That was way before the iMacs, IIRC. That was when Apple integrated their own graphics on the motherboard, similar to Intel Integrated Graphics? today. I remember being able to do that in the 680x0 days, and also with the early Power Macs. Nowadays, Apple uses video cards from ATI or NVidia, which don't have extra VRAM slots on them.
Not completely true. The Rev. A and B iMacs used ATI Rage II (or similar version) graphic chips and came with 2MB onboard. They also had a slot to add another 4MB VRAM (I know because I upgraded mine). The later iMacs had all memory on motherboard and I believe cold no longer be upgraded at all.
Sounds risky but I'd be MAD not to pass on those special Canadian COW.
Monkeyastronaught- you'd be amazed at how many people that make 6 figures
1. Do their own taxes(probably costing themselve thousands)
2. Have no clue how our tax system works(exemptions etc)
As for $1299 I don't want to trivialize the plightt of some families. I probably sounded a bit obtuse but I'm thinking that if I'm on a pretty severe budget the eMac isn't looking half bad. Sure it's not a LCD but to a family that needs a computer and wants a Mac..it is not bad.
Why do you keep saying the base iMac is going to be $1299?
Quote:
Sources would not confirm specific pricing, but did acknowledge that MSRP will probably fall in the same range as current iMac models -- between US$1,300 and $2,200 -- but could venture slightly higher.
People didn't believe the Powermac line would start at 2 grand. The low end iMac is going to be $1599. I've watched Apple far to long and I know that they are going to stupidly do this.
Because $1299 is very doable. I don't think I'm getting a Superdrive at that price and that sucks. But Apple has likely realized that they have to have something at the price of the original iMac.
It's easy to be pessimistic about Apple because they always go for the jugular after finding success(Cube,Imac2) and find that people's patience for their pricing doesn't extend any further.
Because $1299 is very doable. I don't think I'm getting a Superdrive at that price and that sucks. But Apple has likely realized that they have to have something at the price of the original iMac.
It's easy to be pessimistic about Apple because they always go for the juggler after finding success(Cube,Imac2) and find that people's patience for their pricing doesn't extend any further.
Yea, take out the juggler, they hoard all the good bouncy balls and bowling pins.
However, if Apple went for the jugular, we could have a problem.
I stand by my statement. A family of 4 with two working fulltime adults can afford a $1299 if they make near the median income and aren't dumb enough to blow their money on 60" Big Screens or SUVs or giving Comcast/Time Warner $80 bucks a month. If families cannot afford $1300 every 3 years for a computer there is finacial mismanagement going on generally.
hmurchison, I respect your opinions, but disagree completely wtih this statement.
Please speak for yourself. I have a wife, 2 children in high school and make considerably more than the median income. I have a mortgage, one car payment two other paid for cars. I also have a daughter that drives(read high insurance here) her own car, 2 daughters in club volleyball @ $1500 - $2000 per season per daughter(not including my or my wifes travel expenses to tournaments), private musical insturment lessons for one daughter, travel expenses for the other daughter on choir trips, church sponsored travel for one daughter, looming college expenses and a retirement I'd sincerely like to fund. I don't have a plasma or projection TV or spend money on frivolous items.
Yes, I could afford a $1299 computer without hardship, but for what Apple MAY BE offering in this price range($1299 - $2200), especially considering that it is AIO, I'll pass. The decision will be easy for me. If I need a computer soon, which I do, I'll be buying refurbished or more probably used. It boils down to priorities and an elegant AIO design increases costs above and beyond the utility that I need. Blanket statements about finacial mismanagement are divisive in this argument and accomplishs nothing.
It is obvious, through this forum and countless others, that the general public wants options and for the most part do not see the utility in an AIO design especially if it increases costs. The lack of flexibility of the AIO by all rights and logic should be less expensive because of its' lower utility, but Apple continues under the misguided belief that an AIO should be elegant and expensive.
hmurchison, I respect your opinions, but disagree completely wtih this statement.
Please speak for yourself. I have a wife, 2 children in high school and make considerably more than the median income. I have a mortgage, one car payment two other paid for cars. I also have a daughter that drives(read high insurance here) her own car, 2 daughters in club volleyball @ $1500 - $2000 per season per daughter(not including my or my wifes travel expenses to tournaments), private musical insturment lessons for one daughter, travel expenses for the other daughter on choir trips, church sponsored travel for one daughter, looming college expenses and a retirement I'd sincerely like to fund. I don't have a plasma or projection TV or spend money on frivolous items.
Yes, I could afford a $1299 computer without hardship, but for what Apple MAY BE offering in this price range($1299 - $2200), especially considering that it is AIO, I'll pass. The decision will be easy for me. If I need a computer soon, which I do, I'll be buying refurbished or more probably used. It boils down to priorities and an elegant AIO design increases costs above and beyond the utility that I need. Blanket statements about finacial mismanagement are divisive in this argument and accomplishs nothing.
It is obvious, through this forum and countless others, that the general public wants options and for the most part do not see the utility in an AIO design especially if it increases costs. The lack of flexibility of the AIO by all rights and logic should be less expensive because of its' lower utility, but Apple continues under the misguided belief that an AIO should be elegant and expensive.
Sorry, rant over.
1500-2000 dollars per season? Why would you shop around for the best price when it comes to computers but not for volleyball clubs? 1500 is a bit steep don't you think?
I actually agree with hmurchison...most people have financial management problems. If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer, they could shave a couple hundred dollars here and there to buy a Mac...a small sacrifice, IMO.
It's not like we're talking about a huge investment here. 1299, right? As opposed to 899 or 999?
If you can't scrape up 300 dollars more by making a few small sacrifices here and there, then you probably aren't above the median income.
1500-2000 dollars per season? Why would you shop around for the best price when it comes to computers but not for volleyball clubs? 1500 is a bit steep don't you think?
I actually agree with hmurchison...most people have financial management problems. If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer, they could shave a couple hundred dollars here and there to buy a Mac...a small sacrifice, IMO.
It's not like we're talking about a huge investment here. 1299, right? As opposed to 899 or 999?
If you can't scrape up 300 dollars more by making a few small sacrifices here and there, then you probably aren't above the median income.
I think the issue here is whether being locked into your purchase is worth paying $1299. Especially when you can get a 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 for this same price (check out Apple's special deals section).
If Apple can sell actual PowerMacs for $1299, why can't they put together a headless, slightly expandable Mac for us consumers at the same price? Apple doesn't sell computers at a loss, so why not shrink the 1.6GHz PowerMac, reduce the expandability to say, 1 AGP + 1 PCI, 1 optical drive and 1 internal hard drive? Either that or use the PowerMac case across the whole line (for cost reduction), and make "consumer Macs" single processor and "professional Macs" dual or more processor with greater RAM expandability ...
I want my next computer purchase to be an Apple. I also want to make my next computer purchase before my first child comes along because the change in my wife's work schedule + baby expenses (and home remodeling) will make it difficult to buy a new computer once the baby is here.
I want Apple to earn my money, and succeed in getting more users to the OS X platform. I just don't think the iMac as an AIO is the way to go. Apple has the ability to put out a single processor G5 in the $1200 - 1500 price range and make a decent profit while giving us consumers the flexability we desire. Why won't Apple do this?!? is my question.
1500-2000 dollars per season? Why would you shop around for the best price when it comes to computers but not for volleyball clubs? 1500 is a bit steep don't you think?
No, actually it's not. The cost is proportional to ability and travel clubs cost a lot no matter the club affiliation.
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I actually agree with hmurchison...most people have financial management problems. If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer, they could shave a couple hundred dollars here and there to buy a Mac...a small sacrifice, IMO.
It's not like we're talking about a huge investment here. 1299, right? As opposed to 899 or 999?
If you can't scrape up 300 dollars more by making a few small sacrifices here and there, then you probably aren't above the median income.
You didn't catch the part of my rant about utility and priorities did you? Sure I could afford the cost, I'm currently typing this reply on a G4 15" Powerbook, but at least for me the value for an desktop AIO at these spec.s isn't worth it. The Powerbook, at the time I purchased it, provided me the value I needed so I bought.
Interjecting financial mismanagement into this argument if a false dead end. The same could be said for purchasers of Windows machines and diverts the argument away from the true issues with the iMac and low sales volume.
No, actually it's not. The cost is proportional to ability and travel clubs cost a lot no matter the club affiliation.
You didn't catch the part of my rant about utility and priorities did you? Sure I could afford the cost, I'm currently typing this reply on a G4 15" Powerbook, but at least for me the value for an desktop AIO at these spec.s isn't worth it. The Powerbook, at the time I purchased it, provided me the value I needed so I bought.
Interjecting financial mismanagement into this argument if a false dead end. The same could be said for purchasers of Windows machines and diverts the argument away from the true issues with the iMac and low sales volume.
Ok...so you have a spec problem. But most others that aren't so anal about specs probably have a finance management problem.
Like hmurchison said, lots of people go out and buy SUVs and the gas to go with it and all sorts of products that aren't very important...but the computer which is increasing in importance is still neglected by most people. People are ready to pay a shitload of cash for an SUV and expensive iPods but not ready to spend a couple hundred dollars extra to get a more pleasant computing experience?
People's priorities and money management are a bit misplaced...but that's just my take on it. Someone will undoubtedly ask me "who are you to decide what's more important to someone else." I am the Wise Man Who Knows Everything.
.... If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer,....
I just thought this part of your statement should be repeated. If you really ponder this statement it inevitably leads to part of the reason the iMac has not and will not increase market share.
People who care for a good computer are voting by not buying Apple consumer desktops and paying slighly less than the cost of the LOWEND of the iMacs for the Window machines they do buy. People who do not care are buying low cost eMachines and the like.
Apple should be marketing to the people who really want and care for a good computer, these same people understand the limitations and expenses of the iMac and the woeful spec's of the eMac.
It is obvious that you are not a member of the financial mismanagement group but I assure you it does exist. I think it is important for people to realize that the disappointment in specs is always going to be there. I do the same thing.
I guess we're really going to have to watch what Apple does right now. It is time to increase sales and move the company into new directions. How they do that is going to be interesting. People ask why Apple doesn't just create a headless mac. Well looking at their history it doesn't seem like much of what they do really affects sells. Couple that with the desire for desktops diminishing and you can see why Apple is keeping things simple.
What burns my but more than anything, I'm speaking as an Apple stockholder now, is that Apple is now in a position with the advent of the G5, maturation of OS X, Apple's capturing of the public's attention, introduction of Apple Stores and its' consumer applications(iApps) to actualy increase marketshare. It has been years since Apple has been in such a position, if ever. Add to that the grumbling about Microsoft's security issues and delay in Longhorn.
Then what the heck does Apple have to offer the consumer. The AIO iMacs and eMacs. Both force decisions on the consumer that many do not want to make. The iMac has choices of monitors, but they are expensive LCD's, no option to upgrade the video card. All that for entry level pricing of $1299. The eMac doesn't offer a choice of monitors, want a larger or smaller monitor, too bad and the cpu is old technology on an older system bus.
Apple is and has been restricting the size of the total market that will give serious consideration to their products, when it really needs to be broadening their market appeal. All this on top of Apple's stated goal of increasing market share and meeting, by their own admition, the entry level pricing of under $1000.
but then again, all this ranting I've done is base on one rumor sites projected specifications
What burns my but more than anything, I'm speaking as an Apple stockholder now, is that Apple is now in a position with the advent of the G5, maturation of OS X, Apple's capturing of the public's attention, introduction of Apple Stores and its' consumer applications(iApps) to actualy increase marketshare. It has been years since Apple has been in such a position, if ever. Add to that the grumbling about Microsoft's security issues and delay in Longhorn.
Then what the heck does Apple have to offer the consumer. The AIO iMacs and eMacs. Both force decisions on the consumer that many do not want to make. The iMac has choices of monitors, but they are expensive LCD's, no option to upgrade the video card. All that for entry level pricing of $1299. The eMac doesn't offer a choice of monitors, want a larger or smaller monitor, too bad and the cpu is old technology on an older system bus.
Apple is and has been restricting the size of the total market that will give serious consideration to their products, when it really needs to be broadening their market appeal. All this on top of Apple's stated goal of increasing market share and meeting, by their own admition, the entry level pricing of under $1000.
but then again, all this ranting I've done is base on one rumor sites projected specifications
Now here's someone who's hit the nail right on the head! Apple is in the best position they've been in for ages to grow market share and what are they doing? From what I can see they're doig zilch to capitalise on their current successes.
I'm sure they could produce an affordable headless G5 that could be upgraded but why the heck won't they?
Hey Steve! Give us a decent, upgradeable, headless G5 PLEASE!!?
I'm sure they could produce an affordable headless G5 that could be upgraded but why the heck won't they?
It's not so much as if they "could" but if they "should". Apple is a public company that must seek to make a profit. Headless G5s are nice to dream about but the only way they are created is if Apple can profit from them.
What people are asking Apple to do is create a system that will last them longer and allow them to choose non Apple monitors. Apple is not in a position where they can do that. The increase in sales that lowcost headless Mac would generate would not be enough to offset the loss in revenue from the attached LCD.
"Think like an accountant and not a consumer and it all makes sense"
It's not so much as if they "could" but if they "should". Apple is a public company that must seek to make a profit. Headless G5s are nice to dream about but the only way they are created is if Apple can profit from them.
What people are asking Apple to do is create a system that will last them longer and allow them to choose non Apple monitors. Apple is not in a position where they can do that. The increase in sales that lowcost headless Mac would generate would not be enough to offset the loss in revenue from the attached LCD.
I'd think that if they provided good enough deals on iMac headless + a decent monitor, people would get the monitor if they needed it, and maybe even if they didn't need it. :-)
It's not so much as if they "could" but if they "should". Apple is a public company that must seek to make a profit. Headless G5s are nice to dream about but the only way they are created is if Apple can profit from them.
What people are asking Apple to do is create a system that will last them longer and allow them to choose non Apple monitors. Apple is not in a position where they can do that. The increase in sales that lowcost headless Mac would generate would not be enough to offset the loss in revenue from the attached LCD.
"Think like an accountant and not a consumer and it all makes sense"
I'm a financial systems analyst, thank you very much, and I'm thinking about a profitable low cost headless Mac from the economic perspective called "price elasticity of demand". Maybe you've heard of it? Apple should have plenty of wiggle room to maximize their economic profitability by giving the people clamoring for a single CPU expandable headless Mac.
Apple does have the momentum necessary to bust out of its marketshare rut. If PC switchers (remember that whole spiel?) could get a headless Mac at a $1300 price point (I'll again point out that Apple is selling $1300 PowerMac G5s with a 1.6GHz CPU) and put some marketing behind the iApps, the people will go to the Apple stores to check these computers out. At reasonable prices, expandability (Apple could make some cash from on the spot BTO, have the Apple genius do the upgrade instead of ordering from the mothership *poof* instant gratification) and the mature iApps will push these computers out the door.
You say people want to do things with their computers and I concur. My boss is going hog-wild converting his VHS collection of family videos into digital format, doing some editing and burning DVDS. The only real problem with his workflow is that his 2.xxGHz CrapaQ takes about 20 hours to encode and burn a single DVD.
I've shown him how simple and FAST iMovie + iDVD is and he knows that Apple is where it's at as far as video editing goes. The only problem is, he won't buy a computer that doesn't have expandability (he's added a 2nd HD for all his video, and added the PCI analog capture card) because he needs PCI slots for what he does, and a $2K entry point doesn't sit well with him when he can get a PC for 1/2 that. I've tried the whole "time is $$$" argument (which of course he understands, being a CPA and all) but he won't experiment with an Apple computer if the cheapest model he would even consider buying costs $2K.
I guarantee that if Apple put out an expandable $1300 consumer computer I could get one in my boss' house as fast as they could get one in stock at Westfarms.
I'd think that if they provided good enough deals on iMac headless + a decent monitor, people would get the monitor if they needed it, and maybe even if they didn't need it. :-)
Report this post to a moderator
That's great for the consumer but it does nothing for Apple and its shareholders.
Going from %100 attach rates on LCDs to even %70 means that Apple now has to sell more Macs to cover the revenue loss.
Drop an item's cost by %75 you have to increase sales %400.
Drop an item's cost by %30 you have to increase sales %200
That's a tough order folks. We all want cheaper computers but will these price cuts have a corresponding large spike in sales? History is not on our side. The last major computing spike for Apple was the original iMac. Surprise! An all in one that many despise. The last Headless Mac? Suprise! The Cube which failed miserably even when it dropped to $1299.
That's great for the consumer but it does nothing for Apple and its shareholders.
Going from %100 attach rates on LCDs to even %70 means that Apple now has to sell more Macs to cover the revenue loss.
Drop an item's cost by %75 you have to increase sales %400.
Drop an item's cost by %30 you have to increase sales %200
Yeah, but nothing would prevent Apple to overcharge for the base unit, and they'd do it anyways. Ignoring that, I think that something does Apple need to sacrifice, in order to stop market share from spiraling down.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison The last Headless Mac? Suprise! The Cube which failed miserably even when it dropped to $1299.
That's because a headless machine with crappy specs at $1299 is expensive an undesirable. The cube was not the last headless mac. It was the last headless mac targeted at consumers, and it failed because it didn't have anything to offer (low price was one of those missing offerings), besides just being headless and GPU upgradeable.
Comments
Originally posted by CharlesS
That was way before the iMacs, IIRC. That was when Apple integrated their own graphics on the motherboard, similar to Intel Integrated Graphics? today. I remember being able to do that in the 680x0 days, and also with the early Power Macs. Nowadays, Apple uses video cards from ATI or NVidia, which don't have extra VRAM slots on them.
Not completely true. The Rev. A and B iMacs used ATI Rage II (or similar version) graphic chips and came with 2MB onboard. They also had a slot to add another 4MB VRAM (I know because I upgraded mine). The later iMacs had all memory on motherboard and I believe cold no longer be upgraded at all.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Sounds risky but I'd be MAD not to pass on those special Canadian COW.
Monkeyastronaught- you'd be amazed at how many people that make 6 figures
1. Do their own taxes(probably costing themselve thousands)
2. Have no clue how our tax system works(exemptions etc)
As for $1299 I don't want to trivialize the plightt of some families. I probably sounded a bit obtuse but I'm thinking that if I'm on a pretty severe budget the eMac isn't looking half bad. Sure it's not a LCD but to a family that needs a computer and wants a Mac..it is not bad.
Why do you keep saying the base iMac is going to be $1299?
Sources would not confirm specific pricing, but did acknowledge that MSRP will probably fall in the same range as current iMac models -- between US$1,300 and $2,200 -- but could venture slightly higher.
People didn't believe the Powermac line would start at 2 grand. The low end iMac is going to be $1599. I've watched Apple far to long and I know that they are going to stupidly do this.
Nick
It's easy to be pessimistic about Apple because they always go for the jugular after finding success(Cube,Imac2) and find that people's patience for their pricing doesn't extend any further.
<thanks PBG4 Dude>
Originally posted by hmurchison
Because $1299 is very doable. I don't think I'm getting a Superdrive at that price and that sucks. But Apple has likely realized that they have to have something at the price of the original iMac.
It's easy to be pessimistic about Apple because they always go for the juggler after finding success(Cube,Imac2) and find that people's patience for their pricing doesn't extend any further.
Yea, take out the juggler, they hoard all the good bouncy balls and bowling pins.
However, if Apple went for the jugular, we could have a problem.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Yea, take out the juggler, they hoard all the good bouncy balls and bowling pins.
However, if Apple went for the jugular, we could have a problem.
Jugglers are bastards. I rank them right there with mimes.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I stand by my statement. A family of 4 with two working fulltime adults can afford a $1299 if they make near the median income and aren't dumb enough to blow their money on 60" Big Screens or SUVs or giving Comcast/Time Warner $80 bucks a month. If families cannot afford $1300 every 3 years for a computer there is finacial mismanagement going on generally.
hmurchison, I respect your opinions, but disagree completely wtih this statement.
Please speak for yourself. I have a wife, 2 children in high school and make considerably more than the median income. I have a mortgage, one car payment two other paid for cars. I also have a daughter that drives(read high insurance here) her own car, 2 daughters in club volleyball @ $1500 - $2000 per season per daughter(not including my or my wifes travel expenses to tournaments), private musical insturment lessons for one daughter, travel expenses for the other daughter on choir trips, church sponsored travel for one daughter, looming college expenses and a retirement I'd sincerely like to fund. I don't have a plasma or projection TV or spend money on frivolous items.
Yes, I could afford a $1299 computer without hardship, but for what Apple MAY BE offering in this price range($1299 - $2200), especially considering that it is AIO, I'll pass. The decision will be easy for me. If I need a computer soon, which I do, I'll be buying refurbished or more probably used. It boils down to priorities and an elegant AIO design increases costs above and beyond the utility that I need. Blanket statements about finacial mismanagement are divisive in this argument and accomplishs nothing.
It is obvious, through this forum and countless others, that the general public wants options and for the most part do not see the utility in an AIO design especially if it increases costs. The lack of flexibility of the AIO by all rights and logic should be less expensive because of its' lower utility, but Apple continues under the misguided belief that an AIO should be elegant and expensive.
Sorry, rant over.
Originally posted by rickag
hmurchison, I respect your opinions, but disagree completely wtih this statement.
Please speak for yourself. I have a wife, 2 children in high school and make considerably more than the median income. I have a mortgage, one car payment two other paid for cars. I also have a daughter that drives(read high insurance here) her own car, 2 daughters in club volleyball @ $1500 - $2000 per season per daughter(not including my or my wifes travel expenses to tournaments), private musical insturment lessons for one daughter, travel expenses for the other daughter on choir trips, church sponsored travel for one daughter, looming college expenses and a retirement I'd sincerely like to fund. I don't have a plasma or projection TV or spend money on frivolous items.
Yes, I could afford a $1299 computer without hardship, but for what Apple MAY BE offering in this price range($1299 - $2200), especially considering that it is AIO, I'll pass. The decision will be easy for me. If I need a computer soon, which I do, I'll be buying refurbished or more probably used. It boils down to priorities and an elegant AIO design increases costs above and beyond the utility that I need. Blanket statements about finacial mismanagement are divisive in this argument and accomplishs nothing.
It is obvious, through this forum and countless others, that the general public wants options and for the most part do not see the utility in an AIO design especially if it increases costs. The lack of flexibility of the AIO by all rights and logic should be less expensive because of its' lower utility, but Apple continues under the misguided belief that an AIO should be elegant and expensive.
Sorry, rant over.
1500-2000 dollars per season? Why would you shop around for the best price when it comes to computers but not for volleyball clubs? 1500 is a bit steep don't you think?
I actually agree with hmurchison...most people have financial management problems. If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer, they could shave a couple hundred dollars here and there to buy a Mac...a small sacrifice, IMO.
It's not like we're talking about a huge investment here. 1299, right? As opposed to 899 or 999?
If you can't scrape up 300 dollars more by making a few small sacrifices here and there, then you probably aren't above the median income.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
1500-2000 dollars per season? Why would you shop around for the best price when it comes to computers but not for volleyball clubs? 1500 is a bit steep don't you think?
I actually agree with hmurchison...most people have financial management problems. If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer, they could shave a couple hundred dollars here and there to buy a Mac...a small sacrifice, IMO.
It's not like we're talking about a huge investment here. 1299, right? As opposed to 899 or 999?
If you can't scrape up 300 dollars more by making a few small sacrifices here and there, then you probably aren't above the median income.
I think the issue here is whether being locked into your purchase is worth paying $1299. Especially when you can get a 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 for this same price (check out Apple's special deals section).
If Apple can sell actual PowerMacs for $1299, why can't they put together a headless, slightly expandable Mac for us consumers at the same price? Apple doesn't sell computers at a loss, so why not shrink the 1.6GHz PowerMac, reduce the expandability to say, 1 AGP + 1 PCI, 1 optical drive and 1 internal hard drive? Either that or use the PowerMac case across the whole line (for cost reduction), and make "consumer Macs" single processor and "professional Macs" dual or more processor with greater RAM expandability ...
I want my next computer purchase to be an Apple. I also want to make my next computer purchase before my first child comes along because the change in my wife's work schedule + baby expenses (and home remodeling) will make it difficult to buy a new computer once the baby is here.
I want Apple to earn my money, and succeed in getting more users to the OS X platform. I just don't think the iMac as an AIO is the way to go. Apple has the ability to put out a single processor G5 in the $1200 - 1500 price range and make a decent profit while giving us consumers the flexability we desire. Why won't Apple do this?!? is my question.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
1500-2000 dollars per season? Why would you shop around for the best price when it comes to computers but not for volleyball clubs? 1500 is a bit steep don't you think?
No, actually it's not. The cost is proportional to ability and travel clubs cost a lot no matter the club affiliation.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I actually agree with hmurchison...most people have financial management problems. If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer, they could shave a couple hundred dollars here and there to buy a Mac...a small sacrifice, IMO.
It's not like we're talking about a huge investment here. 1299, right? As opposed to 899 or 999?
If you can't scrape up 300 dollars more by making a few small sacrifices here and there, then you probably aren't above the median income.
You didn't catch the part of my rant about utility and priorities did you? Sure I could afford the cost, I'm currently typing this reply on a G4 15" Powerbook, but at least for me the value for an desktop AIO at these spec.s isn't worth it. The Powerbook, at the time I purchased it, provided me the value I needed so I bought.
Interjecting financial mismanagement into this argument if a false dead end. The same could be said for purchasers of Windows machines and diverts the argument away from the true issues with the iMac and low sales volume.
Originally posted by rickag
No, actually it's not. The cost is proportional to ability and travel clubs cost a lot no matter the club affiliation.
You didn't catch the part of my rant about utility and priorities did you? Sure I could afford the cost, I'm currently typing this reply on a G4 15" Powerbook, but at least for me the value for an desktop AIO at these spec.s isn't worth it. The Powerbook, at the time I purchased it, provided me the value I needed so I bought.
Interjecting financial mismanagement into this argument if a false dead end. The same could be said for purchasers of Windows machines and diverts the argument away from the true issues with the iMac and low sales volume.
Ok...so you have a spec problem. But most others that aren't so anal about specs probably have a finance management problem.
Like hmurchison said, lots of people go out and buy SUVs and the gas to go with it and all sorts of products that aren't very important...but the computer which is increasing in importance is still neglected by most people. People are ready to pay a shitload of cash for an SUV and expensive iPods but not ready to spend a couple hundred dollars extra to get a more pleasant computing experience?
People's priorities and money management are a bit misplaced...but that's just my take on it. Someone will undoubtedly ask me "who are you to decide what's more important to someone else." I am the Wise Man Who Knows Everything.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
.... If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer,....
I just thought this part of your statement should be repeated. If you really ponder this statement it inevitably leads to part of the reason the iMac has not and will not increase market share.
People who care for a good computer are voting by not buying Apple consumer desktops and paying slighly less than the cost of the LOWEND of the iMacs for the Window machines they do buy. People who do not care are buying low cost eMachines and the like.
Apple should be marketing to the people who really want and care for a good computer, these same people understand the limitations and expenses of the iMac and the woeful spec's of the eMac.
It is obvious that you are not a member of the financial mismanagement group but I assure you it does exist. I think it is important for people to realize that the disappointment in specs is always going to be there. I do the same thing.
I guess we're really going to have to watch what Apple does right now. It is time to increase sales and move the company into new directions. How they do that is going to be interesting. People ask why Apple doesn't just create a headless mac. Well looking at their history it doesn't seem like much of what they do really affects sells. Couple that with the desire for desktops diminishing and you can see why Apple is keeping things simple.
What burns my but more than anything, I'm speaking as an Apple stockholder now, is that Apple is now in a position with the advent of the G5, maturation of OS X, Apple's capturing of the public's attention, introduction of Apple Stores and its' consumer applications(iApps) to actualy increase marketshare. It has been years since Apple has been in such a position, if ever. Add to that the grumbling about Microsoft's security issues and delay in Longhorn.
Then what the heck does Apple have to offer the consumer. The AIO iMacs and eMacs. Both force decisions on the consumer that many do not want to make. The iMac has choices of monitors, but they are expensive LCD's, no option to upgrade the video card. All that for entry level pricing of $1299. The eMac doesn't offer a choice of monitors, want a larger or smaller monitor, too bad and the cpu is old technology on an older system bus.
Apple is and has been restricting the size of the total market that will give serious consideration to their products, when it really needs to be broadening their market appeal. All this on top of Apple's stated goal of increasing market share and meeting, by their own admition, the entry level pricing of under $1000.
but then again, all this ranting I've done is base on one rumor sites projected specifications
Originally posted by rickag
but then again, all this ranting I've done is base on one rumor sites projected specifications
best thing anyone has written on this forum in weeks...
Originally posted by rickag
hmurchison
What burns my but more than anything, I'm speaking as an Apple stockholder now, is that Apple is now in a position with the advent of the G5, maturation of OS X, Apple's capturing of the public's attention, introduction of Apple Stores and its' consumer applications(iApps) to actualy increase marketshare. It has been years since Apple has been in such a position, if ever. Add to that the grumbling about Microsoft's security issues and delay in Longhorn.
Then what the heck does Apple have to offer the consumer. The AIO iMacs and eMacs. Both force decisions on the consumer that many do not want to make. The iMac has choices of monitors, but they are expensive LCD's, no option to upgrade the video card. All that for entry level pricing of $1299. The eMac doesn't offer a choice of monitors, want a larger or smaller monitor, too bad and the cpu is old technology on an older system bus.
Apple is and has been restricting the size of the total market that will give serious consideration to their products, when it really needs to be broadening their market appeal. All this on top of Apple's stated goal of increasing market share and meeting, by their own admition, the entry level pricing of under $1000.
but then again, all this ranting I've done is base on one rumor sites projected specifications
Now here's someone who's hit the nail right on the head! Apple is in the best position they've been in for ages to grow market share and what are they doing? From what I can see they're doig zilch to capitalise on their current successes.
I'm sure they could produce an affordable headless G5 that could be upgraded but why the heck won't they?
Hey Steve! Give us a decent, upgradeable, headless G5 PLEASE!!?
I'm sure they could produce an affordable headless G5 that could be upgraded but why the heck won't they?
It's not so much as if they "could" but if they "should". Apple is a public company that must seek to make a profit. Headless G5s are nice to dream about but the only way they are created is if Apple can profit from them.
What people are asking Apple to do is create a system that will last them longer and allow them to choose non Apple monitors. Apple is not in a position where they can do that. The increase in sales that lowcost headless Mac would generate would not be enough to offset the loss in revenue from the attached LCD.
"Think like an accountant and not a consumer and it all makes sense"
Originally posted by hmurchison
It's not so much as if they "could" but if they "should". Apple is a public company that must seek to make a profit. Headless G5s are nice to dream about but the only way they are created is if Apple can profit from them.
What people are asking Apple to do is create a system that will last them longer and allow them to choose non Apple monitors. Apple is not in a position where they can do that. The increase in sales that lowcost headless Mac would generate would not be enough to offset the loss in revenue from the attached LCD.
I'd think that if they provided good enough deals on iMac headless + a decent monitor, people would get the monitor if they needed it, and maybe even if they didn't need it. :-)
Originally posted by hmurchison
It's not so much as if they "could" but if they "should". Apple is a public company that must seek to make a profit. Headless G5s are nice to dream about but the only way they are created is if Apple can profit from them.
What people are asking Apple to do is create a system that will last them longer and allow them to choose non Apple monitors. Apple is not in a position where they can do that. The increase in sales that lowcost headless Mac would generate would not be enough to offset the loss in revenue from the attached LCD.
"Think like an accountant and not a consumer and it all makes sense"
I'm a financial systems analyst, thank you very much, and I'm thinking about a profitable low cost headless Mac from the economic perspective called "price elasticity of demand". Maybe you've heard of it? Apple should have plenty of wiggle room to maximize their economic profitability by giving the people clamoring for a single CPU expandable headless Mac.
Apple does have the momentum necessary to bust out of its marketshare rut. If PC switchers (remember that whole spiel?) could get a headless Mac at a $1300 price point (I'll again point out that Apple is selling $1300 PowerMac G5s with a 1.6GHz CPU) and put some marketing behind the iApps, the people will go to the Apple stores to check these computers out. At reasonable prices, expandability (Apple could make some cash from on the spot BTO, have the Apple genius do the upgrade instead of ordering from the mothership *poof* instant gratification) and the mature iApps will push these computers out the door.
You say people want to do things with their computers and I concur. My boss is going hog-wild converting his VHS collection of family videos into digital format, doing some editing and burning DVDS. The only real problem with his workflow is that his 2.xxGHz CrapaQ takes about 20 hours to encode and burn a single DVD.
I've shown him how simple and FAST iMovie + iDVD is and he knows that Apple is where it's at as far as video editing goes. The only problem is, he won't buy a computer that doesn't have expandability (he's added a 2nd HD for all his video, and added the PCI analog capture card) because he needs PCI slots for what he does, and a $2K entry point doesn't sit well with him when he can get a PC for 1/2 that. I've tried the whole "time is $$$" argument (which of course he understands, being a CPA and all) but he won't experiment with an Apple computer if the cheapest model he would even consider buying costs $2K.
I guarantee that if Apple put out an expandable $1300 consumer computer I could get one in my boss' house as fast as they could get one in stock at Westfarms.
I'd think that if they provided good enough deals on iMac headless + a decent monitor, people would get the monitor if they needed it, and maybe even if they didn't need it. :-)
Report this post to a moderator
That's great for the consumer but it does nothing for Apple and its shareholders.
Going from %100 attach rates on LCDs to even %70 means that Apple now has to sell more Macs to cover the revenue loss.
Drop an item's cost by %75 you have to increase sales %400.
Drop an item's cost by %30 you have to increase sales %200
That's a tough order folks. We all want cheaper computers but will these price cuts have a corresponding large spike in sales? History is not on our side. The last major computing spike for Apple was the original iMac. Surprise! An all in one that many despise. The last Headless Mac? Suprise! The Cube which failed miserably even when it dropped to $1299.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's great for the consumer but it does nothing for Apple and its shareholders.
Going from %100 attach rates on LCDs to even %70 means that Apple now has to sell more Macs to cover the revenue loss.
Drop an item's cost by %75 you have to increase sales %400.
Drop an item's cost by %30 you have to increase sales %200
Yeah, but nothing would prevent Apple to overcharge for the base unit, and they'd do it anyways. Ignoring that, I think that something does Apple need to sacrifice, in order to stop market share from spiraling down.
Originally posted by hmurchison The last Headless Mac? Suprise! The Cube which failed miserably even when it dropped to $1299.
That's because a headless machine with crappy specs at $1299 is expensive an undesirable. The cube was not the last headless mac. It was the last headless mac targeted at consumers, and it failed because it didn't have anything to offer (low price was one of those missing offerings), besides just being headless and GPU upgradeable.