<strong>I have no problem with the headless iMac/eMac deal, that makes more sense, but the moment you add slots, I think you are going to kill low end PowerMac sales.
I think they should just take the eMac, cut off them monitor off the top and sell it as a desktop configuration Mac. It would look great in my stereo rack as an MP3 server anyway. That they could sell for maybe $700 and that would be damn cool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iMac 17" is already taking a bite out of PM sales, and I dont think that a eTower/eCube, whatever, without expansion is a good idea either, the reason is games and future software (remember Quartz Xtream, a lot of Cube owners are spending premium prices for "old" cards just to take advantage of it). Matsu has some good price points in my opinion, if Apple can get Motorolla or IBM to make them some competative chips. The main goal of such a move should be to attract New customers, so they need to offer a product that will attract customers away from the Wintel world with products that compete, and one of the things that the iMac is missing is limited Expansion.
The iMac 17" is already taking a bite out of PM sales, and I dont think that a eTower/eCube, whatever, without expansion is a good idea either, the reason is games and future software (remember Quartz Xtream, a lot of Cube owners are spending premium prices for "old" cards just to take advantage of it). Matsu has some good price points in my opinion, if Apple can get Motorolla or IBM to make them some competative chips. The main goal of such a move should be to attract New customers, so they need to offer a product that will attract customers away from the Wintel world with products that compete, and one of the things that the iMac is missing is limited Expansion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only reason the iMacs are taking some of the low end towers' sales is because of value. The iMac represents a better value because the low end isn't much faster and the iMac has a monitor.
Once the towers have a 970 in them and are hunders of mhz faster the iMac won't touch tower sales. The iMac at $1100+ against a headless cube at $800 will not compete with other.
So is it the wish of the people here to simply have a headless eMac/Cube redux with very little to offer in terms of expandability or do people want a fully expandable tower?
basically the only thing we don't want is disposable sealed AIO's priced like high-end machines but without any of the expansion or power.
Basically that's the only thing Apple offers the desktop consumer, that or equally overpriced towers.
No sale untill the situation is fixed.
Thy're painting themselves into a corner with the AIO, the laptop is steadily eating the AIO's market away. They better wise up to the needs of desktop consumers soon.
a few good points have been raised regarding the prosumer machine:
- a headless mac to suit switchers who already have a monitor
- a rethink of the cube concept
I don't understand this "cannibalising" issue. If iMacs would cannibalise the prosumer mac, or if the prosumer mac will cannibalise the powermac, at the end of the day, its still a sale to Apple. How they structure the pricing for them is their job to do. We're just speculating on how best to fill the large gap between consumer and professional (I am in that gap). Even if the prosumer units have low margins, if these units had the right features they can attract more switchers from an untapped demographic, then mindshare and marketshare growth alone will still benefit the macos.
A cube2 would need more expansion capabilities and probably a more convenient form, maybe like an hp eVectra. I used to have one at work and they r so convenient. But then again they had no PCI slots. What I had in mind was basically the functionality of a headless iMac that also has upgradable gfx card, PCI slot or 2, space for another HD. Thats not too much to add in is it? I'm sure Ive can fit all that in a cheap (but still good looking) mini tower case about 3/4 the size of the current towers.
I'm not suggesting cheap unreliable parts to achieve a cheap prosumer unit; good parts come down in price all the time when they are superceded, eg instead of FW800, stick with FW400. The PCI slot will be handy when users want FW800 (or 1600, or USB2.0 etc)
For the prosumer unit to succeed, it must be price competitive with wintel prosumer units. It doesn't have to be cheaper, just in the same ballpark. Prosumer switchers can then decide if the lure of OSX is worth the extra few hundred $$$ (instead of the few extra thousand $$$ for current towers).
I don't understand this "cannibalising" issue. If iMacs would cannibalise the prosumer mac, or if the prosumer mac will cannibalise the powermac, at the end of the day, its still a sale to Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. It's not as if they don't already sell three computer with serious overlap. iMacCRT (which shouldn't be offered for more than 350USD at this point) eMac and iMac FP all vie for your AIO dollar. Totally unneccessary.
One iMac and one headless computer can cover all the bases with far greater efficiency than the current gaggle of AIO's.
Also, Apple can do a lot better than 3/4 the size. Look at the shuttle HPC, that's less than a 1/3rd the size, has an AGP and PCI slot, holds one optical and 2 internal HDD's as well as competitive I/O.
And yes, whenever we mention price the apologists go into hysterics, as though we're asking 199 walmart PM's. We're not, it's more like asking Apple to walk in from the back alley behind left field and join the ballpark. Make an effort. I don't know of any company that can sell a decent laptop cheaper than its lowest priced real desktop -- I don't count the iMacG3 as a real desktop, it should be a disposable computer for use in web terminals, cash-registers, library kiosks etc etc...
It's incredible that a company that can do a 999 iBook can't make a more credible desktop than an eMac at the same price.
[quote] I don't know of any company that can sell a decent laptop cheaper than its lowest priced real desktop -- I don't count the iMacG3 as a real desktop, it should be a disposable computer for use in web terminals, cash-registers, library kiosks etc etc...
It's incredible that a company that can do a 999 iBook can't make a more credible desktop than an eMac at the same price.
<hr></blockquote>
Snap. I've said it once, twice and too many times to count. How can any company offer a it's lowest priced laptop for cheaper than their lowest priced desktop? (Thinks...Nope. I still can't figure it out. And iMac1 doesn't count. Like Matsu said...should be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper.)
There is a mandate for a prosumer line. As there is for a consumer line. It's just Apple's kack-handed implementation that irks me.
The Cube. Great prosumer product. But? Too small, couldn't take standard components. Yeesh, it could have stood a couple of inches extra all round and still have looked cool. Way over priced. (Think Apple though $$$ signs for the cool factor and lost it...) Didn't need the pricy chrome grill or long acrylic skirt. Those kind of things add to production costs. A simple white iBook style case would have sufficed. I think the timing of the launch was against Apple. You needed an LCD to make the 'Cube' look good. Prices were massive back then and are very reasonable now. Bring back a Cube in the £850-£1150 range with proper expandability. Bigger design. Cheaper. Less fancy design components.
The next problem is the iMac2. It's supposed to be a consumer machine but they couldn't get the price low enough. LCDs didn't drop by as much as Apple thought. THat's why they covered their asses with the eMac.
So what we got? A 'Son of Cube' that is EVEN MORE LIMITED than the original Cube living it up in the Prosumer slot and Apple have got greedy and it's stuck there. The imac2's saving grace is its great design with compact and ergonomic qualities...and you get the LCD thrown in for cheaper than the original 'prosumer' Cube. Great. But it comes at a price. Apple are once again caught between two stools. That's why the iMac2 sales haven't been great, not the catch all excuse of 'the economy'.
If you offered a bare bones headless Mac (Cube style) over the iMac2...people would probably buy the Cube over the iMac2 because of the option to pick their choice of Apple LCD. IF Apple offered a headless iCube mega cheaply below the iMac2...then Apple (not to Matsu's delight...) will give you a cheaper machine but even more limited (is that possible?) than the frustrating iMac2.
Logically:
PowerMac £1150 and up
Cube £850 and up
iMac2 £650 and up
I could live with that. I'd probably pick up one of each
But can you see Apple doing the last two on price?
Exactly.
To quote: 'Apple have painted themselves into a corner with their AIO.'
And a perfect example of WHERE I'd like to see Apple go on desktop price is the amazing aggressive price cuts on the iBook.
It started, like the original iMac1, above a grand. Then Apple have successively made it cheaper and with the last round of iBook updates made the entry an amazing £795.
They HAD the opportunity with the last round of iMac2 updates to get the entry price lower. It stalled, static at £999. It should and could have been £795-895.
15 inch LCDs are £150. Take away the steel iMac2 arm and you have a very unremarkable spec. A spec that any sub-£600 PC would trounce on cpu, ram, expandability. So, what's stopping apple making it cheaper? They don't have to be the cheapest...but clearly there's a problem there. Laptop vs Desktop. Only Apple could have a better range of laptops than they have desktops.
What can I say to your post except yep, yes, too bad more people don't call Apple on all these issues instead of making inane excuses about the market, component costs (not only inane, but wrong), the justifiable style premium, etc etc... Obviously, nearly 98% of the world market doesn't buy it (literally) for a second. Time for Apple and the apologists to wake up and smell the fertilizer.
I know Apple's prices are always going to be out there. If Apple were to introduce an "eCube" sort of product around when they get the 970 out, maybe, I think it would be optimistic to expect prices in these ranges for its lines:
* G3 iMac $599-699/799 ~700 MHz
* G4 "eCube" $849-1299 ~1-1.2 GHz
* G4 iMac $899/999-1699 ~1-1.2 GHz
* 970 PowerMac $1599-2499 ~1.4-1.8 GHz
These are significantly more likely than prices at a lower level, but, not only could Apple do it, there is a decent chance of it happening. The biggest problem is that it likely increases the number of models in the desktop lineup.
Anyway, I know it probably wouldn't satisfy many of you, but I think it is pretty reasonable.
Odd thread, I thought the laptops were the preferred all in one Mac.
I had a choice between the current tower and an AIO. I bought a 1gHz TiPB. When the 17" AlPB shows up, I'll buy it. I think of them as easily transported and somewhat disposable towers.
It's a stopgap solution; I'm waiting for the OSX port to the IBM Power 4/4+. Cough.
Your computer should never be older than your shoes.
<strong>What can I say to your post except yep, yes, too bad more people don't call Apple on all these issues instead of making inane excuses about the market, component costs (not only inane, but wrong), the justifiable style premium, etc etc... Obviously, nearly 98% of the world market doesn't buy it (literally) for a second. Time for Apple and the apologists to wake up and smell the fertilizer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So if Apple cuts their margins in half, they will sell twice as many? And if they cut their margins by a quarter, Apple will sell 4 times as many? Here's the real question - what strategy keeps Apple in business for the long term? I think your point is that market share must be increased - is that right? [quote] I'm not going to carefully read or consider the "what Apple can and can't afford to do" responses. <hr></blockquote> "if frogs had wings"! What's the point of your price proclamations if they don't consider the real world? Your pre-emptive strike against the "apologists" reflects poorly on your arguements.
As far as cannabilizing - there are different margins for each product. Apple's goal is to sell a mix that meets their margin needs. I suggest that the difference in cost between the two iBook 12" models is trivial, and that the difference in price is just to get you in the door and to have a 2-tier pricing structure. I say it's trivial because a large part of the cost is the common components and the assembly, as well as fixed costs. If Apple sold only 999 models, they'd be in trouble total profit wise.
As far as headless, the non-PCI and integrated graphic chipset on the motherboard is probably quite a cost savings. I suggest that the cost of the headless would be very similar to the current tower - less, but not a lot less. So again there would be this product/margin mix issue. Personally, I'm all for a new cube, and I buy the arguement about having an upgradeable graphics card. I could see having no PCI slot and no extra HD slot (though enable getting at it to swap in a new one), and that would differentiate it from the tower.
I think Apple will have a lot more flexibility about pricing and model ranges when the towers are upgraded to intel-bashing 970s The notebook lines are already taking advantage of the power requirements (G4 - G3 vs x86). Once the 970 towers are available, the consumer lines will have lower price points because of needing less margin from their sales mix.
<strong>I know Apple's prices are always going to be out there. If Apple were to introduce an "eCube" sort of product around when they get the 970 out, maybe, I think it would be optimistic to expect prices in these ranges for its lines:
* G3 iMac $599-699/799 ~700 MHz
* G4 "eCube" $849-1299 ~1-1.2 GHz
* G4 iMac $899/999-1699 ~1-1.2 GHz
* 970 PowerMac $1599-2499 ~1.4-1.8 GHz
These are significantly more likely than prices at a lower level, but, not only could Apple do it, there is a decent chance of it happening. The biggest problem is that it likely increases the number of models in the desktop lineup.
Anyway, I know it probably wouldn't satisfy many of you, but I think it is pretty reasonable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice post! Though I'm labeled an "apologists", let me give my prices!
That's way too high for the dualies. The 970 should NOT cost enough to justify that price. Even the MOBO upgrades and other refinements should not up it that much.
On the other hand, Apple probably COULD get this price anyway..even if it's not justified. They'll profit in the short run, but overcharging is a bad long-term plan for a company trying to increase marketshare.
[quote] That's way too high for the dualies. The 970 should NOT cost enough to justify that price. <hr></blockquote>
That price sounds competitive to me. If this came with an ATI 9800(R350) or the latest GeforceFX card and a beefy HD and lot's of RAM I could see Apple easily fetching $3100. I wasn't until just two speed bumbs ago that Apple came down from $3499 for the High End machine. As a matter of fact I "HOPE" that Apple's top Machine tops out at $3499 again.
I'm not always looking for a machine I can afford but rather looking for Apple to produce computers that people who make their living on can justify. If I'm running Shake, FCP, Maya or any other high end app I'm willing to drop some coinage for a Kick Arse machine. Everyone who buys these machines knows that it's laden with Margin but if it's a business expense hell it's tax deductable.
<strong> "if frogs had wings"! What's the point of your price proclamations if they don't consider the real world? Your pre-emptive strike against the "apologists" reflects poorly on your arguements.</strong> <hr></blockquote>
The arguments of posters in this thread who excuse Apple prices do not reflect the real world, hence they are apologists. Everyone but Apple can deliver far more cost effective desktop solutions and make money in the process. The real world does NOT reflect what you imply by this argument, ie, it does not reflect the rationalizations made by those commonly referred to as apologists. Cheap parts are out there and all but the fastest PPC's used by Apple are even cheaper than Consumer grade X86 parts. Apple does not spend more on R&D than any of the large PC box builders and what Apple spends bears directly on it's offerings because they DO NOT lhave to pay for a windows license. Someone will make the argument that Apple spends more per machine, but that argument is intrinsically flawed despite all its seeming logic. Firstly, because Apple has much less licensing to pay than and PC builder. Secondly, because the real difference per machine (in terms of R&D costs) between Apple and DELL is less than 25 bucks. No one is asking for bargain basement prices. We just want Apple in a realistic range for an upgradable consumer machine.
In case anyone need a wake-up call 999 is nowhere near entry level, it is firmly mid range for a machine WITH a 17"CRT/15"LCD. For a headless box your looking at an upper mid-range box, something quite powerful.
Time for Apple desktops to get realistic in price and, as soon as possible, performance.
I'm not sure that I agree with the title "pro-sumer" in the computer that people are discussing here. As I see it we are discussing a consumer level non-AIO, which means that it needs to address the needs of consumers that the AIO design does not. This would allow Apple to attract customers that it cannot with their current offerings. Yes, these computers would probably attract the attention of people looking at the iMac's, Towers and protables as well. It could also be marketed to buisnesses that want a lower end computer, but already have monitors so are not looking at iMacs, or the iMacs do not fit in with the corperate image. The point here is bringing in new customers (increasing market share), while adjusting margins of your overall product range so that your average profitability per system sold remains the same.
One of the main deficiencies that the iMac has as I see it, and many on this board see it, is the lack of an AGP card slot. This is a big drawback for "gamers", the graphic card industry is putting out faster chips at a pretty fast pace and Game programers are optemising for these new chips, so they become neccessary to play the games. This dosnt just effect games either, Quartz Xtream proves that. Apple can make this work for them as well, by offering lower cost cards in the base line models to keep the advertised price as low as possable, and offering BTO options. With the option in a more mainstream model, more card companies will offer retail boards for the Mac as well, so consumers will have better choices in the future. (For anyone who dosnt believe that there is a market here, check out the forums at <a href="http://www.cubeowner.com"; target="_blank">Cubeowner.com</a> to see the length that Cube owners are going to to upgrade their graphics cards)
Now most everyone that talkes about the Cubes problems states the non-standard card size as one of them. While I dont entirely disagree, I think that if the Cube were still made today it would not be as big of a problem. The reason is that the Cube card will fit in a Tower, with a different faceplate (removable sheet metal), so only one card is needed for both markets. Also, if you remember shortly after the cube was anounced there was a company that was selling a dual head display card for the Cube. If the profits are there then the card companies will address it with a product that will allow them to rake in the money people are willing to spend.
The bigest problem with the Cube and Graphics cards as I see it, is in the cooling that would be required for the more powerfull, hotter cards that are bieng sold today. To keep the systems as quiet as they were intended Apple would probably have to redesign the case to address this issue.
As for PCI expansion beyond the Graphics cards, I'm not sure if it is worth the money. For myself, I could see having one to two cards as desirable, one for future generations of Firewire/USB, and another for networking. To save space Apple could probably come up with another solution that would work such as a Cardbus or PCMIA slot at the bottom of the computer (much like the Airport card, but with an area open at the bottom to allow access to the ports. Again, I'm not sure that this is as big of a selling point today with FireWire and USB, as long as both standards continue to offer backwards compatability.
<strong>It's time for someone in Apple's exec to put their hands around Jobs' waist and pull hard untill his head comes out of Ives' ass. Great plastic won't keep 'em in business forever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yet another wonderful post from Matsu and a terrific quote as well. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Comments
<strong>I have no problem with the headless iMac/eMac deal, that makes more sense, but the moment you add slots, I think you are going to kill low end PowerMac sales.
I think they should just take the eMac, cut off them monitor off the top and sell it as a desktop configuration Mac. It would look great in my stereo rack as an MP3 server anyway. That they could sell for maybe $700 and that would be damn cool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iMac 17" is already taking a bite out of PM sales, and I dont think that a eTower/eCube, whatever, without expansion is a good idea either, the reason is games and future software (remember Quartz Xtream, a lot of Cube owners are spending premium prices for "old" cards just to take advantage of it). Matsu has some good price points in my opinion, if Apple can get Motorolla or IBM to make them some competative chips. The main goal of such a move should be to attract New customers, so they need to offer a product that will attract customers away from the Wintel world with products that compete, and one of the things that the iMac is missing is limited Expansion.
<strong>
The iMac 17" is already taking a bite out of PM sales, and I dont think that a eTower/eCube, whatever, without expansion is a good idea either, the reason is games and future software (remember Quartz Xtream, a lot of Cube owners are spending premium prices for "old" cards just to take advantage of it). Matsu has some good price points in my opinion, if Apple can get Motorolla or IBM to make them some competative chips. The main goal of such a move should be to attract New customers, so they need to offer a product that will attract customers away from the Wintel world with products that compete, and one of the things that the iMac is missing is limited Expansion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only reason the iMacs are taking some of the low end towers' sales is because of value. The iMac represents a better value because the low end isn't much faster and the iMac has a monitor.
Once the towers have a 970 in them and are hunders of mhz faster the iMac won't touch tower sales. The iMac at $1100+ against a headless cube at $800 will not compete with other.
basically the only thing we don't want is disposable sealed AIO's priced like high-end machines but without any of the expansion or power.
Basically that's the only thing Apple offers the desktop consumer, that or equally overpriced towers.
No sale untill the situation is fixed.
Thy're painting themselves into a corner with the AIO, the laptop is steadily eating the AIO's market away. They better wise up to the needs of desktop consumers soon.
- a headless mac to suit switchers who already have a monitor
- a rethink of the cube concept
I don't understand this "cannibalising" issue. If iMacs would cannibalise the prosumer mac, or if the prosumer mac will cannibalise the powermac, at the end of the day, its still a sale to Apple. How they structure the pricing for them is their job to do. We're just speculating on how best to fill the large gap between consumer and professional (I am in that gap). Even if the prosumer units have low margins, if these units had the right features they can attract more switchers from an untapped demographic, then mindshare and marketshare growth alone will still benefit the macos.
A cube2 would need more expansion capabilities and probably a more convenient form, maybe like an hp eVectra. I used to have one at work and they r so convenient. But then again they had no PCI slots. What I had in mind was basically the functionality of a headless iMac that also has upgradable gfx card, PCI slot or 2, space for another HD. Thats not too much to add in is it? I'm sure Ive can fit all that in a cheap (but still good looking) mini tower case about 3/4 the size of the current towers.
I'm not suggesting cheap unreliable parts to achieve a cheap prosumer unit; good parts come down in price all the time when they are superceded, eg instead of FW800, stick with FW400. The PCI slot will be handy when users want FW800 (or 1600, or USB2.0 etc)
For the prosumer unit to succeed, it must be price competitive with wintel prosumer units. It doesn't have to be cheaper, just in the same ballpark. Prosumer switchers can then decide if the lure of OSX is worth the extra few hundred $$$ (instead of the few extra thousand $$$ for current towers).
Just MHO
<strong>
I don't understand this "cannibalising" issue. If iMacs would cannibalise the prosumer mac, or if the prosumer mac will cannibalise the powermac, at the end of the day, its still a sale to Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. It's not as if they don't already sell three computer with serious overlap. iMacCRT (which shouldn't be offered for more than 350USD at this point) eMac and iMac FP all vie for your AIO dollar. Totally unneccessary.
One iMac and one headless computer can cover all the bases with far greater efficiency than the current gaggle of AIO's.
Also, Apple can do a lot better than 3/4 the size. Look at the shuttle HPC, that's less than a 1/3rd the size, has an AGP and PCI slot, holds one optical and 2 internal HDD's as well as competitive I/O.
And yes, whenever we mention price the apologists go into hysterics, as though we're asking 199 walmart PM's. We're not, it's more like asking Apple to walk in from the back alley behind left field and join the ballpark. Make an effort. I don't know of any company that can sell a decent laptop cheaper than its lowest priced real desktop -- I don't count the iMacG3 as a real desktop, it should be a disposable computer for use in web terminals, cash-registers, library kiosks etc etc...
It's incredible that a company that can do a 999 iBook can't make a more credible desktop than an eMac at the same price.
It's incredible that a company that can do a 999 iBook can't make a more credible desktop than an eMac at the same price.
<hr></blockquote>
Snap. I've said it once, twice and too many times to count. How can any company offer a it's lowest priced laptop for cheaper than their lowest priced desktop? (Thinks...Nope. I still can't figure it out. And iMac1 doesn't count. Like Matsu said...should be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper.)
There is a mandate for a prosumer line. As there is for a consumer line. It's just Apple's kack-handed implementation that irks me.
The Cube. Great prosumer product. But? Too small, couldn't take standard components. Yeesh, it could have stood a couple of inches extra all round and still have looked cool. Way over priced. (Think Apple though $$$ signs for the cool factor and lost it...) Didn't need the pricy chrome grill or long acrylic skirt. Those kind of things add to production costs. A simple white iBook style case would have sufficed. I think the timing of the launch was against Apple. You needed an LCD to make the 'Cube' look good. Prices were massive back then and are very reasonable now. Bring back a Cube in the £850-£1150 range with proper expandability. Bigger design. Cheaper. Less fancy design components.
The next problem is the iMac2. It's supposed to be a consumer machine but they couldn't get the price low enough. LCDs didn't drop by as much as Apple thought. THat's why they covered their asses with the eMac.
So what we got? A 'Son of Cube' that is EVEN MORE LIMITED than the original Cube living it up in the Prosumer slot and Apple have got greedy and it's stuck there. The imac2's saving grace is its great design with compact and ergonomic qualities...and you get the LCD thrown in for cheaper than the original 'prosumer' Cube. Great. But it comes at a price. Apple are once again caught between two stools. That's why the iMac2 sales haven't been great, not the catch all excuse of 'the economy'.
If you offered a bare bones headless Mac (Cube style) over the iMac2...people would probably buy the Cube over the iMac2 because of the option to pick their choice of Apple LCD. IF Apple offered a headless iCube mega cheaply below the iMac2...then Apple (not to Matsu's delight...) will give you a cheaper machine but even more limited (is that possible?) than the frustrating iMac2.
Logically:
PowerMac £1150 and up
Cube £850 and up
iMac2 £650 and up
I could live with that. I'd probably pick up one of each
But can you see Apple doing the last two on price?
Exactly.
To quote: 'Apple have painted themselves into a corner with their AIO.'
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
And a perfect example of WHERE I'd like to see Apple go on desktop price is the amazing aggressive price cuts on the iBook.
It started, like the original iMac1, above a grand. Then Apple have successively made it cheaper and with the last round of iBook updates made the entry an amazing £795.
They HAD the opportunity with the last round of iMac2 updates to get the entry price lower. It stalled, static at £999. It should and could have been £795-895.
15 inch LCDs are £150. Take away the steel iMac2 arm and you have a very unremarkable spec. A spec that any sub-£600 PC would trounce on cpu, ram, expandability. So, what's stopping apple making it cheaper? They don't have to be the cheapest...but clearly there's a problem there. Laptop vs Desktop. Only Apple could have a better range of laptops than they have desktops.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
* G3 iMac $599-699/799 ~700 MHz
* G4 "eCube" $849-1299 ~1-1.2 GHz
* G4 iMac $899/999-1699 ~1-1.2 GHz
* 970 PowerMac $1599-2499 ~1.4-1.8 GHz
These are significantly more likely than prices at a lower level, but, not only could Apple do it, there is a decent chance of it happening. The biggest problem is that it likely increases the number of models in the desktop lineup.
Anyway, I know it probably wouldn't satisfy many of you, but I think it is pretty reasonable.
I had a choice between the current tower and an AIO. I bought a 1gHz TiPB. When the 17" AlPB shows up, I'll buy it. I think of them as easily transported and somewhat disposable towers.
It's a stopgap solution; I'm waiting for the OSX port to the IBM Power 4/4+. Cough.
Your computer should never be older than your shoes.
<strong>What can I say to your post except yep, yes, too bad more people don't call Apple on all these issues instead of making inane excuses about the market, component costs (not only inane, but wrong), the justifiable style premium, etc etc... Obviously, nearly 98% of the world market doesn't buy it (literally) for a second. Time for Apple and the apologists to wake up and smell the fertilizer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So if Apple cuts their margins in half, they will sell twice as many? And if they cut their margins by a quarter, Apple will sell 4 times as many? Here's the real question - what strategy keeps Apple in business for the long term? I think your point is that market share must be increased - is that right? [quote] I'm not going to carefully read or consider the "what Apple can and can't afford to do" responses. <hr></blockquote> "if frogs had wings"! What's the point of your price proclamations if they don't consider the real world? Your pre-emptive strike against the "apologists" reflects poorly on your arguements.
As far as cannabilizing - there are different margins for each product. Apple's goal is to sell a mix that meets their margin needs. I suggest that the difference in cost between the two iBook 12" models is trivial, and that the difference in price is just to get you in the door and to have a 2-tier pricing structure. I say it's trivial because a large part of the cost is the common components and the assembly, as well as fixed costs. If Apple sold only 999 models, they'd be in trouble total profit wise.
As far as headless, the non-PCI and integrated graphic chipset on the motherboard is probably quite a cost savings. I suggest that the cost of the headless would be very similar to the current tower - less, but not a lot less. So again there would be this product/margin mix issue. Personally, I'm all for a new cube, and I buy the arguement about having an upgradeable graphics card. I could see having no PCI slot and no extra HD slot (though enable getting at it to swap in a new one), and that would differentiate it from the tower.
I think Apple will have a lot more flexibility about pricing and model ranges when the towers are upgraded to intel-bashing 970s
<strong>I know Apple's prices are always going to be out there. If Apple were to introduce an "eCube" sort of product around when they get the 970 out, maybe, I think it would be optimistic to expect prices in these ranges for its lines:
* G3 iMac $599-699/799 ~700 MHz
* G4 "eCube" $849-1299 ~1-1.2 GHz
* G4 iMac $899/999-1699 ~1-1.2 GHz
* 970 PowerMac $1599-2499 ~1.4-1.8 GHz
These are significantly more likely than prices at a lower level, but, not only could Apple do it, there is a decent chance of it happening. The biggest problem is that it likely increases the number of models in the desktop lineup.
Anyway, I know it probably wouldn't satisfy many of you, but I think it is pretty reasonable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice post! Though I'm labeled an "apologists", let me give my prices!
* G3 iMac classic with DVD drive
$599 ~1.0 GHz
* G4 eMac
combo $799 ~1.0 GHz
super $999 ~1.0 GHz
* G4 "eCube" AGP slot/1 HD/No PCI
combo $899 ~1.2 GHz
super $1299 ~1.4 GHz
* G4 iMac
15"combo $999 ~1.2 GHz
17"combo $1299 ~1.2 GHz
17"super $1699 ~1.4 GHz
* 970 PowerMac
combo $1699 ~1.6 GHz
super $2399 ~1.8 GHz
dualsuper$3099 ~1.8 GHz
On the other hand, Apple probably COULD get this price anyway..even if it's not justified. They'll profit in the short run, but overcharging is a bad long-term plan for a company trying to increase marketshare.
That price sounds competitive to me. If this came with an ATI 9800(R350) or the latest GeforceFX card and a beefy HD and lot's of RAM I could see Apple easily fetching $3100. I wasn't until just two speed bumbs ago that Apple came down from $3499 for the High End machine. As a matter of fact I "HOPE" that Apple's top Machine tops out at $3499 again.
I'm not always looking for a machine I can afford but rather looking for Apple to produce computers that people who make their living on can justify. If I'm running Shake, FCP, Maya or any other high end app I'm willing to drop some coinage for a Kick Arse machine. Everyone who buys these machines knows that it's laden with Margin but if it's a business expense hell it's tax deductable.
On the money.
Apple needs to give its desktop customers more options.
Lemon Bon Bon
My Bad.
Yeah, I guess with a top o' the line grafx card, it might make it more worthwhile.
To tell the truth, I'd sell a testicle for a 970 dualie right now. I mean, who really needs two anyway? LOL.
<strong> "if frogs had wings"! What's the point of your price proclamations if they don't consider the real world? Your pre-emptive strike against the "apologists" reflects poorly on your arguements.</strong> <hr></blockquote>
The arguments of posters in this thread who excuse Apple prices do not reflect the real world, hence they are apologists. Everyone but Apple can deliver far more cost effective desktop solutions and make money in the process. The real world does NOT reflect what you imply by this argument, ie, it does not reflect the rationalizations made by those commonly referred to as apologists. Cheap parts are out there and all but the fastest PPC's used by Apple are even cheaper than Consumer grade X86 parts. Apple does not spend more on R&D than any of the large PC box builders and what Apple spends bears directly on it's offerings because they DO NOT lhave to pay for a windows license. Someone will make the argument that Apple spends more per machine, but that argument is intrinsically flawed despite all its seeming logic. Firstly, because Apple has much less licensing to pay than and PC builder. Secondly, because the real difference per machine (in terms of R&D costs) between Apple and DELL is less than 25 bucks. No one is asking for bargain basement prices. We just want Apple in a realistic range for an upgradable consumer machine.
In case anyone need a wake-up call 999 is nowhere near entry level, it is firmly mid range for a machine WITH a 17"CRT/15"LCD. For a headless box your looking at an upper mid-range box, something quite powerful.
Time for Apple desktops to get realistic in price and, as soon as possible, performance.
One of the main deficiencies that the iMac has as I see it, and many on this board see it, is the lack of an AGP card slot. This is a big drawback for "gamers", the graphic card industry is putting out faster chips at a pretty fast pace and Game programers are optemising for these new chips, so they become neccessary to play the games. This dosnt just effect games either, Quartz Xtream proves that. Apple can make this work for them as well, by offering lower cost cards in the base line models to keep the advertised price as low as possable, and offering BTO options. With the option in a more mainstream model, more card companies will offer retail boards for the Mac as well, so consumers will have better choices in the future. (For anyone who dosnt believe that there is a market here, check out the forums at <a href="http://www.cubeowner.com"; target="_blank">Cubeowner.com</a> to see the length that Cube owners are going to to upgrade their graphics cards)
Now most everyone that talkes about the Cubes problems states the non-standard card size as one of them. While I dont entirely disagree, I think that if the Cube were still made today it would not be as big of a problem. The reason is that the Cube card will fit in a Tower, with a different faceplate (removable sheet metal), so only one card is needed for both markets. Also, if you remember shortly after the cube was anounced there was a company that was selling a dual head display card for the Cube. If the profits are there then the card companies will address it with a product that will allow them to rake in the money people are willing to spend.
The bigest problem with the Cube and Graphics cards as I see it, is in the cooling that would be required for the more powerfull, hotter cards that are bieng sold today. To keep the systems as quiet as they were intended Apple would probably have to redesign the case to address this issue.
As for PCI expansion beyond the Graphics cards, I'm not sure if it is worth the money. For myself, I could see having one to two cards as desirable, one for future generations of Firewire/USB, and another for networking. To save space Apple could probably come up with another solution that would work such as a Cardbus or PCMIA slot at the bottom of the computer (much like the Airport card, but with an area open at the bottom to allow access to the ports. Again, I'm not sure that this is as big of a selling point today with FireWire and USB, as long as both standards continue to offer backwards compatability.
<strong>It's time for someone in Apple's exec to put their hands around Jobs' waist and pull hard untill his head comes out of Ives' ass. Great plastic won't keep 'em in business forever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yet another wonderful post from Matsu and a terrific quote as well. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />