Personally I'd like Apple to concentrate on making Macs as good and as cheap as they can without compromising on the qualities that make me want to buy Apple and not Intel.
If Apple started making crappy cheap computers that ran OS X then I wouldn't buy them because they would only serve to remind me what I was missing out on by not buying a Mac, with all its bells and whistles. It wouldn't matter what they called it.
Is it just me?
What in effect this article is suggesting is that Apple make a new kind of consumer Mac that's cheaper, has fewer features (whilst still being made to the high standard expected of Apple), and has a different name to differentiate it from their professional computers. Erm... Hello!? you're talking about the iMac, and Apple already thought of this nearly 10 years ago.
The problem is that making a product fit to carry the Apple brand name is difficult to do at Dell prices even if you cut out features because, quite frankly Dells aren't fit to carry the Apple brand name. And even if you try, the consumers complain about lack of features anyway, so you have to stick in a G5 and most of the other bells and whistles or people won't buy it.
Now it seems to me that what Apple could try, without compromising its principles or hurting its sales, is to make an Apple branded x86 PC that runs Windows/Linux. Apple, like IBM has a reputation for quality hardware, and since computer sales is where they make their money, they may as well branch into the high-spec high-price PC hardware market of businessmen and high-end gamers, neither of whom will ever buy a Mac because they need windows compatibility, and not because they can't afford one.
Personally I'd like Apple to concentrate on making Macs as good and as cheap as they can without compromising on the qualities that make me want to buy Apple and not Intel.
I agree. Im going to keep buying Macs whatever the price, because they make my life easier, not harder.
I believe that it takes at least 5 years to turn around a business. Things dont happen overnight. Apple were screaming towards the wall when Jobs returned. He slashed secondary divisions and focused the company on the iMac. A risky move, but a short term saviour. In and of itself one hot product is not enough to save Apple, there needs to be string of successful products over the 5 year time frame, each building on the last to turn Apple around. They have done it. OS X is the core product. Apple have pushed hard to show that X can mature quickly and with regular useful updates. Long term customers and developers ( just ) feel secure in the technology, and stopped fleeing the sinking ship. Realisticaly this only happened with Panther. The iMac came out in 98 and Panther in 03. I believe that Apple has turned around.
A bump in the road ( that has been very costly ) was the failure of Moto to produce better CPUs. It could have derailed the train ( a shift to x86 would have been very costly ). But IBM seems to have picked up the ball.
The iPod and ITMS is a fantastic play to extend the awareness and penetration of Apple. Perhaps it will subsume the computer business, but atm I see it as a boost, pushing it up.
From here on out ( Panther ) Apple looks to have halted their downward slide, and turned the boat about ( talk about mixed metaphors ). With the chopping of the G2 iMac and the new consumer friendly iMac on the street it only remains to be seen if Apple can follow up the amazing effort they have made with a computer that sells like hot cakes.
As time goes buy Apple will ( if the iMac sells well ) have the base of a growing pool of users necessary to expand their product line, both up and done the range.
That's assuming price is the number #1 problem with Mac purchases and that's debatable.
Price might not be the #1 concern for people buying Macs, but I believe it is for people buying computers. This is the whole point. And no one wants a loss leader. I was thinking of a cheaper computer with less expensive but still useable parts.
Price might not be the #1 concern for people buying Macs, but I believe it is for people buying computers. This is the whole point. And no one wants a loss leader. I was thinking of a cheaper computer with less expensive but still useable parts.
But aren't we talking about Macs here? I don't care the desires of people buying PCs. The topic is should Apple move to White Box. I've noticed in my experience selling Macs that Mac users tend to ignore the lowest model and go for the midrange unit. Look at how many user forget about the eMac and then downplay it when trying to make price arguements for Macs.
I'm not against low cost Macs but I realize this won't happen until Apple makes a strong push into the biz sector. No one makes money just selling cheap stuff. Emachines tried and ended up getting bought by the pathetic Gateway. Dell and HP sell low cost computers because the costs are offset by their Server and Networking product sales which offer more margins.
Apple's quandry is evident in their quarterly results. They are wholly dependent on hardware revenue/profits. It doesn't matter how much we fantasize about White Box Macs increasing marketshare or how a headless Mac will reverse Apple's fortunes it doesn't add up. Apple will not lower Macs until they have other items to sell ala the iPod that make up for lost profits on lower margin Mac sales.
But aren't we talking about Macs here? I don't care the desires of people buying PCs. . .
Oops! I know you don't mean this. It would say Apple only sells to current Mac users. Freeze market share where it is; forget about switchers. . . Back on topic:
The AIO is a big issue here. It is the only form of desktop Apple sells below the G5 Power Mac price range. Is this what people want? We are really split on this issue in these discussions. So let's just look at the x86 PC market place, where most new Mac users would have to come from. What do PC users buy, an AOI or an expandable mini-tower or Shuttle type box?
Sony makes a couple AIO model with integrated LCD. If these are too expensive, Gateway has an AIO too I understand. I don't know whether anyone has sales data on x86 All-In-Ones, but I'd guess these are not runaway winners. Mac users have no choice but x86 PC folks do, and I believe only a small percentage of buyers choose the x86 AIO.
I believe the AIO will become more popular, and Apple has a winner in the new iMac. But that does not change the fact that for many desktop buyers, Apple has nothing they want.
Oops! I know you don't mean this. It would say Apple only sells to current Mac users. Freeze market share where it is; forget about switchers. . . Back on topic:
I meant every word. Mac users are a different lot just as the car lover that prefers upscale German automobiles differs from the Ford fan. What many on these boards keep doing is to assume that Apple even desires the Ford users. We all chose Macintosh for various reasons not the least in that it presents a superior computing environment. The switchers will come if MS keeps running into virus and security issues.
Regarding AIO:
The first Mac was an AIO. I find it odd that 20yrs later users are still trying to debate the veracity of an AIO design. What X86 people do is irrelevant because the commodity design is an ATX case and a seperate monitor, when they choose AIO it's generally a laptop. It's not as if AIO was the standard and then the "seperates" revolution took over and Apple is clinging to old world ideals.
Quote:
I believe the AIO will become more popular, and Apple has a winner in the new iMac. But that does not change the fact that for many desktop buyers, Apple has nothing they want.
Precisely. Apple cannot please all the people all the time. White Box or gutted Macs aren't going to sway many of these people to make it worthwhile IMO.
There is roughly a 10-15% "tax" paid to move up to a Mac system. Not that significant. Couple that with an extremely efficient Apple that has increased their product line, found another Billion dollar revenue stream(iPod) and increased its employee base %50 over the last 5 yrs. Would WB Macs have enabled Apple to do this? I doubt it.
Consumers asking for price decreases do so from selfish motives. Hell I do it all the time as well it's only natural. The problems is when we geeks toss away sound business practices to attempt to bolster our requests. The cost of Macs will continue to decrease as always and more people will be able to afford them. It just takes time.
Precisely. Apple cannot please all the people all the time. White Box or gutted Macs aren't going to sway many of these people to make it worthwhile IMO.
Well no one is talking about pleasing all of the people all of the time. I think we're just trying to increase the user base.
I disagree about the swaying issue. If you put an inexpensive machine on a shelf and say it's a virus/spyware free email and internet box, it would sell. It would still probably cost more than an average Best Buy Box, but there's a lot of added value in it that can be seen when you roll the mouse over the dock and the icons go zoom!
Seriously though, this is about getting the next tier down not the entire industry. The Xserve + all of the new Pro Video Apps are moving towards the next tier up in the industry but there's money and market a little lower than we stretch now as well.
. . . The first Mac was an AIO. I find it odd that 20yrs later users are still trying to debate the veracity of an AIO design. . .
I don't believe many in these discussions will argue against Apple making an All-In-One Mac. It's a great type of desktop for many applications. Rather, it is the fact that Mac users do not have a choice. The only desktops Apple makes below the Power Mac are AIO models. Is there any evidence that the great majority of Mac users are happy, or even reasonably satisfied, with this condition? There have been some heated discussion on this topic. Is it only a handful of geeks on these boards who want a lower cost headless Mac as some would say? Or do many want an alternative to the AIO? Well, unless Apple changes their product policy we may never find out.
Quote:
. . . Mac users are a different lot just as the car lover that prefers upscale German automobiles differs from the Ford fan. What many on these boards keep doing is to assume that Apple even desires the Ford users. . .
Beside the AIO debates, the luxury car analogy has been repeated endlessly. Is it really a good comparison? If it is, why on earth is Apple trying to sell to schools? Schools don't buy BMWs for their staff cars. Schools are often on a very tight budget. If the elite car analogy holds, then schools would obviously be Ford folks and Windows PC users. No sense trying to sell them BMWs and Macs.
Also, you mention a 10-15% premium to buy a Mac. Since when can we get a BMW for a 10-15% premium? No. I believe Apple is not a luxury product, but a practical choice, and in most cases the best choice for the job. It also has class and looks cool. Those who cannot see the value in the small premium they would pay to get a Mac are forced to live with the consequences. An elite or luxury product it is not.
A simpler solution to increase market share in upcoming markets is to make the cost of the Apple products uniform worldwide. Local taxes and customs duty can be added to the price, but keep the base price same.
Right now Apple computers are more expensive in countries like India when compared to the US.
Example from the Apple Store:
2.5GHZ PowerPC in India : INR 206,000 (exclusive of local taxes). That translates to USD 4,484.60
The same machine costs USD 2,999 in the United States.
I don't think Apple needs a 'White Box' product to address new markets. A rethink on marketting would work.
If you're looking at apple releasing a headless version of the imac/emac, you need to consider what sort of machine it would be. There's no way it would fall inbetween the powermac and imac interms of features/power - this was tried with the cube and it didn't work.
Also, you'd ahve to consider that Apple would, in many cases be losing an effective monitor sale - following on from people's argument that schools/businesses/home users want to use their existing monitor - with the imac and emac, apple effectively bundles their own monitor with the computer. The alternative is to provide a cheap monitor, and offer it at a competitive price - but what advantage is there then in buying the headless mac over the imac?
Realistically, a headless iMac would probably sell for only a small amount less than the present iMac if you were offered a machine with exactly the same specs as the iMac for $100 dollars less (maximum), but with no monitor, would you buy it over the iMac? Do you think anyone else would?
The way I see it, the reason AIO's don't succeed in PC land is for two reasons - the existing AIOs are poorly executed, and don't have the appeal that every generation of the iMac has had.
Secondly, PC moterboard and case design is centred around the ATX case, and there are big cost savings in going down this route. PC AIOs forfit these savings,and are thus expensive relative to a standard PC tower. Apple doesn't have this problem - they would be unlikely to use a standard ATX case for any PC they release, and their motherboard designs a propriatry anyway, so the cost saving for going with a tower design isn't so great.
I don't understand how people think that producing a machine in China/India would magically reduce the price either - Apple already contracts out most of its production to (one assumes) the most cost effective option - seemingly Taiwan at the moment. If this is significantly more expensive than producing machines in China, then Apple are doing a very poor job - and their profitability suggests that this isn't the case.
What people who are demanding a headless mac are asking for is really a cheap computer. There's no real evidence that the market for Macs is price elastic ? reducing the price of the cube for example didn't lead to better sales. Why would Apple want to cut margins if they think they can sell at the existing price points?
Producing a headless eMac might be a way to produce a cheap mac, but would a headless 1.25Ghz box for $50 (maximum) less than the eMac attract anyone - least of all windows users who see 1.25Ghz and immediately discount the product?
. . . What people who are demanding a headless mac are asking for is really a cheap computer. . .
You overlook a few things, on both the Mac and PC sides. Most all headless computers have expansion slots, for PCI cards and usually graphics cards too. This feature is important to many folks, possibly the majority on the x86 PC side, and it is absolutely essential to many applications. When we talk about markets below the profession Power Mac users, we tend to think of home computers, and maybe school and office use. But there are industrial and scientific applications that need just a simple computer with expansion slots. These markets grew up around the IBM PC, and without slots a computer is useless to them. (I had the opportunity to see an very large astronomical telescope still under the control of a 286 PC.)
Beside expansion slots, a headless computer offers flexibility in how it is installed. Do you want a simple server stuck in a closet or on a shelf? A small headless computer is ideal. An eMac might not even fit. And expansion slots offer the flexibility to give customers just the features they need, without paying for unused functionality. Things like this often appeal to the IT folks and purchasing agents. Put FireWire, Ethernet and Modems on PCI cards and let them be optional. You might argue that it would not save the customer much, if anything, but if it is what the customer wants it is what he or she will buy. Apple can lose a lot of sales trying to educate customers about what they really should have.
Realistically, a headless iMac would probably sell for only a small amount less than the present iMac if you were offered a machine with exactly the same specs as the iMac for $100 dollars less (maximum), but with no monitor, would you buy it over the iMac? Do you think anyone else would?
...
The Cube is a bad example. Way over engineered and with a non standard graphics card.
Let's see, Apple removes a 17" monitor, that retails in the $800 - $1000 dollar range and only drops the price $100 relative to a SFF computer. If that were the case you'd be right. I suspect they could make a very tidy profit selling version starting at $799 and maxining out at $999.
The Cube is a bad example. Way over engineered and with a non standard graphics card.
Let's see, Apple removes a 17" monitor, that retails in the $800 - $1000 dollar range and only drops the price $100 relative to a SFF computer. If that were the case you'd be right. I suspect they could make a very tidy profit selling version starting at $799 and maxining out at $999.
The Cube is a bad example. Way over engineered and with a non standard graphics card.
Let's see, Apple removes a 17" monitor, that retails in the $800 - $1000 dollar range and only drops the price $100 relative to a SFF computer. If that were the case you'd be right. I suspect they could make a very tidy profit selling version starting at $799 and maxining out at $999.
Apple would be removing a 17" monitor that costs them nowhere near $800 to purchase - absolute maximum $200. Figure in the lost markup on selling a monitor, and I'd be surprised whether they'd sell a headless iMac for much more than $100 less than the starting iMac price. The question is not what Appe could do - they could cut their margins to zero and remove 15% from the price - but whether such a machine released at real world apple prices would be a success.
You overlook a few things, on both the Mac and PC sides. Most all headless computers have expansion slots, for PCI cards and usually graphics cards too. This feature is important to many folks, possibly the majority on the x86 PC side, and it is absolutely essential to many applications. When we talk about markets below the profession Power Mac users, we tend to think of home computers, and maybe school and office use. But there are industrial and scientific applications that need just a simple computer with expansion slots. These markets grew up around the IBM PC, and without slots a computer is useless to them. (I had the opportunity to see an very large astronomical telescope still under the control of a 286 PC.)
Beside expansion slots, a headless computer offers flexibility in how it is installed. Do you want a simple server stuck in a closet or on a shelf? A small headless computer is ideal. An eMac might not even fit. And expansion slots offer the flexibility to give customers just the features they need, without paying for unused functionality. Things like this often appeal to the IT folks and purchasing agents. Put FireWire, Ethernet and Modems on PCI cards and let them be optional. You might argue that it would not save the customer much, if anything, but if it is what the customer wants it is what he or she will buy. Apple can lose a lot of sales trying to educate customers about what they really should have.
But I think, from Apple's point of view, they already cover this market with the G5 tower. Are you asking for a cheap G4 tower with similar expansion to the g5, or a g5 tower with less expansion than the existing tower?
Yes, this type of computer is what most people buy, but do they buy this because that's what they prefer, or because that's the cheapest option in the PC market?
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
When we talk about markets below the profession Power Mac users, we tend to think of home computers, and maybe school and office use. But there are industrial and scientific applications that need just a simple computer with expansion slots. These markets grew up around the IBM PC, and without slots a computer is useless to them. (I had the opportunity to see an very large astronomical telescope still under the control of a 286 PC.)
You have to assume apple realises this too, but they've done the numbers, and they don't add up. the number of people who don't buy a mac because it doesn't have expansion slots is fairly minimal. The real reason most of people don't buy macs is because they're not windows PCs! Predjudice against non MS solutions, cost barriers to switching, a lack of incentive to consider Apple products and the fact that alot of people/companies wouldn't even consider a mac are much more influential. Addressing this is going to be much more profitable than the small numbers who don't buy because they don't have the required expansion slots.
Apple is doing the right thing in making Mac OS X work better with windows, and in simplifying the process of switching (like being able to search for windows terminology in system preferences in Tiger).
Other things like giving discounts to people switching - perhaps a rebate on the production of a PC with a valid windows license, and cross grading from PC versions of essential software would do alot to break down perceived barriers to buying a mac.
There is a market for headless computers. That is a consumer demand issue. To say Apple shouldn't do it because they lose a monitor sale is the wrong answer to the wrong question. It's not about Apple. It's about what the customers want. People don't buy things because it's for the good of a company.
Eventually they need to consider the consumer and the fact that they want increasingly more options. It's wrong to expect them to forever drink the Kool-Aid and accept whatever Apple wants to give them. If Apple wants to be the center of the "digital hub" then they need to consider the entire ecosystem. Nobody's asking the AIOs to go away. They just want the option. If there is one thing PC users understand (consciously or not), it's the breadth of options that they have in virtually everything.
I'm in the camp of people that would love to at least have the option of a headless Mac. However, I can understand the problems this could cause.
People should remember that even though companies like Dell and HP make low-cost systems, they do not make a lot of money on them. Their profits are made in the backend storage and server hardware. Those profits allow them to make client-end systems so inexpensively.
Apple has no such luxury. It's no secret they charge out the wazoo for hardware, accessories, and software in some cases... and it's really simply because they have to, with nothing else to fall back on. "Luxury" isn't nearly as much a part of the price as people seem to think it is. Aside from the chip, Mac innards are practically identical to the PCs... and as sure as I am the days are long, polycarbonate, aluminum, and plastic don't add $100-$500 to the price of any computer.
So I submit they're going to continue to lose customers that want more options unless and until Apple can subsidize their commercial products with their industrial ones. Obviously Apple is more interested in margins than marketshare.
But I think, from Apple's point of view, they already cover this market with the G5 tower. Are you asking for a cheap G4 tower with similar expansion to the g5, or a g5 tower with less expansion than the existing tower?
Yes, this type of computer is what most people buy, but do they buy this because that's what they prefer, or because that's the cheapest option in the PC market?
Apple has successfully priced the professional systems out of the hands of most people, so I think that is a wrong starting point.
Putting everything together, it seems like the headless Mac crowd is asking for an iCube. They want an iMac that just happens to be headless, and just happens to contain interchangable parts. They want to decide if they want 5200FX graphics or a Radeon X800. To tell the consumers to fork over $3000-$5000 (towers plus monitor) just to be able to get a system that can game respectably, or utilize some simple $20 after-market card, is absurd.
The problem with the original Cube was that it was marketed and priced as a professional unit. However, it lacked expansion that professionals need, and it was priced out of the consumer range. So their "best of both worlds" ended up being nothing to neither (pardon the double negative).
An iMac that just happens to be headless and have interchangable components. it's not exactly asking for the world.
There is a market for headless computers. That is a consumer demand issue. To say Apple shouldn't do it because they lose a monitor sale is the wrong answer to the wrong question. It's not about Apple. It's about what the customers want. People don't buy things because it's for the good of a company.
Eventually they need to consider the consumer and the fact that they want increasingly more options. It's wrong to expect them to forever drink the Kool-Aid and accept whatever Apple wants to give them. If Apple wants to be the center of the "digital hub" then they need to consider the entire ecosystem. Nobody's asking the AIOs to go away. They just want the option. If there is one thing PC users understand (consciously or not), it's the breadth of options that they have in virtually everything. . .
I couldn't have stated it better.
Quote:
People should remember that even though companies like Dell and HP make low-cost systems, they do not make a lot of money on them. Their profits are made in the backend storage and server hardware. Those profits allow them to make client-end systems so inexpensively. . .
True, but Apple does not need to follow this path. I believe the low-end market is important enough that Apple needs to be there. Apple could have a higher price tag so profit margin is adequate. The idea is not to outsell the competition but to provide a more complete product line and give customers choice.
Do customers ever consider getting rid of their Windows PC problems? If low-end, utility computers are part of a customer's requirements, their availability would be essential for the customer to consider going all Apple. Sure, the low end boxes may cost more, but the overall cost of operation may make the move very attractive. This is but one tiny illustration of why Apple needs a presence in this part of the market.
The idea is not to outsell the competition but to provide a more complete product line and give customers choice.
Do customers ever consider getting rid of their Windows PC problems? If low-end, utility computers are part of a customer's requirements, their availability would be essential for the customer to consider going all Apple. Sure, the low end boxes may cost more, but the overall cost of operation may make the move very attractive. This is but one tiny illustration of why Apple needs a presence in this part of the market.
This is well stated. I'd just like to add that the original links were about spreading the Mac OS rather than Apple. While I'm personally in favor of either, I can see some benefits to having a second brand.
A cube, even without an AGP, could do wonders. Just an email/web box sold even at Best Buys and Targets. Downplay some of the other features and benefits so it's a less complicated purchase.
Comments
If Apple started making crappy cheap computers that ran OS X then I wouldn't buy them because they would only serve to remind me what I was missing out on by not buying a Mac, with all its bells and whistles. It wouldn't matter what they called it.
Is it just me?
What in effect this article is suggesting is that Apple make a new kind of consumer Mac that's cheaper, has fewer features (whilst still being made to the high standard expected of Apple), and has a different name to differentiate it from their professional computers. Erm... Hello!? you're talking about the iMac, and Apple already thought of this nearly 10 years ago.
The problem is that making a product fit to carry the Apple brand name is difficult to do at Dell prices even if you cut out features because, quite frankly Dells aren't fit to carry the Apple brand name. And even if you try, the consumers complain about lack of features anyway, so you have to stick in a G5 and most of the other bells and whistles or people won't buy it.
Now it seems to me that what Apple could try, without compromising its principles or hurting its sales, is to make an Apple branded x86 PC that runs Windows/Linux. Apple, like IBM has a reputation for quality hardware, and since computer sales is where they make their money, they may as well branch into the high-spec high-price PC hardware market of businessmen and high-end gamers, neither of whom will ever buy a Mac because they need windows compatibility, and not because they can't afford one.
Originally posted by Socrates
Personally I'd like Apple to concentrate on making Macs as good and as cheap as they can without compromising on the qualities that make me want to buy Apple and not Intel.
I agree. Im going to keep buying Macs whatever the price, because they make my life easier, not harder.
I believe that it takes at least 5 years to turn around a business. Things dont happen overnight. Apple were screaming towards the wall when Jobs returned. He slashed secondary divisions and focused the company on the iMac. A risky move, but a short term saviour. In and of itself one hot product is not enough to save Apple, there needs to be string of successful products over the 5 year time frame, each building on the last to turn Apple around. They have done it. OS X is the core product. Apple have pushed hard to show that X can mature quickly and with regular useful updates. Long term customers and developers ( just ) feel secure in the technology, and stopped fleeing the sinking ship. Realisticaly this only happened with Panther. The iMac came out in 98 and Panther in 03. I believe that Apple has turned around.
A bump in the road ( that has been very costly ) was the failure of Moto to produce better CPUs. It could have derailed the train ( a shift to x86 would have been very costly ). But IBM seems to have picked up the ball.
The iPod and ITMS is a fantastic play to extend the awareness and penetration of Apple. Perhaps it will subsume the computer business, but atm I see it as a boost, pushing it up.
From here on out ( Panther ) Apple looks to have halted their downward slide, and turned the boat about ( talk about mixed metaphors ). With the chopping of the G2 iMac and the new consumer friendly iMac on the street it only remains to be seen if Apple can follow up the amazing effort they have made with a computer that sells like hot cakes.
As time goes buy Apple will ( if the iMac sells well ) have the base of a growing pool of users necessary to expand their product line, both up and done the range.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's assuming price is the number #1 problem with Mac purchases and that's debatable.
Price might not be the #1 concern for people buying Macs, but I believe it is for people buying computers. This is the whole point. And no one wants a loss leader. I was thinking of a cheaper computer with less expensive but still useable parts.
Originally posted by bunge
Price might not be the #1 concern for people buying Macs, but I believe it is for people buying computers. This is the whole point. And no one wants a loss leader. I was thinking of a cheaper computer with less expensive but still useable parts.
But aren't we talking about Macs here? I don't care the desires of people buying PCs. The topic is should Apple move to White Box. I've noticed in my experience selling Macs that Mac users tend to ignore the lowest model and go for the midrange unit. Look at how many user forget about the eMac and then downplay it when trying to make price arguements for Macs.
I'm not against low cost Macs but I realize this won't happen until Apple makes a strong push into the biz sector. No one makes money just selling cheap stuff. Emachines tried and ended up getting bought by the pathetic Gateway. Dell and HP sell low cost computers because the costs are offset by their Server and Networking product sales which offer more margins.
Apple's quandry is evident in their quarterly results. They are wholly dependent on hardware revenue/profits. It doesn't matter how much we fantasize about White Box Macs increasing marketshare or how a headless Mac will reverse Apple's fortunes it doesn't add up. Apple will not lower Macs until they have other items to sell ala the iPod that make up for lost profits on lower margin Mac sales.
Originally posted by hmurchison
But aren't we talking about Macs here? I don't care the desires of people buying PCs. . .
Oops! I know you don't mean this. It would say Apple only sells to current Mac users. Freeze market share where it is; forget about switchers. . . Back on topic:
The AIO is a big issue here. It is the only form of desktop Apple sells below the G5 Power Mac price range. Is this what people want? We are really split on this issue in these discussions. So let's just look at the x86 PC market place, where most new Mac users would have to come from. What do PC users buy, an AOI or an expandable mini-tower or Shuttle type box?
Sony makes a couple AIO model with integrated LCD. If these are too expensive, Gateway has an AIO too I understand. I don't know whether anyone has sales data on x86 All-In-Ones, but I'd guess these are not runaway winners. Mac users have no choice but x86 PC folks do, and I believe only a small percentage of buyers choose the x86 AIO.
I believe the AIO will become more popular, and Apple has a winner in the new iMac. But that does not change the fact that for many desktop buyers, Apple has nothing they want.
Oops! I know you don't mean this. It would say Apple only sells to current Mac users. Freeze market share where it is; forget about switchers. . . Back on topic:
I meant every word. Mac users are a different lot just as the car lover that prefers upscale German automobiles differs from the Ford fan. What many on these boards keep doing is to assume that Apple even desires the Ford users. We all chose Macintosh for various reasons not the least in that it presents a superior computing environment. The switchers will come if MS keeps running into virus and security issues.
Regarding AIO:
The first Mac was an AIO. I find it odd that 20yrs later users are still trying to debate the veracity of an AIO design. What X86 people do is irrelevant because the commodity design is an ATX case and a seperate monitor, when they choose AIO it's generally a laptop. It's not as if AIO was the standard and then the "seperates" revolution took over and Apple is clinging to old world ideals.
I believe the AIO will become more popular, and Apple has a winner in the new iMac. But that does not change the fact that for many desktop buyers, Apple has nothing they want.
Precisely. Apple cannot please all the people all the time. White Box or gutted Macs aren't going to sway many of these people to make it worthwhile IMO.
There is roughly a 10-15% "tax" paid to move up to a Mac system. Not that significant. Couple that with an extremely efficient Apple that has increased their product line, found another Billion dollar revenue stream(iPod) and increased its employee base %50 over the last 5 yrs. Would WB Macs have enabled Apple to do this? I doubt it.
Consumers asking for price decreases do so from selfish motives. Hell I do it all the time as well it's only natural. The problems is when we geeks toss away sound business practices to attempt to bolster our requests. The cost of Macs will continue to decrease as always and more people will be able to afford them. It just takes time.
Originally posted by hmurchison
But aren't we talking about Macs here?
In my mind we're actually talking about Mac OS X, not Macs.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Precisely. Apple cannot please all the people all the time. White Box or gutted Macs aren't going to sway many of these people to make it worthwhile IMO.
Well no one is talking about pleasing all of the people all of the time. I think we're just trying to increase the user base.
I disagree about the swaying issue. If you put an inexpensive machine on a shelf and say it's a virus/spyware free email and internet box, it would sell. It would still probably cost more than an average Best Buy Box, but there's a lot of added value in it that can be seen when you roll the mouse over the dock and the icons go zoom!
Seriously though, this is about getting the next tier down not the entire industry. The Xserve + all of the new Pro Video Apps are moving towards the next tier up in the industry but there's money and market a little lower than we stretch now as well.
Originally posted by hmurchison
. . . The first Mac was an AIO. I find it odd that 20yrs later users are still trying to debate the veracity of an AIO design. . .
I don't believe many in these discussions will argue against Apple making an All-In-One Mac. It's a great type of desktop for many applications. Rather, it is the fact that Mac users do not have a choice. The only desktops Apple makes below the Power Mac are AIO models. Is there any evidence that the great majority of Mac users are happy, or even reasonably satisfied, with this condition? There have been some heated discussion on this topic. Is it only a handful of geeks on these boards who want a lower cost headless Mac as some would say? Or do many want an alternative to the AIO? Well, unless Apple changes their product policy we may never find out.
Quote:
. . . Mac users are a different lot just as the car lover that prefers upscale German automobiles differs from the Ford fan. What many on these boards keep doing is to assume that Apple even desires the Ford users. . .
Beside the AIO debates, the luxury car analogy has been repeated endlessly. Is it really a good comparison? If it is, why on earth is Apple trying to sell to schools? Schools don't buy BMWs for their staff cars. Schools are often on a very tight budget. If the elite car analogy holds, then schools would obviously be Ford folks and Windows PC users. No sense trying to sell them BMWs and Macs.
Also, you mention a 10-15% premium to buy a Mac. Since when can we get a BMW for a 10-15% premium? No. I believe Apple is not a luxury product, but a practical choice, and in most cases the best choice for the job. It also has class and looks cool. Those who cannot see the value in the small premium they would pay to get a Mac are forced to live with the consequences. An elite or luxury product it is not.
Right now Apple computers are more expensive in countries like India when compared to the US.
Example from the Apple Store:
2.5GHZ PowerPC in India : INR 206,000 (exclusive of local taxes). That translates to USD 4,484.60
The same machine costs USD 2,999 in the United States.
I don't think Apple needs a 'White Box' product to address new markets. A rethink on marketting would work.
Also, you'd ahve to consider that Apple would, in many cases be losing an effective monitor sale - following on from people's argument that schools/businesses/home users want to use their existing monitor - with the imac and emac, apple effectively bundles their own monitor with the computer. The alternative is to provide a cheap monitor, and offer it at a competitive price - but what advantage is there then in buying the headless mac over the imac?
Realistically, a headless iMac would probably sell for only a small amount less than the present iMac if you were offered a machine with exactly the same specs as the iMac for $100 dollars less (maximum), but with no monitor, would you buy it over the iMac? Do you think anyone else would?
The way I see it, the reason AIO's don't succeed in PC land is for two reasons - the existing AIOs are poorly executed, and don't have the appeal that every generation of the iMac has had.
Secondly, PC moterboard and case design is centred around the ATX case, and there are big cost savings in going down this route. PC AIOs forfit these savings,and are thus expensive relative to a standard PC tower. Apple doesn't have this problem - they would be unlikely to use a standard ATX case for any PC they release, and their motherboard designs a propriatry anyway, so the cost saving for going with a tower design isn't so great.
I don't understand how people think that producing a machine in China/India would magically reduce the price either - Apple already contracts out most of its production to (one assumes) the most cost effective option - seemingly Taiwan at the moment. If this is significantly more expensive than producing machines in China, then Apple are doing a very poor job - and their profitability suggests that this isn't the case.
What people who are demanding a headless mac are asking for is really a cheap computer. There's no real evidence that the market for Macs is price elastic ? reducing the price of the cube for example didn't lead to better sales. Why would Apple want to cut margins if they think they can sell at the existing price points?
Producing a headless eMac might be a way to produce a cheap mac, but would a headless 1.25Ghz box for $50 (maximum) less than the eMac attract anyone - least of all windows users who see 1.25Ghz and immediately discount the product?
Originally posted by mortigi tempo
. . . What people who are demanding a headless mac are asking for is really a cheap computer. . .
You overlook a few things, on both the Mac and PC sides. Most all headless computers have expansion slots, for PCI cards and usually graphics cards too. This feature is important to many folks, possibly the majority on the x86 PC side, and it is absolutely essential to many applications. When we talk about markets below the profession Power Mac users, we tend to think of home computers, and maybe school and office use. But there are industrial and scientific applications that need just a simple computer with expansion slots. These markets grew up around the IBM PC, and without slots a computer is useless to them. (I had the opportunity to see an very large astronomical telescope still under the control of a 286 PC.)
Beside expansion slots, a headless computer offers flexibility in how it is installed. Do you want a simple server stuck in a closet or on a shelf? A small headless computer is ideal. An eMac might not even fit. And expansion slots offer the flexibility to give customers just the features they need, without paying for unused functionality. Things like this often appeal to the IT folks and purchasing agents. Put FireWire, Ethernet and Modems on PCI cards and let them be optional. You might argue that it would not save the customer much, if anything, but if it is what the customer wants it is what he or she will buy. Apple can lose a lot of sales trying to educate customers about what they really should have.
Originally posted by mortigi tempo
... the cube and it didn't work....
Realistically, a headless iMac would probably sell for only a small amount less than the present iMac if you were offered a machine with exactly the same specs as the iMac for $100 dollars less (maximum), but with no monitor, would you buy it over the iMac? Do you think anyone else would?
...
The Cube is a bad example. Way over engineered and with a non standard graphics card.
Let's see, Apple removes a 17" monitor, that retails in the $800 - $1000 dollar range and only drops the price $100 relative to a SFF computer. If that were the case you'd be right. I suspect they could make a very tidy profit selling version starting at $799 and maxining out at $999.
Originally posted by rickag
The Cube is a bad example. Way over engineered and with a non standard graphics card.
Let's see, Apple removes a 17" monitor, that retails in the $800 - $1000 dollar range and only drops the price $100 relative to a SFF computer. If that were the case you'd be right. I suspect they could make a very tidy profit selling version starting at $799 and maxining out at $999.
It cost also as much as the G4 towers as well.
Originally posted by rickag
The Cube is a bad example. Way over engineered and with a non standard graphics card.
Let's see, Apple removes a 17" monitor, that retails in the $800 - $1000 dollar range and only drops the price $100 relative to a SFF computer. If that were the case you'd be right. I suspect they could make a very tidy profit selling version starting at $799 and maxining out at $999.
Apple would be removing a 17" monitor that costs them nowhere near $800 to purchase - absolute maximum $200. Figure in the lost markup on selling a monitor, and I'd be surprised whether they'd sell a headless iMac for much more than $100 less than the starting iMac price. The question is not what Appe could do - they could cut their margins to zero and remove 15% from the price - but whether such a machine released at real world apple prices would be a success.
Originally posted by snoopy
You overlook a few things, on both the Mac and PC sides. Most all headless computers have expansion slots, for PCI cards and usually graphics cards too. This feature is important to many folks, possibly the majority on the x86 PC side, and it is absolutely essential to many applications. When we talk about markets below the profession Power Mac users, we tend to think of home computers, and maybe school and office use. But there are industrial and scientific applications that need just a simple computer with expansion slots. These markets grew up around the IBM PC, and without slots a computer is useless to them. (I had the opportunity to see an very large astronomical telescope still under the control of a 286 PC.)
Beside expansion slots, a headless computer offers flexibility in how it is installed. Do you want a simple server stuck in a closet or on a shelf? A small headless computer is ideal. An eMac might not even fit. And expansion slots offer the flexibility to give customers just the features they need, without paying for unused functionality. Things like this often appeal to the IT folks and purchasing agents. Put FireWire, Ethernet and Modems on PCI cards and let them be optional. You might argue that it would not save the customer much, if anything, but if it is what the customer wants it is what he or she will buy. Apple can lose a lot of sales trying to educate customers about what they really should have.
But I think, from Apple's point of view, they already cover this market with the G5 tower. Are you asking for a cheap G4 tower with similar expansion to the g5, or a g5 tower with less expansion than the existing tower?
Yes, this type of computer is what most people buy, but do they buy this because that's what they prefer, or because that's the cheapest option in the PC market?
Originally posted by snoopy
When we talk about markets below the profession Power Mac users, we tend to think of home computers, and maybe school and office use. But there are industrial and scientific applications that need just a simple computer with expansion slots. These markets grew up around the IBM PC, and without slots a computer is useless to them. (I had the opportunity to see an very large astronomical telescope still under the control of a 286 PC.)
You have to assume apple realises this too, but they've done the numbers, and they don't add up. the number of people who don't buy a mac because it doesn't have expansion slots is fairly minimal. The real reason most of people don't buy macs is because they're not windows PCs! Predjudice against non MS solutions, cost barriers to switching, a lack of incentive to consider Apple products and the fact that alot of people/companies wouldn't even consider a mac are much more influential. Addressing this is going to be much more profitable than the small numbers who don't buy because they don't have the required expansion slots.
Apple is doing the right thing in making Mac OS X work better with windows, and in simplifying the process of switching (like being able to search for windows terminology in system preferences in Tiger).
Other things like giving discounts to people switching - perhaps a rebate on the production of a PC with a valid windows license, and cross grading from PC versions of essential software would do alot to break down perceived barriers to buying a mac.
Eventually they need to consider the consumer and the fact that they want increasingly more options. It's wrong to expect them to forever drink the Kool-Aid and accept whatever Apple wants to give them. If Apple wants to be the center of the "digital hub" then they need to consider the entire ecosystem. Nobody's asking the AIOs to go away. They just want the option. If there is one thing PC users understand (consciously or not), it's the breadth of options that they have in virtually everything.
I'm in the camp of people that would love to at least have the option of a headless Mac. However, I can understand the problems this could cause.
People should remember that even though companies like Dell and HP make low-cost systems, they do not make a lot of money on them. Their profits are made in the backend storage and server hardware. Those profits allow them to make client-end systems so inexpensively.
Apple has no such luxury. It's no secret they charge out the wazoo for hardware, accessories, and software in some cases... and it's really simply because they have to, with nothing else to fall back on. "Luxury" isn't nearly as much a part of the price as people seem to think it is. Aside from the chip, Mac innards are practically identical to the PCs... and as sure as I am the days are long, polycarbonate, aluminum, and plastic don't add $100-$500 to the price of any computer.
So I submit they're going to continue to lose customers that want more options unless and until Apple can subsidize their commercial products with their industrial ones. Obviously Apple is more interested in margins than marketshare.
Basically, we'll be waiting a while.
Originally posted by mortigi tempo
But I think, from Apple's point of view, they already cover this market with the G5 tower. Are you asking for a cheap G4 tower with similar expansion to the g5, or a g5 tower with less expansion than the existing tower?
Yes, this type of computer is what most people buy, but do they buy this because that's what they prefer, or because that's the cheapest option in the PC market?
Apple has successfully priced the professional systems out of the hands of most people, so I think that is a wrong starting point.
Putting everything together, it seems like the headless Mac crowd is asking for an iCube. They want an iMac that just happens to be headless, and just happens to contain interchangable parts. They want to decide if they want 5200FX graphics or a Radeon X800. To tell the consumers to fork over $3000-$5000 (towers plus monitor) just to be able to get a system that can game respectably, or utilize some simple $20 after-market card, is absurd.
The problem with the original Cube was that it was marketed and priced as a professional unit. However, it lacked expansion that professionals need, and it was priced out of the consumer range. So their "best of both worlds" ended up being nothing to neither (pardon the double negative).
An iMac that just happens to be headless and have interchangable components. it's not exactly asking for the world.
Originally posted by nowayout11
There is a market for headless computers. That is a consumer demand issue. To say Apple shouldn't do it because they lose a monitor sale is the wrong answer to the wrong question. It's not about Apple. It's about what the customers want. People don't buy things because it's for the good of a company.
Eventually they need to consider the consumer and the fact that they want increasingly more options. It's wrong to expect them to forever drink the Kool-Aid and accept whatever Apple wants to give them. If Apple wants to be the center of the "digital hub" then they need to consider the entire ecosystem. Nobody's asking the AIOs to go away. They just want the option. If there is one thing PC users understand (consciously or not), it's the breadth of options that they have in virtually everything. . .
I couldn't have stated it better.
Quote:
People should remember that even though companies like Dell and HP make low-cost systems, they do not make a lot of money on them. Their profits are made in the backend storage and server hardware. Those profits allow them to make client-end systems so inexpensively. . .
True, but Apple does not need to follow this path. I believe the low-end market is important enough that Apple needs to be there. Apple could have a higher price tag so profit margin is adequate. The idea is not to outsell the competition but to provide a more complete product line and give customers choice.
Do customers ever consider getting rid of their Windows PC problems? If low-end, utility computers are part of a customer's requirements, their availability would be essential for the customer to consider going all Apple. Sure, the low end boxes may cost more, but the overall cost of operation may make the move very attractive. This is but one tiny illustration of why Apple needs a presence in this part of the market.
Originally posted by snoopy
The idea is not to outsell the competition but to provide a more complete product line and give customers choice.
Do customers ever consider getting rid of their Windows PC problems? If low-end, utility computers are part of a customer's requirements, their availability would be essential for the customer to consider going all Apple. Sure, the low end boxes may cost more, but the overall cost of operation may make the move very attractive. This is but one tiny illustration of why Apple needs a presence in this part of the market.
This is well stated. I'd just like to add that the original links were about spreading the Mac OS rather than Apple. While I'm personally in favor of either, I can see some benefits to having a second brand.
A cube, even without an AGP, could do wonders. Just an email/web box sold even at Best Buys and Targets. Downplay some of the other features and benefits so it's a less complicated purchase.