The difference was I actually answered your points
So what?
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Apple's desktop sales were poor relative to their desktop sales. And that was Apple's fault for delivering the 'side grade' iMacs last time around. Yeah. I'm sure Dell and HP would trade their market share for Apple's desktop profits.
Don't need to tell you for any individual product. You know the average margins and average sale prices.
If you're going to replace the iMacs then you need to show either that it has equal or better margins and ASPs (on average) at comparable volumes (850k) or vastly increased volumes at lower margins or ASPs than average.
But the primary test that everyone continues to fail at is to show a competitor that is doing just that. High margin and high ASP towers at decent volume. Namely more than 850K units per quarter. Yes, it is "replace" and not "augment".
Towers are much better values than AIOs and putting in a low end Mac Pro would kill high and mid range iMac sales. That might be okay at a $2K price range but most xMac proponents are aiming for a much lower price.
And I argue that a $2K Core i7 tower wouldn't sell that well since the Apple tax would be too high. There are too many low end i7 towers out there. I doubt you'd move 850K units even if they are better value than iMacs because the perception is that they are poor values.
Whereas a $2K Core i5 AIO is competitively priced vs other AIOs. These are good value purchases vs the competition. Unless, of course, there's a $1600 i7 tower running OSX next to it.
They are now competitive against other AIOs. The recent update helped with that.
Their towers are not. Shocking in fact. How having the Mac Pro mini or i7 Consumer m/b cpu in the £1000-£2000 is going to eat iMac sales is a meh argument. Most people who want towers would go for that. People who want premium boutique take the iMac. Apple wins on monitor and tower sales. iMac sales this and last quarter, up or down, left or right...discount plenty of tower buyers in PC land who'd happily give Apple a try even with an Apple tax on it. But not an 'oh my god' £2000 for a poxy quad core with crap gpu and no monitor bundled.
A sale is a sale is a sale, Vin.
I don't see how Apple loses in that scenario. Who said anything about a £395 tower? Knowing full well Apple won't do single digit margins of profit? It's about choice. It doesn't have to be about endless choice. But to have an alternative to the imac in the £795-£1800 price range would be nice. Desktop components offer more bang for buck and Apple can offer a better value product than the iMac on a power/bang for buck basis.
If they are plenty of PC tower buyers (and there are...), then Apple isn't giving them the choice with an iMac or Mac Pro... There needs to be a middle ground. And it's not the middle of the road iMac.
Comments
The difference was I actually answered your points
So what?
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Apple's desktop sales were poor relative to their desktop sales. And that was Apple's fault for delivering the 'side grade' iMacs last time around. Yeah. I'm sure Dell and HP would trade their market share for Apple's desktop profits.
I don't care about it so it doesn't count"...
Ironic.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Don't need to tell you for any individual product. You know the average margins and average sale prices.
If you're going to replace the iMacs then you need to show either that it has equal or better margins and ASPs (on average) at comparable volumes (850k) or vastly increased volumes at lower margins or ASPs than average.
But the primary test that everyone continues to fail at is to show a competitor that is doing just that. High margin and high ASP towers at decent volume. Namely more than 850K units per quarter. Yes, it is "replace" and not "augment".
Towers are much better values than AIOs and putting in a low end Mac Pro would kill high and mid range iMac sales. That might be okay at a $2K price range but most xMac proponents are aiming for a much lower price.
And I argue that a $2K Core i7 tower wouldn't sell that well since the Apple tax would be too high. There are too many low end i7 towers out there. I doubt you'd move 850K units even if they are better value than iMacs because the perception is that they are poor values.
Whereas a $2K Core i5 AIO is competitively priced vs other AIOs. These are good value purchases vs the competition. Unless, of course, there's a $1600 i7 tower running OSX next to it.
They are now competitive against other AIOs. The recent update helped with that.
Their towers are not. Shocking in fact. How having the Mac Pro mini or i7 Consumer m/b cpu in the £1000-£2000 is going to eat iMac sales is a meh argument. Most people who want towers would go for that. People who want premium boutique take the iMac. Apple wins on monitor and tower sales. iMac sales this and last quarter, up or down, left or right...discount plenty of tower buyers in PC land who'd happily give Apple a try even with an Apple tax on it. But not an 'oh my god' £2000 for a poxy quad core with crap gpu and no monitor bundled.
A sale is a sale is a sale, Vin.
I don't see how Apple loses in that scenario. Who said anything about a £395 tower? Knowing full well Apple won't do single digit margins of profit? It's about choice. It doesn't have to be about endless choice. But to have an alternative to the imac in the £795-£1800 price range would be nice. Desktop components offer more bang for buck and Apple can offer a better value product than the iMac on a power/bang for buck basis.
If they are plenty of PC tower buyers (and there are...), then Apple isn't giving them the choice with an iMac or Mac Pro... There needs to be a middle ground. And it's not the middle of the road iMac.
Lemon Bon Bon.
If only to annoy Vin' and the other 'it will never happen' crew.
I don't care about it so it doesn't count"...
Pining away as I type. Gotta love this iMac.
Lemon Bon Bon.