what will the feature bring to imacs?



  • Reply 41 of 47
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member

    I do not see the new iMac being accepted like the original iMac was.

    Hmmm. You're right. It isn't. And sales back you up. Even in this soft economy, PC makers are still selling to a saturated market. And even in a bigger market...Apple 'can't' sell computers.

    If there was any justice there'd be an iMac 2 on every desktop out there. It looks gorgeous. It's many times the 'looker' over the 'Jellybean'. And yes, Amorph, that 'arm' is about more than style. Yet the iMac hasn't made a dent in M$ marketshare. They should be walking out stores. Yet. Not. Why? Look to the Cube. We have Son of Cube.

    You can talk about medians. And yes, the original Jelly Bean did start at over a K. However, relatively quickly, it breached the 1K barrier and had at least a couple of models sub-1K for MOST of its life. The 'new' iMac cannot say the same and it's paying the price.

    Style's nice all things being equal. But if you can't afford that style...you resign yourself to function.

    The edu' market is ramming that argument down Apple's throat. (And yes, Amorph, the 'IT consolidation' isn't helping: but it aint the only contributing factor.)

    Apple just doesn't help itself sometimes. eg: it took AGES to learn that consumers wanted CD/RW drives in the iMac Jelly bean. They thought that DVD was 'IT'. 'IT' WASN'T and...lots of lost sales. 'Some' people wanted a bigger iMac...and Apple came up with it too late when they realised that the 'new' iMac was going to be more 'Cube' that original iMac.

    120,000 (or whatever) iMac 2 sales is flat out pathetic. And a clear indicator that something is wrong.

    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 42 of 47
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member

    Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

    ... a clear indicator that something is wrong.

    Too tired to dance right now, so, ahem, price, especially for an AIO.
  • Reply 43 of 47
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member

    Too tired to dance right now

    I think you've earned the rest!

    Hmmm. What choices do Apple have for their consumer desktops? They must be aware of the underwhelming sales. Will they 'can' the iMac2/eMac and/or introduce something alongside them?

    Is it easier to drop in a 970 cpu and hope Quark fanciers do the rest?

    I think if Apple produced a fully configurable shell (from £500-£1200...an iCube 'mini-tower') where the consumer themselves decided how much they wanted to pay...then Apple would certainly offer more flexibility to those wanting to be included in the 'target' markets.

    I just think it would be great if I could configure an iCube mini-tower/cuboid workstation with the 970/ram/HD/graphic card and display of my choice.

    Can it really be that difficult? Apple are the company that gave us the GUI (as we know it...), iPod, Mac and the fairly flexible music store. A bit of consumer flexibility in their desktop hardware?

    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 44 of 47
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member

    Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

    . . . Hmmm. What choices do Apple have for their consumer desktops? They must be aware of the underwhelming sales. Will they 'can' the iMac2/eMac and/or introduce something alongside them?

    Is it easier to drop in a 970 cpu and hope Quark fanciers do the rest? . . .

    Apple cannot stop making an iMac without very negative marketing and business repercussions. The only logical move is to remove the roadblock to iMac sales, and I sure hope Apple knows what the roadblock is. In my opinion, it is not performance. Those who want performance usually buy PowerMacs and PowerBooks. So if Apple put an IBM 970 into the iMac, it would sell a little better but fall far short of its potential. I think the real markets for the iMac are the home, general office use and all other places where a $699 gum drop iMac would have sold well. Because the new iMac is superior, it could have a little higher price tag.

    The trick to increasing iMac sales is to first know exactly what is keeping its manufacturing cost too high, and Apple has this data. Second is to apply engineering talent to the task of reducing these costs, and third is to drop the price. The bottom end iMac would have the smallest profit margin to sell into the most price sensitive markets. If I'm not mistaken, this is what Apple did with the original iMac.

    Because folks like to argue about numbers, I'll say that the entry level 15 inch iMac should sell for $799. It just needs a cheap CD-ROM drive and the minimum acceptable video chip. I think a bottom end 17 inch would sell well too, for even $999. The models that Apple provides above these two is where profit is made. If Apple did this, you would see iMacs popping up everywhere.
  • Reply 45 of 47
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    I agree with most of what you say, Snoopy. £795 inc VAT entry level iMac2. Hell they're there with the entry iBook. £995 inc VAT for the 17 incher.

    I think the 970 will be a non-issue. It depends on what else is coming from IBM. IF it IS a G3+SIMD,we may see 1.4-2 gig G3+ variants.

    Though, if the Towers get dual 1.4-1.8 then it's obvious that the iMac2 will get single 970s.

    It depends. If the iMac2 takes as long to get bumped as it did the first time around. It'll be the single 970s.

    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 46 of 47
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    I'd like to add just a couple more comments about the iMac.

    Some will argue that Apple cannot cut profit margins, and this is true to a point. However, if Apple has several models of a product like the iMac, they can have very low profit margin entry level models, and make the profit on better models. Even if all the additional (new) sales were of the entry level models, and sales of the upper models stayed the same, Apple would not be making fewer profit dollars than they are now. If Apple made even a slight profit on the entry level products they would be better off than now, in two ways. First the few extra dollars profit, and second the efficiency of higher production quantities would give them a little more profit all around.

    What a company must do is make entry level computers undesirable enough, so many buyers will move up to the better, more profitable models. For example, the processor should purposely be slower, but adequate for such tasks as general office applications and home email and internet usage. Maybe just a 600 MHz G4 or whatever is really cheap. Another advantage of getting sales up is to make the iMac popular. Once it starts showing up all over, people will begin to want it more, and not all new sales will be entry level iMac, but better models too.
  • Reply 47 of 47
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    I agree, Snoopy.

    However, I think Apple can lower margins IF we see a continuing upward trend in their Software Sales and 'other' Services/Product's profit figures.

    This figure seems to be creeping up. Who'da thunk it would be rivalling profits from Tower sales?

    It's going to get bigger too! iTunes music sore. (...and more interestingly, further expansion into Windows territory...) iLife. Express. Bumps to existing software. Final Cut 4. Panther. A possible office app suite... And 'other products' such as DLD ala iPod...and then there's X-serve, X-Raid...no doubt followed by more Enterprise products as Apple grows in confidence...

    ...this all suggests a new strategy to look elsewhere to boost revenue...and eventually, Apple may be able to cut margins and be compensated elsewhere.

    The relatively recent Tower cuts and the dramatic move to cut monitor prices suggests a trend. Only in the next half year or so will we know if Apple is serious about growth. I would tentatively predict a further trimming of margins.

    We'll see, I guess.

    Lemon Bon Bon
Sign In or Register to comment.