It would be nice if Apple allowed a small consumer tower, but as somebody pointed out maybe the new iMac could be that if the video card could be replaced. As I see it there are a few reasons why Apple doesn't like consumer towers.
1. Jobs et. al just don't like the concept for some personel reason.
2. Apple thinks they will not sell enough units to turn a profit and would rather live off the high margins.
3. They count on the money from the sale of a monitor and they force you to pay it with a AIO. Most people would not buy a Apple monitor at the current prices unless they had to or really wanted one. I seem to remember that's one thing Apple disliked about the Cube. They lost monitor sales.
4. They may fear that the upgrade cycle would be slower since people could upgrade the computer themselves and would not need to buy a new one as soon as they might with AIO.
There may be other and more complex reasons but Apple won't change and that's the bottom line.
. . . As I see it there are a few reasons why Apple doesn't like consumer towers. . .
3. They count on the money from the sale of a monitor and they force you to pay it with a AIO. . .
Pricing it right could easily fix that. Apple could sell the tower at a higher profit margin, in percent, than the AIO. Set the margin so the dollars of profit are the same. That way, it should make no difference to Apple which one the customer buys.
If Apple then offers a discount on the monitor when it is purchased with the tower, it makes the Apple monitor more attractive at the time of sale. Apple does not lose any profit this way either, since margin was increased on the tower. The sale of a tower with monitor would yield as much or more profit, in dollars, as sale of an AIO.
A friend of mine was seriously considering buying a Mac - he is a windows user and his wife a Mac user. He was completely open to getting a Mac, even leaning that way.
They just bought a Dell.
I think potential switchers look at the Mac line and they just don't see anything they understand. They look for a PC-type machine that they're used to and it costs $3000. Then they look at the cheaper Macs and they see these all-in-ones and they don't quite know what to make of them. What if I want a different display? What if I already have a display I don't want to throw away? The eMac is in my price range, but I've never heard of it. I thought it was "iMac." Oh wait, that's out of the normal computer price range too. It all just seems a big muddle.
The graphics cards are a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, as far as my friend was concerned, and as far as the vast majority of people are concerned, IMO. That's primarily a gamer's issue, and this forum is very heavily skewed toward the gamer's demographic (teen to college-aged males).
The problem is that potential switchers just don't see anything they can latch on to as a "normal" machine that even compares to what they're used to. The 1899-1299 = 600 math shows very clearly that they could do it if they wanted.
I think Apple should just offer the eMac without a monitor, with a user upgradeable GPU, but at the same price as the eMac. The cost to produce and ship (in volume or individually) that little box would be less than an eMac, so the profit margins would be higher. It doesn't need to be their best box.
I agree completely. As I said above, I don't even care about the graphics card, and I don't think 90% of potential switchers care about it either. The problem IMO is that displays last longer than computers, and so lots of PC people have displays hanging around that they don't want to waste.
. . . The problem IMO is that displays last longer than computers, and so lots of PC people have displays hanging around that they don't want to waste.
Yes, and not just for consumers. This may be a huge factor for many schools and businesses.
It completely is an issue of Apple protecting their higher lines at the expense of market share. Take the base iMac at $1299 and lop off the monitor. Do you really think they couldn't sell a headless iMac in this configuration with a couple of slots and drive bays for under $1000?
I would buy an eMac in a second if it had two drive bays, a SuperDrive and no monitor, and i even thought about buying one and tearing it apart to get that.
Yeah, I thought the 20 inch LCD off = wow, really cheap headless computer too!
It shows Apple can do a cheap headless machine for at least in the eMac to Cube price range.
I agree with the point that traditional PC buyers don't see much that they understand.
Apple are putting 'PC language' into 'Tiger' search.
Why not offer them a headless Mac they understand in PC language?
Apple can offer dual towers at the price they do.
Take away a cpu in each machine and you have a 'non-workstation' range at over a hundred bucks cheaper per machine. ie a single cpu G5 tower range to fill the £1K-1.3 K void.
I'd happily dump the eMac monitor. Drop in an expandable AGP slot and Apple charge me £595 instead of £545 for the eMac. ie they keep the money for the dropped monitor (which is crap anyway...!) and charge me more so I can have an agp slot I can upgrade! Perfect eCube. For skinflints everywhere who want to do Mac. Only has to have a 1.6 G5 in it. The new iMac minus its monitor proves it can be done! Makes you wonder just how obscene margins must have been on the lampMac.
Apple sacrifice market share for margins. Always have. They only have themselves to blame for their marketshare woes.
They watched how their marketshare withered like sand slipping 'tween fingers...
They've always been greedy b*************s.
Lemon Bon Bon
...and yes, this probably is another 'whinge thread' re: a lack of something in Apple's range. ie a big gaping hole of 'Where's my headless'...?
I like the new iMac alot. But a 5200 in a machine costing £1400 quid is crap. As is 256 megs of ram.
...and I'm going to whine like a cat on heat until Apple does something about it...
The new user page which Apple has drawn our attention too is interesting.
It's not a tower per se. It's a computer I can upgrade a graphics card, cpu etc on. It doesn't have to be massively expandable.
Hell, Apple themselves can be their own BTO shop and SELL US the motherboard and cpu and cpu upgrades at a mark up if they wish!
In that sense, the new iMac could be really interesting!
The 5200 is out of its depth on Doom 3. It shouldn't be. The 5200 is quickly evaporating as the 'place holder' graphic card in entry PC desktops upto a grand. ATI 9200 is taking over. Also in the grand and over area...the 9800 Pro is coming on tap in mainstream machines.
So, I would like the option for Apple to sell me a new mainboard that has a Radeon 9800 pro soldiered on if possible.
If Apple sells 5 million of these iMacs...that is a massive upgrade market for themselves! Not everybody wants to buy a whole 'nuther machine.
Think of the profit Apple could get if they could sell a motherboard with new cpu and gpu on it ie like PC folks sell...aka a 'Bare bones system' that you could just 'drop in'.
Why haven't I bought a Mac tower since 98? Because Apple lags on power, value and bang for buck. I almost bought the dual 2 gig G5 but Jobs promised me the dual 3 gig. That was my machine. It didn't turn up so I've targeted the Antares 970MP @3gig.
Apple could be alot more flexible in meeting the needs of its customers.
It isn't. The new new iMac is on the way back to the old iMac price range.
Good.
But we need a headless Mac as an alternative to those who don't want that.
PC vendors are selling alu look and black and white look cubes for around less and over 1K for nice spec.
Apple could do this...with a nice consumer tower, which, unlike the Cube, doesn't have a design that disappears up their own arse.
Lemon Bon Bon
The PC shuttles. Nice. Don't have the 'lush' of Apple's design but hey...
If Apple sold a machine without a display, in my opinion they could have a BTO option that slashes keyboard and mouse.
Like the display, the input devices last a long time. Many people have strong preferences in input devices. I definitely wouldn't want an Apple mouse, and probably wouldn't want the keyboard either. Besides, Apple's input devices currently have the white-Aluminum mismatch...
I used to be against the minitower thing, but now that I think about it, I think it's a good idea. But there's one problem: They're going to lose sales on other machines. I don't think they'll lose sales on the PM's but they will on their iMacs. There's more to it than just making a good machine and pricing it right; you have to market it well. You have to say: This Minitower is the machine for switchers and this iMac is the machine for those who know what they want to get. You can't say it as bluntly and you shouldn't say switch in any commercials.
Apple also needs to get a good design. Apple needs to get a good design for the Minitower that fits with the rest of their consumer lines. If they can do all these things then the this Minitower will be thought of as a different product and thus, consumers will be able to differentiate between all their products and essentially get good sales on the minitower as well as keeping the sales on their other machines.
The 5200 is out of its depth on Doom 3. It shouldn't be. The 5200 is quickly evaporating as the 'place holder' graphic card in entry PC desktops upto a grand. ATI 9200 is taking over. Also in the grand and over area...the 9800 Pro is coming on tap in mainstream machines.
The 5200 Ultra and 9200 both need a rebrand. The 5200 Ultra is around 50% faster than the plain 5200 and could be branded somewhere between 5200 and 5600, the next model up, if nVidia didn't brand solely by GPU cores. The 5200 does support the programmable pixel shaders required for Direct X 9/CoreImage, but the 9200 doesn't (as it's a Direct X 8 part, like the 8500 but slower).
You're paying $1900 for a $600 un-upgradeable computer and $1300 screen. The expensive display becomes utterly useless once the computer is outdated. It has all the disadvantages of a laptop with none of the advantages (mobility, size and weight).
1900 is still cheap.
1. I want a Mac.
2. Cheapest Powermac is 2000 + 1300 for the display = 3300. Much more money, and what exactly can I upgrade on that one?
I used to be against the minitower thing, but now that I think about it, I think it's a good idea. But there's one problem: They're going to lose sales on other machines....
This shouldn't matter to Apple as long as they are selling computers. It really doesn't matter if someone buys an eMac or an iMac or a Cube, as long as Apple is making money. The profit margins can be adjusted so that Apple makes the same net profit. The real advantage for Apple is that a mini-tower might attract new customers that would not consider an AIO computer yet do not want to pay the $2000 price tag for a PowerMac.
Quote:
There's more to it than just making a good machine and pricing it right; you have to market it well.
This is one of the problems with the eMac/iMac. Apple spent quite a lot of money and time building product identity for the iMac a low end computer that offered ease of use and good performance at a competative price. Then the iMac 2 came out and they lost that edge with the product due to it's heavy price tag and the slow development of the G4. At the same time they did little to really build up the eMac as the low end Apple computer, and so you have people once again thinking that while you can get a PC for $600, it costs over twice as much to buy the least expensive Mac.
2. Cheapest Powermac is 2000 + 1300 for the display = 3300. Much more money, and what exactly can I upgrade on that one?
You are getting an $1,300 dollar display and you are worried about the cost of the cpu?!?!?!?!? Sure I'd love to have a $1500 G5 miniTower, but I think alot of people have the money for the dual G5 now and are just whining that a Dell is cheaper.
As for an above post regarding minitowers cutting into iMacs .... the AIO iMac line should always compete well with a headless eMac or miniTower. The iMac will always be the computer of choice for the iPod generation. The upgrade info on that Apple site seems good enough and as I've advocated on this forum the last 3 months, the ability to change or upgrade should be so easy for consumers that it is as worry free as docking a pda or iPod. I think iMacs could compete with minitowers just from that point of view: "3 steps to upgrading your graphic chip...oh there is no step 3!"
If we had both, talk about an unbeatable product line! It almost makes you hope iMacs sell badly just to give Steve a kick in the head.
While I would bet that Apple has a PM mini working in their labs there is no way it will hit the market in the near future - there simply isn't enough G5 chips to meet current demand, much less then demand that the G5 iMac will generate. The iMac came first as that was the line that needed the most attention, thanks to Motorola.
As for a single G5 headless Mac I think you "might" see it, but as a PM mini, not a super cheapo. Look at the picture above - it's a PM case, which ain't cheap. Then there will be the internal thermal zones, capacity to add cards and upgrade (more than 1 HD?). We're talking money here. Look at a minimum price of $1,299 for (at todays levels) a 1.6 or a 1.8. Also add in the fact that it has to be able to take speed increases as IBM delivers them over the next few years. $1,299 would be bare bones and include the 5200 GPU.
The other challenge low cost PC makers face is the potential of somewhere like China developing a PC that they can flood the US with. Dell has already announced that it will stop competing at the low end of the Chinese computer market because they cannot compete with local manufacturers on price. THese guys flood the US market and Dell is going to have a problem - as will all of the other cheap PC makers. I think Apple is wise to avoid this market.
As for a single G5 headless Mac I think you "might" see it, but as a PM mini, not a super cheapo. Look at the picture above - it's a PM case, which ain't cheap. Then there will be the internal thermal zones, capacity to add cards and upgrade (more than 1 HD?). We're talking money here. Look at a minimum price of $1,299 for (at todays levels) a 1.6 or a 1.8. Also add in the fact that it has to be able to take speed increases as IBM delivers them over the next few years. $1,299 would be bare bones and include the 5200 GPU.
The other challenge low cost PC makers face is the potential of somewhere like China developing a PC that they can flood the US with. Dell has already announced that it will stop competing at the low end of the Chinese computer market because they cannot compete with local manufacturers on price. THese guys flood the US market and Dell is going to have a problem - as will all of the other cheap PC makers. I think Apple is wise to avoid this market.
I agree the headless Mac would be a PM not and iMac, but I think the cost of the box is less than you assume.
China will be a big factor for ALL manufacturing. Wait till they flood the American market with $9k cars! Yes, Apple is in a better position to take a hit in the low-end market, than Dell, but there needs to be an easy upgrade path for consumers and it would be nice that after someone outgrows the Chinese box, they don't just move to a mid-level Dell.
Aside: China will invent its own software infrastructure that I'm sure will try not to include Microsoft. They are at least smart enough not to just give the world's largest potential market to Redmond, Washington. So who is working to help them? Apple and Linux and others China should work on a set of standards that allow for interoperability and independence from any one vendor.
Some of you are talking about a less expensive expandable mini-tower. Problem is, such a box would hurt dual G5 tower sales. A slot of any kind, including an upgradable GPU or extra hard drive bay would surely hurt highly-profitable tower sales. Unfortunately, people who need slots have to buy them...or not.
Show me a small non-expandable Mac with a 1.6Ghz G5 and DVI out, similar to the new iMac without a display for around $1000 and I'll buy one tomorrow. Until then, I'll buy nothing, because I hate the look, size and price of the current towers.
A non-expandable Mac like I'm suggesting would sell like hot cakes and could be more profitable for Apple than the iMac or eMac. I hope when G5 chips are more readily available, Apple will consider making one. Any thoughts of expansion would kill the possibility of such a Mac ever coming to be.
Comments
1. Jobs et. al just don't like the concept for some personel reason.
2. Apple thinks they will not sell enough units to turn a profit and would rather live off the high margins.
3. They count on the money from the sale of a monitor and they force you to pay it with a AIO. Most people would not buy a Apple monitor at the current prices unless they had to or really wanted one. I seem to remember that's one thing Apple disliked about the Cube. They lost monitor sales.
4. They may fear that the upgrade cycle would be slower since people could upgrade the computer themselves and would not need to buy a new one as soon as they might with AIO.
There may be other and more complex reasons but Apple won't change and that's the bottom line.
Originally posted by imacFP
. . . As I see it there are a few reasons why Apple doesn't like consumer towers. . .
3. They count on the money from the sale of a monitor and they force you to pay it with a AIO. . .
Pricing it right could easily fix that. Apple could sell the tower at a higher profit margin, in percent, than the AIO. Set the margin so the dollars of profit are the same. That way, it should make no difference to Apple which one the customer buys.
If Apple then offers a discount on the monitor when it is purchased with the tower, it makes the Apple monitor more attractive at the time of sale. Apple does not lose any profit this way either, since margin was increased on the tower. The sale of a tower with monitor would yield as much or more profit, in dollars, as sale of an AIO.
They just bought a Dell.
I think potential switchers look at the Mac line and they just don't see anything they understand. They look for a PC-type machine that they're used to and it costs $3000. Then they look at the cheaper Macs and they see these all-in-ones and they don't quite know what to make of them. What if I want a different display? What if I already have a display I don't want to throw away? The eMac is in my price range, but I've never heard of it. I thought it was "iMac." Oh wait, that's out of the normal computer price range too. It all just seems a big muddle.
The graphics cards are a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, as far as my friend was concerned, and as far as the vast majority of people are concerned, IMO. That's primarily a gamer's issue, and this forum is very heavily skewed toward the gamer's demographic (teen to college-aged males).
The problem is that potential switchers just don't see anything they can latch on to as a "normal" machine that even compares to what they're used to. The 1899-1299 = 600 math shows very clearly that they could do it if they wanted.
Originally posted by bunge
I think Apple should just offer the eMac without a monitor, with a user upgradeable GPU, but at the same price as the eMac. The cost to produce and ship (in volume or individually) that little box would be less than an eMac, so the profit margins would be higher. It doesn't need to be their best box.
I agree completely. As I said above, I don't even care about the graphics card, and I don't think 90% of potential switchers care about it either. The problem IMO is that displays last longer than computers, and so lots of PC people have displays hanging around that they don't want to waste.
Originally posted by BRussell
. . . The problem IMO is that displays last longer than computers, and so lots of PC people have displays hanging around that they don't want to waste.
Yes, and not just for consumers. This may be a huge factor for many schools and businesses.
I would buy an eMac in a second if it had two drive bays, a SuperDrive and no monitor, and i even thought about buying one and tearing it apart to get that.
It shows Apple can do a cheap headless machine for at least in the eMac to Cube price range.
I agree with the point that traditional PC buyers don't see much that they understand.
Apple are putting 'PC language' into 'Tiger' search.
Why not offer them a headless Mac they understand in PC language?
Apple can offer dual towers at the price they do.
Take away a cpu in each machine and you have a 'non-workstation' range at over a hundred bucks cheaper per machine. ie a single cpu G5 tower range to fill the £1K-1.3 K void.
I'd happily dump the eMac monitor. Drop in an expandable AGP slot and Apple charge me £595 instead of £545 for the eMac. ie they keep the money for the dropped monitor (which is crap anyway...!) and charge me more so I can have an agp slot I can upgrade! Perfect eCube. For skinflints everywhere who want to do Mac. Only has to have a 1.6 G5 in it. The new iMac minus its monitor proves it can be done! Makes you wonder just how obscene margins must have been on the lampMac.
Apple sacrifice market share for margins. Always have. They only have themselves to blame for their marketshare woes.
They watched how their marketshare withered like sand slipping 'tween fingers...
They've always been greedy b*************s.
Lemon Bon Bon
...and yes, this probably is another 'whinge thread' re: a lack of something in Apple's range. ie a big gaping hole of 'Where's my headless'...?
I like the new iMac alot. But a 5200 in a machine costing £1400 quid is crap. As is 256 megs of ram.
...and I'm going to whine like a cat on heat until Apple does something about it...
It's not a tower per se. It's a computer I can upgrade a graphics card, cpu etc on. It doesn't have to be massively expandable.
Hell, Apple themselves can be their own BTO shop and SELL US the motherboard and cpu and cpu upgrades at a mark up if they wish!
In that sense, the new iMac could be really interesting!
The 5200 is out of its depth on Doom 3. It shouldn't be. The 5200 is quickly evaporating as the 'place holder' graphic card in entry PC desktops upto a grand. ATI 9200 is taking over. Also in the grand and over area...the 9800 Pro is coming on tap in mainstream machines.
So, I would like the option for Apple to sell me a new mainboard that has a Radeon 9800 pro soldiered on if possible.
If Apple sells 5 million of these iMacs...that is a massive upgrade market for themselves! Not everybody wants to buy a whole 'nuther machine.
Think of the profit Apple could get if they could sell a motherboard with new cpu and gpu on it ie like PC folks sell...aka a 'Bare bones system' that you could just 'drop in'.
Why haven't I bought a Mac tower since 98? Because Apple lags on power, value and bang for buck. I almost bought the dual 2 gig G5 but Jobs promised me the dual 3 gig. That was my machine. It didn't turn up so I've targeted the Antares 970MP @3gig.
Apple could be alot more flexible in meeting the needs of its customers.
It isn't. The new new iMac is on the way back to the old iMac price range.
Good.
But we need a headless Mac as an alternative to those who don't want that.
PC vendors are selling alu look and black and white look cubes for around less and over 1K for nice spec.
Apple could do this...with a nice consumer tower, which, unlike the Cube, doesn't have a design that disappears up their own arse.
Lemon Bon Bon
The PC shuttles. Nice. Don't have the 'lush' of Apple's design but hey...
One model, streamlined design, low cost.
Single 1.8GHz G5
900MHz FSB
512MB L2 cache
256MB RAM
Combo Drive
80GB Serial ATA HD
One PCI-X slot & one 3.5" drive bay
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
8x AGP slot
56K internal modem
$999
Problem solved. eMac should continue to drop in price; $699 - $899.
Like the display, the input devices last a long time. Many people have strong preferences in input devices. I definitely wouldn't want an Apple mouse, and probably wouldn't want the keyboard either. Besides, Apple's input devices currently have the white-Aluminum mismatch...
Why not just buy the G5 minitower and get over it?
Originally posted by g3pro
Why not just buy the G5 minitower and get over it?
Because we can't get over the $2000+ price tag. G5 minitower? Such a thing doesn't exist, but I wish it did.
Apple also needs to get a good design. Apple needs to get a good design for the Minitower that fits with the rest of their consumer lines. If they can do all these things then the this Minitower will be thought of as a different product and thus, consumers will be able to differentiate between all their products and essentially get good sales on the minitower as well as keeping the sales on their other machines.
I still want one of those iMacs though
The 5200 is out of its depth on Doom 3. It shouldn't be. The 5200 is quickly evaporating as the 'place holder' graphic card in entry PC desktops upto a grand. ATI 9200 is taking over. Also in the grand and over area...the 9800 Pro is coming on tap in mainstream machines.
The 5200 Ultra and 9200 both need a rebrand. The 5200 Ultra is around 50% faster than the plain 5200 and could be branded somewhere between 5200 and 5600, the next model up, if nVidia didn't brand solely by GPU cores. The 5200 does support the programmable pixel shaders required for Direct X 9/CoreImage, but the 9200 doesn't (as it's a Direct X 8 part, like the 8500 but slower).
Originally posted by Existence
The new iMac: the disposable display.
You're paying $1900 for a $600 un-upgradeable computer and $1300 screen. The expensive display becomes utterly useless once the computer is outdated. It has all the disadvantages of a laptop with none of the advantages (mobility, size and weight).
1900 is still cheap.
1. I want a Mac.
2. Cheapest Powermac is 2000 + 1300 for the display = 3300. Much more money, and what exactly can I upgrade on that one?
Originally posted by dino
I used to be against the minitower thing, but now that I think about it, I think it's a good idea. But there's one problem: They're going to lose sales on other machines....
This shouldn't matter to Apple as long as they are selling computers. It really doesn't matter if someone buys an eMac or an iMac or a Cube, as long as Apple is making money. The profit margins can be adjusted so that Apple makes the same net profit. The real advantage for Apple is that a mini-tower might attract new customers that would not consider an AIO computer yet do not want to pay the $2000 price tag for a PowerMac.
There's more to it than just making a good machine and pricing it right; you have to market it well.
This is one of the problems with the eMac/iMac. Apple spent quite a lot of money and time building product identity for the iMac a low end computer that offered ease of use and good performance at a competative price. Then the iMac 2 came out and they lost that edge with the product due to it's heavy price tag and the slow development of the G4. At the same time they did little to really build up the eMac as the low end Apple computer, and so you have people once again thinking that while you can get a PC for $600, it costs over twice as much to buy the least expensive Mac.
Originally posted by Zadak
1900 is still cheap.
1. I want a Mac.
2. Cheapest Powermac is 2000 + 1300 for the display = 3300. Much more money, and what exactly can I upgrade on that one?
You are getting an $1,300 dollar display and you are worried about the cost of the cpu?!?!?!?!? Sure I'd love to have a $1500 G5 miniTower, but I think alot of people have the money for the dual G5 now and are just whining that a Dell is cheaper.
As for an above post regarding minitowers cutting into iMacs .... the AIO iMac line should always compete well with a headless eMac or miniTower. The iMac will always be the computer of choice for the iPod generation. The upgrade info on that Apple site seems good enough and as I've advocated on this forum the last 3 months, the ability to change or upgrade should be so easy for consumers that it is as worry free as docking a pda or iPod. I think iMacs could compete with minitowers just from that point of view: "3 steps to upgrading your graphic chip...oh there is no step 3!"
If we had both, talk about an unbeatable product line! It almost makes you hope iMacs sell badly just to give Steve a kick in the head.
As for a single G5 headless Mac I think you "might" see it, but as a PM mini, not a super cheapo. Look at the picture above - it's a PM case, which ain't cheap. Then there will be the internal thermal zones, capacity to add cards and upgrade (more than 1 HD?). We're talking money here. Look at a minimum price of $1,299 for (at todays levels) a 1.6 or a 1.8. Also add in the fact that it has to be able to take speed increases as IBM delivers them over the next few years. $1,299 would be bare bones and include the 5200 GPU.
The other challenge low cost PC makers face is the potential of somewhere like China developing a PC that they can flood the US with. Dell has already announced that it will stop competing at the low end of the Chinese computer market because they cannot compete with local manufacturers on price. THese guys flood the US market and Dell is going to have a problem - as will all of the other cheap PC makers. I think Apple is wise to avoid this market.
Originally posted by kenaustus
As for a single G5 headless Mac I think you "might" see it, but as a PM mini, not a super cheapo. Look at the picture above - it's a PM case, which ain't cheap. Then there will be the internal thermal zones, capacity to add cards and upgrade (more than 1 HD?). We're talking money here. Look at a minimum price of $1,299 for (at todays levels) a 1.6 or a 1.8. Also add in the fact that it has to be able to take speed increases as IBM delivers them over the next few years. $1,299 would be bare bones and include the 5200 GPU.
The other challenge low cost PC makers face is the potential of somewhere like China developing a PC that they can flood the US with. Dell has already announced that it will stop competing at the low end of the Chinese computer market because they cannot compete with local manufacturers on price. THese guys flood the US market and Dell is going to have a problem - as will all of the other cheap PC makers. I think Apple is wise to avoid this market.
I agree the headless Mac would be a PM not and iMac, but I think the cost of the box is less than you assume.
China will be a big factor for ALL manufacturing. Wait till they flood the American market with $9k cars! Yes, Apple is in a better position to take a hit in the low-end market, than Dell, but there needs to be an easy upgrade path for consumers and it would be nice that after someone outgrows the Chinese box, they don't just move to a mid-level Dell.
Aside: China will invent its own software infrastructure that I'm sure will try not to include Microsoft. They are at least smart enough not to just give the world's largest potential market to Redmond, Washington. So who is working to help them? Apple and Linux and others China should work on a set of standards that allow for interoperability and independence from any one vendor.
Show me a small non-expandable Mac with a 1.6Ghz G5 and DVI out, similar to the new iMac without a display for around $1000 and I'll buy one tomorrow. Until then, I'll buy nothing, because I hate the look, size and price of the current towers.
A non-expandable Mac like I'm suggesting would sell like hot cakes and could be more profitable for Apple than the iMac or eMac. I hope when G5 chips are more readily available, Apple will consider making one. Any thoughts of expansion would kill the possibility of such a Mac ever coming to be.