Uh, well, PC vendors want you to buy not only a computer, but a monitor as well, just like Apple. They make it difficult (or costly) not to, just like Apple. That doesn't mean you can't buy a (reasonably priced) computer by itself from those vendors, unlike from Apple.
For whom? And are these people who don't spend nearly as much money worth addressing by a comparatively small vendor like Apple?
The reason you can do that is that companies like Dell - and heck, the whole PC platform - is set up for enterprise. The configurability you're after is an accident of that setup, but as you point out, they don't want consumers to take advantage of it because it's expensive for them to offer massively configurable single orders.
If Apple doesn't have the presence in enterprise to justify a massively BTO system - which they don't - and if they aren't big enough to serve little niches within niches that not even the PC vendors consider worth targeting (i.e., what they consider worth making readily available and easy to buy), then it's unreasonable to expect them to offer this.
By your own admission, individual system configurability is not something either mainstream or economical for the vendor, or they'd make it easy to do. Therefore, if the primary problem with the iMac is price (which it is by Apple's own admission) then BTO configurability is emphatically not the answer to the problem.
Now, a PowerMac G5 Express could have BTO options, because you'd be paying for them...
But this is a pro machine, not a headless iMac or a game machine or a cheap third machine that you can hook up to the old MultiSync you have lying around. It's a PowerMac. And I think it'd sell really well.
I think what some of the "headless iMac" proponents want would indeed be considered a PowerMac, with things like upgradable GPUs, PCI slots, etc. Most of us know that Apple isn't going to make something like that for less than about $1600, if history is any indication. So, in order to have a machine with no monitor, in the $1000 range, it's going to have to be non-expandable. That's where the term "headless iMac" makes sense even though such a machine wouldn't be called an iMac. It's more of a descriptive term.
is it just me, or is this whole discussion of Apple needing to address the sub-$1,000 market a bit like saying "Mercedes really needs to offer a sub-$25,000 car for the people that really want the Mercedes experience, but can't afford it"? I understand the flaws in making the comparison to the auto industry, mainly that an automaker with 2% or so of the industry can make a good profit, but Apple depends on their market being big enough to keep third-party developers happy and releasing software for the platform. But that is becoming far less relevant as Apple becomes more of a software developer itself, and as the costs of porting apps to the platform decrease substantially. And Apple has done a LOT to revitalize the developer community, making powerful tools like xCode (Xcode, whatever?) and modern APIs to simplify almost everything. At this point, I'm not at all concerned about Apple going away, or "needing" to raise marketshare (in relation to Windows). Apple is a profitable hardware, software, music, media company, and I'm sure we'll all watch in awe as they continue to revitalize the industry and morph into (or spin-off) an interesting mix of businesses.
Oh yeah, back to the point...the eMac is a h3ll of a little workhorse for it's segment. badmouth the G4 and it's slow FSB all you want, eMac's are great for educational client machines (and many consumers). The PowerMacs are, and will continue to be, great "power-user" and professional machines. Sure, we'd all love to have dual 3GHz with SLI x800's (or 6800's), and that will likely happen at some point, but the current machines really are phenomenally competant Pro machines. Xserves, PowerBooks, iBooks, all very good at what they do. I think a lot of us, myself included, get very excited about what Apple could do and lose sight of how well Apple is doing in many areas.
Clearly, expansion into the low-end of the enterprise market is a good way to offset fluctuations in the consumer markets (and vise-versa). Offering compelling software solutions for both the consumers and professionals seriously asuages the concerns over third-party developer attrition (if anybody still has those?!). And diversifying into the broader market of consumer electronics, if done carefully, can clearly bring huge rewards (iPod!).
Finally, I feel like these boards could be a lot more meaningful if we tried (at least sometimes) to focus on new ideas, the positive implications of Apple's growth into new markets, etc. rather than constantly having discussions boil down to b!tch-fests about personal feature-wants (ie, "Apple is cr@p if they don't give me the 16.4" portrait-aspect PowerBook G5 I want!".)
...or maybe I'm just getting too old for these boards?
is it just me, or is this whole discussion of Apple needing to address the sub-$1,000 market a bit like saying "Mercedes really needs to offer a sub-$25,000 car for the people that really want the Mercedes experience, but can't afford it"?
Apple used to make a Mac that was popular, powerful and priced right for the masses; the original iMac. We miss it and the idea of it, that's all. The eMac just doesn't do it anymore for most people, though I agree with you that it's a decent machine.
is it just me, or is this whole discussion of Apple needing to address the sub-$1,000 market a bit like saying "Mercedes really needs to offer a sub-$25,000 car for the people that really want the Mercedes experience, but can't afford it"?
I think that is a good point. Apple have said a few times that they do not need to compete on price and used the BMW analogy. Its very true that the bottom end of the PC market is cut-throat with razor thin margins so why bother?..
Reason 1
The original iMac was a low end machine at a competetive price. Did this hurt Apple? Quite the contrary.
Reason 2
The low end is where new customers enter the food chain. If you want to encourage switchers you have to let them into Mac land without an expensive visa.
Apple's ease of use gives a big advantage in the "my first computer" market and the corporate workstation market.
Reason 3
Because Apple now CAN acheive a low price. Using iBook engineering. Apple could easily a sub-cube sized 1GHz G4 machine for $500 and make a profit on it. (A key price point.) In terms of usability and convenience such a machine would blow the WalMart tin box out of the water.
I'd argue that a £795 PC Tower with a 3 gig Pentium 4 is a pro machine.
Face it, that 'bar' has come down.
$999? Probably a $899 'sweet spot' by now.
As for whether Apple 'can' or 'can't' do certain things.
Well, look to the past history of the company for a hat full of stupid decisions. Where to start, eh?
They dropped ADC, didn't they?
Apple obviously can't match Dell's pricing. But they could help themselves more.
The iMac 2 was stuck at £999 while PC prices tumbled right on past. It looks like an outdated novelty item. Quirky but clinical...receiving less affection than the original iMac.
As to Amorph's point about the iMac's success. Yes. Well, many reasons for this. Simplicity. Certainly. But you get that with an Apple PowerMac. (Even I set up my first PowerMac...my fingers never leaving my hands while I did so...)
It was novel. The kind of loveable novel that the iMac 2 does not possess.
The iMac was stunningly different. But we're used to things like this from Apple now. Didn't get a price hike and became much cheaper and hit more price brackets to suit pocket over time.
But why did it start selling sell over time, eh? Despite flower power boosts, it became the victim of its own AIO success. Can't do a 17 inch, they said. It will look ugly, like the lard-ass eMac they said... The CRT AIO looks cumbersome at best despite Apple's best talents.
Hard to fit decent components in there, eh? Like a G5 or 6800?
You yourself have argued that a desktop iMac 2 has got to offer more than the iBook to succeed. So, what is that magical ingredient, Amorph? Screen size? Well, it didn't help, did it? Desktops are about static. Hence bigger, less portable hence more power...hence a box you can throw stuff in. See PC box with cable clutter on Apple's site. Laptop is about portability. Hence power trade-off and wait for G5 processor.
Desktop iMac 2. Keyboard and mouse integrated? No? Well, it's not really an AIO, is it?
Apple have two AIOs. Covering prices upto £2K and they wonder why they're taking the beating of a lifetime.
I will agree with you. Now, with the 'workstation/pro' dual processor move...there is room for a single cpu G5 Express mini-tower in the iMac 2's current bracket right down to £899 vat, I'd say.
But I question how sincere Apple is with dual processors, even now. They only seem to do things like this when they can't make 3 gig promises. It's plainly transparent.
Y'know, when you get something called progress happening even stupid iMac buyers know they're being had the flower power iMacs wilted in the garden.
(PC buyer: '17 inch lard ass emac with 1.25 gig G4 vs...a 3gig Pentium 4 with true 17 inch viewable desktop saving LCD...tricky decision...hurm...')
Why didn't the legions of PC tower buyers come on over?
The eMac represents good value if you're a Mac user. But if you aren't? On a hardware level? It's out ranked, outmatched and beaten to death by 3 gig/LCD non-AIOs.
Desktop AIOs need overhauls to stay relevant and clearly, it puts a strain on Apple's resources as the transition to the iMac 2 and 3 demonstrate. And further the lack of real progress in keeping iMac 1, e and 2 relevant. (Hmmm. Do colours count...?)
The iMac 2 represents everything that is wrong with the desktop AIO concept.
I find it ironic that Amorph bleats on about the AIO. He's either got to be an Apple employee reading from a script at gun point or he's blind to the beautiful 'HEADLESS' Mac that sits on his desk?
Cube vs iMac 2?
In hindsight? No contest. The Cube destroys the iMac 2.
The Cube could have used cheaper materials over time ala iBook, lost the chrome grill and the superfluous skirt...for a much cheaper case.
In fact, all I can picture is an alu Cube sitting right aside the Alu monitors...drool.
It only needed to be slightly bigger and alot cheaper.
You want to talk AIOs, Amorph? Let's look at the Powerbook, the iBook.
They ARE AIOs and they do serve a purpose.
On the desktop? More expensive, more restrictive, less powerful.
That's why they don't sell in PC land. That's why they don't sell in Apple Land either.
I find it funny that the PowerMac dual 2 gigger was outselling the iMac 2 at several intervals. Often at twice the price of the base model.
So, Amorph, why didn't Apple sell Five million of the iMac 2 or the ugly step sister eMac?
Maybe you can use some of your 'morphing' logic to tell me why...
I suppose it would have little to do with the AIO concept...Apple's sexy but limited design, prehistoric tech' set, lack of AGP slot, lack of flexibility (pun intended...), a small enclosure that limits progress.
Desktop machine. Tower. That's why they're popular. You can bung what you like in them. Standard components. Cheaper. Sure PC towers look like shat but Apple show they don't have to.
And PC vendors have shown Apple how to do cooling with Shuttles and how to bung Pentium 4 blow torches in there. So, tower designs can still be flexible but more compact...(y'know, the supposed merits for an AIO?)
Splitting hairs aside, stick a PC shuttle alongside an Apple alu display and you've got as good an AIO that Apple will ever make in their lifetime.
Stick a bit of alu Apple styling and the 'badge' on 'em and you've got a PM G5 Express.
The Cube...there's your AIO, Amorph.
And it wouldn't take much to do it right. As PC vendors have shown. If Apple hadn't have been up their own creak they'd have blown the iMac out the water...
Shame they didn't learn their lesson with the iMac 2. It was a step back.
Instead, Apple should go for a flexible modular box that can be refined over time. One that can take graphic cards, can take a G5, that can be modded etc.
The latest Powermac is an example direction to travel towards.
Desktop AIO concept is slow to update, over priced and underpowered. It also doesn't sell well to schools. Apple's eMac and iMac 2 formats are getting the beating of a lifetime from Dell towers with nice LCDs and a G4 stomping 3 gig pentium for less than the price of an iMac 2 and a comparable price to an eMac.
Ouch.
Want a decent AIO? Get a laptop, get an iBook/Powerbook.
However, there's still 50% of the market that wants a decent tower, hot, hungry, powerful and noisy. It's called choice. And it's blindingly stupid not to cater to people who are familar with THAT choice.
And no amount of logical smack talk can argue that the desktop AIO is a resounding success in or out of PC land.
Sales of the iMac 2 and eMac prove that. And they're the best the industry has to offer, lol.
Sure, the d4esktop AIO concept must be great if you can show me one that has power, value for money, flexibility, CHOICE. Because it don't exist vs trillions of proven tower formats that still, 50% of market or nay, sell in trillions. Many more creatives buy PC towers than Apple towers. I have no idea why... (scratches his head searching for more 'morphtastic' logic...)
Apple gives you that choice if you're a 'pro' starting at £1395 smackers. Time and time again, PC users tell me...if Apple had a tower (that bore anything like sanity in price/performance...at industry standard 'sweet spots'... Just how many ADC beatings does Apple have to take before it gets with the program? NIH syndrome is alive and well. Duh. If Apple showed the wide-screen big picture in hardware that they do in software ala 'Tiger' and 'open' standards support with hardware that offered choice they'd be able to better take advantage of the growing anti-M$ momentum.)
Maybe that's why their 'installed base' is stagnant and sells to the same people. 20/25 million Mac users tops vs how many PC users? I'm sure there are figures are out there somewhere.
Maybe they'd welcome more people to the Apple pool if they weren't so defensive.
I hope the iMac 3 PowerMac G5 Express is the nail in the desktop AIO concept. But I feel Apple may have to take yet another beating before they buy a clue.
Maybe the 80 plus retail stores will help. ie customers telling Apple in person that the iMac 2 and lardeMac are not what they want.
Agreed, buy a clue I think what this shows is corporate Apple(Jobs) has no idea what we want, we could care a less about art,all in ones, and g4s with Fx5200s. Clue #1 every desktop with no agp slot = crap Clue #2 G4 was crap years ago why keep pushing them? man i could go on and on but Lemon Bon Bon did a good job. the corporate decision makers over at Apple are stuck in their 4 tier structure and 1.7% marketshare.
I'd argue that a £795 PC Tower with a 3 gig Pentium 4 is a pro machine.
Then you can explain why the actual pro machines offered by PC vendors cost a whole lot more than that.
The Dell under my desk cost almost $3K.
Hint: The CPU is not the be-all and end-all of system performance, to say nothing of maintainability and reliability, assurances of compatibility with pro hardware, etc.
It might look superficially like a pro system, but that's just because it's a fast CPU in a tower case.
is it just me, or is this whole discussion of Apple needing to address the sub-$1,000 market a bit like saying "Mercedes really needs to offer a sub-$25,000 car for the people that really want the Mercedes experience, but can't afford it"? I understand the flaws in making the comparison to the auto industry, mainly that an automaker with 2% or so of the industry can make a good profit, but Apple depends on their market being big enough to k
Oh yeah, back to the point...the eMac is a h3ll of a little workhorse for it's segment. badmouth the G4 and it's slow FSB all you want, eMac's are great for educational client machines (and many consumers). The PowerMacs are, and will continue to be, great "power-user" and professional machines. Sure, we'd all love to have dual 3GHz with SLI x800's (or 6800's), and that will likely happen at some point, but the current machines really are phenomenally competant Pro machines. Xserves, PowerBooks, iBooks, all very good at what they do. I think a lot of us, myself included, get very excited about what Apple could do and lose sight of how well Apple is doing in many areas.
Apple needs to hit the $1000 market because that is the mid to high end of the current consumer market. For 1000 you can get a PC tower with an AMD 64 chip. Yup 64 bits for $1000. How do you justify a lowly 1.25ghz imac for $200 more. That is the problem, as PC prices have dropped 40% of the past 3 years, Apple's pricing has remained the same, and become seriously underwhelming and underperforming.
Comments
Originally posted by iDave
Uh, well, PC vendors want you to buy not only a computer, but a monitor as well, just like Apple. They make it difficult (or costly) not to, just like Apple. That doesn't mean you can't buy a (reasonably priced) computer by itself from those vendors, unlike from Apple.
For whom? And are these people who don't spend nearly as much money worth addressing by a comparatively small vendor like Apple?
The reason you can do that is that companies like Dell - and heck, the whole PC platform - is set up for enterprise. The configurability you're after is an accident of that setup, but as you point out, they don't want consumers to take advantage of it because it's expensive for them to offer massively configurable single orders.
If Apple doesn't have the presence in enterprise to justify a massively BTO system - which they don't - and if they aren't big enough to serve little niches within niches that not even the PC vendors consider worth targeting (i.e., what they consider worth making readily available and easy to buy), then it's unreasonable to expect them to offer this.
By your own admission, individual system configurability is not something either mainstream or economical for the vendor, or they'd make it easy to do. Therefore, if the primary problem with the iMac is price (which it is by Apple's own admission) then BTO configurability is emphatically not the answer to the problem.
Now, a PowerMac G5 Express could have BTO options, because you'd be paying for them...
Originally posted by Amorph
But this is a pro machine, not a headless iMac or a game machine or a cheap third machine that you can hook up to the old MultiSync you have lying around. It's a PowerMac. And I think it'd sell really well.
I think what some of the "headless iMac" proponents want would indeed be considered a PowerMac, with things like upgradable GPUs, PCI slots, etc. Most of us know that Apple isn't going to make something like that for less than about $1600, if history is any indication. So, in order to have a machine with no monitor, in the $1000 range, it's going to have to be non-expandable. That's where the term "headless iMac" makes sense even though such a machine wouldn't be called an iMac. It's more of a descriptive term.
Oh yeah, back to the point...the eMac is a h3ll of a little workhorse for it's segment. badmouth the G4 and it's slow FSB all you want, eMac's are great for educational client machines (and many consumers). The PowerMacs are, and will continue to be, great "power-user" and professional machines. Sure, we'd all love to have dual 3GHz with SLI x800's (or 6800's), and that will likely happen at some point, but the current machines really are phenomenally competant Pro machines. Xserves, PowerBooks, iBooks, all very good at what they do. I think a lot of us, myself included, get very excited about what Apple could do and lose sight of how well Apple is doing in many areas.
Clearly, expansion into the low-end of the enterprise market is a good way to offset fluctuations in the consumer markets (and vise-versa). Offering compelling software solutions for both the consumers and professionals seriously asuages the concerns over third-party developer attrition (if anybody still has those?!). And diversifying into the broader market of consumer electronics, if done carefully, can clearly bring huge rewards (iPod!).
Finally, I feel like these boards could be a lot more meaningful if we tried (at least sometimes) to focus on new ideas, the positive implications of Apple's growth into new markets, etc. rather than constantly having discussions boil down to b!tch-fests about personal feature-wants (ie, "Apple is cr@p if they don't give me the 16.4" portrait-aspect PowerBook G5 I want!".)
...or maybe I'm just getting too old for these boards?
Originally posted by concentricity
is it just me, or is this whole discussion of Apple needing to address the sub-$1,000 market a bit like saying "Mercedes really needs to offer a sub-$25,000 car for the people that really want the Mercedes experience, but can't afford it"?
Apple used to make a Mac that was popular, powerful and priced right for the masses; the original iMac. We miss it and the idea of it, that's all. The eMac just doesn't do it anymore for most people, though I agree with you that it's a decent machine.
Originally posted by concentricity
is it just me, or is this whole discussion of Apple needing to address the sub-$1,000 market a bit like saying "Mercedes really needs to offer a sub-$25,000 car for the people that really want the Mercedes experience, but can't afford it"?
I think that is a good point. Apple have said a few times that they do not need to compete on price and used the BMW analogy. Its very true that the bottom end of the PC market is cut-throat with razor thin margins so why bother?..
Reason 1
The original iMac was a low end machine at a competetive price. Did this hurt Apple? Quite the contrary.
Reason 2
The low end is where new customers enter the food chain. If you want to encourage switchers you have to let them into Mac land without an expensive visa.
Apple's ease of use gives a big advantage in the "my first computer" market and the corporate workstation market.
Reason 3
Because Apple now CAN acheive a low price. Using iBook engineering. Apple could easily a sub-cube sized 1GHz G4 machine for $500 and make a profit on it. (A key price point.) In terms of usability and convenience such a machine would blow the WalMart tin box out of the water.
Carni
Face it, that 'bar' has come down.
$999? Probably a $899 'sweet spot' by now.
As for whether Apple 'can' or 'can't' do certain things.
Well, look to the past history of the company for a hat full of stupid decisions. Where to start, eh?
They dropped ADC, didn't they?
Apple obviously can't match Dell's pricing. But they could help themselves more.
The iMac 2 was stuck at £999 while PC prices tumbled right on past. It looks like an outdated novelty item. Quirky but clinical...receiving less affection than the original iMac.
As to Amorph's point about the iMac's success. Yes. Well, many reasons for this. Simplicity. Certainly. But you get that with an Apple PowerMac. (Even I set up my first PowerMac...my fingers never leaving my hands while I did so...)
It was novel. The kind of loveable novel that the iMac 2 does not possess.
The iMac was stunningly different. But we're used to things like this from Apple now. Didn't get a price hike and became much cheaper and hit more price brackets to suit pocket over time.
But why did it start selling sell over time, eh? Despite flower power boosts, it became the victim of its own AIO success. Can't do a 17 inch, they said. It will look ugly, like the lard-ass eMac they said... The CRT AIO looks cumbersome at best despite Apple's best talents.
Hard to fit decent components in there, eh? Like a G5 or 6800?
You yourself have argued that a desktop iMac 2 has got to offer more than the iBook to succeed. So, what is that magical ingredient, Amorph? Screen size? Well, it didn't help, did it? Desktops are about static. Hence bigger, less portable hence more power...hence a box you can throw stuff in. See PC box with cable clutter on Apple's site. Laptop is about portability. Hence power trade-off and wait for G5 processor.
Desktop iMac 2. Keyboard and mouse integrated? No? Well, it's not really an AIO, is it?
Apple have two AIOs. Covering prices upto £2K and they wonder why they're taking the beating of a lifetime.
I will agree with you. Now, with the 'workstation/pro' dual processor move...there is room for a single cpu G5 Express mini-tower in the iMac 2's current bracket right down to £899 vat, I'd say.
But I question how sincere Apple is with dual processors, even now. They only seem to do things like this when they can't make 3 gig promises. It's plainly transparent.
Y'know, when you get something called progress happening even stupid iMac buyers know they're being had the flower power iMacs wilted in the garden.
(PC buyer: '17 inch lard ass emac with 1.25 gig G4 vs...a 3gig Pentium 4 with true 17 inch viewable desktop saving LCD...tricky decision...hurm...')
Why didn't the legions of PC tower buyers come on over?
The eMac represents good value if you're a Mac user. But if you aren't? On a hardware level? It's out ranked, outmatched and beaten to death by 3 gig/LCD non-AIOs.
Desktop AIOs need overhauls to stay relevant and clearly, it puts a strain on Apple's resources as the transition to the iMac 2 and 3 demonstrate. And further the lack of real progress in keeping iMac 1, e and 2 relevant. (Hmmm. Do colours count...?)
The iMac 2 represents everything that is wrong with the desktop AIO concept.
I find it ironic that Amorph bleats on about the AIO. He's either got to be an Apple employee reading from a script at gun point or he's blind to the beautiful 'HEADLESS' Mac that sits on his desk?
Cube vs iMac 2?
In hindsight? No contest. The Cube destroys the iMac 2.
The Cube could have used cheaper materials over time ala iBook, lost the chrome grill and the superfluous skirt...for a much cheaper case.
In fact, all I can picture is an alu Cube sitting right aside the Alu monitors...drool.
It only needed to be slightly bigger and alot cheaper.
You want to talk AIOs, Amorph? Let's look at the Powerbook, the iBook.
They ARE AIOs and they do serve a purpose.
On the desktop? More expensive, more restrictive, less powerful.
That's why they don't sell in PC land. That's why they don't sell in Apple Land either.
I find it funny that the PowerMac dual 2 gigger was outselling the iMac 2 at several intervals. Often at twice the price of the base model.
So, Amorph, why didn't Apple sell Five million of the iMac 2 or the ugly step sister eMac?
Maybe you can use some of your 'morphing' logic to tell me why...
I suppose it would have little to do with the AIO concept...Apple's sexy but limited design, prehistoric tech' set, lack of AGP slot, lack of flexibility (pun intended...), a small enclosure that limits progress.
Desktop machine. Tower. That's why they're popular. You can bung what you like in them. Standard components. Cheaper. Sure PC towers look like shat but Apple show they don't have to.
And PC vendors have shown Apple how to do cooling with Shuttles and how to bung Pentium 4 blow torches in there. So, tower designs can still be flexible but more compact...(y'know, the supposed merits for an AIO?)
Splitting hairs aside, stick a PC shuttle alongside an Apple alu display and you've got as good an AIO that Apple will ever make in their lifetime.
Stick a bit of alu Apple styling and the 'badge' on 'em and you've got a PM G5 Express.
The Cube...there's your AIO, Amorph.
And it wouldn't take much to do it right. As PC vendors have shown. If Apple hadn't have been up their own creak they'd have blown the iMac out the water...
Shame they didn't learn their lesson with the iMac 2. It was a step back.
Instead, Apple should go for a flexible modular box that can be refined over time. One that can take graphic cards, can take a G5, that can be modded etc.
The latest Powermac is an example direction to travel towards.
Desktop AIO concept is slow to update, over priced and underpowered. It also doesn't sell well to schools. Apple's eMac and iMac 2 formats are getting the beating of a lifetime from Dell towers with nice LCDs and a G4 stomping 3 gig pentium for less than the price of an iMac 2 and a comparable price to an eMac.
Ouch.
Want a decent AIO? Get a laptop, get an iBook/Powerbook.
However, there's still 50% of the market that wants a decent tower, hot, hungry, powerful and noisy. It's called choice. And it's blindingly stupid not to cater to people who are familar with THAT choice.
And no amount of logical smack talk can argue that the desktop AIO is a resounding success in or out of PC land.
Sales of the iMac 2 and eMac prove that. And they're the best the industry has to offer, lol.
Sure, the d4esktop AIO concept must be great if you can show me one that has power, value for money, flexibility, CHOICE. Because it don't exist vs trillions of proven tower formats that still, 50% of market or nay, sell in trillions. Many more creatives buy PC towers than Apple towers. I have no idea why... (scratches his head searching for more 'morphtastic' logic...)
Apple gives you that choice if you're a 'pro' starting at £1395 smackers. Time and time again, PC users tell me...if Apple had a tower (that bore anything like sanity in price/performance...at industry standard 'sweet spots'... Just how many ADC beatings does Apple have to take before it gets with the program? NIH syndrome is alive and well. Duh. If Apple showed the wide-screen big picture in hardware that they do in software ala 'Tiger' and 'open' standards support with hardware that offered choice they'd be able to better take advantage of the growing anti-M$ momentum.)
Maybe that's why their 'installed base' is stagnant and sells to the same people. 20/25 million Mac users tops vs how many PC users? I'm sure there are figures are out there somewhere.
Maybe they'd welcome more people to the Apple pool if they weren't so defensive.
I hope the iMac 3 PowerMac G5 Express is the nail in the desktop AIO concept. But I feel Apple may have to take yet another beating before they buy a clue.
Maybe the 80 plus retail stores will help. ie customers telling Apple in person that the iMac 2 and lardeMac are not what they want.
Lemon Bon Bon
Great post Lemon!
Originally posted by Carniphage
Of course it would have to look attractive *without* the cinema display too.
Where's my Photoshop?
Carni
Originally posted by Carniphage
http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_p...87927&size=big
You have to be a spymac member...
Carni
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
"iMac 2 and lardemac" LOL
Great post Lemon!
Agreed, buy a clue
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I'd argue that a £795 PC Tower with a 3 gig Pentium 4 is a pro machine.
Then you can explain why the actual pro machines offered by PC vendors cost a whole lot more than that.
The Dell under my desk cost almost $3K.
Hint: The CPU is not the be-all and end-all of system performance, to say nothing of maintainability and reliability, assurances of compatibility with pro hardware, etc.
It might look superficially like a pro system, but that's just because it's a fast CPU in a tower case.
The Dell under my desk cost almost $3K.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Laugh all you want. Pro hardware carries pro price tags. There is simply no way around that very basic fact.
Originally posted by concentricity
is it just me, or is this whole discussion of Apple needing to address the sub-$1,000 market a bit like saying "Mercedes really needs to offer a sub-$25,000 car for the people that really want the Mercedes experience, but can't afford it"? I understand the flaws in making the comparison to the auto industry, mainly that an automaker with 2% or so of the industry can make a good profit, but Apple depends on their market being big enough to k
Oh yeah, back to the point...the eMac is a h3ll of a little workhorse for it's segment. badmouth the G4 and it's slow FSB all you want, eMac's are great for educational client machines (and many consumers). The PowerMacs are, and will continue to be, great "power-user" and professional machines. Sure, we'd all love to have dual 3GHz with SLI x800's (or 6800's), and that will likely happen at some point, but the current machines really are phenomenally competant Pro machines. Xserves, PowerBooks, iBooks, all very good at what they do. I think a lot of us, myself included, get very excited about what Apple could do and lose sight of how well Apple is doing in many areas.
Apple needs to hit the $1000 market because that is the mid to high end of the current consumer market. For 1000 you can get a PC tower with an AMD 64 chip. Yup 64 bits for $1000. How do you justify a lowly 1.25ghz imac for $200 more. That is the problem, as PC prices have dropped 40% of the past 3 years, Apple's pricing has remained the same, and become seriously underwhelming and underperforming.
Originally posted by Amorph
Laugh all you want. Pro hardware carries pro price tags. There is simply no way around that very basic fact.
Yup and consumer PC hardware packs a good deal of performance in at a small price. My Dad decided to upgrade his super old school pc. His quote:
2.4 P4
256MB RAM
80GB
DVD
CDRW
5 USB
$350
While is won't stomp a 3k pro PC, it will handily beat the emac @ 1.25GHZ g4.
In HP Land here is what I can get for $1000. For the approximate price of the emac ($35 more).
AMD64 3200
256MB PC3200
128MB Nvidia 5200
80GB hard drive
8x DVD
XP Pro
17" Flat Screen CRT
and the basics
If HP can get 64-bit to the 1k mark, then Apple should be able to get it to the $1200 mark in a headless machine. And see unit sales increase.
Amorph, Apple at the highend makes sense...it is the mid-range that has problems.