Apple talks specifically about low end desktop

spindler

After years of talking and debating among us Mac fans, Apple has finally talked about the idea of a low end Mac:



http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/.../shareholders/



"We decided as a company that instead of going into the low-end desktop market, we would invest in the iPod business," said Cook. "If you look at the marketshare on the iPod, it's enormous."





This is a fascinating quote. Some people around here have said that Apple is doing as well as they can with the $799 eMac and that if you add in the extras you get that low end PCs are not cheaper. I would agree, but apparently Apple saw some possibilities of doing more. They didn't give the usual answers this time. It also shows that Apple is very resource limited. They saw chances in one market but instead invested the money in the unrelated market of digital music. So I think it shows Apple can only try two or three new things a year no matter how much they would like to do.

kingofsomewherehot

Or perhaps it's just fiscal responsibility ....

They're not spending $$ they don't have.



This allows them to remain profitable with limited market share

chris cuilla

Every company has limited resources. Some just more than others. But it means that EVERY company is making these decisions all the time. Another thing to note about "resources" (by which we mean MONEY in this discussion), having tons of it is not necessarily the most important ingredient for success, innovation or profit. If this were true there would be no more small companies. MS and Dell have $60B in cash in the bank...EACH. Yet they have not innovated or created or dominated everything. There are companies competing against BOTH of them very effectively.



In short...money ain't everything.

salmonstk

I have nevr thought Apple should go for the bargain basement market. But I do think they need and could benefit from a cheaper base machine.



799 is just a tad too much for some. I would really try to get to 599 if I were them.



599 eMac, plain cd drive- and basic other stuff.



Most would go for the 799 model with better stuff, but having the entry model really catches people's attention. If for no other reason, people still think Macs are expensive when they are not.

chris cuilla

Quote:

Originally posted by salmonstk

I have nevr thought Apple should go for the bargain basement market. But I do think they need and could benefit from a cheaper base machine.



799 is just a tad too much for some. I would really try to get to 599 if I were them.



599 eMac, plain cd drive- and basic other stuff.



Most would go for the 799 model with better stuff, but having the entry model really catches people's attention. If for no other reason, people still think Macs are expensive when they are not.

With all due respect, as soon as Apple offers a Mac for $599, there will be someone posting "if they only got to $399..." In all fairness, I doubt Apple could trim too many features to trim price by $200. Going to plain CD-ROM drive isn't likely to save them much $. They DO (allegedly) offer a CD-less machine (for education) for less $. Well-suited for that market. What else can they trim?



Apple is providing a fair product at a fair price. They aren't trying to bait people in with a $399 machine that ends up being $799 after you trick it out to make it useful.



I think Apple made a wise business decision to invest into something likely to make them more profit (not less). I only hope that a) they find a way to keep it up with iPod, and b) they apply this reasoning to other products that many of us haven't even imagined yet.

cosmonut

Quote:

Originally posted by salmonstk

599 eMac, plain cd drive- and basic other stuff.

Yeah, that's innovation.

airsluf

Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.



Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.



Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.

splinemodel

The truth is that a lot of people would buy a monitor-less, no-frills eMac. Of course, I don't think in the end that it would be a better business idea to follow that path --rather than the iPod path -- if only one could be chosen.

a_greer

Quote:

Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

Or perhaps it's just fiscal responsibility ....

They're not spending $$ they don't have.



This allows them to remain profitable with limited market share

yes and even though dell may make more than apple, look at the per unit profit on the 300$ box vs profit per unit on ipod. dell makes its scratch on big iorn, and enterprise desktops/workstations/kiosk setups (like cash registers), 2 markets apple needs to get into, but the last thing they need is a loss leader going out the door,but, soon and very soon they need to convey the following message "Hey kids!, We here at apple sell some damn fine computers too"

salmonstk

I am not saying they sell at a loss. Just a lower margin to get the cheapskates looking.



Also someone else does make money on the loss leader stuff going on in the PC industry. M$ They get a guy used to windows and then sell him the same crap the rest of his life.



Apple can hook a customer like no other, so there is some justification in reducing margins to get a new customer. Now the problem is to assure current customers don't buy down.

stroszek

Quote:

Originally posted by salmonstk

599 eMac, plain cd drive- and basic other stuff.

A plain CD drive? What good would that do? With all of the digital hub apps, I would imagine that at least a CD-R would be necessary. I mean, why have iTunes, iMovie, and iDVD offered with you Mac, if you can't get any of it off of your computer?

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

They DO (allegedly) offer a CD-less machine (for education) for less $. Well-suited for that market. What else can they trim?

I've never heard anything about this, but I'm not doubting you, but... What good would this be? How does one go about installing software? Does it have any way to get data in or out? Floppy, anything?

ghost_user_name

Quote:

Originally posted by Stroszek

I've never heard anything about this, but I'm not doubting you, but... What good would this be? How does one go about installing software? Does it have any way to get data in or out? Floppy, anything?

Think computer labs. Think network installs. For that matter, think NetBoot.



I have never once carried a floppy disk or even a CD-R into any computer lab on this campus. I don't even know anyone that still *has* floppy disks! Why, last summer my roommate had to go buy a 5-pack for a weird driver installer on his PC because we couldn't find anyone that still used them.



eMac Without Optical:

1GHz PowerPC G4

256MB DDR333 SDRAM

40GB Ultra ATA drive

$599.00 (though, some other institutions may get it even cheaper)

pscates

As far as Apple offering a "bargain basement" computer (and that being some end-all/be-all "switcher" machine), I think that's just not true.



Apple could offer a 1GHz G4 headless iMac (or whatever you want to call it) for $199 and - while we all would certainly freak out and reach for our wallets - let's just be realistic: the average, PC-using guy on the street won't give up what he has or knows (or THINKS he has or knows) on his PC and his set ways.



And I say this because I know that Apple, upon releasing miracle $199 headless iSwitch computer, would do next to nothing to promote it beyond one (1) lame, vague commercial that only appealed to the already-faithful and perhaps a full-page ad to run in, you guessed it, Macworld.







I don't think "going cheap" is the solution to anything, because it won't matter and it's not going to change a decade's worth of ingrained opinions or erase the idiotic myths that still swirl around the heads of so many non-Mac-using know-nothings out there.



The fear of the unknown trumps the hassle of using all these silly third party digital media apps and whatnot.



If most people knew the truth - about how easily and cool Macs worked with digital photos, video, music and allowed video chatting, music and DVD creation and about 344 other things we all take for granted - they would never buy another PC again. Ever.



But they don't, so they do. $199 headless anything isn't going to change this, unfortunately. I wish it would, I really do. I'd be thrilled if this were more of a "Apple world", and you could walk into any Staples or Target and buy Mac software (both Apple AND third party offerings) and buy more than iPods at your local electronics/appliance mega store.



But I'd prefer to deal in reality here on this issue.

thegelding

for the more visual minded:









g

snoopy

Reading Cook's statement carefully, ". . . instead of going into the low-end desktop market . . . ," he did not say 'any' low-end market, but targeted the desktop. Now, this may be making more of an issue than was intended, but I see a low-end Mac differently than most, it seems. I agree with several comments made, like Apple should not sell too cheap with little or no profit, and if you consider everything you get with an eMac the price is not too high. I think these are good points.



Still, there are uses for a low-cost, general purpose computer beside the home and educational desktop markets. If someone wishes to set up a simple dedicated controller and put the computer on a shelf, an eMac is not appropriate. It is too big and has many features that will not be of any use. A general purpose Mac could be fairly compact and have no display, no modem and no graphics board. Built-in graphics should be good enough to make OS X usable without Quartz Extreme, but no better. Such graphics chips are likely very cheap by now. There would be no iLife applications. The processor could be very low cost, maybe a 1 GHz 750GX, which has 1 MB of L2 cache. FireWire could also be eliminated, especially If such a low-cost Mac had one or two PCI slots.



Right now, the newest Mac that fits this market is a Beige G3 desktop, and it is bigger than it needs to be, and a little too slow for today's expectations. Apple covers the need of the typical computer user quite well. Also, the very high end market is looking good. Why relinquish the general purpose market to the Intel PC? If Apple had such a general purpose Mac, there would be a Mac for almost every possible use. The Mac platform could be taken more seriously. Now, only the Intel PC covers all bases.

smircle

Quote:

Originally posted by snoopy

A general purpose Mac could be fairly compact and have no display, no modem and no graphics board. Built-in graphics should be good enough to make OS X usable without Quartz Extreme, but no better.

I bought myself a very cheap (250?) 933 Mhz Micro-ATX PC to serve as a media and prototyping web server (a 10GB disk in an old Powerbook Ti does not cut it). Installed Linux and mt-daapd (http://mt-daapd.sourceforge.net) for it to serve as an iTunes share server. This machine has only an elCrapo integrated chipset graphic which is just right to install Linux but would not be able to decode Divx. It has no PCI slot, only two RAM slots, no Firewire and no USB 2.



Would I want something like this as a workstation? Hell, no, this must be torture, it is decidedly unsexy. But locked away in a closet, it does what it is supposed to do and does it well.

I am pretty sure I am not the only one who has a home-LAN and would profit from such a mini-server. If it was for me, Apple could even enlarge the Airport-base a bit, make room for a 3.5" HD, monitor and USB port and make it run OS X. Perfect server for a family surfing via WLAN.

neo

wouldn't it be nice if Apple made low priced Cubes that will work with keyboards, mice and monitors made for PCs and have normal sound cards. I'm pretty sure that cheapskates will go for that.



-Neø

snoopy

Quote:

Originally posted by Neø

wouldn't it be nice if Apple made low priced Cubes that will work with keyboards, mice and monitors made for PCs and have normal sound cards. I'm pretty sure that cheapskates will go for that.



-Neø

The 'cheapskate market' is not the reason for building a low-cost, utility Mac, though I'm sure some cheapskates, and those who simply cannot afford anything better, would buy it for their primary home computer. There are hundreds of uses for a simple, low-cost computer in dedicated applications, like point-of-sale terminals, equipment controllers and simple home servers as Smircle pointed out.

ghost_user_name

Quote:

Originally posted by Neø

that will work with keyboards, mice and monitors made for PCs

Apple already makes computers that work with keyboards, mice, and monitors "made for PCs". I'm not using an Apple-branded monitor, nor am I using an Apple-branded mouse.

amorph

I think the issue is not couched in the terms the original post lays out. Apple is looking at what product to offer at what price, and they decided that iPod would be a better offering at the low price points than a cheap Mac. I don't doubt that Apple could simultaneously work on a cheap Mac - there are only about 45 people on iPod, out of thousands of Apple employees, and it only took a team of 100 to produce the original iMac - but that's not their strategy. As we already know from the "product grid," Apple likes their line to be as clear as possible in terms of what you get for how much money. It's because of that that we have iPod instead of a cheap Mac.



Apple execs have laid out the reasons, pretty much. Steve has talked about how the iPod illustrates the success Apple engineering can enjoy when it's not limited by the Mac's market share,which vindicates something I've been saying for a while: that the Mac's #1 market share problem is 20 years of baggage, not any technical or marketing shortcoming, and which makes any non-Mac device more attractive in terms of profit and growth and market share than a cheap Mac. If Apple's ventures outside the Mac drag its market share up in their wake, great.



Meanwhile, Apple is having success targeting the Mac at specific, profitable markets, so they'll probably continue to do that. But Apple executives have confirmed what I've suspected for a while: The Mac is up against entrenched beliefs about what it can and can't do, and so every bit of market share gained will be an uphill battle. But something like the iPod has no legacy. It can take flight purely on its merits and on the basis of Apple's brand, and sell faster than Apple can make them. It can be licensed on terms that make sense to Apple. And so forth.

snoopy

Amorph,



I pretty much agree with what you say. Apple does well making impressive products, which are certainly different and often a little spectacular. It's probably true that Apple will realize more immediate profit, growth and market share with a new consumer device than a low-cost, utility Mac. Yet, Apple should be able to produce a cheap utility Mac on a shoe string budget. With little invested, it would not need to sell well to recoup development costs. It's purpose is not to be spectacular, but to fill a gaping hole in the product line. No matter how well Apple does in high performance computing, or how nice a Mac is for the typical computer user, if there is no Mac to do simple menial grunt work, the market is forced to use the X86 PC for many, many tasks. An all-Mac solution is usually not possible. An all X86 solution is always workable. What does this say? If Apple wants higher Mac market share, they need to fill that hole.