It's not a valid reason to expect Apple to change their lineup. There are many personal preferences that Apple completely ignores.
This is completely true. However when you have a product line with sales tanking you have to ask why. Apple doesn't seem to want to ask why.
Very few scenarios require a separate monitor. Of those, Apple has decided that it is not cost effective to meet.
OK I will let you say that and just assume that you have nothing to do with the corporate world. I can't even say that corporate policy is even rational at times but their is a huge bias against all in ones. Unless of course the all in one is a laptop.
For the average desktop user this is NOT a requirement.
That is a personal opinion, for many a choice in monitors is a requirement.
Many people apparently like phones with physical keyboards. So what?
The so what is Apples tanking sales when it comes to desktops.
No. To Apple it is exactly the same statement. You want to effectively halve their ASP and profits per unit. You want a Mac with a fast Core i7 and a better than average GPU. The only option Apple provides is a machine that costs $2200. You want it for $1200. Even if the margins were identical between the two (which it wouldn't be) on a per unit basis they make about half as much. They'd have to double volume JUST to stay even.
You really are stick on this nonsense aren't you! Apple will never sell me and frankly a lot of other people, an iMac as they are currently engineered, so their profit is essentially zero. As for doubling volume I can't predict if that will happen but it has potential for sales where an iMac would never be sold.
You seem to like the IMac, that is perfectly fine, but you discount the other realities out there which start with a very string bias against all in ones in the corporate world. Further many people (individuals) simply don't want the monitors the iMacs come with. Beyond that you have the maintenance and serviceability issues of the platform.
Your argument seems to revolve around Apple loosing iMac sales, build the right machine and all they will get is additional sales.
This isn't going to happen.
Would you pay $2000 for a 3.5Ghz Core i7 with a GTX 775M Mac Mini? That would sit between the $800 Core i7 Mini with HD5000 and the $3000 Mac Pro.
No I wouldn't because I know they can do better price wise.
Absolutely it does. Your position is that there is no "acceptable" desktop between the mini and the mac pro.
Quote:
That is asinine considering I'm suggesting a machine with a much higher entry level price than the Mini.
But much lower than the iMac.
Quote:
In any event I'm not sure why you keep twisting this into a suggestion that I want Apple stuff cheap, anybody with a reasonable mind would realize that I'm asking for a machine that would be far more expensive than the Mini.
And much less expensive than the iMac.
Quote:
Hasn't hurt the company because the Mac Desktop lineup is a tiny part of the equation these days. The attitude though has lead to a desktop lineup few are happy with. That unhappiness have resulted in quarter after quarter declines in desktop sales. It isn't just a shift in the industry, it is a very real perception that Apples desktop lineup offers very poor value even in comparison to their laptop hardware.
Show quarter after quarter declines.
2013 Q1 was extremely weak because there were no iMacs until November.
2013 Q2 was strong. In the quarterly conference it was stated that iMac sales were up while portable sales were down: "We experienced strong year-over-year growth in desktop sales following the December quarter launch of our stunning new iMacs, offset by a decline in portable sales given a weaker personal computer market overall."
2013 Q3 was down 13% YoY.
2013 Q4 was down because of the wait for the Haswell refresh in Sept.
Millions of people a year disagree with your opinion on the value of iMacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is completely true. However when you have a product line with sales tanking you have to ask why. Apple doesn't seem to want to ask why.
The entire PC business is in decline. You have yet to show that Apple is suffering more than Dell or HP.
Quote:
OK I will let you say that and just assume that you have nothing to do with the corporate world. I can't even say that corporate policy is even rational at times but their is a huge bias against all in ones. Unless of course the all in one is a laptop.
Of the thousands of macs at my work I'd say a quarter are iMacs. There isn't any prohibition against iMacs for any Mac shop I've seen.
There's a bias against Macs in general but once you get over that it doesn't really matter.
Quote:
That is a personal opinion, for many a choice in monitors is a requirement.
Prove it. And you STILL have the ability to pick any monitor you like...even as your primary.
Quote:
The so what is Apples tanking sales when it comes to desktops.
Show the "tanking" sales isn't a function of the lack of availability at the end of 2012 or the general trend away from desktops and PCs in general.
Quote:
You really are stick on this nonsense aren't you! Apple will never sell me and frankly a lot of other people, an iMac as they are currently engineered, so their profit is essentially zero. As for doubling volume I can't predict if that will happen but it has potential for sales where an iMac would never be sold.
It's not nonsense it's math. Your $1200 xMac would crater iMac sales which means you would have to generate double the sales to generate the same revenue.
Quote:
You seem to like the IMac, that is perfectly fine, but you discount the other realities out there which start with a very string bias against all in ones in the corporate world.
First, I work in an Apple shop. Do you? There is no strong bias against AIOs in an Apple shop.
Second, Apple's not strong in the corporate world anyway but a consumer brand. This is why the uptick in enterprise purchases lifted Dell and HP sales and had no impact on Apple.
Quote:
Further many people (individuals) simply don't want the monitors the iMacs come with. Beyond that you have the maintenance and serviceability issues of the platform.
Apple's desktop profitability depends in part on the required monitor sales. I still use a 2008 24" Dell Ultrasharp. Why? Because it was a solid monitor and still works well. I see an asston of 30" ACDs around my work. I forget when they stopped selling those.
Quote:
Your argument seems to revolve around Apple loosing iMac sales, build the right machine and all they will get is additional sales.
If you cut ASPs in half then you need to double sales JUST to stay even assuming the margins are the same. Dropping desktop ASP 50% and only gaining 25% in new sales is a losing proposition.
Quote:
No I wouldn't because I know they can do better price wise.
See. It isn't that Apple doesn't produce a Mac that suits your "requirements" but that you simply don't want to pay what Apple charges.
Even if Apple produced an xMac that filled the void between the Mini and the Pro with the right specs you still wouldn't buy it because you want it for less.
Not likely. Who's going to buy a $1299 2.7/3.2 Ghz Core i5 iMac if they can get a 2.0/3.2 Ghz Core i7 Mini for $899? Before there was the GPU up sell to get the iMac.
Even for $999 that's iffy. All you would be doing is pushing ASPs and Mac profits down.
I suspect that none of the Minis get Iris Pro unless it's deliberately gimped to Core i5.
I've kept up with this thread, and it reads like a list of things I would like to buy, yet will never see. When it comes to certain subsets of the product line, it really does feel like the elusive "Apple tax" through certain outlier model pricing and what they do or do not make.
Apple doesn’t like expandable computers. Never has. Ever. In 36 years of being a company. Instead of mocking me, why not stop looking like a fool by pretending you don’t know exactly why they don’t want to make one? You’re an intelligent person–far too intelligent not to know this already. I’m a worthless, pathetic moron, for crying out loud! I couldn’t do anything worth doing on my best day, even before I started losing my memory! And somehow I can figure this out and you can’t?!
“Doesn’t you failing at everything just make it more likely you’re wrong?”
Sure does. Except Apple keeps proving this point right.
Look at every single computer they make. Look at every computer they made five years ago. What has changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. HDD access? Gone. RAM? Soldered. GPU? Integrated or soldered.
Go back ten more years. What changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. The PowerMac G3 from before Steve’s return differs in no way from any other tower computer of that era. Look at the Mac Pro now. Apple, by giving the finger to the idea of a bare motherboard with sockets, slots, bays, and carriages, has created the most powerful, silent, and energy efficient workstation on the market.
Seeing the new Mac Pro, I actually think–for the first time–that Apple could do an xMac. Just put the Mac Mini’s internals into the Mac Pro case. Make it silver instead of black, boom; there’s your headless desktop. Basically the same as the Mac Mini now, really; not a desktop chip or anything. It’d just have more Thunderbolt ports than the Mini does now. And it won’t take sales from the iMac. It’s not going to be a “build your own computer”. You want that, buy Windows and suffer, rightly. If 17 years after Jobs’ return that hasn’t been hammered into people’s heads by now, it never will be. Integration is the way forward. Moonwalk if you must.
("The key factor that inspired Römer to fight back was a gagging clause. At first the US company had offered a compromise whereby she could use the Apfelkind logo on her own franchise products but not on any electronic equipment.")
Millions of people a year disagree with your opinion on the value of iMacs.
Partly playing logical nitpicker, partly Devil's advocate, but we don't really know that. A few people in my peer group have found that Apple no longer represents enough of a value proposition to justify the fairly hefty (okay, "enormous") cost premium and have purchased Windows machines instead. Apple's numbers don't reflect how many people have simple said "Screw Mac" altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The entire PC business is in decline. You have yet to show that Apple is suffering more than Dell or HP.
Actually, there *is* some evidence that Apple is sliding compared to Dell or HP. The reasons are not absolutely clear (are they ever?) but PC sales are rebounding somewhat while Mac sales continue to decline.
The knee-jerk response is "Mac buyers went with iPads instead" but that doesn't make any sense because Windows buyers could just as easily do the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
you STILL have the ability to pick any monitor you like...even as your primary.
True, but you have to admit that it would be awfully silly to pay Apple $500 to tie up desk space with a monitor you're not going to use. If one's needs tend towards multiple monitors it does make more sense to skip the built-in display. It's not as unusual a desire as some Apple apologists would suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
It's not nonsense it's math. Your $1200 xMac would crater iMac sales which means you would have to generate double the sales to generate the same revenue.
At the risk of oversimplifying the statement, that's like saying Apple would be better off just charging a minimum of $5000 for an entry level computer because it would increase the margin and ASP.
The question is whether a Mac Medium would sell in sufficient numbers to offset any loss of iMac sales. If the ASP were half what it is now but resulted in three times the sales, it's a win (assuming comparable margins).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Even if Apple produced an xMac that filled the void between the Mini and the Pro with the right specs you still wouldn't buy it because you want it for less.
I kinda get that, too, to be honest. The older I get, the harder it gets for me to swallow the Apple tax. Apple's 40%+ margins have resulted in tremendous benefit for Apple's investors and executives, so how about now we give the actual BUYERS a taste?
Imagine the Lennon-esque PR shock wave it would produce if Tim Cook stepped outside and announced "Okay, we've now got more money than Europe and Asia combined so we're gonna ease up and lower the price of everything we sell." I'm definitely no economist and there are at least a million ways I could be wrong, but something in my gut insists it would be a better approach than the current strategy of making buyers choose between a Mac or food!
Apple doesn’t like expandable computers. Never has. Ever. In 36 years of being a company. Instead of mocking me, why not stop looking like a fool by pretending you don’t know exactly why they don’t want to make one? You’re an intelligent person–far too intelligent not to know this already. I’m a worthless, pathetic moron, for crying out loud! I couldn’t do anything worth doing on my best day, even before I started losing my memory! And somehow I can figure this out and you can’t?!
“Doesn’t you failing at everything just make it more likely you’re wrong?”
Sure does. Except Apple keeps proving this point right.
Look at every single computer they make. Look at every computer they made five years ago. What has changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. HDD access? Gone. RAM? Soldered. GPU? Integrated or soldered.
Go back ten more years. What changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. The PowerMac G3 from before Steve’s return differs in no way from any other tower computer of that era. Look at the Mac Pro now. Apple, by giving the finger to the idea of a bare motherboard with sockets, slots, bays, and carriages, has created the most powerful, silent, and energy efficient workstation on the market.
Seeing the new Mac Pro, I actually think–for the first time–that Apple could do an xMac. Just put the Mac Mini’s internals into the Mac Pro case. Make it silver instead of black, boom; there’s your headless desktop. Basically the same as the Mac Mini now, really; not a desktop chip or anything. It’d just have more Thunderbolt ports than the Mini does now. And it won’t take sales from the iMac. It’s not going to be a “build your own computer”. You want that, buy Windows and suffer, rightly. If 17 years after Jobs’ return that hasn’t been hammered into people’s heads by now, it never will be. Integration is the way forward. Moonwalk if you must.
Except that a Mac Mini with a discrete GPU doesn't have doors, openings, slots, bays, cards, blah blah blah. The only reason that the 2012 mac mini lost the GPU was to force the upsell to the iMac for anyone that desired a GPU. Remember that there's an empty 2.5" HDD bay there that can be used for thermal management in the design.
So why not pair a 650M with a quad Core i5 in the $800 2012 Mini? Because it would have cratered iMac sales and drive down ASPs.
Why doesn't the base model 15" MBP have a GPU? To force the ASP higher.
Why is the base Mac Pro $3K? To move the ASP higher.
With the iPad cannibalizing PC sales AND the increased power in PCs in general there's stronger than ever downward pressure on Apple computer ASPs. The Q4 results show revenues rising and profits declining. That's a function of both margins declining and ASPs dropping. Apple protects both religiously when they can even at the expense of volume.
They don't make a $1200 xMac (just) because of some design fetish. They don't make a $1200 xMac because they'd kill Mac Pro and 27" iMac sales. Every single computer model below their top tier is gimped in some way.
Why can't you BTO the mid tier $1499 21" iMac with a 775M with 2GB RAM?
Why can't you BTO the base $1999 15" MBP with a 750M?
Margins and ASP. These top end machines represent some of the best value in the line ups but they are also the most expensive. Apple will not allow you to buy a sunroof without also getting the top model. Hell, they'll even throw in sunroof for free when you buy the top model. Price out the base 15" MBP with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 2.3Ghz i7. It costs $2599. So a free GPU upgrade if you pick the top tier $2599 model with the exact same spec.
So the answer isn't thermal.
So the answer isn't power supply.
So the answer isn't design.
The answer is ASPs and Margins. xMac proponents refuse to get this. APPLE WILL NOT SELL YOU A MID TIER DESKTOP WITHOUT FORCING YOU TO BUY A MONITOR EVERY SINGLE TIME.
People are not stupid. If Apple offered the xMac they could use with any monitor for $800 less money ($1199 vs $1999) for about the same performance they'd do it the majority of the time. It's two extra cables.
So when it comes down to it, my primary wish every Mini replacement cycle is simply "I hope they don't kill the mini". That it will be gimped in some way is a given.
Partly playing logical nitpicker, partly Devil's advocate, but we don't really know that. A few people in my peer group have found that Apple no longer represents enough of a value proposition to justify the fairly hefty (okay, "enormous") cost premium and have purchased Windows machines instead. Apple's numbers don't reflect how many people have simple said "Screw Mac" altogether.
We do know that because they still sell millions of iMacs. Of course there is some threshold where Apple will readjust if iMac sales decline too much but working harder for the same amount of money isn't in Apple's DNA.
Frankly Windows 7 is a good enough OS that Apple sales will always be limited because of the Apple Tax. It's Honda vs BMW.
Quote:
Actually, there *is* some evidence that Apple is sliding compared to Dell or HP. The reasons are not absolutely clear (are they ever?) but PC sales are rebounding somewhat while Mac sales continue to decline.
The knee-jerk response is "Mac buyers went with iPads instead" but that doesn't make any sense because Windows buyers could just as easily do the same thing.
What you are seeing is the difference between consumer confidence and enterprise confidence. Enterprise sales had an uptick. That doesn't help Apple all that much.
Quote:
True, but you have to admit that it would be awfully silly to pay Apple $500 to tie up desk space with a monitor you're not going to use. If one's needs tend towards multiple monitors it does make more sense to skip the built-in display. It's not as unusual a desire as some Apple apologists would suggest.
The 21" monitor is rather meh. The 27" monitor is good enough that you'd have to pay more than $500 to beat it unless you want to do the dead pixel dance with cut rate 27" monitors.
The reason there's no 24" iMac is because that's a "good enough" size for most pro users. 21" is just too tiny. So instant upsell.
Quote:
At the risk of oversimplifying the statement, that's like saying Apple would be better off just charging a minimum of $5000 for an entry level computer because it would increase the margin and ASP.
The question is whether a Mac Medium would sell in sufficient numbers to offset any loss of iMac sales. If the ASP were half what it is now but resulted in three times the sales, it's a win (assuming comparable margins).
That's key right? And I don't disagree. What an xMac proponent has to do is show that reducing ASPs by X will increase sales by more than a factor of X or it's a loss. But that's hard to prove.
Instead its a whole lot of handwaving about how they know how to build a more effective product lineup than Apple and of course sales will increase by more than a factor of X and Apple is just being stupid.
Quote:
I kinda get that, too, to be honest. The older I get, the harder it gets for me to swallow the Apple tax. Apple's 40%+ margins have resulted in tremendous benefit for Apple's investors and executives, so how about now we give the actual BUYERS a taste?
Imagine the Lennon-esque PR shock wave it would produce if Tim Cook stepped outside and announced "Okay, we've now got more money than Europe and Asia combined so we're gonna ease up and lower the price of everything we sell." I'm definitely no economist and there are at least a million ways I could be wrong, but something in my gut insists it would be a better approach than the current strategy of making buyers choose between a Mac or food!
Everyone's cost benefit analysis differs and there's no right or wrong answer. Apple generally remains a half-decent value if you buy at launch and they do last a long time. I still have a Core Duo 2006 Mini and a 2009 Core 2 Duo Mini in active duty with the kids.
Windows 7 is pretty decent on a modern machine but man, I'd hate to be running it on that older Core 2 Duo machine much less the Core Duo.
The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768. The iPad Air is 2643.
Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.
The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768. The iPad Air is 2643.
Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.
Intriguing sign of the times as iOS and OS X updates blur. Another two years of that type of progress, and where will we be? Food for thought.
As for the volume argument. Saying Apple need to sell 'x' to make up for potential price cuts is the same now as it was when they sold 1 million units. You could apply the opposite logic and say now they're selling way more...the cost of components (which low volume was used as argument against such cuts...) makes a rational price more expected.
Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150. Cut the string in half. £699. That's how much the entry iMac is worth. No? It's as good an argument as any other. If the Mini has entry crappics, and a dual core for £499 Apple could easily add the cheap as chips 21 incher and a kb/mouse for £200 more.
They've become master mercenaries of up sell. To the point that you can't even configure low level machines with e.g. gpus etc.
So you're right. Apple want you up the ladder. Sure, you can get gpu performance...but you'll be ass-reamed for it and it's got even worse.
You have 3 (is it?) laptops that have a keyboard 'mouse' (trackpad) and monitor included (and SSD...) for under £1000.
But no desktop?!?!? Puh-lease.
Apple used to have 3!!!! models of iMac under 1k!
And the use of 21 inch in the iMac in two models above £1k is outrageous! You used to be able to get a 24inch model close to £1k in times gone by.
Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing.
I can understand why Wizard is apoplectic at times.
The answer is ASPs and Margins. xMac proponents refuse to get this. APPLE WILL NOT SELL YOU A MID TIER DESKTOP WITHOUT FORCING YOU TO BUY A MONITOR EVERY SINGLE TIME.
People are not stupid. If Apple offered the xMac they could use with any monitor for $800 less money ($1199 vs $1999) for about the same performance they'd do it the majority of the time. It's two extra cables.
True.
The iMac gets most of the desktop sales so they force you to buy the monitor too. Extra profit.
The iMac has gone from being a value cosumer machine to a rip off.
I say that as a top end iMac owner.
If they could make a profit on it at £699 with integrated and DVD player...they've ass reaming it at £1150 with no DVD player and still Integrated crappics for over a 1k. Shame. SHAME.
They could add a decent gpu or Iris Pro to the top end Mini to keep Winter and Dave happy. However, it would make the entry iMac look like what it is. Bad value.
£471 price difference between the i7 Mini and the entry iMac on £1150?
What's that?
You could get a 27 inch IPS (not from Apple...), keyboard and mouse, SSD 128 gig drive and probably still have some left over for some fish and chips.
No wonder they didn't update the mini with Iris Pro at the same time as iMac...
...don't want to expose the lie of 'value.'
No wonder Tim has charged Apple with making a more affordable iMac. Where have they been for the last 5 years? World economy in the toilet and we don't have millions in exec option shares.
Look outside the bubble, Apple. It doesn't have to be junk. But for F***sake, meet us half way.
If they can offer us a good deal on X, iWorks software etc. Do the same for hardware. If they don't make junk why offer a mini at £499 (A £250 computer if ever there was one...) or an iPad at £399? The entry Air is the best Mac they have. Price and performance.
Intriguing sign of the times as iOS and OS X updates blur. Another two years of that type of progress, and where will we be? Food for thought.
As for the volume argument. Saying Apple need to sell 'x' to make up for potential price cuts is the same now as it was when they sold 1 million units. You could apply the opposite logic and say now they're selling way more...the cost of components (which low volume was used as argument against such cuts...) makes a rational price more expected.
Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150. Cut the string in half. £699. That's how much the entry iMac is worth. No? It's as good an argument as any other. If the Mini has entry crappics, and a dual core for £499 Apple could easily add the cheap as chips 21 incher and a kb/mouse for £200 more.
They've become master mercenaries of up sell. To the point that you can't even configure low level machines with e.g. gpus etc.
So you're right. Apple want you up the ladder. Sure, you can get gpu performance...but you'll be ass-reamed for it and it's got even worse.
You have 3 (is it?) laptops that have a keyboard 'mouse' (trackpad) and monitor included (and SSD...) for under £1000.
But no desktop?!?!? Puh-lease.
Apple used to have 3!!!! models of iMac under 1k!
And the use of 21 inch in the iMac in two models above £1k is outrageous! You used to be able to get a 24inch model close to £1k in times gone by.
Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing.
I can understand why Wizard is apoplectic at times.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I wish some of the people on this site actually knew what they are talking about and how to compare different products. It never ceases to amaze me at how dumb people can get.
Lemon Bon Bon "Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing." WTF are you talking about?
You have to compare a LOT more than you are.
Go look at the price tag of a certain iMac configuration, then TRY to get a PC (any name brand) and see if they even come close on every level in terms of processor/speed/min & max RAM, speed/size SSD & HDD, specs of the monitor, types and number of ports. You'll find they don't even come close in all of the aspects of the specs of the systems. Basically, you don't know what you are talking about.
All I can say is that Apple's pricing model is actually pretty realistic in MOST cases. If it's more expensive than another, there are valid reasons for the slight premium in price. Plus, Apple is not trying to buy market share by selling ultra cheap products, because there is NO profits in those products and Apple is NOT going to bring their Net Profits down to the 7% or less margin levels like most every PC mfg. Go to EVERY PC mfg and calculate the Net Profit Margin. You take the Gross margin and divide into Net Profit. Most of these PC mfg are LUCKY to have 5% to 7% margin, but a lot of them are in the 1% to 4% range. Apple is in the 20% to 26% range and they'd like to keep it in that range otherwise upper management might lose their job.
Dell is in deep trouble as they had to go private, they are racking too much debt, having too low margins and they are going down the tubes just like IBM and Compaq did. Acer's CEO just resigned due to poor sales, financials, ASUS sucks in terms of Net Profits as does HP, Lenovo, etc.
If you want to compare, please use the specific part numbers and configurations of one computer to the other so we can analyze it further. Taking a low end model and comparing it to an Apple that's targeted in price/specs towards a med to high end market is being dumb.
I wish some of the people on this site actually knew what they are talking about and how to compare different products. It never ceases to amaze me at how dumb people can get.
Lemon Bon Bon "Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing." WTF are you talking about?
You have to compare a LOT more than you are.
Go look at the price tag of a certain iMac configuration, then TRY to get a PC (any name brand) and see if they even come close on every level in terms of processor/speed/min & max RAM, speed/size SSD & HDD, specs of the monitor, types and number of ports. You'll find they don't even come close in all of the aspects of the specs of the systems. Basically, you don't know what you are talking about.
All I can say is that Apple's pricing model is actually pretty realistic in MOST cases. If it's more expensive than another, there are valid reasons for the slight premium in price. Plus, Apple is not trying to buy market share by selling ultra cheap products, because there is NO profits in those products and Apple is NOT going to bring their Net Profits down to the 7% or less margin levels like most every PC mfg. Go to EVERY PC mfg and calculate the Net Profit Margin. You take the Gross margin and divide into Net Profit. Most of these PC mfg are LUCKY to have 5% to 7% margin, but a lot of them are in the 1% to 4% range. Apple is in the 20% to 26% range and they'd like to keep it in that range otherwise upper management might lose their job.
Dell is in deep trouble as they had to go private, they are racking too much debt, having too low margins and they are going down the tubes just like IBM and Compaq did. Acer's CEO just resigned due to poor sales, financials, ASUS sucks in terms of Net Profits as does HP, Lenovo, etc.
If you want to compare, please use the specific part numbers and configurations of one computer to the other so we can analyze it further. Taking a low end model and comparing it to an Apple that's targeted in price/specs towards a med to high end market is being dumb.
Blah, blah, blah.
Same old. WTF are YOU talking about?
Nobody is talking about junk for £399. (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.
Pricing, they're losing touch.
Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.
And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?
Apple. Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.
Apple are also pulling that kind of sh** with the Mac Pro. For an entry price of £2500 I want my goddamn k/b, mouse and an IPS display.
They're playing the 'brand' game more than ever.
What next...we're so cool you pay extra for the box?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Deal with it. IF you are complaining over the k/b, mouse and monitor on the Mac Pro? That just tells me you aren't their target market. I can understand them not putting a keyboard/mouse, but not including a monitor? That's standard.
Pros choose whatever monitor(s) they want, some might already have the monitors they want. Most non-AIO don't come with a monitor.
Nobody is talking about junk for £399. (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.
Pricing, they're losing touch.
Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.
And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?
Apple. Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.
Lemon Bon Bon.
"Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150."
A Dell for that amount IS NOT a i5 or i7 processor, it's a i3 or Celeron, the HDD in that system is the worst POS money can buy, 4GB of RAM not upgradeable and I honestly think you are just a kid with no real job and you simply can't afford to buy your own computer and your Mum won't give you the money.
Then maybe you are a candidate for a used Mac, or a whatever else you can afford, that's used.
What are you going to do with a computer anyway, aside from immature posts? Games?
Nobody is talking about junk for £399. (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.
Pricing, they're losing touch.
Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.
And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?
Apple. Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon,
You really don't know what you are talking about in terms of keeping up with reality.
The reason why they removed the DVD is people weren't using them, and it's far cheaper in the long run to do it externally and to charge people for it, if they need it.
Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.
Apple has been providing more and faster SSD storage options which are faster and more reliable than HDD and HDD's are on their way out. I predict that HDDs will be a thing of the past completely in about 2 years in 99% of Apple's computers.
Apple is moving (obviously) away from giving a keyboard/ms on headless units. I think it's because they are seeing more and more people keeping their existing keyboard and mouse, or buying whatever they want.
Apple does their own research in terms of what people want and various price points they feel the market will bear.
And Apple is NOT going to be the low cost leader since there is NO money in that.
Seriously, you need to compare a like system as close as you can get and see what you get and don't get with each and figure out why one costs what it costs.
Otherwise, i think your posts are becoming a waste of MY time and others.
Intriguing sign of the times as iOS and OS X updates blur. Another two years of that type of progress, and where will we be? Food for thought.
As for the volume argument. Saying Apple need to sell 'x' to make up for potential price cuts is the same now as it was when they sold 1 million units. You could apply the opposite logic and say now they're selling way more...the cost of components (which low volume was used as argument against such cuts...) makes a rational price more expected.
Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150. Cut the string in half. £699. That's how much the entry iMac is worth. No? It's as good an argument as any other. If the Mini has entry crappics, and a dual core for £499 Apple could easily add the cheap as chips 21 incher and a kb/mouse for £200 more.
Well no it isn't a good argument, we all know those cheap Dell computers have much to be desired performance wise. The better comparison is a Dell computer marketed to higher margin markets. By the way a bit of margin really doesn't bother me, it is the total lack of hardware to purchase that bothers me.
They've become master mercenaries of up sell. To the point that you can't even configure low level machines with e.g. gpus etc.
More the grandmaster of ignoring product lines for years. I mean seriously the Mac Pro has taken forever to come and realistically is a 2014 model at this point. So what is that six years since a rational Mac Pro update.
So you're right. Apple want you up the ladder. Sure, you can get gpu performance...but you'll be ass-reamed for it and it's got even worse.
You have 3 (is it?) laptops that have a keyboard 'mouse' (trackpad) and monitor included (and SSD...) for under £1000.
These are well respected laptops that are very competitively priced too. These aren't junk machines at all.
But no desktop?!?!? Puh-lease.
Apple used to have 3!!!! models of iMac under 1k!
Well you have the thermally limited Mini. Beyond that machine Apple apparently can't be bothered.
And the use of 21 inch in the iMac in two models above £1k is outrageous! You used to be able to get a 24inch model close to £1k in times gone by.
Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing.
I can understand why Wizard is apoplectic at times.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Geee Lemon you are making me use the define function in IOS.???????????????????? Apoplectic may not be the right word, I just think it is sad that Apple can't do better. Further I'm frustrated that the laptop line in many ways is the only rational choice for the Mac buying public. Further it has been this way for years, even Pepsi and Coco-Cola experiment with new products. Except for New Coke it is good for the product lines.
Comments
You seem to like the IMac, that is perfectly fine, but you discount the other realities out there which start with a very string bias against all in ones in the corporate world. Further many people (individuals) simply don't want the monitors the iMacs come with. Beyond that you have the maintenance and serviceability issues of the platform.
Your argument seems to revolve around Apple loosing iMac sales, build the right machine and all they will get is additional sales. No I wouldn't because I know they can do better price wise.
Sure it is, that doesn't invalidate my position.
Absolutely it does. Your position is that there is no "acceptable" desktop between the mini and the mac pro.
But much lower than the iMac.
And much less expensive than the iMac.
Show quarter after quarter declines.
2013 Q1 was extremely weak because there were no iMacs until November.
2013 Q2 was strong. In the quarterly conference it was stated that iMac sales were up while portable sales were down: "We experienced strong year-over-year growth in desktop sales following the December quarter launch of our stunning new iMacs, offset by a decline in portable sales given a weaker personal computer market overall."
2013 Q3 was down 13% YoY.
2013 Q4 was down because of the wait for the Haswell refresh in Sept.
Millions of people a year disagree with your opinion on the value of iMacs.
This is completely true. However when you have a product line with sales tanking you have to ask why. Apple doesn't seem to want to ask why.
The entire PC business is in decline. You have yet to show that Apple is suffering more than Dell or HP.
Of the thousands of macs at my work I'd say a quarter are iMacs. There isn't any prohibition against iMacs for any Mac shop I've seen.
There's a bias against Macs in general but once you get over that it doesn't really matter.
Prove it. And you STILL have the ability to pick any monitor you like...even as your primary.
Show the "tanking" sales isn't a function of the lack of availability at the end of 2012 or the general trend away from desktops and PCs in general.
It's not nonsense it's math. Your $1200 xMac would crater iMac sales which means you would have to generate double the sales to generate the same revenue.
First, I work in an Apple shop. Do you? There is no strong bias against AIOs in an Apple shop.
Second, Apple's not strong in the corporate world anyway but a consumer brand. This is why the uptick in enterprise purchases lifted Dell and HP sales and had no impact on Apple.
Apple's desktop profitability depends in part on the required monitor sales. I still use a 2008 24" Dell Ultrasharp. Why? Because it was a solid monitor and still works well. I see an asston of 30" ACDs around my work. I forget when they stopped selling those.
If you cut ASPs in half then you need to double sales JUST to stay even assuming the margins are the same. Dropping desktop ASP 50% and only gaining 25% in new sales is a losing proposition.
See. It isn't that Apple doesn't produce a Mac that suits your "requirements" but that you simply don't want to pay what Apple charges.
Even if Apple produced an xMac that filled the void between the Mini and the Pro with the right specs you still wouldn't buy it because you want it for less.
Not likely. Who's going to buy a $1299 2.7/3.2 Ghz Core i5 iMac if they can get a 2.0/3.2 Ghz Core i7 Mini for $899?
Anyone who wants a full computer? The reason Apple doesn’t make an xMac has nothing to do with losing iMac sales.
Anyone who wants a full computer? The reason Apple doesn’t make an xMac has nothing to do with losing iMac sales.
So what would that be oh enlightened one?
Edit: LOL just noticed you were banned again.
Not likely. Who's going to buy a $1299 2.7/3.2 Ghz Core i5 iMac if they can get a 2.0/3.2 Ghz Core i7 Mini for $899? Before there was the GPU up sell to get the iMac.
Even for $999 that's iffy. All you would be doing is pushing ASPs and Mac profits down.
I suspect that none of the Minis get Iris Pro unless it's deliberately gimped to Core i5.
I've kept up with this thread, and it reads like a list of things I would like to buy, yet will never see. When it comes to certain subsets of the product line, it really does feel like the elusive "Apple tax" through certain outlier model pricing and what they do or do not make.
So what would that be oh enlightened one?
Apple doesn’t like expandable computers. Never has. Ever. In 36 years of being a company. Instead of mocking me, why not stop looking like a fool by pretending you don’t know exactly why they don’t want to make one? You’re an intelligent person–far too intelligent not to know this already. I’m a worthless, pathetic moron, for crying out loud! I couldn’t do anything worth doing on my best day, even before I started losing my memory! And somehow I can figure this out and you can’t?!
“Doesn’t you failing at everything just make it more likely you’re wrong?”
Sure does. Except Apple keeps proving this point right.
Look at every single computer they make. Look at every computer they made five years ago. What has changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. HDD access? Gone. RAM? Soldered. GPU? Integrated or soldered.
Go back ten more years. What changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. The PowerMac G3 from before Steve’s return differs in no way from any other tower computer of that era. Look at the Mac Pro now. Apple, by giving the finger to the idea of a bare motherboard with sockets, slots, bays, and carriages, has created the most powerful, silent, and energy efficient workstation on the market.
Seeing the new Mac Pro, I actually think–for the first time–that Apple could do an xMac. Just put the Mac Mini’s internals into the Mac Pro case. Make it silver instead of black, boom; there’s your headless desktop. Basically the same as the Mac Mini now, really; not a desktop chip or anything. It’d just have more Thunderbolt ports than the Mini does now. And it won’t take sales from the iMac. It’s not going to be a “build your own computer”. You want that, buy Windows and suffer, rightly. If 17 years after Jobs’ return that hasn’t been hammered into people’s heads by now, it never will be. Integration is the way forward. Moonwalk if you must.
Really?
No mentioning of these recent events?
This page really is the Pravda of the tech-world...
Well, here are un-censored Apple Insights:
- iPad Air EXPLODES INTO FIREBALL as terrified fanbois flee Apple Store
- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/8/ipad-explodes-setting-australian-store-customers-f/
"An Apple iApparatchik was straight on the scene to work out why the Air had caught fire."
and this:
- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/apfelkind-cafe-trademark-battle-apple-germany
("The key factor that inspired Römer to fight back was a gagging clause. At first the US company had offered a compromise whereby she could use the Apfelkind logo on her own franchise products but not on any electronic equipment.")
Millions of people a year disagree with your opinion on the value of iMacs.
Partly playing logical nitpicker, partly Devil's advocate, but we don't really know that. A few people in my peer group have found that Apple no longer represents enough of a value proposition to justify the fairly hefty (okay, "enormous") cost premium and have purchased Windows machines instead. Apple's numbers don't reflect how many people have simple said "Screw Mac" altogether.
The entire PC business is in decline. You have yet to show that Apple is suffering more than Dell or HP.
Actually, there *is* some evidence that Apple is sliding compared to Dell or HP. The reasons are not absolutely clear (are they ever?) but PC sales are rebounding somewhat while Mac sales continue to decline.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/09/mac-shipments-continue-to-shrink-as-apple-loses-ground-in-us-pc-market
The knee-jerk response is "Mac buyers went with iPads instead" but that doesn't make any sense because Windows buyers could just as easily do the same thing.
you STILL have the ability to pick any monitor you like...even as your primary.
True, but you have to admit that it would be awfully silly to pay Apple $500 to tie up desk space with a monitor you're not going to use. If one's needs tend towards multiple monitors it does make more sense to skip the built-in display. It's not as unusual a desire as some Apple apologists would suggest.
It's not nonsense it's math. Your $1200 xMac would crater iMac sales which means you would have to generate double the sales to generate the same revenue.
At the risk of oversimplifying the statement, that's like saying Apple would be better off just charging a minimum of $5000 for an entry level computer because it would increase the margin and ASP.
The question is whether a Mac Medium would sell in sufficient numbers to offset any loss of iMac sales. If the ASP were half what it is now but resulted in three times the sales, it's a win (assuming comparable margins).
Even if Apple produced an xMac that filled the void between the Mini and the Pro with the right specs you still wouldn't buy it because you want it for less.
I kinda get that, too, to be honest. The older I get, the harder it gets for me to swallow the Apple tax. Apple's 40%+ margins have resulted in tremendous benefit for Apple's investors and executives, so how about now we give the actual BUYERS a taste?
Imagine the Lennon-esque PR shock wave it would produce if Tim Cook stepped outside and announced "Okay, we've now got more money than Europe and Asia combined so we're gonna ease up and lower the price of everything we sell." I'm definitely no economist and there are at least a million ways I could be wrong, but something in my gut insists it would be a better approach than the current strategy of making buyers choose between a Mac or food!
Apple doesn’t like expandable computers. Never has. Ever. In 36 years of being a company. Instead of mocking me, why not stop looking like a fool by pretending you don’t know exactly why they don’t want to make one? You’re an intelligent person–far too intelligent not to know this already. I’m a worthless, pathetic moron, for crying out loud! I couldn’t do anything worth doing on my best day, even before I started losing my memory! And somehow I can figure this out and you can’t?!
“Doesn’t you failing at everything just make it more likely you’re wrong?”
Sure does. Except Apple keeps proving this point right.
Look at every single computer they make. Look at every computer they made five years ago. What has changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. HDD access? Gone. RAM? Soldered. GPU? Integrated or soldered.
Go back ten more years. What changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. The PowerMac G3 from before Steve’s return differs in no way from any other tower computer of that era. Look at the Mac Pro now. Apple, by giving the finger to the idea of a bare motherboard with sockets, slots, bays, and carriages, has created the most powerful, silent, and energy efficient workstation on the market.
Seeing the new Mac Pro, I actually think–for the first time–that Apple could do an xMac. Just put the Mac Mini’s internals into the Mac Pro case. Make it silver instead of black, boom; there’s your headless desktop. Basically the same as the Mac Mini now, really; not a desktop chip or anything. It’d just have more Thunderbolt ports than the Mini does now. And it won’t take sales from the iMac. It’s not going to be a “build your own computer”. You want that, buy Windows and suffer, rightly. If 17 years after Jobs’ return that hasn’t been hammered into people’s heads by now, it never will be. Integration is the way forward. Moonwalk if you must.
Except that a Mac Mini with a discrete GPU doesn't have doors, openings, slots, bays, cards, blah blah blah. The only reason that the 2012 mac mini lost the GPU was to force the upsell to the iMac for anyone that desired a GPU. Remember that there's an empty 2.5" HDD bay there that can be used for thermal management in the design.
So why not pair a 650M with a quad Core i5 in the $800 2012 Mini? Because it would have cratered iMac sales and drive down ASPs.
Why doesn't the base model 15" MBP have a GPU? To force the ASP higher.
Why is the base Mac Pro $3K? To move the ASP higher.
With the iPad cannibalizing PC sales AND the increased power in PCs in general there's stronger than ever downward pressure on Apple computer ASPs. The Q4 results show revenues rising and profits declining. That's a function of both margins declining and ASPs dropping. Apple protects both religiously when they can even at the expense of volume.
They don't make a $1200 xMac (just) because of some design fetish. They don't make a $1200 xMac because they'd kill Mac Pro and 27" iMac sales. Every single computer model below their top tier is gimped in some way.
Why can't you BTO the mid tier $1499 21" iMac with a 775M with 2GB RAM?
Why can't you BTO the base $1999 15" MBP with a 750M?
Margins and ASP. These top end machines represent some of the best value in the line ups but they are also the most expensive. Apple will not allow you to buy a sunroof without also getting the top model. Hell, they'll even throw in sunroof for free when you buy the top model. Price out the base 15" MBP with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 2.3Ghz i7. It costs $2599. So a free GPU upgrade if you pick the top tier $2599 model with the exact same spec.
So the answer isn't thermal.
So the answer isn't power supply.
So the answer isn't design.
The answer is ASPs and Margins. xMac proponents refuse to get this. APPLE WILL NOT SELL YOU A MID TIER DESKTOP WITHOUT FORCING YOU TO BUY A MONITOR EVERY SINGLE TIME.
People are not stupid. If Apple offered the xMac they could use with any monitor for $800 less money ($1199 vs $1999) for about the same performance they'd do it the majority of the time. It's two extra cables.
So when it comes down to it, my primary wish every Mini replacement cycle is simply "I hope they don't kill the mini". That it will be gimped in some way is a given.
Partly playing logical nitpicker, partly Devil's advocate, but we don't really know that. A few people in my peer group have found that Apple no longer represents enough of a value proposition to justify the fairly hefty (okay, "enormous") cost premium and have purchased Windows machines instead. Apple's numbers don't reflect how many people have simple said "Screw Mac" altogether.
We do know that because they still sell millions of iMacs. Of course there is some threshold where Apple will readjust if iMac sales decline too much but working harder for the same amount of money isn't in Apple's DNA.
Frankly Windows 7 is a good enough OS that Apple sales will always be limited because of the Apple Tax. It's Honda vs BMW.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/09/mac-shipments-continue-to-shrink-as-apple-loses-ground-in-us-pc-market
The knee-jerk response is "Mac buyers went with iPads instead" but that doesn't make any sense because Windows buyers could just as easily do the same thing.
What you are seeing is the difference between consumer confidence and enterprise confidence. Enterprise sales had an uptick. That doesn't help Apple all that much.
The 21" monitor is rather meh. The 27" monitor is good enough that you'd have to pay more than $500 to beat it unless you want to do the dead pixel dance with cut rate 27" monitors.
The reason there's no 24" iMac is because that's a "good enough" size for most pro users. 21" is just too tiny. So instant upsell.
The question is whether a Mac Medium would sell in sufficient numbers to offset any loss of iMac sales. If the ASP were half what it is now but resulted in three times the sales, it's a win (assuming comparable margins).
That's key right? And I don't disagree. What an xMac proponent has to do is show that reducing ASPs by X will increase sales by more than a factor of X or it's a loss. But that's hard to prove.
Instead its a whole lot of handwaving about how they know how to build a more effective product lineup than Apple and of course sales will increase by more than a factor of X and Apple is just being stupid.
Imagine the Lennon-esque PR shock wave it would produce if Tim Cook stepped outside and announced "Okay, we've now got more money than Europe and Asia combined so we're gonna ease up and lower the price of everything we sell." I'm definitely no economist and there are at least a million ways I could be wrong, but something in my gut insists it would be a better approach than the current strategy of making buyers choose between a Mac or food!
Everyone's cost benefit analysis differs and there's no right or wrong answer. Apple generally remains a half-decent value if you buy at launch and they do last a long time. I still have a Core Duo 2006 Mini and a 2009 Core 2 Duo Mini in active duty with the kids.
Windows 7 is pretty decent on a modern machine but man, I'd hate to be running it on that older Core 2 Duo machine much less the Core Duo.
The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768. The iPad Air is 2643.
Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.
The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768. The iPad Air is 2643.
Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.
Intriguing sign of the times as iOS and OS X updates blur. Another two years of that type of progress, and where will we be? Food for thought.
As for the volume argument. Saying Apple need to sell 'x' to make up for potential price cuts is the same now as it was when they sold 1 million units. You could apply the opposite logic and say now they're selling way more...the cost of components (which low volume was used as argument against such cuts...) makes a rational price more expected.
Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150. Cut the string in half. £699. That's how much the entry iMac is worth. No? It's as good an argument as any other. If the Mini has entry crappics, and a dual core for £499 Apple could easily add the cheap as chips 21 incher and a kb/mouse for £200 more.
They've become master mercenaries of up sell. To the point that you can't even configure low level machines with e.g. gpus etc.
So you're right. Apple want you up the ladder. Sure, you can get gpu performance...but you'll be ass-reamed for it and it's got even worse.
You have 3 (is it?) laptops that have a keyboard 'mouse' (trackpad) and monitor included (and SSD...) for under £1000.
But no desktop?!?!? Puh-lease.
Apple used to have 3!!!! models of iMac under 1k!
And the use of 21 inch in the iMac in two models above £1k is outrageous! You used to be able to get a 24inch model close to £1k in times gone by.
Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing.
I can understand why Wizard is apoplectic at times.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple are also pulling that kind of sh** with the Mac Pro. For an entry price of £2500 I want my goddamn k/b, mouse and an IPS display.
They're playing the 'brand' game more than ever.
What next...we're so cool you pay extra for the box?
Lemon Bon Bon.
So the answer isn't thermal.
So the answer isn't power supply.
So the answer isn't design.
The answer is ASPs and Margins. xMac proponents refuse to get this. APPLE WILL NOT SELL YOU A MID TIER DESKTOP WITHOUT FORCING YOU TO BUY A MONITOR EVERY SINGLE TIME.
People are not stupid. If Apple offered the xMac they could use with any monitor for $800 less money ($1199 vs $1999) for about the same performance they'd do it the majority of the time. It's two extra cables.
True.
The iMac gets most of the desktop sales so they force you to buy the monitor too. Extra profit.
The iMac has gone from being a value cosumer machine to a rip off.
I say that as a top end iMac owner.
If they could make a profit on it at £699 with integrated and DVD player...they've ass reaming it at £1150 with no DVD player and still Integrated crappics for over a 1k. Shame. SHAME.
They could add a decent gpu or Iris Pro to the top end Mini to keep Winter and Dave happy. However, it would make the entry iMac look like what it is. Bad value.
Lemon Bon Bon.
£471 price difference between the i7 Mini and the entry iMac on £1150?
What's that?
You could get a 27 inch IPS (not from Apple...), keyboard and mouse, SSD 128 gig drive and probably still have some left over for some fish and chips.
No wonder they didn't update the mini with Iris Pro at the same time as iMac...
...don't want to expose the lie of 'value.'
No wonder Tim has charged Apple with making a more affordable iMac. Where have they been for the last 5 years? World economy in the toilet and we don't have millions in exec option shares.
Look outside the bubble, Apple. It doesn't have to be junk. But for F***sake, meet us half way.
If they can offer us a good deal on X, iWorks software etc. Do the same for hardware. If they don't make junk why offer a mini at £499 (A £250 computer if ever there was one...) or an iPad at £399? The entry Air is the best Mac they have. Price and performance.
'Period.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
Intriguing sign of the times as iOS and OS X updates blur. Another two years of that type of progress, and where will we be? Food for thought.
As for the volume argument. Saying Apple need to sell 'x' to make up for potential price cuts is the same now as it was when they sold 1 million units. You could apply the opposite logic and say now they're selling way more...the cost of components (which low volume was used as argument against such cuts...) makes a rational price more expected.
Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150. Cut the string in half. £699. That's how much the entry iMac is worth. No? It's as good an argument as any other. If the Mini has entry crappics, and a dual core for £499 Apple could easily add the cheap as chips 21 incher and a kb/mouse for £200 more.
They've become master mercenaries of up sell. To the point that you can't even configure low level machines with e.g. gpus etc.
So you're right. Apple want you up the ladder. Sure, you can get gpu performance...but you'll be ass-reamed for it and it's got even worse.
You have 3 (is it?) laptops that have a keyboard 'mouse' (trackpad) and monitor included (and SSD...) for under £1000.
But no desktop?!?!? Puh-lease.
Apple used to have 3!!!! models of iMac under 1k!
And the use of 21 inch in the iMac in two models above £1k is outrageous! You used to be able to get a 24inch model close to £1k in times gone by.
Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing.
I can understand why Wizard is apoplectic at times.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I wish some of the people on this site actually knew what they are talking about and how to compare different products. It never ceases to amaze me at how dumb people can get.
Lemon Bon Bon "Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing." WTF are you talking about?
You have to compare a LOT more than you are.
Go look at the price tag of a certain iMac configuration, then TRY to get a PC (any name brand) and see if they even come close on every level in terms of processor/speed/min & max RAM, speed/size SSD & HDD, specs of the monitor, types and number of ports. You'll find they don't even come close in all of the aspects of the specs of the systems. Basically, you don't know what you are talking about.
All I can say is that Apple's pricing model is actually pretty realistic in MOST cases. If it's more expensive than another, there are valid reasons for the slight premium in price. Plus, Apple is not trying to buy market share by selling ultra cheap products, because there is NO profits in those products and Apple is NOT going to bring their Net Profits down to the 7% or less margin levels like most every PC mfg. Go to EVERY PC mfg and calculate the Net Profit Margin. You take the Gross margin and divide into Net Profit. Most of these PC mfg are LUCKY to have 5% to 7% margin, but a lot of them are in the 1% to 4% range. Apple is in the 20% to 26% range and they'd like to keep it in that range otherwise upper management might lose their job.
Dell is in deep trouble as they had to go private, they are racking too much debt, having too low margins and they are going down the tubes just like IBM and Compaq did. Acer's CEO just resigned due to poor sales, financials, ASUS sucks in terms of Net Profits as does HP, Lenovo, etc.
If you want to compare, please use the specific part numbers and configurations of one computer to the other so we can analyze it further. Taking a low end model and comparing it to an Apple that's targeted in price/specs towards a med to high end market is being dumb.
I wish some of the people on this site actually knew what they are talking about and how to compare different products. It never ceases to amaze me at how dumb people can get.
Lemon Bon Bon "Apple have lose the plot on desktop pricing." WTF are you talking about?
You have to compare a LOT more than you are.
Go look at the price tag of a certain iMac configuration, then TRY to get a PC (any name brand) and see if they even come close on every level in terms of processor/speed/min & max RAM, speed/size SSD & HDD, specs of the monitor, types and number of ports. You'll find they don't even come close in all of the aspects of the specs of the systems. Basically, you don't know what you are talking about.
All I can say is that Apple's pricing model is actually pretty realistic in MOST cases. If it's more expensive than another, there are valid reasons for the slight premium in price. Plus, Apple is not trying to buy market share by selling ultra cheap products, because there is NO profits in those products and Apple is NOT going to bring their Net Profits down to the 7% or less margin levels like most every PC mfg. Go to EVERY PC mfg and calculate the Net Profit Margin. You take the Gross margin and divide into Net Profit. Most of these PC mfg are LUCKY to have 5% to 7% margin, but a lot of them are in the 1% to 4% range. Apple is in the 20% to 26% range and they'd like to keep it in that range otherwise upper management might lose their job.
Dell is in deep trouble as they had to go private, they are racking too much debt, having too low margins and they are going down the tubes just like IBM and Compaq did. Acer's CEO just resigned due to poor sales, financials, ASUS sucks in terms of Net Profits as does HP, Lenovo, etc.
If you want to compare, please use the specific part numbers and configurations of one computer to the other so we can analyze it further. Taking a low end model and comparing it to an Apple that's targeted in price/specs towards a med to high end market is being dumb.
Blah, blah, blah.
Same old. WTF are YOU talking about?
Nobody is talking about junk for £399. (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.
Pricing, they're losing touch.
Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.
And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?
Apple. Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple are also pulling that kind of sh** with the Mac Pro. For an entry price of £2500 I want my goddamn k/b, mouse and an IPS display.
They're playing the 'brand' game more than ever.
What next...we're so cool you pay extra for the box?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Deal with it. IF you are complaining over the k/b, mouse and monitor on the Mac Pro? That just tells me you aren't their target market. I can understand them not putting a keyboard/mouse, but not including a monitor? That's standard.
Pros choose whatever monitor(s) they want, some might already have the monitors they want. Most non-AIO don't come with a monitor.
Blah, blah, blah.
Same old. WTF are YOU talking about?
Nobody is talking about junk for £399. (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.
Pricing, they're losing touch.
Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.
And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?
Apple. Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.
Lemon Bon Bon.
"Take a piece of string between a £399 Dell vs an entry iMac on £1150."
A Dell for that amount IS NOT a i5 or i7 processor, it's a i3 or Celeron, the HDD in that system is the worst POS money can buy, 4GB of RAM not upgradeable and I honestly think you are just a kid with no real job and you simply can't afford to buy your own computer and your Mum won't give you the money.
Then maybe you are a candidate for a used Mac, or a whatever else you can afford, that's used.
What are you going to do with a computer anyway, aside from immature posts? Games?
Blah, blah, blah.
Same old. WTF are YOU talking about?
Nobody is talking about junk for £399. (But note, they DO sell a Mini for £499 AND an iPad (with screen...heh...) for £399.
Pricing, they're losing touch.
Only Apple removes a DVD drive and charges you £60 for it.
And do we have to get back on the ram prices again?
Apple. Have increasingly been about keeping shareholders happy despite what they say.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon,
You really don't know what you are talking about in terms of keeping up with reality.
The reason why they removed the DVD is people weren't using them, and it's far cheaper in the long run to do it externally and to charge people for it, if they need it.
Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.
Apple has been providing more and faster SSD storage options which are faster and more reliable than HDD and HDD's are on their way out. I predict that HDDs will be a thing of the past completely in about 2 years in 99% of Apple's computers.
Apple is moving (obviously) away from giving a keyboard/ms on headless units. I think it's because they are seeing more and more people keeping their existing keyboard and mouse, or buying whatever they want.
Apple does their own research in terms of what people want and various price points they feel the market will bear.
And Apple is NOT going to be the low cost leader since there is NO money in that.
Seriously, you need to compare a like system as close as you can get and see what you get and don't get with each and figure out why one costs what it costs.
Otherwise, i think your posts are becoming a waste of MY time and others.
Geee Lemon you are making me use the define function in IOS.???????????????????? Apoplectic may not be the right word, I just think it is sad that Apple can't do better. Further I'm frustrated that the laptop line in many ways is the only rational choice for the Mac buying public. Further it has been this way for years, even Pepsi and Coco-Cola experiment with new products. Except for New Coke it is good for the product lines.