See how skewed the mac communities thinking has become? People think of a proposed (WITHOUT DISPLAY) price of 1299 as "CHEAP" ???? hello? 1299USD buys one hell of kick ass PC, definitely nothing cheap about that price, certainly not 1499.
CHEAP, in terms the rest of the industry uses, means 500USD with 17" CRT or 600 with 15" LCD, that's what "cheap" means to a switcher.
The 1299 I propose is far from "CHEAP" it's juat a fair deal for a desktop, not in any way cheap.
The current mac communitry has difficulty seeing this because in the last 4 years it's been distilled down to the hardest of the die hard mac fans, but those people will not help you win back a healthy marketshare/user base. Gotta make something to suck in some of those other 97.3% of users.
Might it be that Apple has started to charge for apps ie: iLife, and iTMS to off set profits from the desktop line. I hope they keep the prices with in 200$ and keep a sub 1k G4 1.4G around till Sept. for switchers. Bate and switch.
Except iMacs penalize you with an immobile computer sporting laptop level performance and price with none of the benefits and ALL of the expansion handicaps. NO pros will buy them, and no switcher that favors a tower based desktop.
Not as true as it used to be once upon a time. Plenty of PC's stay in service a long long time, at both of my universities PC's stay in service for at least 6-7 years. New machines move in, but older ones aren't disposed of, they get moved to other departments.
But plenty of those PCs are expandable, so when the HD or GPU gets to be hopelessly obsolete, you can usually swap in a newer one. The iMac, for all intents and purposes, is a machine with almost everything soldered into the mobo.
As for pricing, I think that Apple can keep tags as they are, give or take $100. The beauty of the G5 is even if Apple's gain for each computer is less than that of the current G4, the volume of computers sold to the slobbering mass of prople like me (that's probably gonna be 600,000 mac fan(atics) make the Powermacs the most profitable thing that Apple ever made. As Dell has demonstrated, many cheap units sold is better than a few expensive computers sold.
We've gone over all of this many, many, many, many, many times before. for example: how amny people actually upgrade their processors as opposed to buying a new machine? Etc. etc. Anyway, one thing I would point out would be Fred Anderson's statements at recent financial calls about focusing on gaining market share over maintaining margins. He said this kind of stuff as a heads-up to analysts to watch out for just that sort of thing. Jobs has pointed out that Apple's market share has risen with consumers, but not for professional and educational customers. He's said it's something they want to focus on. I doubt Apple would say one thing and do another. Maybe the prices go up a bit depending on the cost of the machines, but I'd bet that given prior intent, they will do their best to maintain pricing given the better value of these machines, nevermind the possibility of dropping prices. I could be wrong, but I'm just trying to be rational about it.
On another note, i went to a BMW dealer and told the salesman WTF? If Ford can make Ford tempos for less money why can't you drop the price of your 325i?
Considering Ford ceased making the Tempo several years ago .....
On another note, i went to a BMW dealer and told the salesman WTF? If Ford can make Ford tempos for less money why can't you drop the price of your 325i?
These machines are considerably better than the PowerMacs currently on sale. Ergo, they will be more expensive, if only $100-200/10-20% in each (Good, Better, Best) category (but possibly much more expensive.)
Those who expect them to be lower because they believe Apple should sell them for less are likely to be disappointed. Apple would merely alienate its existing customers and at the same time sell them for much less than they could get, especially at a time when presumably they'll be high demand and short supply. If Apple was going to release a sub-$1000 PowerMac for example, they'd already have priced the low end G4 at $900. Or else, the sub-$1000 model would be less powerful than the low end G4.
I know, it's far from what "we" want.
Apple will release upgrades to its entry level machines in the coming months, it'll have to. And the iCheap, while not a sure thing, has to be at least something being considered in case Apple needs a sudden boost in market share, which the potential loss of Microsoft support would absolutely require. Jobs may be many things, he's not an idiot.
I think the new PowerMac is going to put a lot of downward pressure on the i/eMac pricing as well as against used machines and upgrade cards. One way or another we'll be able to find cheap (relatively) fast Macs very soon.
With a $1299-1499 G5 what do you think a fair price for an eMac or iMac 1 Ghz G4 would be? What about a 1.4 Ghz G4 upgrade card?
I'm waiting for a 970 iMac. I just really don't want to buy a screen on top of the tower cost. And I couldn't settle for some cheap screen just to get by. I don't think I am alone in this thinking.
Am I wrong in thinking that because of the 970 we won't have the slow bus any longer for the iMacs and eMacs?
I have a 400 DVSE iMac. I would guess that a 1.2 or 1.4 gig 970 would feel like flying.
I look at a laptop lineup that's just so damn competitive and I just can't get my head around Apple's failure to get desktops of the same overall value to market. WTF???
Ok, so there was a big chip problem, and that's about to be fixed, what now?
e/iMacs?
Well, to me, I think the eMac could get cheaper still, and the iMac has to get substantially cheaper, down to 1500-1599 for a superdrive 17" iMac. How can anyone buy the current iMac over a PB12? Makes no sense, it's not just PC's that make far greater value propositions than Apple's desktops, it's their very own laptops, a situation that's reversed throughout the rest of the industry. It makes absolutely no sense.
But back to the question at hand.
Just for shits and giggles, seeing as how Apple has been Able to cut 200USD out of every pro laptop, why would it be out of the question in the case of desktops that carry a far higher margin???
And margins DO NOT have to be threatened in the least. Yes iMacs are a bit of a tighter squeeze than Pmacs, so you ask two questions. One, is it possible to get an iMac down to 1500USD ?? Two, if you get a 1299 PMac bottom end, who the fvck will by a 1499-1599 17" iMac?
Easy answers. One, If a PB12, with the added cost of miniturizartion and a battery can be 1599, then so can a 17" iMac using desktop spec drives/chips and no battery. Two...
Boutique computer = iMac. Sell the iMac loaded and give consumers a choice. You get a lowly G4 (for now) but you could get more RAM, a bigger HDD, a superdrive and a pretty nice 17" widescreen LCD for your 1500USD. If you want the PPC970, faster I/O, expansion, you pay a bit less (1299) and get the low end tower, but you don't get an LCD, you don't get a superdrive, you possibly even get less standard RAM (albeit much faster), and mebbe even a weaker GPU.
That gives the consumer CHOICE of a reasonable entry cost in a proven format (the tower) or a loaded AIO (the iMac) also at a reasonable cost.
Does it hurt Apple? NOPE. Getting your tower loaded up like the iMac will move it into "better" price territory (anywhere from 500-600 dollars more than the iMac17").
In this format, you effectively protect the sales of your high-end towers and your iMac and simultaneously float the entry level tower into the mix.
Those who want a loaded consumer machine will buy an iMac. Those who want an entry to the pro machines (without as many extras) will buy the "good" config, and those who want a loaded tower will effectively start their bidding at the "better" rung of the PMac ladder.
CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE (I may have to start a new dance) And all within the precedent and cost constraints already proven possible by the recent changes in laptop pricing!
Before ye scoff too much, go back and search for my rants about PBook prices, you will find that current prices now match my proposals almost exactly (you can thank me later)
"Two, if you get a 1299 PMac bottom end, who the fvck will by a 1499-1599 17" iMac? "
I would. A 17" screen, which I don't happen to own, would put me back another $700. Plus, I don't think we are going to see a 1299 pmac.
Plus, the iMac takes up less space which for me is another consideration. Plus, the iMac form factor is very ergonometric. Another consideration for me.
The question was not a rhetorical one, rather an actual statement of people's concerns.
AS I said, it leaves choice. For some a loaded AIO makes a better choice, for others an entry tower. With some real performance differentiation, Apple has a real possibility to provide both at the prices I suggest.
Apple owns the AIO market, unfortunatelky for them it isn't that huge. They have nothing in the mid-range tower market, and that is a far far bigger switch proposition than AIO's.
I'm NOT disparraging one or the other, I just outlined a reasonable scenario wherein Apple can finally cater to BOTH of these significant targets -- AIO's and mid-range (entry level) pro towers.
I look at a laptop lineup that's just so damn competitive and I just can't get my head around Apple's failure to get desktops of the same overall value to market. WTF???
It's simple really.
Steve is, in spite of his mercurialness, a remarkable pragmatist at business. After that crew came in, they hacked out everything that didn't contribute either short term or long term. From what was left, they divided the business into two areas. The stuff that could contribute to the long term health of Apple became price/feature competitive while the stuff that couldn't compete was used to suck consumers out of as much money as possible for the short term.
Laptops are cheap because feature-wise they are competitive. Apple can win this market and gain share. The desktops are expensive because they suck and Apple knows it - they just haven't been able to get the goods out of Mot to change things so they're going to extract every penny out of loyal Mac users that will pay anything to avoid Wintel.
The plan probably from either now or early next year on is that since Apple will be competitive on features, they will go after marketshare with everything they have - all $4B of it. The profits will come from secondary sales - software, accessories (iPod, monitors, new stuff... hmm), and services (iTMS, .mac) which command higher margins.
Apple may not have enough coming in from these markets right now to really slash margins, but be sure that the eventual plan is to be competitive on price and exceptional on features. Ironically, this might mean that prices of the new machines will be the same or *less* than the current ones.
The big clue about the strategy change on hardware was last Jan when the baseline prices started to get slashed. PMac prices now aren't awful, if you ignore the performance. Drop the current prices on the rumored machines and things look pretty good.
What this means, Matsu, is that you can probably put the price dance in hibernation. Apple will be after marketshare, not minimal profitability. Toward that goal, I expect more strategic acquisitions, and Apple will need to get sector penetration - an agreement with IBM where they start using Apple or IBM hardware and OS X in their installations and support would be a move in that direction.
And I will once again say that there is an opportunity for Apple to jump on Opteron and have a second line that won't fall into the morass of x86 and still give companies an option in Windows. It's yet another mechanism for gaining share and driving those secondary profits. I don't believe that Jobs is as loyal to PPC as we are.
Apple is going to price these new desktops as high as possible and I'm glad.
They have been making meager profits, like $15 - $40 million for a long time. Remember, they took a $247 million dollar loss a while ago and it could happen again. It takes a lot of $14 millions to add up to $247 million. The PowerMac is their money maker and that's what they need to do. The iTunes Music Stores isn't going to be making huge profits.
This talk about keeping the price low for potential switchers is ridiculous. The number of switchers per quarter is too low for it matter. There has not really been much indication that lower prices sell more Macs. The eMac has never sold that well.
I think it's about time to give up on the idea of going out of the way to get switchers. Apple has tried everything from the iApps to the retail stores to the Switch campaign and the results have been almost unnoticeable. The future lies in making money from Windows users any way they can. Apple will look at the Power Macs as a way to get the profits it needs to design new products.
Comments
CHEAP, in terms the rest of the industry uses, means 500USD with 17" CRT or 600 with 15" LCD, that's what "cheap" means to a switcher.
The 1299 I propose is far from "CHEAP" it's juat a fair deal for a desktop, not in any way cheap.
The current mac communitry has difficulty seeing this because in the last 4 years it's been distilled down to the hardest of the die hard mac fans, but those people will not help you win back a healthy marketshare/user base. Gotta make something to suck in some of those other 97.3% of users.
and isn't Sun bleeding red too?
http://news.cnet.com/investor/quotes....html?tag=srch
the stock was down to 2.34!
Usual figures count units sold per year and does not count existing users.
Macs last longer and the turnover is slower than the PC market. PCs churn thier user base with cheaper and faster machines.
And what kinda work do you use your PC for?
As for pricing, I think that Apple can keep tags as they are, give or take $100. The beauty of the G5 is even if Apple's gain for each computer is less than that of the current G4, the volume of computers sold to the slobbering mass of prople like me (that's probably gonna be 600,000 mac fan(atics) make the Powermacs the most profitable thing that Apple ever made. As Dell has demonstrated, many cheap units sold is better than a few expensive computers sold.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
I
On another note, i went to a BMW dealer and told the salesman WTF? If Ford can make Ford tempos for less money why can't you drop the price of your 325i?
Considering Ford ceased making the Tempo several years ago .....
Originally posted by keyboardf12
On another note, i went to a BMW dealer and told the salesman WTF? If Ford can make Ford tempos for less money why can't you drop the price of your 325i?
Hey. I drive a Tempo
Yeh, no 970s for me.
Those who expect them to be lower because they believe Apple should sell them for less are likely to be disappointed. Apple would merely alienate its existing customers and at the same time sell them for much less than they could get, especially at a time when presumably they'll be high demand and short supply. If Apple was going to release a sub-$1000 PowerMac for example, they'd already have priced the low end G4 at $900. Or else, the sub-$1000 model would be less powerful than the low end G4.
I know, it's far from what "we" want.
Apple will release upgrades to its entry level machines in the coming months, it'll have to. And the iCheap, while not a sure thing, has to be at least something being considered in case Apple needs a sudden boost in market share, which the potential loss of Microsoft support would absolutely require. Jobs may be many things, he's not an idiot.
With a $1299-1499 G5 what do you think a fair price for an eMac or iMac 1 Ghz G4 would be? What about a 1.4 Ghz G4 upgrade card?
Considering Ford ceased making the Tempo several years ago .....
really. ok insert name of another american car in the same price range where i mentioned tempo.
guess i've been driving an upmarket computer so i that news passed me by.
Am I wrong in thinking that because of the 970 we won't have the slow bus any longer for the iMacs and eMacs?
I have a 400 DVSE iMac. I would guess that a 1.2 or 1.4 gig 970 would feel like flying.
Ok, so there was a big chip problem, and that's about to be fixed, what now?
e/iMacs?
Well, to me, I think the eMac could get cheaper still, and the iMac has to get substantially cheaper, down to 1500-1599 for a superdrive 17" iMac. How can anyone buy the current iMac over a PB12? Makes no sense, it's not just PC's that make far greater value propositions than Apple's desktops, it's their very own laptops, a situation that's reversed throughout the rest of the industry. It makes absolutely no sense.
But back to the question at hand.
Just for shits and giggles, seeing as how Apple has been Able to cut 200USD out of every pro laptop, why would it be out of the question in the case of desktops that carry a far higher margin???
And margins DO NOT have to be threatened in the least. Yes iMacs are a bit of a tighter squeeze than Pmacs, so you ask two questions. One, is it possible to get an iMac down to 1500USD ?? Two, if you get a 1299 PMac bottom end, who the fvck will by a 1499-1599 17" iMac?
Easy answers. One, If a PB12, with the added cost of miniturizartion and a battery can be 1599, then so can a 17" iMac using desktop spec drives/chips and no battery. Two...
Boutique computer = iMac. Sell the iMac loaded and give consumers a choice. You get a lowly G4 (for now) but you could get more RAM, a bigger HDD, a superdrive and a pretty nice 17" widescreen LCD for your 1500USD. If you want the PPC970, faster I/O, expansion, you pay a bit less (1299) and get the low end tower, but you don't get an LCD, you don't get a superdrive, you possibly even get less standard RAM (albeit much faster), and mebbe even a weaker GPU.
That gives the consumer CHOICE of a reasonable entry cost in a proven format (the tower) or a loaded AIO (the iMac) also at a reasonable cost.
Does it hurt Apple? NOPE. Getting your tower loaded up like the iMac will move it into "better" price territory (anywhere from 500-600 dollars more than the iMac17").
In this format, you effectively protect the sales of your high-end towers and your iMac and simultaneously float the entry level tower into the mix.
Those who want a loaded consumer machine will buy an iMac. Those who want an entry to the pro machines (without as many extras) will buy the "good" config, and those who want a loaded tower will effectively start their bidding at the "better" rung of the PMac ladder.
CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE (I may have to start a new dance) And all within the precedent and cost constraints already proven possible by the recent changes in laptop pricing!
Before ye scoff too much, go back and search for my rants about PBook prices, you will find that current prices now match my proposals almost exactly (you can thank me later)
"Two, if you get a 1299 PMac bottom end, who the fvck will by a 1499-1599 17" iMac? "
I would. A 17" screen, which I don't happen to own, would put me back another $700. Plus, I don't think we are going to see a 1299 pmac.
Plus, the iMac takes up less space which for me is another consideration. Plus, the iMac form factor is very ergonometric. Another consideration for me.
The question was not a rhetorical one, rather an actual statement of people's concerns.
AS I said, it leaves choice. For some a loaded AIO makes a better choice, for others an entry tower. With some real performance differentiation, Apple has a real possibility to provide both at the prices I suggest.
Apple owns the AIO market, unfortunatelky for them it isn't that huge. They have nothing in the mid-range tower market, and that is a far far bigger switch proposition than AIO's.
I'm NOT disparraging one or the other, I just outlined a reasonable scenario wherein Apple can finally cater to BOTH of these significant targets -- AIO's and mid-range (entry level) pro towers.
Originally posted by Matsu
I look at a laptop lineup that's just so damn competitive and I just can't get my head around Apple's failure to get desktops of the same overall value to market. WTF???
It's simple really.
Steve is, in spite of his mercurialness, a remarkable pragmatist at business. After that crew came in, they hacked out everything that didn't contribute either short term or long term. From what was left, they divided the business into two areas. The stuff that could contribute to the long term health of Apple became price/feature competitive while the stuff that couldn't compete was used to suck consumers out of as much money as possible for the short term.
Laptops are cheap because feature-wise they are competitive. Apple can win this market and gain share. The desktops are expensive because they suck and Apple knows it - they just haven't been able to get the goods out of Mot to change things so they're going to extract every penny out of loyal Mac users that will pay anything to avoid Wintel.
The plan probably from either now or early next year on is that since Apple will be competitive on features, they will go after marketshare with everything they have - all $4B of it. The profits will come from secondary sales - software, accessories (iPod, monitors, new stuff... hmm), and services (iTMS, .mac) which command higher margins.
Apple may not have enough coming in from these markets right now to really slash margins, but be sure that the eventual plan is to be competitive on price and exceptional on features. Ironically, this might mean that prices of the new machines will be the same or *less* than the current ones.
The big clue about the strategy change on hardware was last Jan when the baseline prices started to get slashed. PMac prices now aren't awful, if you ignore the performance. Drop the current prices on the rumored machines and things look pretty good.
What this means, Matsu, is that you can probably put the price dance in hibernation. Apple will be after marketshare, not minimal profitability. Toward that goal, I expect more strategic acquisitions, and Apple will need to get sector penetration - an agreement with IBM where they start using Apple or IBM hardware and OS X in their installations and support would be a move in that direction.
And I will once again say that there is an opportunity for Apple to jump on Opteron and have a second line that won't fall into the morass of x86 and still give companies an option in Windows. It's yet another mechanism for gaining share and driving those secondary profits. I don't believe that Jobs is as loyal to PPC as we are.
They have been making meager profits, like $15 - $40 million for a long time. Remember, they took a $247 million dollar loss a while ago and it could happen again. It takes a lot of $14 millions to add up to $247 million. The PowerMac is their money maker and that's what they need to do. The iTunes Music Stores isn't going to be making huge profits.
This talk about keeping the price low for potential switchers is ridiculous. The number of switchers per quarter is too low for it matter. There has not really been much indication that lower prices sell more Macs. The eMac has never sold that well.
I think it's about time to give up on the idea of going out of the way to get switchers. Apple has tried everything from the iApps to the retail stores to the Switch campaign and the results have been almost unnoticeable. The future lies in making money from Windows users any way they can. Apple will look at the Power Macs as a way to get the profits it needs to design new products.