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.
Very true. Apple's current lineup serves two markets: the low end/education market and the professional market. Apple does not even cover the mainstream consumer market. Mainstream users have to choose between downgrading their needs to an eMac or iMac or paying the extra money for a workstation (Yes, the G5 is a Opteron/Xenon-class workstation, not a true desktop) that is really overkill for their needs. Apple should release a mainstream, expandable mid-tower or cube without all the bells and whistles like dual processors, PCI-X, and 8 RAM slots.
For $250 to $350, the bare-bones iBox will feature a case, motherboard and power supply. Customers will add their own processor, memory, hard drive and operating system.
Fraser will build full-featured configurations to customers' specifications. A fully loaded iBox will cost between $650 and $2,000, depending on the speed of the chip, the size of the hard drive and other features. He plans to offer configurations with dual processors, just as Apple does in its current line of PowerMacs.
Granted, he never got off the ground because of the whole legality of the logic board resale (or whatever it was), but it posed an interesting question. If this guy was willing to go the route, and give it a shot, obviously he though he could make some money. He wasn't going to be doing this out of the kindness of his heart, and wasn't planning on losing money. So if this guy could do it, and make some cash, Apple could do it for a lot cheaper, and still make cash.
Very true. Apple's current lineup serves two markets: the low end/education market and the professional market. Apple does not even cover the mainstream consumer market. Mainstream users have to choose between downgrading their needs to an eMac or iMac or paying the extra money for a workstation (Yes, the G5 is a Opteron/Xenon-class workstation, not a true desktop) that is really overkill for their needs. Apple should release a mainstream, expandable mid-tower or cube without all the bells and whistles like dual processors, PCI-X, and 8 RAM slots.
This is missing the point. Yes, consumers tend to buy towers form Dell etc that have upgradable parts. For the most part, are they buying them *because* they're upgradable towers, or because they intend to upgrade the graphics card? How many people actually buy a new computer from Dell and don't purchase a new monitor? For your average consumer, i bet it's not that large a number.
Saying the average consumer has to downgrade to an iMac is wrong - for an average consumer's pattern of use, the only problem with the iMac is that it doesn't have enough RAM and the graphics card isn't state of the art. The fact remains that the all in one form factor has been much more successful for apple since the launch of the original iMac than their previous headlesss consumer machines and the cube (yes I know too expensive etc etc).
I'm not arguing that a headless lowend computer from Apple wouldn't be a good thing, or that there isn't a hole in Apple's range right now, but to listen to some people on this board, you'd think that the only reason people don't buy Macs is because Apple isn't offering replicas of the hardware PC buyers already purchase. Unfortunately, the real reason people don't buy Macs is because they are Macs or rather they aren't Windows machines. The real key to increasing market share is breaking down the barriers or perceived barriers to switching and making buying a Mac more attractive by means of rebates for handing in a PC with a valid windows license and crossgrades from PC to Mac versions of software.
. . . to some people on this board, you'd think that the only reason people don't buy Macs is because Apple isn't offering replicas of the hardware PC buyers already purchase.
I think you misinterpret what is being said. Most of us understand the difficulty in getting people to switch from Windows to the Mac. However, once someone considers switching, we sure hate to see other obstacles put in their way, like not having an acceptable product. That is the issue in many of these postings. What do the customers really want?
If you simply assume that 90 percent of Windows users in the eMac/iMac price range will be satisfied buying an AIO, then an expandable, headless Mac does not seem very essential for Apple's success. However, such a high acceptance of the AIO is likely not the case, for both Windows and Mac users, especially if you look beyond the home market.
Apple could test this market at little or no risk by simply making a simple, expandable Mac with no monitor. Development cost could be kept to a minimum. The first attempt need not win the design of the year award. Price this Mac so fixed costs are paid back fairly quickly. Also, price it so the dollar profit is the same as a low end eMac. In this way it doesn't matter whether Apple gets the monitor sale. The same dollar profit is there.
Okay, such a cheap Mac would not be as cheap as the Windows counter parts. The idea is not to set a sales record, however, but to simply test the market at low risk. Yet, I have the feeling that Apple does not want to know the answer to this question. It would be very embarrassing to suddenly discover that upper management has been very wrong about what the troops want.
I'll say again, I think the new iMac is great for 30 percent of the market in its price range.
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.
I do agree. So often Apple pricing is compared to an HP or Dell, and I just wanted to point out how those companies come to those prices.
I agree Apple doesn't have to follow that path. Like you said, they should just cover their bases better with a more versatile lineup... understanding that there is a "prosumer" market that neither wants Grandma's iMac or to pay out the rear for a professional rig.
I do agree. So often Apple pricing is compared to an HP or Dell, and I just wanted to point out how those companies come to those prices.
I agree Apple doesn't have to follow that path. Like you said, they should just cover their bases better with a more versatile lineup... understanding that there is a "prosumer" market that neither wants Grandma's iMac or to pay out the rear for a professional rig.
In addition, prosumers are usually the ones who low end users come to for computer advice. You give them what they want, and the eMac/iMac sales may go up as well. I know quite a few people in this category that a receptive to OSX (they can't stand windows), but the hardware doesn't meet their needs so they stay with windows. In that kind of situation the user loses becuase they have to stay with an OS they're not too thrilled about and Apple loses because they could have sold a computer.
If you simply assume that 90 percent of Windows users in the eMac/iMac price range will be satisfied buying an AIO, then an expandable, headless Mac does not seem very essential for Apple's success. However, such a high acceptance of the AIO is likely not the case, for both Windows and Mac users, especially if you look beyond the home market.
Apple could test this market at little or no risk by simply making a simple, expandable Mac with no monitor. Development cost could be kept to a minimum. The first attempt need not win the design of the year award. Price this Mac so fixed costs are paid back fairly quickly. Also, price it so the dollar profit is the same as a low end eMac. In this way it doesn't matter whether Apple gets the monitor sale. The same dollar profit is there.
Okay, such a cheap Mac would not be as cheap as the Windows counter parts. The idea is not to set a sales record, however, but to simply test the market at low risk. Yet, I have the feeling that Apple does not want to know the answer to this question. It would be very embarrassing to suddenly discover that upper management has been very wrong about what the troops want.
I'll say again, I think the new iMac is great for 30 percent of the market in its price range.
I like your thoughts, snoopy. It is always a good idea to prototype an idea outside the lab once in a while....even if you are Apple. You have to not be afraid of making mistakes in the public eye....even if you are Apple.
A minitower HAS to be easy to design and should cover R&D pretty easily compared to the laptops and G5 workstations. You don't need half of the mobo innovation that the dualies are providing and you have everything sitting in the iMac anyway. Just have to do something innovative.
One thing that is left out of the discussion about hitting that elusive Switcher market, is that consumers have all of those games and software titles that they would have to replace if they were to go Mac. I bet 99% would think all of their Word docs would be unreadable on the Mac.
It is pretty simple. We need a cheaper intro headless eMac (cube or minitower) that looks cool and comes bundled to do one-click conversion from the Windows world.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
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.
Very true. Apple's current lineup serves two markets: the low end/education market and the professional market. Apple does not even cover the mainstream consumer market. Mainstream users have to choose between downgrading their needs to an eMac or iMac or paying the extra money for a workstation (Yes, the G5 is a Opteron/Xenon-class workstation, not a true desktop) that is really overkill for their needs. Apple should release a mainstream, expandable mid-tower or cube without all the bells and whistles like dual processors, PCI-X, and 8 RAM slots.
Pizza Box or IMac? No, an IBox
snipit:
For $250 to $350, the bare-bones iBox will feature a case, motherboard and power supply. Customers will add their own processor, memory, hard drive and operating system.
Fraser will build full-featured configurations to customers' specifications. A fully loaded iBox will cost between $650 and $2,000, depending on the speed of the chip, the size of the hard drive and other features. He plans to offer configurations with dual processors, just as Apple does in its current line of PowerMacs.
Granted, he never got off the ground because of the whole legality of the logic board resale (or whatever it was), but it posed an interesting question. If this guy was willing to go the route, and give it a shot, obviously he though he could make some money. He wasn't going to be doing this out of the kindness of his heart, and wasn't planning on losing money. So if this guy could do it, and make some cash, Apple could do it for a lot cheaper, and still make cash.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Very true. Apple's current lineup serves two markets: the low end/education market and the professional market. Apple does not even cover the mainstream consumer market. Mainstream users have to choose between downgrading their needs to an eMac or iMac or paying the extra money for a workstation (Yes, the G5 is a Opteron/Xenon-class workstation, not a true desktop) that is really overkill for their needs. Apple should release a mainstream, expandable mid-tower or cube without all the bells and whistles like dual processors, PCI-X, and 8 RAM slots.
This is missing the point. Yes, consumers tend to buy towers form Dell etc that have upgradable parts. For the most part, are they buying them *because* they're upgradable towers, or because they intend to upgrade the graphics card? How many people actually buy a new computer from Dell and don't purchase a new monitor? For your average consumer, i bet it's not that large a number.
Saying the average consumer has to downgrade to an iMac is wrong - for an average consumer's pattern of use, the only problem with the iMac is that it doesn't have enough RAM and the graphics card isn't state of the art. The fact remains that the all in one form factor has been much more successful for apple since the launch of the original iMac than their previous headlesss consumer machines and the cube (yes I know too expensive etc etc).
I'm not arguing that a headless lowend computer from Apple wouldn't be a good thing, or that there isn't a hole in Apple's range right now, but to listen to some people on this board, you'd think that the only reason people don't buy Macs is because Apple isn't offering replicas of the hardware PC buyers already purchase. Unfortunately, the real reason people don't buy Macs is because they are Macs or rather they aren't Windows machines. The real key to increasing market share is breaking down the barriers or perceived barriers to switching and making buying a Mac more attractive by means of rebates for handing in a PC with a valid windows license and crossgrades from PC to Mac versions of software.
Originally posted by mortigi tempo
. . . to some people on this board, you'd think that the only reason people don't buy Macs is because Apple isn't offering replicas of the hardware PC buyers already purchase.
I think you misinterpret what is being said. Most of us understand the difficulty in getting people to switch from Windows to the Mac. However, once someone considers switching, we sure hate to see other obstacles put in their way, like not having an acceptable product. That is the issue in many of these postings. What do the customers really want?
If you simply assume that 90 percent of Windows users in the eMac/iMac price range will be satisfied buying an AIO, then an expandable, headless Mac does not seem very essential for Apple's success. However, such a high acceptance of the AIO is likely not the case, for both Windows and Mac users, especially if you look beyond the home market.
Apple could test this market at little or no risk by simply making a simple, expandable Mac with no monitor. Development cost could be kept to a minimum. The first attempt need not win the design of the year award. Price this Mac so fixed costs are paid back fairly quickly. Also, price it so the dollar profit is the same as a low end eMac. In this way it doesn't matter whether Apple gets the monitor sale. The same dollar profit is there.
Okay, such a cheap Mac would not be as cheap as the Windows counter parts. The idea is not to set a sales record, however, but to simply test the market at low risk. Yet, I have the feeling that Apple does not want to know the answer to this question. It would be very embarrassing to suddenly discover that upper management has been very wrong about what the troops want.
I'll say again, I think the new iMac is great for 30 percent of the market in its price range.
Originally posted by snoopy
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.
I do agree. So often Apple pricing is compared to an HP or Dell, and I just wanted to point out how those companies come to those prices.
I agree Apple doesn't have to follow that path. Like you said, they should just cover their bases better with a more versatile lineup... understanding that there is a "prosumer" market that neither wants Grandma's iMac or to pay out the rear for a professional rig.
Originally posted by nowayout11
I do agree. So often Apple pricing is compared to an HP or Dell, and I just wanted to point out how those companies come to those prices.
I agree Apple doesn't have to follow that path. Like you said, they should just cover their bases better with a more versatile lineup... understanding that there is a "prosumer" market that neither wants Grandma's iMac or to pay out the rear for a professional rig.
In addition, prosumers are usually the ones who low end users come to for computer advice. You give them what they want, and the eMac/iMac sales may go up as well. I know quite a few people in this category that a receptive to OSX (they can't stand windows), but the hardware doesn't meet their needs so they stay with windows. In that kind of situation the user loses becuase they have to stay with an OS they're not too thrilled about and Apple loses because they could have sold a computer.
Originally posted by snoopy
What do the customers really want?
If you simply assume that 90 percent of Windows users in the eMac/iMac price range will be satisfied buying an AIO, then an expandable, headless Mac does not seem very essential for Apple's success. However, such a high acceptance of the AIO is likely not the case, for both Windows and Mac users, especially if you look beyond the home market.
Apple could test this market at little or no risk by simply making a simple, expandable Mac with no monitor. Development cost could be kept to a minimum. The first attempt need not win the design of the year award. Price this Mac so fixed costs are paid back fairly quickly. Also, price it so the dollar profit is the same as a low end eMac. In this way it doesn't matter whether Apple gets the monitor sale. The same dollar profit is there.
Okay, such a cheap Mac would not be as cheap as the Windows counter parts. The idea is not to set a sales record, however, but to simply test the market at low risk. Yet, I have the feeling that Apple does not want to know the answer to this question. It would be very embarrassing to suddenly discover that upper management has been very wrong about what the troops want.
I'll say again, I think the new iMac is great for 30 percent of the market in its price range.
I like your thoughts, snoopy. It is always a good idea to prototype an idea outside the lab once in a while....even if you are Apple. You have to not be afraid of making mistakes in the public eye....even if you are Apple.
A minitower HAS to be easy to design and should cover R&D pretty easily compared to the laptops and G5 workstations. You don't need half of the mobo innovation that the dualies are providing and you have everything sitting in the iMac anyway. Just have to do something innovative.
One thing that is left out of the discussion about hitting that elusive Switcher market, is that consumers have all of those games and software titles that they would have to replace if they were to go Mac. I bet 99% would think all of their Word docs would be unreadable on the Mac.
It is pretty simple. We need a cheaper intro headless eMac (cube or minitower) that looks cool and comes bundled to do one-click conversion from the Windows world.