $1600 ASP ($1199-$2199) and 34% margins = $1.3B gross profit.


Costs aren't THAT much higher given the current volumes. What's the added cost in making a $299 netbook vs a tower? But AIOs SELL for a LOT more. Try selling the base iMac as a tower for $1,199.

I don't care if you're Apple. You can't win an "apples to apples" comparison with 34% margins. Sony couldn't, Toshiba couldn't, etc.


Higher margins and higher ASPs equal higher profits.


Because it would cannibalize their much higher margin and priced AIO, SFF and workstation sales. Both margin and ASPs matter. Take the mini vs iMac.

Sell 1000 $600 machines vs 1000 $1200 machines. Same margins on each. Make half as much. This is why netbooks suck for Dell and HP. Even assuming the margins are the same on the netbooks as a notebook they still get hammered because some percentage of netbooks replace notebook sales at a higher ASP.

This is why the mini gets no love. This is the best time for a mini ever. The spread between the mini and the iMac is the lowest ever. Apple isn't hoping for a lot of Mini sales here...because too much would simply suck their ASPs down too far.

This is why no Apple netbook. This is why there won't be an Apple netbook.

But you might see a 8-10" iPod Ion based tablet...priced around $600-$700. Just crappy enough not to hurt Macbook sales too much. Just good enough to be an awesome iPod/Gamepad/eBook.

You know, thinking about it...I wouldn't be too surprised if Dell was selling as many AIOs as Alienware boxes. In 2005 Alienware pulled in $170M in revenue. Assuming a $2000 ASP that's only 85,000 machines.

Can Dell sell 25K-50K AIOs in a quarter when Apple can sell 500K+? Probably. There are probably 1 in 10 folks out there that wanted an AIO but with Windows.

Is it likely that Dell sells as many or more AIOs than Alienware branded machines? No. Would it be surprising? No, not given Alienware's historically low sales and high ASPs.

An affordable mid-range option that offers buyers the ability to choose their own monitor is not the same thing as cheap crap that falls outside of Apple's design philosophy. There is NO reason to believe another optional form factor in the midrange other than the iMac would be any less profitable for Apple or that they can't create a product with crossover appeal for desktops—none. The machine I'm talking about is certainly not my great idea, it's just the "Maxi" others have talked about elsewhere. Something along the lines of an elongated, taller, mini (maybe with more ventilation around the side) with an easily opened lid that allows for iMac speed processors, a 7200 rpm HD, and a discrete graphics card the user can update later with newer cards if they want, and however much extra RAM that size would allow (no less than 8 gigs at the top end). It could be a good bit larger than the mini and still be very, very small—the mini is tiny. They could simply due away with the mini all together and allow a larger range of BTO options. Start with what is now the bottom of the mini and go up as high as what's in an iMac with the faster HHDs.

The production cost of more BTO options doesn't go up just because the number of options they offer does. They still have to put in an HD, RAM, and a video card in the thing— it doesn't cost any more for the poor Shmoe in China to grab from a slightly larger set options on the assembly line to fill the same number of holes in the same case. Include a "u" shaped adapter (or hell, sell it as an extra for another $19.99) so you can turn it on it's side. In usability terms it is still small enough to feel "mini". You can stick it behind your LCD or anywhere else a mini would fit.

They might be able to ad to the cool factor or give it the "ipod vibe" if it boosts "cuteness" sales by offering the same anodized colors Apple offers in their colored ipods. 3Rd party or Apple themselves could sell skins that stick to the top and bottom if you turn it on it's side to appeal to people who are into that sort of thing (college kids and such). Does it need another differentiating gimmick? I don't think it would but Apple could build a flip up ipod dock in the lid as a BTO so you could charge your color coordinated iPod with it. Maybe something more extreme like a more curved case if that wouldn't reduce the size of internal space too much. Make it shaped like a much, much larger version of the ipod nano but not as shallow. Attach the guts on a modular chassis to one end on the inside, and let half of the entire tube slide away for access—whatever they can come up with to ad their "Apple touch" to it that makes it different from just another desktop—whatever it takes to "iPod" or "iPhone" the thing up a little. I'm sure they can come up with better ideas than I just did. One simple but stylish case with Apple's understated aesthetics, low production costs (doesn't mean low profit margin), and more attractive options to more possible customers.

If you need a workstation, your still gonna buy a Mac pro. People who want an AIO are still gonna buy the iMac. If you don't want an iMac and you don't need or can afford the Mac Pro, you now have an option. People who want the mini will just buy the entry BTO. "But it will cannibalize iMac sales" maybe to a small degree, but WHO CARES? a sale is a sale. It will also bring in more sales than not offering more options to the consumer. They don't have to give it away, it doesn't have to be cheap crap. They can still sell it at a high profit margin, just minus the cost of the monitor. That thing would sell like nobody's business even if the numbers of HP and Dell desktops sales are declining. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Apple could bring some of the excitement of the iPod into the headless desktop arena. Apple's success has come from their talent for taking a part of an existing market and redefining a very small chunk of it to claim as their own where they are basically the only one competing in it. People who write off the desktop as impossible for Apple to succeed in with anything other than the iMac are simply selling Apple too short (this includes Steve Jobs).

Same old drivel after every update, funny read.

Apple cares if you lower their ASPs.


As shown above this is untrue.

Wow finally Apple customers who are a little put off by the current lineup/pricing situation?! I'm not alone!

I will admit the only reason I bought my 20in iMac for graphic design work was due to three things:

1. I wanted to use my 24in PVA matte screen so I bought the cheapest iMac to hook up to it
2. I was only doing freelance 4-8 hours after hours from my regular job
3. No way I was going to shell out $3k+ for a Mac Pro.

Now I'm doing freelance full time and being limited to 4GB of ram on my current iMac is not going well. (I also do photo editing and now getting requests for some video editing) and again I feel I'm in a horrible situation that Apple has placed me in. (Because I love OSX and I really don't want to go back to windows)

I can build (yes, it is very very simple) a new core i7 system, dedicated card, 12GB DDR3, 2X 1TB HD's etc for under $1,600... or get another iMac with a glossy screen I can't use (yes I hate them) and add 2x 4GB DDR3 chips in it for $2,400 or get an 8 Core Mac Pro and put 3rd party ram/HD for over $4k! So I can build a PC and buy a laptop for the same price as the Mac Pro, which one sounds like the smarter choice?

Sorry Apple but I cannot justify paying over 1.5x more for an imac I don't want or 2.5x more for a Mac Pro with a new starting cost of $3,600 (with applecare and wireless card) and this is why there is a lot of anger here.

One thing I've learned lately: Apple sycophants abound. Blind following of corporations is thriving. Have you ever seen an old 70s movie called, "Roller Ball" where corporate allegiance replaces common sense? Dramatic analogy? Maybe. Maybe not. Apple consumers are fast acquiring the same ability to rationalize taking what they get vs. getting what they seek in the manner windows users have grown accustomed to. It matters less what I can use than what the masters says I should want. Remember Apple's first commercial referencing Orwell's 1984? So ironic. So accurate. So sad. I am anticipating new and good things from "android" in the coming years. Apple should worry. If you become complacent, someone will come along and eat your lunch.