The point being there is a market in limbo. I'll never jump to Wintel, but some of them do (or never bother to jump to the Mac.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
On this I would say that it is more a missed opertunity for "Switchers" to the Mac platform by the absence of this system.
I think that the proprietary issue is a red herring. Currently Apple makes too little profit (less than 10% as I understand it) on the iMac and too much (more than 40% as I understand it) on the PowerMac line. They can make their money selling me a new affordable cube every 3-4 years at say 20% margin) and just ignore the upgrade industry, like they do with the PowerMac line. It's an expensive and unpredicable business to sell upgrades. Apple would rather offer you the next great thing and that's fine at a reasonable price
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you are wondering whatever happened to the Cube:
As do I. I have 4 cubes for my office and I much prefer them to the towers. I just don't have the acreage for the towers anymore, I never add HDs or PCI slots. I'll up the RAM and maybe the HD and that's about it.
I love the LCD iMacs, but there are places where I want a bigger monitor. The cube really was great for my needs. I got them at closeout: $1499 including a 15" LCD. If Apple brought them back and matched the iMac specs, I'd pay $999 for 4 more of them, and spring for 17" LCDs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Cube was the best computer that Apple or anyone else has ever come out with. As noted I have a DP500 under my desk and as far as power on time goes the Cube is used at least 100 to 1 over the dual 500. I use OSX 10.1.5 on it and it performs quite well, no speed issues for me even at 450Mhz. For me the silence of a machine that is on whenever I am home far outweighs the speed improvement that the noisy tower provides.
An updated Cube with a Radeon or Gforce video card and a 1 GHz G4 would outsell anything on the market and make "Switchers" flock to the Mac platform. Change nothing but the video and processor speed and Apple couldn't make enough of them. There is a downside though that makes this a pipe dream ~ Who would buy an iMac if they could have this?
First let me say that if they made a G4 Cube (around 800 or a Ghz) with a GeF4Ti I'd buy one in a heartbeat. As it is, I'll be getting a 17" iMac as an updated cube is just a dream.
Having said that, I think this idea of a "market building" machine in the low price range is flawed. There have been numerous market studies that prove the "bottom end" or bargain computers don't sell. They certainly wouldn't build market share. First , the margin would be less offering less profit. Secondly, most people in the market for a computer don't buy high end because they can't afford it. (High end is for pros). They also don't buy low end because there is a perception that it will be outdated too fast. The vast majority of people migrate toward and purchase the mid level computers. They feel they have a good balance of price/features/usefullness.
I'm not saying most Mac people act this way but most consumers in general. It has been proven time and again. I do think, however, that if Apple offered expandibility in both pro and consumer machines that would do more to increase their market share. As I said before the idea of a G4 cube, or even a G4 iMac that I could upgrade would be awesome and something that would attract many Wintel people.
<strong>. . . I think this idea of a "market building" machine in the low price range is flawed. There have been numerous market studies that prove the "bottom end" or bargain computers don't sell. They certainly wouldn't build market share. First , the margin would be less offering less profit. Secondly, most people in the market for a computer don't buy high end because they can't afford it. (High end is for pros). They also don't buy low end because there is a perception that it will be outdated too fast. The vast majority of people migrate toward and purchase the mid level computers. . . </strong><hr></blockquote>
Good points. However, entry level computers do have a purpose, they help the perception that the computer is not that expensive, and this would help Apples image with switchers.
Car Makers have been bringing people in for years with the advertised price of a base model car, then selling them a more expensive car with lots of options.
Apple does have room in their product line for this. They could easly add a 733 mhz tower at the bottom end, with 0 R&D cost. They build a bare minimum of them. Likewise the R&D cost of the Cube is already spent, and would require little to upgrade the system bus to 133 mhz.
The all in one computer is good, and has help Apple quite a bit. But it will not work for all consumers, and the tower is too expensive for most consumers, so Apple is missing an oppertunity for switchers with thier current product matrix.
Comments
<strong>
The point being there is a market in limbo. I'll never jump to Wintel, but some of them do (or never bother to jump to the Mac.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
On this I would say that it is more a missed opertunity for "Switchers" to the Mac platform by the absence of this system.
<strong>
I think that the proprietary issue is a red herring. Currently Apple makes too little profit (less than 10% as I understand it) on the iMac and too much (more than 40% as I understand it) on the PowerMac line. They can make their money selling me a new affordable cube every 3-4 years at say 20% margin) and just ignore the upgrade industry, like they do with the PowerMac line. It's an expensive and unpredicable business to sell upgrades. Apple would rather offer you the next great thing and that's fine at a reasonable price
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you are wondering whatever happened to the Cube:
<a href="http://www.cubeowner.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.cubeowner.com/</a>;
<strong>
As do I. I have 4 cubes for my office and I much prefer them to the towers. I just don't have the acreage for the towers anymore, I never add HDs or PCI slots. I'll up the RAM and maybe the HD and that's about it.
I love the LCD iMacs, but there are places where I want a bigger monitor. The cube really was great for my needs. I got them at closeout: $1499 including a 15" LCD. If Apple brought them back and matched the iMac specs, I'd pay $999 for 4 more of them, and spring for 17" LCDs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Cube was the best computer that Apple or anyone else has ever come out with. As noted I have a DP500 under my desk and as far as power on time goes the Cube is used at least 100 to 1 over the dual 500. I use OSX 10.1.5 on it and it performs quite well, no speed issues for me even at 450Mhz. For me the silence of a machine that is on whenever I am home far outweighs the speed improvement that the noisy tower provides.
An updated Cube with a Radeon or Gforce video card and a 1 GHz G4 would outsell anything on the market and make "Switchers" flock to the Mac platform. Change nothing but the video and processor speed and Apple couldn't make enough of them. There is a downside though that makes this a pipe dream ~ Who would buy an iMac if they could have this?
Having said that, I think this idea of a "market building" machine in the low price range is flawed. There have been numerous market studies that prove the "bottom end" or bargain computers don't sell. They certainly wouldn't build market share. First , the margin would be less offering less profit. Secondly, most people in the market for a computer don't buy high end because they can't afford it. (High end is for pros). They also don't buy low end because there is a perception that it will be outdated too fast. The vast majority of people migrate toward and purchase the mid level computers. They feel they have a good balance of price/features/usefullness.
I'm not saying most Mac people act this way but most consumers in general. It has been proven time and again. I do think, however, that if Apple offered expandibility in both pro and consumer machines that would do more to increase their market share. As I said before the idea of a G4 cube, or even a G4 iMac that I could upgrade would be awesome and something that would attract many Wintel people.
<strong>. . . I think this idea of a "market building" machine in the low price range is flawed. There have been numerous market studies that prove the "bottom end" or bargain computers don't sell. They certainly wouldn't build market share. First , the margin would be less offering less profit. Secondly, most people in the market for a computer don't buy high end because they can't afford it. (High end is for pros). They also don't buy low end because there is a perception that it will be outdated too fast. The vast majority of people migrate toward and purchase the mid level computers. . . </strong><hr></blockquote>
Good points. However, entry level computers do have a purpose, they help the perception that the computer is not that expensive, and this would help Apples image with switchers.
Car Makers have been bringing people in for years with the advertised price of a base model car, then selling them a more expensive car with lots of options.
Apple does have room in their product line for this. They could easly add a 733 mhz tower at the bottom end, with 0 R&D cost. They build a bare minimum of them. Likewise the R&D cost of the Cube is already spent, and would require little to upgrade the system bus to 133 mhz.
The all in one computer is good, and has help Apple quite a bit. But it will not work for all consumers, and the tower is too expensive for most consumers, so Apple is missing an oppertunity for switchers with thier current product matrix.