The popularity of the iMacs isn't really a new thing. Even if you go back to the year 2000, Apple reported the split in numbers and the iMac outsold everything else:
"Sales of 1,377,000 systems including over 700,000 iMac™ consumer desktops and 235,000 iBook™ consumer portables"
This was back when the entry tower desktop was $1599 and the entry iMac was $799. It doesn't say how many Powerbooks vs Powermacs were in the remaining 442,000 units but if it was the same ratio as iMacs to iBooks, it would be 150k PBs and 290k PMs.
Knowing that Mac Pro shipments are under 100k / quarter now, it's clear that the tower desktop market has shrunk considerably or I guess a more accurate way to put it would be that people are happy to spend a $1000-2000 budget on an all-in-one instead of a tower and Apple makes better margins that way as they sell the display too and the way they make better margins from the towers is jack up the price. If they sold the towers at the same price as the iMacs again, it wouldn't be worth the trouble because you can bet not everyone would buy Apple's displays (like people who prefer NEC/Eizo).
To drive the growth that people here suggest, Apple would need to take the display out of the iMac and sell that at a lower price. But as I say, they just lose a display sale and have a machine without the iMac's unique selling points. If they use the same parts as the Mac Pro, they basically just have to cut their margins but they will still hit the upper end of the $1000-2000 range and they won't even double their volume.
The best route forward for them is to just play it out the same way they've been doing already. Scale down the operation, ship it back to the US so the machines can be assembled there (one factory can probably handle the 2,500 / day worldwide target). They can keep it running as long as the shipment volume stays above a certain level and the profit it makes is worth the effort. But regardless of whether people agree with it, people still need to buy them more often or their shipment volume reports will just slide and they'll think people don't want them any more. They might not drop the line for a few years but you can bet they'd stick with the long refresh cycles.
You've made some interesting posts about the dilemma re: the Mac Pro. However, it's ultimately up to Apple to make the Mac Pro compelling. Part of that is price.
Ultimately computer power is shrinking the form factors. And as the iMac desktop began eating the Pro's lunch from its inception, the iMac in turn is outsold by laptops...which are massively out sold by iPads and iPhones.
To increase Pro volume. Price. Will they get the sales volume?
Well, why don't they try it. If the base consumer tower was just in front of the entry iMac they'd make margins by bundling their studio display with it. They'd get a 2k sale for every 'entry' tower. But Apple are charging crazy prices for their studio display. They'd have to get their head around selling people an 'iMac' 'twice.'
Which a monitor less iMac plus Studio display would be. You'd pay slightly more buying them separately...but Apple could bundle the two to make a compelling deal...but obviously not as compelling as an iMac. By the time you buy a studio display...you're adding £899 ontop of a even an original Cube sticker price of £1295(was it around that price?) and you're coming out at £2200 for a consumer tower Apple style vs £1195 for the entry iMac. That's quite a disparity.
If you chopped the studio display by half (for some reason Apple is selling their studio display for hundreds more than the Dell?) and called it £450 (for Apple to get out of bed...) added to a consumer tower of £1295...you're still looking at an eyewatering £1750 for Apple's 'consumer' tower.
So it goes. Apple used to have a choice of 3 displays. Now it's one. 27 inch or not. They don't even include a 21 incher any more. But they could...and make it affordable.
If only they'd increase the gpu power of the Mini by 'midi'ing it's form factor...ala cube. You'd have a £495 to £995 proposition with more compelling graphics that could be fitted into an 8x8 and have a more conventional 'mid' solution that could scale to the redesigned Pro...whenever that arrives.
Add a £899 display onto the base £495 Mini and you're still looking at £1400 and it has crap graphics...for a 'mini consumer' tower. That's still alot of money for something with crap graphics.
I think the iMac is the best value alround. Though recent price hikes since 2008 have blunted that statement.
*shrugs.
Random thoughts over. Be interesting to see what Apple do with the pro and mini this year. I suspect...'more' of the 'same.'
To increase Pro volume. Price. Will they get the sales volume?
Well, why don't they try it.
They tried cheaper towers before and they probably found a number of flaws.
- people would expect good specs for the price because there's not much other value metric
- people would look for an affordable display and Apple's displays are too pricey because they don't use cheap panels so none of their bundles look attractive
- having received a good performance per dollar value, buyers will hold onto their hardware longer but Apple has made a lower profit
None of these are good for Apple so they probably figured out that they can design a better value bundle by forcing the buyer to take the display and the beautiful display becomes the value metric rather than spec.
Mini, value metric = price
iMac, value metric = style and simplicity
Mac Pro, value metric = power
If they can make the Mac Pro more stylish and affordable without compromising power, that would be great but if the price went down to a certain point, Apple would rely on the buyer taking a display and they wouldn't.
You can bet they've thought about this over the 30+ years they've been in retail and they've probably decided it's best the way it is now.
By the time you buy a studio display...you're adding £899 ontop of a even an original Cube sticker price of £1295(was it around that price?) and you're coming out at £2200 for a consumer tower Apple style vs £1195 for the entry iMac. That's quite a disparity.
The original Cube was $1799, which would be £1499 inc tax - basically the same as the entry 27" iMac.
If you chopped the studio display by half (for some reason Apple is selling their studio display for hundreds more than the Dell?) and called it £450 (for Apple to get out of bed...) added to a consumer tower of £1295...you're still looking at an eyewatering £1750 for Apple's 'consumer' tower.
Dell has rubbish margins though. I don't think they need to go that low but $799 (£679 inc tax) would be nice and comparable to Dell's 27" with the same resolution. A 24" 1080p wouldn't go amiss at $499 (£399 inc tax).
Judging by the iMac, the new one most likely won't drop in price. It's good to avoid going over the $1000 mark though. I'd like to see them go all 27" eventually and raising the prices is a good way to start because they can then drop the higher models down once yields improve and maintain the entry prices but switch them to 27" displays.
Even though it's possible I've never come across someone that actually did either/both.
I've upgraded the CPUs on nearly two dozen Mac Pros. Going from a 2.66 GHz W3520 Nehalem quad core to a 3.33 GHz W3680 Westmere hexa core is the best bang for the buck, and if you also upgrade the GT 120 to a 6870 it's just like getting a new Mac Pro.
This talk here of the need for a tiny Mac Pro is quite puzzling. I've never encountered any professional who complained about the Mac Pro's size. What I have heard them complain about is Apple's ancient video cards and the lack of a significant Mac Pro update for years. Never heard them pine for half length PCIe slots either, although they wish Apple offered an OEM Radeon 7xxx series video card.
Offloading the video card to an external enclosure is absurd. TB has four lanes, the video PCIe slot alone in the Mac Pro has 16 lanes, and a new Mac Pro may have even more bandwidth available to the PCIe slots. It's also a strange way to make the Mac Pro smaller, since adding a noisy PCIe box to the desk isn't "smaller".
It's certain that Apple will dump the ODD bay, and the PSU can be shrunk down considerably. The number of HDD bays will likely be reduced and they could be oriented so that the tower can be thinner. SSDs can and should be blades that plug into mini PCIe slots for insane performance. These changes alone make for a considerably smaller Mac Pro, so the Apple fanboys will be pleased, Ive will spring a woody, and Pros will shrug.
They tried cheaper towers before and they probably found a number of flaws.
- people would expect good specs for the price because there's not much other value metric
- people would look for an affordable display and Apple's displays are too pricey because they don't use cheap panels so none of their bundles look attractive
- having received a good performance per dollar value, buyers will hold onto their hardware longer but Apple has made a lower profit
None of these are good for Apple so they probably figured out that they can design a better value bundle by forcing the buyer to take the display and the beautiful display becomes the value metric rather than spec.
The last time Apple had "cheap" towers they literally faced doom every quarter. Now their OS X user base is expanding every year. So it is no longer necessarily a question of milking the existing user base for as much profit as possible, or to put in businessspeak, a consumer tower need not cannibalize the sales of other less profitable Mac lines.
An xMac doesn't have to be a Mac Pro with an i7 plugged into it, in fact that would be a marketing disaster. Apple can gimp a consumer tower so pros are still forced to buy a Mac Pro, but home users have something beyond a Mac Mini. Some ways to differentiate consumer and pro towers:
Cores. Consumers get four, the Mac Pros get a minimum of 6 or even 8 cores. A good delineation would be for consumer towers to have a single i7, with pro towers having dual Xeons. If Apple wants to be d!cks about it, they can solder the i7 to the logic board so consumers have to throw out their towers instead of upgrading the CPU.
PCIe slots. Pros get four, consumers get one or two, enough for a real video card at least. Without a full-sized video card, there is little point in building a consumer tower.
Storage. Make consumers buy an external box if they want more storage. It's a lame solution, but it's exactly the sort of thing Apple would do. Oh, and price the Apple-branded external box so the cost of a consumer tower with the box is as much or more than the entry level Mac Pro. <laughs evil laugh> Seriously, add a fusion drive to the consumer tower and call it good.
If Apple tried this, what's the worst that could happen? Cannibalized Mac Pro sales? Apple has already demonstrated that they don't care about the Mac Pro. Cannibalized iMac sales? Not an issue as long as the consumer tower is built right. Apple would most likely price such a consumer tower at $1400 - $2000, while a PC tower similarly configured is well under $1000. If Apple gets phat margins on the consumer tower, it won't matter if iMac sales are cannibalized.
I believe Apple would be surprised at how many new Mac users they get with a consumer tower. There are a lot of PC users who want a Mac but find the Mini to be a joke and the iMac to be too rigid a computing solution. Many build a hackintosh, but then get tired of hacking every OS X release and move back to Windows.
If Apple tried this, what's the worst that could happen? Cannibalized Mac Pro sales? Apple has already demonstrated that they don't care about the Mac Pro. Cannibalized iMac sales? Not an issue as long as the consumer tower is built right.
The worst that could happen is they go to all the effort building one, it sells very badly and all the sales they do make cannibalise higher profit products.
I believe Apple would be surprised at how many new Mac users they get with a consumer tower. There are a lot of PC users who want a Mac but find the Mini to be a joke and the iMac to be too rigid a computing solution. Many build a hackintosh, but then get tired of hacking every OS X release and move back to Windows.
How many though? The largest desktop manufacturer in the world, HP, only ships 4.5m desktops per quarter. Apple ships 1.5m. There's no way they can match HP's volume because if that was possible, HP wouldn't be selling their products with such poor margins.
Most people simply aren't prepared to pay $1000-2000 for a headless computer box. Apple figured out how to sell something in that range with the iMac and everybody else figured out how to sell loads of boxes with razor thin margins (<12%). We're now at a point where the consumer tower people are in serious trouble and Apple is doing better than ever. They could do both but they have no reason to.
The worst that could happen is they go to all the effort building one, it sells very badly and all the sales they do make cannibalise higher profit products.
What higher profit products. You make the assumption that Mac Pro sales are profitable. The very fact that Apple was considering killing the machine brings the idea that the Mac Pro is profitable into question.
Beyond all of that you seem to think Apple would design a machine that isn't profitable. Apple has no history of doing such. Done right an XMac, that is a midrange desktop would be as profitable as anything else Apple sells. With sales of the Mini and Pro sales tanking doing nothing would be the worst possible course of action.
How many though? The largest desktop manufacturer in the world, HP, only ships 4.5m desktops per quarter. Apple ships 1.5m. There's no way they can match HP's volume because if that was possible, HP wouldn't be selling their products with such poor margins.
What does HPs margins have to do with Apple selling more computers?
Most people simply aren't prepared to pay $1000-2000 for a headless computer box. Apple figured out how to sell something in that range with the iMac and everybody else figured out how to sell loads of boxes with razor thin margins (<12%). We're now at a point where the consumer tower people are in serious trouble and Apple is doing better than ever. They could do both but they have no reason to.
If they want to expand Mac sales into new markets they have to do something. Frankly they need new markets to keep the Mac line up going in a robust manner.
They tried cheaper towers before and they probably found a number of flaws.
- people would expect good specs for the price because there's not much other value metric
- people would look for an affordable display and Apple's displays are too pricey because they don't use cheap panels so none of their bundles look attractive
- having received a good performance per dollar value, buyers will hold onto their hardware longer but Apple has made a lower profit
None of these are good for Apple so they probably figured out that they can design a better value bundle by forcing the buyer to take the display and the beautiful display becomes the value metric rather than spec.
Mini, value metric = price
iMac, value metric = style and simplicity
Mac Pro, value metric = power
If they can make the Mac Pro more stylish and affordable without compromising power, that would be great but if the price went down to a certain point, Apple would rely on the buyer taking a display and they wouldn't.
You can bet they've thought about this over the 30+ years they've been in retail and they've probably decided it's best the way it is now.
The original Cube was $1799, which would be £1499 inc tax - basically the same as the entry 27" iMac.
Dell has rubbish margins though. I don't think they need to go that low but $799 (£679 inc tax) would be nice and comparable to Dell's 27" with the same resolution. A 24" 1080p wouldn't go amiss at $499 (£399 inc tax).
Judging by the iMac, the new one most likely won't drop in price. It's good to avoid going over the $1000 mark though. I'd like to see them go all 27" eventually and raising the prices is a good way to start because they can then drop the higher models down once yields improve and maintain the entry prices but switch them to 27" displays.
You know, it's hard to get an Apple desktop without an ass reaming.
My BTO iMac cost £2200 plus.
Apple's iMac could do with a £200 price cut across the board.
The entry Pro should be £1450 tops. The original Cube was pricey at that.
Should have come in at £999 in fun colour flavours and bigger dimensions for more power. They got greedy. They still are with desktop Macs, consumer or prosumer.
And the studio display price is a joke.
By the time you spec out the Mini you're left with an expensive biscuit box with crap graphics.
As Wizard says. Could do better.
I like the iMac. It's the best thing they have value wise. And the design is good on all 3 desktops.
But not without faults.
Mac mini? Graphics.
Pro? Dinosaur pricing and specs and size.
iMac? Fusion drive should be standard or SSD should. GPUs could be better at each level considering the price bump. Why no external included? Price raises by a hundred and they have the cheek to charge you £60 for the external. £160 more than the last entry iMac! Cheeky buggars.
I used to think of Apple as my friend. My balloon popped on that in 2008...when they hiked the entry iMac from £675 to £999 and now it's £1099.
That's a difference of £425 plus external DVD = £485.
I still think they make the best computers and OS and vision for the future. But the desktop pricing compared to laptops is taking the p*ss.
After years of running Linux boxes, and their fairly crap GUI's; Apples fairly trouble free GUI is well worth a bit extra. However it is pretty obvious that what I consider to be a bit extra and what Apple considers to be a bit extra is two different things. It is good to see them aggressively driving down prices on retina screen machines though.
As to the Mini, frankly it is the only machine that I would consider at this point. It isn't that I want to consider it either, just that I don't see a lot of value in Apples other machines. A Low end Mac Pro is a better solution hardware wise over the Mini but lets face it the entry model is grossly over priced for what you get.
Haswell is really the interesting thing with respect to the Mini. Such a chip could turn the Mini into a much more viable machine. If they can go to desktop or in some manner lower cost chips they might even be able to moderate the costs of the Mini a bit. You obviously prefer the iMac which is fine but I just don't see at as a good value for long term usage. That is a user that attempts to hold onto a machine for 5+ years or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
So p*ssed at their pricing sometimes I typed my name x2.
What higher profit products. You make the assumption that Mac Pro sales are profitable. The very fact that Apple was considering killing the machine brings the idea that the Mac Pro is profitable into question.
I mainly meant the iMac but a consumer tower would eat into some of their higher profit Mac Pro sales. The Mac Pro has high profit margins but the sales volume is small.
- if a consumer tower was the price of an iMac minus display, Apple just loses a display sale and potentially a more proftable Mac Pro sale
- if a consumer tower matches the iMac price, again it can pull people away from the Mac Pro but it also puts people off buying them anyway as they'd be lower value than an iMac
What does HPs margins have to do with Apple selling more computers?
They demonstrate what the market is willing to pay for but more importantly HP's marketshare shows the potential marketshare for Apple to gain.
HP is the leading desktop manufacturer in the world with shipments of 4.5m per quarter. Apple is somewhere below 5th with 1.5m. Apple can only hope to reach 4.5m but look at the average selling prices of each:
"With an estimated 28 percent gross margin and average selling price of $1,323.40 per Mac, Apple is presumed to earn a profit of $370.55 for every Mac sold. HP, meanwhile, has an average selling price of $650 and a presumed profit margin of 8 percent, which nets the company about $52 on the sale of each PC."
Apple can't reach anywhere near that extra volume of buyers unless they drop prices down but that route means losing a display sale. The recent display gluing step is enough of an indicator that they want control over the whole bundle to make margins on RAM and storage.
Let's say that Apple came out with a Core i7-3770 desktop with GTX 680 at $1499, what do people expect their sales volume to be? It has to be between 1.5-4.5m per quarter. Does it go up 0.5m, 1m? It will definitely cut into some of the other sales and they make less money per sale.
You are assuming Apple would loose sales. My point is an XMac like machine would open up more markets. You seem to dance around this point. Using your logic Apple should kill the Mini to force people to buy iMacs and Mac Pros. It would be foolish to do so because it is a machine with a different niche than the iMac and Mac Pro. An XMac type machine would simply fill another niche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I mainly meant the iMac but a consumer tower would eat into some of their higher profit Mac Pro sales. The Mac Pro has high profit margins but the sales volume is small.
- if a consumer tower was the price of an iMac minus display, Apple just loses a display sale and potentially a more proftable Mac Pro sale
- if a consumer tower matches the iMac price, again it can pull people away from the Mac Pro but it also puts people off buying them anyway as they'd be lower value than an iMac
They demonstrate what the market is willing to pay for but more importantly HP's marketshare shows the potential marketshare for Apple to gain.
HP is the leading desktop manufacturer in the world with shipments of 4.5m per quarter. Apple is somewhere below 5th with 1.5m. Apple can only hope to reach 4.5m but look at the average selling prices of each:
"With an estimated 28 percent gross margin and average selling price of $1,323.40 per Mac, Apple is presumed to earn a profit of $370.55 for every Mac sold. HP, meanwhile, has an average selling price of $650 and a presumed profit margin of 8 percent, which nets the company about $52 on the sale of each PC."
Apple can't reach anywhere near that extra volume of buyers unless they drop prices down but that route means losing a display sale. The recent display gluing step is enough of an indicator that they want control over the whole bundle to make margins on RAM and storage.
Let's say that Apple came out with a Core i7-3770 desktop with GTX 680 at $1499, what do people expect their sales volume to be? It has to be between 1.5-4.5m per quarter. Does it go up 0.5m, 1m? It will definitely cut into some of the other sales and they make less money per sale.
I don't buy this idea that it will cut into sales. The only reason to promote such a machine is actually to improve sales. Further why does it have to be between 1.5 & 4.5 million a quarter? There is really no limit on how many machines Apple can sell. However it only needs to sell enough to make the machine profitable.
After years of running Linux boxes, and their fairly crap GUI's; Apples fairly trouble free GUI is well worth a bit extra. However it is pretty obvious that what I consider to be a bit extra and what Apple considers to be a bit extra is two different things. It is good to see them aggressively driving down prices on retina screen machines though.
As to the Mini, frankly it is the only machine that I would consider at this point. It isn't that I want to consider it either, just that I don't see a lot of value in Apples other machines. A Low end Mac Pro is a better solution hardware wise over the Mini but lets face it the entry model is grossly over priced for what you get.
Haswell is really the interesting thing with respect to the Mini. Such a chip could turn the Mini into a much more viable machine. If they can go to desktop or in some manner lower cost chips they might even be able to moderate the costs of the Mini a bit. You obviously prefer the iMac which is fine but I just don't see at as a good value for long term usage. That is a user that attempts to hold onto a machine for 5+ years or more.
Apple's GUI is worth the extra. But as you say, 'define' extra. Buyer in a triple dip depression vs a company sitting on 150$ billion.
I agree the Haswell GT3 graphics chip will make the Mini more interesting. Looking at it side by side vs the 650m (Which is in the 2nd tier iMac...) on Marv's link a while back...you finally get Integrated graphics worthy of the name...well, when it comes to Intel... I'm sure we're aware that AMD's apu has been offering this sort of performance for some time and set to get even better? Politics and all that. But if the GT3 and i7 Mac Mini had been around, I'd have given it a long, hard look.
At £695 say, for a GT3 i7 2.7 and a studio monitor £899 makes it £1595. The iMac still looks to have a better GPU in that scenario. Any monitor can fail, I guess.
If anybody wants value from Apple? Buy an iPad Mini or an iPad. The best value Apple offers outside of the Macbook Air.
But the rest? I'd suggest the iMac could do with a £200 price cut across the range.
Finally. I never thought of myself as an 'obvious' iMac fan. But a few things 'forced' my hand. I was always worried about the display thing attached and having to throw away the entire screen. Access to components etc. But really? All proved to be irrational fears. I'm a tower buyer at heart. But not after seeing prices rise from £999 to £2k...for an entry machine. That's taking. The p*ss. And you get a crap gpu included that's two years out of date. Who buys in to that sh*t? I'm a qualified Apple fan. As in...I don't eulogize eye gauging prices. Give me a tower at a more reasonal £1295-1495 and I'd start talking again. I don't care about Apple's margins. Or their shareholders. I care about my deal. With my money. Otherwise. The 'pro' can rot. And a reasonable £495-£595 tops price for the studio display. Twice that is ridiculous. And then you have to add a gpu worthy of the name.
When it suited them they gave us dual processor Mac Pros.
At heart, I'd be a cube buyer. I almost came around to buying one. Almost. Then they pulled it. But they had to offer it at £1495 when it was a £999 machine.
The iMac has a vibrant screen. Much better than the previous one. I have my old 24 inch right next to my 27 incher iMac. Both machines are night and day performance and screen wise. 8 gigs of ram. Lightning boot times. If the screen goes down... It's Apple's tab to pick up. I'll get Apple care next year to give me another 3 years of cover. That will make four years of protection.
I'm confident the iMac 24 incher which I've had for 4 years will last another couple at least. *Shrugs. My cousin will buy it for £450 and he's getting a darn good machine. And I've worked it's thermals off in a Summer Attic for many years.
The iMac is an awesome machine that has dispelled many of the myths I've had about towers vs AIOs. I've had both. The dual processor edge isn't worth the premium vs the iMac's total performance and value equation.
But I will take issue with the price hike to £1099 plus DVD external at 60+. That's £160 extra. Add the £200 premium for SSD/Fusion and you're talking £360 extra to buy into the base iMac. Eye gauging? In my view, yes.
...I looked at the Mac sales and they looked flat. Given the world economy being gauged by derivative gamblers...that's pretty good.
However, Apple won't take a hit on margins to stimulate sales? Or will they? Well, the Macbooks have had prices trimmed and specs slightly boosted?
But they're not bothered about marketshare except when it suits them.
I think they could be more aggressive with prices but as Marv' sales, will they get the volume in a shrinking tower market? Sure, I'd like my Mac Pro or Cube mini tower at £995 and I'd be over it aka like a rash. But the Studio display... at £899 and a gpu at £295 and a Fusion drive £200 and an external DVD £60+ and the 'consumer' tower doesn't look much better than than the iMac?
Though I do look longingly at the Mini next to a studio. Very pretty machine in person. Lovely to feel.
Most of the computers Apple sells are 'limited' AIOs. Laptops. 4 million. iMacs. 1 million? iPads 14 million? iPhone. 50 million?
You are assuming Apple would loose sales. My point is an XMac like machine would open up more markets. You seem to dance around this point.
There's an assumption that a headless tower satisfies a broadly different market from an AIO. Once you take server usage out of the equation (which the Mini is great for), there's no new market to satisfy other than a market that doesn't want to pay for Apple's displays and BTO options.
For the consumer tower to be worthwhile, it has to be able to persuade buyers away from other platforms. There is still a significant amount of people buying headless tower PCs (about 20 million per quarter across all manufacturers) but the average selling price is half of what Apple's average is. I don't think they can persuade a high volume of buyers over without having extremely low prices on displays, towers and peripherals, which just means gaining marketshare at the expense of profit.
Using your logic Apple should kill the Mini to force people to buy iMacs and Mac Pros. It would be foolish to do so because it is a machine with a different niche than the iMac and Mac Pro. An XMac type machine would simply fill another niche.
The Mini is priced in the right range for people who want a machine to compete with an HP or Dell tower and it has a low power profile, which is great for server use.
Further why does it have to be between 1.5 & 4.5 million a quarter? There is really no limit on how many machines Apple can sell.
When you take all of the market stats out of the way then there are no limits but there are also no limits to selling $500 pencils when you do that too. HP is the top selling desktop manufacturer so that puts an upper bound on the sales volume unless somehow people are suddenly going to be buying more computers and be willing to double their average spend.
The best strategy for them to persuade more people over is to just keep making the iMacs better value. On the PC side, there is the following:
Largely the same spec as the iMac but no display for $1699. The iMac with that spec is about $2449. They could come close to the price of it taking out the display and it would be a nicer machine but not many people will be prepared to spend that money on a box and source their own display.
I think they'd get more sales just by bringing the 27" iMac in at a lower price point like the $1499 price with the entry spec. The 21.5" needs to go the way of the 17" iMac.
I'll get Apple care next year to give me another 3 years of cover. That will make four years of protection.
You only get 3 years total, they just let you buy it up to a year after you buy the machine. Ideally they'd give 3 year limited warranties with the iMac displays, even if it didn't cover the other parts inside.
Crazy pricing on it but decent form factor. They opted for full-length slot support.
That's a little beauty. I'd like to see Apple do something like that for the next Mac Pro. *drools. Pricey though? 680 in a very small mini tower form. That's the kind of beast Apple could/should offer for £1495. i7 and 680 but no display. Priced to go. Tower fans dance naked in the street.
"I think they'd get more sales just by bringing the 27" iMac in at a lower price point like the $1499 price with the entry spec. The 21.5" needs to go the way of the 17" iMac."
Well. I think the whole iMac range needs a price cut of £200. Really inflated prices since 2008. Do re remember how close teh 24 incher came to a £1000 price?
How come we now have a 21 inch iMac at £1250? When we had a 24 incher at that price or lower a few years ago?
What a con.
21 incher should be a budget iMac for £795 to go. 24 incher at £995 to go. 27 incher at £1250 to go. Top end machine should include an i7 and 680 MX for £1450.
Mind you, Bon Bon...don't try being reasonable...
Over simplified by Apple of late and the prices get bumped up and the consumer bends over.
Well. I think the whole iMac range needs a price cut of £200. Really inflated prices since 2008. Do re remember how close teh 24 incher came to a £1000 price?
21 incher should be a budget iMac for £795 to go. 24 incher at £995 to go. 27 incher at £1250 to go. Top end machine should include an i7 and 680 MX for £1450.
The cheapest 24" was $1499 (£1249) and the 27" can come in at that price with the entry spec. A 24" would be nice as the entry model but I don't think they should go much lower as it drives people to a lower price point.
How come we now have a 21 inch iMac at £1250? When we had a 24 incher at that price or lower a few years ago?
The prices all went up with the metal casings, which require machine milling. They might be trying to figure out how to cut prices with friction stir welding, even though that wasn't evident with the last iMac update.
You can imagine the 27" iMac being carved out of a block of aluminium previously but with welding, they can have a flat plate for the back, drop a heavy weight into it, bending it into a curve (or have them melted beforehand into curved sheets), carve out the fixings and just weld the chin plate on the front.
With the Mini, they'd have the flat top plate, just a metal strip for the side and a base plate with the hole at the base. They just bend the strip round and weld them together.
A smaller Mac Pro would allow them to use thinner sheets of metal and that reduces the shipping weight, whch can cut a lot of costs down.
Ivy Bridge EP doesn't come out until the 2nd half of the year so it'll be WWDC in June at the earliest. Apple has had early CPU releases on occasions in the past but WWDC is a good time to announce it.
If you sold a $6000 8-core workstation for a $2700 dual-core i7 laptop, which was about 1/4 the speed, that's to be expected. The 2012 quad-core MBPs are about 70% of the top-end 2009 8-core MP and have powerful GPUs. The Haswell ones will be coming soon too. As I said above, you have to give it 3-4 years before you can expect to drop from an expensive workstation to a machine that can be bought for 1/3 the price. If you could do it in a year, the prices would be very different.
Thanks that's all good information. Of course you are correct regarding my stupidity. I had hoped / convinced myself a 2010 MBP i7 fully loaded would at least be a third or even half as fast as a 2008 8 Core MacPro. I really wanted portability as I was working between summer and winter homes 2,000 miles apart. I was deluding myself I now admit.
I'd say the i7 is a tenth as fast for my use, HD editing and Aperture work, or seems like it and worse, the multi tasking is non existent in comparison. I realized the mistake within hours and banged my head against several walls. That said it was a lot easier to pack for the long drive from FL to the mountains of NH. The good news is I got almost everything I paid for the MacPro on E-Bay so it owed me nothing. So for the last couple of years I have been waiting for the new design. The last thing I wanted to do was buy the old model only to see its value wiped away with a new model (although buying one after the price is slashed for clearance might be an option). I have now semi retired so the need has diminished but not the desire, especially if the new MacPro is smaller and lighter
Ivy Bridge EP doesn't come out until the 2nd half of the year so it'll be WWDC in June at the earliest. Apple has had early CPU releases on occasions in the past but WWDC is a good time to announce it.
If you sold a $6000 8-core workstation for a $2700 dual-core i7 laptop, which was about 1/4 the speed, that's to be expected. The 2012 quad-core MBPs are about 70% of the top-end 2009 8-core MP and have powerful GPUs. The Haswell ones will be coming soon too. As I said above, you have to give it 3-4 years before you can expect to drop from an expensive workstation to a machine that can be bought for 1/3 the price. If you could do it in a year, the prices would be very different.
Of course you are correct. I had hoped / convinced myself a 2010 MBP i7 fully loaded would at least be a third or even half as fast as a 2008 8 Core MacPro. I really wanted portability as I was working between summer and winter homes 2,000 miles apart. I was deluding myself I now admit.
I'd say the i7 is a tenth as fast for my use, HD editing and Aperture work, or seems like it and worse, the multi tasking is non existent in comparison. I realized the mistake within hours and banged my head against several walls. That said it was a lot easier to pack for the long drive from FL to the mountains of NH. The good news is I got almost everything I paid for the MacPro on E-Bay so it owed me nothing. So for the last couple of years I have been waiting for the new design. The last thing I wanted to do was buy the old model only to see its value wiped away with a new model (although buying one after the price is slashed for clearance might be an option). I have now semi retired so the need has diminished but not the desire, especially if the new MacPro is smaller and lighter. That said your insight into speed gains in the MBP range makes a newer one tempting but the lack of DIY upgradability concerns me with the Retina models (and working with external large screens makes the laptop's screen irrelevant to me anyway) and the good old MBP you can upgrade are probably not long for this world I suspect. Oh boy isn't this fun
the lack of DIY upgradability concerns me with the Retina models (and working with external large screens makes the laptop's screen irrelevant to me anyway) and the good old MBP you can upgrade are probably not long for this world I suspect. Oh boy isn't this fun
The SSD can be upgraded but not the RAM. OWC has the neatest little external USB 3 drive for the blade SSD:
A bit pricey for the enclosure by itself at $80 but that would make a cool little backup drive. It would be nice to be able to upgrade the RAM but 16GB will probably last until DDR4 arrives and you'd just upgrade the machine. DDR4 RAM will likely bring 16GB mobile DIMMs i.e 8 gigabit memory chips so the laptop limit should become 32GB and the iMac 64GB. This should arrive next year or the year after. It would raise the Mac Pro limit to 256GB but they might still just support 96GB. If they don't plan to exceed 96GB, they would be able to use fewer RAM slots.
I was wondering what the Radeon 7000 drivers were actually for now, reading the thread title but it looks like AMD is rebadging the 7000-series GPUs:
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The popularity of the iMacs isn't really a new thing. Even if you go back to the year 2000, Apple reported the split in numbers and the iMac outsold everything else:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/01/19Apple-Reports-First-Quarter-Profit-of-183-Million.html
"Sales of 1,377,000 systems including over 700,000 iMac™ consumer desktops and 235,000 iBook™ consumer portables"
This was back when the entry tower desktop was $1599 and the entry iMac was $799. It doesn't say how many Powerbooks vs Powermacs were in the remaining 442,000 units but if it was the same ratio as iMacs to iBooks, it would be 150k PBs and 290k PMs.
Knowing that Mac Pro shipments are under 100k / quarter now, it's clear that the tower desktop market has shrunk considerably or I guess a more accurate way to put it would be that people are happy to spend a $1000-2000 budget on an all-in-one instead of a tower and Apple makes better margins that way as they sell the display too and the way they make better margins from the towers is jack up the price. If they sold the towers at the same price as the iMacs again, it wouldn't be worth the trouble because you can bet not everyone would buy Apple's displays (like people who prefer NEC/Eizo).
To drive the growth that people here suggest, Apple would need to take the display out of the iMac and sell that at a lower price. But as I say, they just lose a display sale and have a machine without the iMac's unique selling points. If they use the same parts as the Mac Pro, they basically just have to cut their margins but they will still hit the upper end of the $1000-2000 range and they won't even double their volume.
The best route forward for them is to just play it out the same way they've been doing already. Scale down the operation, ship it back to the US so the machines can be assembled there (one factory can probably handle the 2,500 / day worldwide target). They can keep it running as long as the shipment volume stays above a certain level and the profit it makes is worth the effort. But regardless of whether people agree with it, people still need to buy them more often or their shipment volume reports will just slide and they'll think people don't want them any more. They might not drop the line for a few years but you can bet they'd stick with the long refresh cycles.
You've made some interesting posts about the dilemma re: the Mac Pro. However, it's ultimately up to Apple to make the Mac Pro compelling. Part of that is price.
Ultimately computer power is shrinking the form factors. And as the iMac desktop began eating the Pro's lunch from its inception, the iMac in turn is outsold by laptops...which are massively out sold by iPads and iPhones.
To increase Pro volume. Price. Will they get the sales volume?
Well, why don't they try it. If the base consumer tower was just in front of the entry iMac they'd make margins by bundling their studio display with it. They'd get a 2k sale for every 'entry' tower. But Apple are charging crazy prices for their studio display. They'd have to get their head around selling people an 'iMac' 'twice.'
Which a monitor less iMac plus Studio display would be. You'd pay slightly more buying them separately...but Apple could bundle the two to make a compelling deal...but obviously not as compelling as an iMac. By the time you buy a studio display...you're adding £899 ontop of a even an original Cube sticker price of £1295(was it around that price?) and you're coming out at £2200 for a consumer tower Apple style vs £1195 for the entry iMac. That's quite a disparity.
If you chopped the studio display by half (for some reason Apple is selling their studio display for hundreds more than the Dell?) and called it £450 (for Apple to get out of bed...) added to a consumer tower of £1295...you're still looking at an eyewatering £1750 for Apple's 'consumer' tower.
So it goes. Apple used to have a choice of 3 displays. Now it's one. 27 inch or not. They don't even include a 21 incher any more. But they could...and make it affordable.
If only they'd increase the gpu power of the Mini by 'midi'ing it's form factor...ala cube. You'd have a £495 to £995 proposition with more compelling graphics that could be fitted into an 8x8 and have a more conventional 'mid' solution that could scale to the redesigned Pro...whenever that arrives.
Add a £899 display onto the base £495 Mini and you're still looking at £1400 and it has crap graphics...for a 'mini consumer' tower. That's still alot of money for something with crap graphics.
I think the iMac is the best value alround. Though recent price hikes since 2008 have blunted that statement.
*shrugs.
Random thoughts over. Be interesting to see what Apple do with the pro and mini this year. I suspect...'more' of the 'same.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
They tried cheaper towers before and they probably found a number of flaws.
- people would expect good specs for the price because there's not much other value metric
- people would look for an affordable display and Apple's displays are too pricey because they don't use cheap panels so none of their bundles look attractive
- having received a good performance per dollar value, buyers will hold onto their hardware longer but Apple has made a lower profit
None of these are good for Apple so they probably figured out that they can design a better value bundle by forcing the buyer to take the display and the beautiful display becomes the value metric rather than spec.
Mini, value metric = price
iMac, value metric = style and simplicity
Mac Pro, value metric = power
If they can make the Mac Pro more stylish and affordable without compromising power, that would be great but if the price went down to a certain point, Apple would rely on the buyer taking a display and they wouldn't.
You can bet they've thought about this over the 30+ years they've been in retail and they've probably decided it's best the way it is now.
The original Cube was $1799, which would be £1499 inc tax - basically the same as the entry 27" iMac.
Dell has rubbish margins though. I don't think they need to go that low but $799 (£679 inc tax) would be nice and comparable to Dell's 27" with the same resolution. A 24" 1080p wouldn't go amiss at $499 (£399 inc tax).
Judging by the iMac, the new one most likely won't drop in price. It's good to avoid going over the $1000 mark though. I'd like to see them go all 27" eventually and raising the prices is a good way to start because they can then drop the higher models down once yields improve and maintain the entry prices but switch them to 27" displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
1. Who here has replaced a faulty Xeon CPU?
2. Who here has upgraded the CPU in their MP?
Even though it's possible I've never come across someone that actually did either/both.
I've upgraded the CPUs on nearly two dozen Mac Pros. Going from a 2.66 GHz W3520 Nehalem quad core to a 3.33 GHz W3680 Westmere hexa core is the best bang for the buck, and if you also upgrade the GT 120 to a 6870 it's just like getting a new Mac Pro.
This talk here of the need for a tiny Mac Pro is quite puzzling. I've never encountered any professional who complained about the Mac Pro's size. What I have heard them complain about is Apple's ancient video cards and the lack of a significant Mac Pro update for years. Never heard them pine for half length PCIe slots either, although they wish Apple offered an OEM Radeon 7xxx series video card.
Offloading the video card to an external enclosure is absurd. TB has four lanes, the video PCIe slot alone in the Mac Pro has 16 lanes, and a new Mac Pro may have even more bandwidth available to the PCIe slots. It's also a strange way to make the Mac Pro smaller, since adding a noisy PCIe box to the desk isn't "smaller".
It's certain that Apple will dump the ODD bay, and the PSU can be shrunk down considerably. The number of HDD bays will likely be reduced and they could be oriented so that the tower can be thinner. SSDs can and should be blades that plug into mini PCIe slots for insane performance. These changes alone make for a considerably smaller Mac Pro, so the Apple fanboys will be pleased, Ive will spring a woody, and Pros will shrug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They tried cheaper towers before and they probably found a number of flaws.
- people would expect good specs for the price because there's not much other value metric
- people would look for an affordable display and Apple's displays are too pricey because they don't use cheap panels so none of their bundles look attractive
- having received a good performance per dollar value, buyers will hold onto their hardware longer but Apple has made a lower profit
None of these are good for Apple so they probably figured out that they can design a better value bundle by forcing the buyer to take the display and the beautiful display becomes the value metric rather than spec.
The last time Apple had "cheap" towers they literally faced doom every quarter. Now their OS X user base is expanding every year. So it is no longer necessarily a question of milking the existing user base for as much profit as possible, or to put in businessspeak, a consumer tower need not cannibalize the sales of other less profitable Mac lines.
An xMac doesn't have to be a Mac Pro with an i7 plugged into it, in fact that would be a marketing disaster. Apple can gimp a consumer tower so pros are still forced to buy a Mac Pro, but home users have something beyond a Mac Mini. Some ways to differentiate consumer and pro towers:
Cores. Consumers get four, the Mac Pros get a minimum of 6 or even 8 cores. A good delineation would be for consumer towers to have a single i7, with pro towers having dual Xeons. If Apple wants to be d!cks about it, they can solder the i7 to the logic board so consumers have to throw out their towers instead of upgrading the CPU.
PCIe slots. Pros get four, consumers get one or two, enough for a real video card at least. Without a full-sized video card, there is little point in building a consumer tower.
Storage. Make consumers buy an external box if they want more storage. It's a lame solution, but it's exactly the sort of thing Apple would do. Oh, and price the Apple-branded external box so the cost of a consumer tower with the box is as much or more than the entry level Mac Pro. <laughs evil laugh> Seriously, add a fusion drive to the consumer tower and call it good.
If Apple tried this, what's the worst that could happen? Cannibalized Mac Pro sales? Apple has already demonstrated that they don't care about the Mac Pro. Cannibalized iMac sales? Not an issue as long as the consumer tower is built right. Apple would most likely price such a consumer tower at $1400 - $2000, while a PC tower similarly configured is well under $1000. If Apple gets phat margins on the consumer tower, it won't matter if iMac sales are cannibalized.
I believe Apple would be surprised at how many new Mac users they get with a consumer tower. There are a lot of PC users who want a Mac but find the Mini to be a joke and the iMac to be too rigid a computing solution. Many build a hackintosh, but then get tired of hacking every OS X release and move back to Windows.
The worst that could happen is they go to all the effort building one, it sells very badly and all the sales they do make cannibalise higher profit products.
How many though? The largest desktop manufacturer in the world, HP, only ships 4.5m desktops per quarter. Apple ships 1.5m. There's no way they can match HP's volume because if that was possible, HP wouldn't be selling their products with such poor margins.
Most people simply aren't prepared to pay $1000-2000 for a headless computer box. Apple figured out how to sell something in that range with the iMac and everybody else figured out how to sell loads of boxes with razor thin margins (<12%). We're now at a point where the consumer tower people are in serious trouble and Apple is doing better than ever. They could do both but they have no reason to.
Beyond all of that you seem to think Apple would design a machine that isn't profitable. Apple has no history of doing such. Done right an XMac, that is a midrange desktop would be as profitable as anything else Apple sells. With sales of the Mini and Pro sales tanking doing nothing would be the worst possible course of action. What does HPs margins have to do with Apple selling more computers? If they want to expand Mac sales into new markets they have to do something. Frankly they need new markets to keep the Mac line up going in a robust manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They tried cheaper towers before and they probably found a number of flaws.
- people would expect good specs for the price because there's not much other value metric
- people would look for an affordable display and Apple's displays are too pricey because they don't use cheap panels so none of their bundles look attractive
- having received a good performance per dollar value, buyers will hold onto their hardware longer but Apple has made a lower profit
None of these are good for Apple so they probably figured out that they can design a better value bundle by forcing the buyer to take the display and the beautiful display becomes the value metric rather than spec.
Mini, value metric = price
iMac, value metric = style and simplicity
Mac Pro, value metric = power
If they can make the Mac Pro more stylish and affordable without compromising power, that would be great but if the price went down to a certain point, Apple would rely on the buyer taking a display and they wouldn't.
You can bet they've thought about this over the 30+ years they've been in retail and they've probably decided it's best the way it is now.
The original Cube was $1799, which would be £1499 inc tax - basically the same as the entry 27" iMac.
Dell has rubbish margins though. I don't think they need to go that low but $799 (£679 inc tax) would be nice and comparable to Dell's 27" with the same resolution. A 24" 1080p wouldn't go amiss at $499 (£399 inc tax).
Judging by the iMac, the new one most likely won't drop in price. It's good to avoid going over the $1000 mark though. I'd like to see them go all 27" eventually and raising the prices is a good way to start because they can then drop the higher models down once yields improve and maintain the entry prices but switch them to 27" displays.
You know, it's hard to get an Apple desktop without an ass reaming.
My BTO iMac cost £2200 plus.
Apple's iMac could do with a £200 price cut across the board.
The entry Pro should be £1450 tops. The original Cube was pricey at that.
Should have come in at £999 in fun colour flavours and bigger dimensions for more power. They got greedy. They still are with desktop Macs, consumer or prosumer.
And the studio display price is a joke.
By the time you spec out the Mini you're left with an expensive biscuit box with crap graphics.
As Wizard says. Could do better.
I like the iMac. It's the best thing they have value wise. And the design is good on all 3 desktops.
But not without faults.
Mac mini? Graphics.
Pro? Dinosaur pricing and specs and size.
iMac? Fusion drive should be standard or SSD should. GPUs could be better at each level considering the price bump. Why no external included? Price raises by a hundred and they have the cheek to charge you £60 for the external. £160 more than the last entry iMac! Cheeky buggars.
I used to think of Apple as my friend. My balloon popped on that in 2008...when they hiked the entry iMac from £675 to £999 and now it's £1099.
That's a difference of £425 plus external DVD = £485.
I still think they make the best computers and OS and vision for the future. But the desktop pricing compared to laptops is taking the p*ss.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon Bon Bon.
So p*ssed at their pricing sometimes I typed my name x2.
Lemon Bon Bon. x3
After years of running Linux boxes, and their fairly crap GUI's; Apples fairly trouble free GUI is well worth a bit extra. However it is pretty obvious that what I consider to be a bit extra and what Apple considers to be a bit extra is two different things. It is good to see them aggressively driving down prices on retina screen machines though.
As to the Mini, frankly it is the only machine that I would consider at this point. It isn't that I want to consider it either, just that I don't see a lot of value in Apples other machines. A Low end Mac Pro is a better solution hardware wise over the Mini but lets face it the entry model is grossly over priced for what you get.
Haswell is really the interesting thing with respect to the Mini. Such a chip could turn the Mini into a much more viable machine. If they can go to desktop or in some manner lower cost chips they might even be able to moderate the costs of the Mini a bit. You obviously prefer the iMac which is fine but I just don't see at as a good value for long term usage. That is a user that attempts to hold onto a machine for 5+ years or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
So p*ssed at their pricing sometimes I typed my name x2.
Lemon Bon Bon. x3
I mainly meant the iMac but a consumer tower would eat into some of their higher profit Mac Pro sales. The Mac Pro has high profit margins but the sales volume is small.
- if a consumer tower was the price of an iMac minus display, Apple just loses a display sale and potentially a more proftable Mac Pro sale
- if a consumer tower matches the iMac price, again it can pull people away from the Mac Pro but it also puts people off buying them anyway as they'd be lower value than an iMac
They demonstrate what the market is willing to pay for but more importantly HP's marketshare shows the potential marketshare for Apple to gain.
HP is the leading desktop manufacturer in the world with shipments of 4.5m per quarter. Apple is somewhere below 5th with 1.5m. Apple can only hope to reach 4.5m but look at the average selling prices of each:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/18/hps_pc_sales_lead_industry_but_5_7_operating_margins_are_dwarfed_by_apple
"With an estimated 28 percent gross margin and average selling price of $1,323.40 per Mac, Apple is presumed to earn a profit of $370.55 for every Mac sold. HP, meanwhile, has an average selling price of $650 and a presumed profit margin of 8 percent, which nets the company about $52 on the sale of each PC."
Apple can't reach anywhere near that extra volume of buyers unless they drop prices down but that route means losing a display sale. The recent display gluing step is enough of an indicator that they want control over the whole bundle to make margins on RAM and storage.
Let's say that Apple came out with a Core i7-3770 desktop with GTX 680 at $1499, what do people expect their sales volume to be? It has to be between 1.5-4.5m per quarter. Does it go up 0.5m, 1m? It will definitely cut into some of the other sales and they make less money per sale.
You are assuming Apple would loose sales. My point is an XMac like machine would open up more markets. You seem to dance around this point. Using your logic Apple should kill the Mini to force people to buy iMacs and Mac Pros. It would be foolish to do so because it is a machine with a different niche than the iMac and Mac Pro. An XMac type machine would simply fill another niche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I mainly meant the iMac but a consumer tower would eat into some of their higher profit Mac Pro sales. The Mac Pro has high profit margins but the sales volume is small.
- if a consumer tower was the price of an iMac minus display, Apple just loses a display sale and potentially a more proftable Mac Pro sale
- if a consumer tower matches the iMac price, again it can pull people away from the Mac Pro but it also puts people off buying them anyway as they'd be lower value than an iMac
They demonstrate what the market is willing to pay for but more importantly HP's marketshare shows the potential marketshare for Apple to gain.
HP is the leading desktop manufacturer in the world with shipments of 4.5m per quarter. Apple is somewhere below 5th with 1.5m. Apple can only hope to reach 4.5m but look at the average selling prices of each:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/18/hps_pc_sales_lead_industry_but_5_7_operating_margins_are_dwarfed_by_apple
"With an estimated 28 percent gross margin and average selling price of $1,323.40 per Mac, Apple is presumed to earn a profit of $370.55 for every Mac sold. HP, meanwhile, has an average selling price of $650 and a presumed profit margin of 8 percent, which nets the company about $52 on the sale of each PC."
Apple can't reach anywhere near that extra volume of buyers unless they drop prices down but that route means losing a display sale. The recent display gluing step is enough of an indicator that they want control over the whole bundle to make margins on RAM and storage.
Let's say that Apple came out with a Core i7-3770 desktop with GTX 680 at $1499, what do people expect their sales volume to be? It has to be between 1.5-4.5m per quarter. Does it go up 0.5m, 1m? It will definitely cut into some of the other sales and they make less money per sale.
I don't buy this idea that it will cut into sales. The only reason to promote such a machine is actually to improve sales. Further why does it have to be between 1.5 & 4.5 million a quarter? There is really no limit on how many machines Apple can sell. However it only needs to sell enough to make the machine profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
After years of running Linux boxes, and their fairly crap GUI's; Apples fairly trouble free GUI is well worth a bit extra. However it is pretty obvious that what I consider to be a bit extra and what Apple considers to be a bit extra is two different things. It is good to see them aggressively driving down prices on retina screen machines though.
As to the Mini, frankly it is the only machine that I would consider at this point. It isn't that I want to consider it either, just that I don't see a lot of value in Apples other machines. A Low end Mac Pro is a better solution hardware wise over the Mini but lets face it the entry model is grossly over priced for what you get.
Haswell is really the interesting thing with respect to the Mini. Such a chip could turn the Mini into a much more viable machine. If they can go to desktop or in some manner lower cost chips they might even be able to moderate the costs of the Mini a bit. You obviously prefer the iMac which is fine but I just don't see at as a good value for long term usage. That is a user that attempts to hold onto a machine for 5+ years or more.
Apple's GUI is worth the extra. But as you say, 'define' extra. Buyer in a triple dip depression vs a company sitting on 150$ billion.
I agree the Haswell GT3 graphics chip will make the Mini more interesting. Looking at it side by side vs the 650m (Which is in the 2nd tier iMac...) on Marv's link a while back...you finally get Integrated graphics worthy of the name...well, when it comes to Intel... I'm sure we're aware that AMD's apu has been offering this sort of performance for some time and set to get even better? Politics and all that. But if the GT3 and i7 Mac Mini had been around, I'd have given it a long, hard look.
At £695 say, for a GT3 i7 2.7 and a studio monitor £899 makes it £1595. The iMac still looks to have a better GPU in that scenario. Any monitor can fail, I guess.
If anybody wants value from Apple? Buy an iPad Mini or an iPad. The best value Apple offers outside of the Macbook Air.
But the rest? I'd suggest the iMac could do with a £200 price cut across the range.
Finally. I never thought of myself as an 'obvious' iMac fan. But a few things 'forced' my hand. I was always worried about the display thing attached and having to throw away the entire screen. Access to components etc. But really? All proved to be irrational fears. I'm a tower buyer at heart. But not after seeing prices rise from £999 to £2k...for an entry machine. That's taking. The p*ss. And you get a crap gpu included that's two years out of date. Who buys in to that sh*t? I'm a qualified Apple fan. As in...I don't eulogize eye gauging prices. Give me a tower at a more reasonal £1295-1495 and I'd start talking again. I don't care about Apple's margins. Or their shareholders. I care about my deal. With my money. Otherwise. The 'pro' can rot. And a reasonable £495-£595 tops price for the studio display. Twice that is ridiculous. And then you have to add a gpu worthy of the name.
When it suited them they gave us dual processor Mac Pros.
At heart, I'd be a cube buyer. I almost came around to buying one. Almost. Then they pulled it. But they had to offer it at £1495 when it was a £999 machine.
The iMac has a vibrant screen. Much better than the previous one. I have my old 24 inch right next to my 27 incher iMac. Both machines are night and day performance and screen wise. 8 gigs of ram. Lightning boot times. If the screen goes down... It's Apple's tab to pick up. I'll get Apple care next year to give me another 3 years of cover. That will make four years of protection.
I'm confident the iMac 24 incher which I've had for 4 years will last another couple at least. *Shrugs. My cousin will buy it for £450 and he's getting a darn good machine. And I've worked it's thermals off in a Summer Attic for many years.
The iMac is an awesome machine that has dispelled many of the myths I've had about towers vs AIOs. I've had both. The dual processor edge isn't worth the premium vs the iMac's total performance and value equation.
But I will take issue with the price hike to £1099 plus DVD external at 60+. That's £160 extra. Add the £200 premium for SSD/Fusion and you're talking £360 extra to buy into the base iMac. Eye gauging? In my view, yes.
Lemon Bon Bon.
iMac delivery problems aside...
...I looked at the Mac sales and they looked flat. Given the world economy being gauged by derivative gamblers...that's pretty good.
However, Apple won't take a hit on margins to stimulate sales? Or will they? Well, the Macbooks have had prices trimmed and specs slightly boosted?
But they're not bothered about marketshare except when it suits them.
I think they could be more aggressive with prices but as Marv' sales, will they get the volume in a shrinking tower market? Sure, I'd like my Mac Pro or Cube mini tower at £995 and I'd be over it aka like a rash. But the Studio display... at £899 and a gpu at £295 and a Fusion drive £200 and an external DVD £60+ and the 'consumer' tower doesn't look much better than than the iMac?
Though I do look longingly at the Mini next to a studio. Very pretty machine in person. Lovely to feel.
Most of the computers Apple sells are 'limited' AIOs. Laptops. 4 million. iMacs. 1 million? iPads 14 million? iPhone. 50 million?
Mac Pro? 59k?
Mini? 200K?
Randomly yours,
Lemon Bon Bon.
There's an assumption that a headless tower satisfies a broadly different market from an AIO. Once you take server usage out of the equation (which the Mini is great for), there's no new market to satisfy other than a market that doesn't want to pay for Apple's displays and BTO options.
For the consumer tower to be worthwhile, it has to be able to persuade buyers away from other platforms. There is still a significant amount of people buying headless tower PCs (about 20 million per quarter across all manufacturers) but the average selling price is half of what Apple's average is. I don't think they can persuade a high volume of buyers over without having extremely low prices on displays, towers and peripherals, which just means gaining marketshare at the expense of profit.
The Mini is priced in the right range for people who want a machine to compete with an HP or Dell tower and it has a low power profile, which is great for server use.
When you take all of the market stats out of the way then there are no limits but there are also no limits to selling $500 pencils when you do that too. HP is the top selling desktop manufacturer so that puts an upper bound on the sales volume unless somehow people are suddenly going to be buying more computers and be willing to double their average spend.
The best strategy for them to persuade more people over is to just keep making the iMacs better value. On the PC side, there is the following:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227433
Largely the same spec as the iMac but no display for $1699. The iMac with that spec is about $2449. They could come close to the price of it taking out the display and it would be a nicer machine but not many people will be prepared to spend that money on a box and source their own display.
I think they'd get more sales just by bringing the 27" iMac in at a lower price point like the $1499 price with the entry spec. The 21.5" needs to go the way of the 17" iMac.
You only get 3 years total, they just let you buy it up to a year after you buy the machine. Ideally they'd give 3 year limited warranties with the iMac displays, even if it didn't cover the other parts inside.
I found this little 'cube' machine that looks quite neat:
http://www.amazon.com/HeidePC®-smallest-i7-3770K-multiplier-super-quiet/dp/B008I123RG/
Crazy pricing on it but decent form factor. They opted for full-length slot support.
Post By Marv'
I found this little 'cube' machine that looks quite neat:
http://www.amazon.com/HeidePC®-smallest-i7-3770K-multiplier-super-quiet/dp/B008I123RG/
Crazy pricing on it but decent form factor. They opted for full-length slot support.
That's a little beauty. I'd like to see Apple do something like that for the next Mac Pro. *drools. Pricey though? 680 in a very small mini tower form. That's the kind of beast Apple could/should offer for £1495. i7 and 680 but no display. Priced to go. Tower fans dance naked in the street.
"I think they'd get more sales just by bringing the 27" iMac in at a lower price point like the $1499 price with the entry spec. The 21.5" needs to go the way of the 17" iMac."
Well. I think the whole iMac range needs a price cut of £200. Really inflated prices since 2008. Do re remember how close teh 24 incher came to a £1000 price?
How come we now have a 21 inch iMac at £1250? When we had a 24 incher at that price or lower a few years ago?
What a con.
21 incher should be a budget iMac for £795 to go. 24 incher at £995 to go. 27 incher at £1250 to go. Top end machine should include an i7 and 680 MX for £1450.
Mind you, Bon Bon...don't try being reasonable...
Over simplified by Apple of late and the prices get bumped up and the consumer bends over.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I just noticed it weighs more than the Mac Pro, even though it should be a good bit smaller. They must not be cutting the metal as thin as Apple.
The cheapest 24" was $1499 (£1249) and the 27" can come in at that price with the entry spec. A 24" would be nice as the entry model but I don't think they should go much lower as it drives people to a lower price point.
The prices all went up with the metal casings, which require machine milling. They might be trying to figure out how to cut prices with friction stir welding, even though that wasn't evident with the last iMac update.
You can imagine the 27" iMac being carved out of a block of aluminium previously but with welding, they can have a flat plate for the back, drop a heavy weight into it, bending it into a curve (or have them melted beforehand into curved sheets), carve out the fixings and just weld the chin plate on the front.
With the Mini, they'd have the flat top plate, just a metal strip for the side and a base plate with the hole at the base. They just bend the strip round and weld them together.
A smaller Mac Pro would allow them to use thinner sheets of metal and that reduces the shipping weight, whch can cut a lot of costs down.
Thanks that's all good information. Of course you are correct regarding my stupidity. I had hoped / convinced myself a 2010 MBP i7 fully loaded would at least be a third or even half as fast as a 2008 8 Core MacPro. I really wanted portability as I was working between summer and winter homes 2,000 miles apart. I was deluding myself I now admit.
I'd say the i7 is a tenth as fast for my use, HD editing and Aperture work, or seems like it and worse, the multi tasking is non existent in comparison. I realized the mistake within hours and banged my head against several walls. That said it was a lot easier to pack for the long drive from FL to the mountains of NH. The good news is I got almost everything I paid for the MacPro on E-Bay so it owed me nothing. So for the last couple of years I have been waiting for the new design. The last thing I wanted to do was buy the old model only to see its value wiped away with a new model (although buying one after the price is slashed for clearance might be an option). I have now semi retired so the need has diminished but not the desire, especially if the new MacPro is smaller and lighter
Of course you are correct. I had hoped / convinced myself a 2010 MBP i7 fully loaded would at least be a third or even half as fast as a 2008 8 Core MacPro. I really wanted portability as I was working between summer and winter homes 2,000 miles apart. I was deluding myself I now admit.
I'd say the i7 is a tenth as fast for my use, HD editing and Aperture work, or seems like it and worse, the multi tasking is non existent in comparison. I realized the mistake within hours and banged my head against several walls. That said it was a lot easier to pack for the long drive from FL to the mountains of NH. The good news is I got almost everything I paid for the MacPro on E-Bay so it owed me nothing. So for the last couple of years I have been waiting for the new design. The last thing I wanted to do was buy the old model only to see its value wiped away with a new model (although buying one after the price is slashed for clearance might be an option). I have now semi retired so the need has diminished but not the desire, especially if the new MacPro is smaller and lighter. That said your insight into speed gains in the MBP range makes a newer one tempting but the lack of DIY upgradability concerns me with the Retina models (and working with external large screens makes the laptop's screen irrelevant to me anyway) and the good old MBP you can upgrade are probably not long for this world I suspect. Oh boy isn't this fun
The SSD can be upgraded but not the RAM. OWC has the neatest little external USB 3 drive for the blade SSD:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/OWC_Envoy_Pro
A bit pricey for the enclosure by itself at $80 but that would make a cool little backup drive. It would be nice to be able to upgrade the RAM but 16GB will probably last until DDR4 arrives and you'd just upgrade the machine. DDR4 RAM will likely bring 16GB mobile DIMMs i.e 8 gigabit memory chips so the laptop limit should become 32GB and the iMac 64GB. This should arrive next year or the year after. It would raise the Mac Pro limit to 256GB but they might still just support 96GB. If they don't plan to exceed 96GB, they would be able to use fewer RAM slots.
I was wondering what the Radeon 7000 drivers were actually for now, reading the thread title but it looks like AMD is rebadging the 7000-series GPUs:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6570/amds-annual-gpu-rebadge-radeon-hd-8000-series-for-oems
and the 8000 series won't be out in retail until Q4 this year:
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/radeon_hd_8000_series_wont_arrive_soon.html
NVidia is similarly rebadging their GPUs:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6579/nvidias-annual-gpu-rebadge-begins-geforce-gt-730m-and-geforce-710m-partial-specs-published
Some Adobe software won't run nearly as well if they go with AMD in the Mac Pro but it'll pretty much be last year's GPUs whatever they do.