Apple screwed people over by not having the option for a decent video card. Most users just don't care about the GPU.
Quote:
Those people have not been screwed over by IGP. All users - most users = some users. Those users have been screwed over by no GPU upgradeability.
The only problem with this line of logic is the fact that you buy the Mac mini knowing its not upgradable. If you don't want IGP don't buy the mini.
What I can agree with is that Apple needs to offer a small tower that does have upgradable GPU.
Quote:
$499 machine, and explain to me why that machine would either not be profitable, or be a bad idea for Apple to make for some other reason, then please, be my guest.
I don't feel that $100 is that big of a deal. Several people I know who have bought Dell computers. They were lured in by the advertisement of $399. But by the time they've added on all the things one wants for a modern computer, they come to or far exceeded $1000.
I can't see mini sales rising sharply because they cost $100 dollars less with less features.
What I can agree with is that Apple needs to offer a small tower that does have upgradable GPU.
O.K., great. So why make that machine and the mini two different machines?
If Apple came out with a small tower alongside the mini, it would just cannibalise mini sales because most people don't buy the mini for its ultra-compactness, they buy it because it is inexpensive. Have a compact tower, that starts cheap, and do away with the mini (or better yet, go back in time and never develop the mini in the first place, just the mini tower; it would have been cheaper. Shame that's impossible.)
Yes the $999 small tower can have the same Duo Yonah processor as the highest Mac mini
Then why would it start at $999? That would have much higher margins* than the mini** (and therefore may not be perceived to be good value)
* The Core Duo mini costs $799. A mini tower such as you suggest would actually cost Apple less than the mini (desktop parts vs. laptop parts, lower assembly costs)
I haven't gone through all the work of pricing it out but Conroe should be a more expensive chip than Yonah.
Yes, I know that. That's why I highlighted the bit where you said the tower would have Core Duo (yonah).
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
-PCIe exansion slots with a PCIe GPU.
Good point about the GPU.
If Apple did something as you suggest, and it started at $849, it'd be a good deal. I've got my fingers crossed that they are going to bite the bullet and finally do it. Then I'll just have to lament the fact that they don't think a lower-end tower is worth making .
It seems one of the big arguments for some $399 machine is "increase market share and thus increase developer support."
But do people that spend $399 on a computer actually buy much of any software?
It seems unlikely. It would help with maybe getting better video compatability on the web for macs, but beyond that I don't think I see it.
I know a bunch of people who would pick up a $399 Mac. Prolly for email, web, Office, and the iLife stuff.
Buying software? I dunno, but I think the way it goes that the more People pick up a system to run OS X, the bigger market share OS X has a chance at gaining.
I know a bunch of people who would pick up a $399 Mac. Prolly for email, web, Office, and the iLife stuff.
Buying software? I dunno, but I think the way it goes that the more People pick up a system to run OS X, the bigger market share OS X has a chance at gaining.
I think iLife is worth more than to be stuck in a 399 box, especially with OSX... I asked before: what is the value of iLife? If we consider the current price of 79 to be an upgrade price (as it comes included on all machines), then the original cost would be about 149, which doesn't leave much room for OSX on a 399 box.
It's also been brought up before, by myself, and numerous others, that buying into the Mac isn't simply buying a Mac.
People also have to be willing to buy other things in the Mac ecosystem. Why is it mentioned so many times, that the reason why people stay (along with other reasons, of course) with Windows is because of the amount of software available?
People spending $399 for a computer are less likely to also buy some of that software.
The Mac, like every other computer platform, lives and dies by the amount, and quality, of software available for it. This is also true, to a somewhat lessor extent, for hardware.
People complain that they can't get a Mini with a 500GB HD. and, yes, they have, right here, on this site, in several threads. Yet, some of them as well, insist on a $399 or $499 machine.
How many people buying such machines would spend the extra money to purchase such an expensive drive?
To change the entire design of the Mini to allow such a thing, for those who would buy them, would likely raise the price even further. That would move this goal even further away.
Apple has a vision of what their products should be, and how they should get there. They also decide which possible customers they will have to give up to accomplish that. Every company must make those decisions. Not everyone will be happy with them.
I haven't always been happy with them, and I've said so. But, at the same time, we must understand that we simply do not have the information that Apple does. They don't do things in a vacuum.
If people won't, or can't, pay that extra $100 for a Mini, too bad. That's just the way it is. You just have to get over it. Every company in the world works this way.
What if Apple released a $299 computer? How about a $199 model?
Is it possible? Sure, if they want to make something unusable by modern standards. Apple has decided that in order to provide what they consider to be the minimum "Mac" experience, their machines must have certain features as standard. And, I should mention, MANY people on these same threads have complained, in the not too distant past, that Apple MUST include these features as standard. to them, Apple, in not including them, would be "ripping off" its customers, because then we would have to pay for features that are beginning to become standard, even in the PC world.
To change the entire design of the Mini to allow such a thing, for those who would buy them, would likely raise the price even further. That would move this goal even further away.
Why do some people assume a slightly larger, more configurable machine would cost Apple more to produce? It simply isn't true. I have demonstrated this on page 14 of this thread. Have you seen the packaging in the mini? It must have cost a fair amount to develop, and quite a bit to assemble. Developing a mini tower would have cost Apple less than developing the mini. But, what is done is done. It wouldn't cost Apple that much in R&D to develop a small tower computer.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
People spending $399 for a computer are less likely to also buy some of that software.
The Mac, like every other computer platform, lives and dies by the amount, and quality, of software available for it. This is also true, to a somewhat lessor extent, for hardware.
People complain that they can't get a Mini with a 500GB HD. and, yes, they have, right here, on this site, in several threads. Yet, some of them as well, insist on a $399 or $499 machine.
How many people buying such machines would spend the extra money to purchase such an expensive drive?
Yes, 500 GB HDDs are expensive. But the mini tops out at 120 GB. 160 GB to 250 GB HDDs are a lot cheaper than 500 GB ones.
These comments raise a couple of issues:
1. What you seem to forget sometimes is that you are quite a wealthy person. Some people have to save up to buy computers, and don't like to spend more than they have to. Just because they don't have all that much money to spend on hardware, doesn't mean that they aren't willing to spend a bit to get what they need. But to tell someone, if they want OS X, their own monitor, and an HDD bigger than 120 GB, they should buy a PowerMac, is just ridiculous.
Yes, they could buy a mini and an external HDD, but that would be more expensive than putting a bigger HDD inside the mini, if only it was possible. An external HDD is an inelegant solution that Apple could have avoided with a more configurable low-end computer.
2. The computer I've been talking about in this thread, would be more configurable than the mini. So, Apple could have it start at $499 ($399 when Celeron 4xx arrives), and offer other standard configs with more features for more money. The machine I'm talking about could easily span a $399 to $1499 price range.
So, at the bottom end, this computer would appeal to those looking for a $399 computer. It would also appeal to people looking for a small, configurable computer. I am willing to accept that on the whole, those are two different sets of people. It doesn't change any of my arguments.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If people won't, or can't, pay that extra $100 for a Mini, too bad. That's just the way it is. You just have to get over it. Every company in the world works this way.
I'm not just talking about a very inexpensive computer. I'm also talking about a configurable one that is less than $999. There are simply loads of these available to you if you are a Windows user.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
What if Apple released a $299 computer? How about a $199 model?
Is it possible? Sure, if they want to make something unusable by modern standards. Apple has decided that in order to provide what they consider to
be the minimum "Mac" experience
I agree. Going that low would do Apple no good. But both a $199 and $299 computer are very different from a $399 one (they are around 50% and 37% cheaper, respectively)
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
And, I should mention, MANY people on these same threads have complained, in the not too distant past, that Apple MUST include these features as standard. to them, Apple, in not including them, would be "ripping off" its customers, because then we would have to pay for features that are beginning to become standard, even in the PC world.
Well, I think that's only if they aren't offering features as standard at a price point where they should be offering said features. (e.g., if the $599 mac mini didn't include wireless, I think it would be fair enough to complain about that). However, to complain about a lack of wireless in a $399 or $499 computer would be churlish.
So, in conclusion:
A small tower (just big enough to contain full-size HD, optical drive and space for one PCI-E card) would appeal to everyone to whom a Mac mini appeals, and also, to a load of people to whom a Mac mini does not appeal. So, I'm talking about replacing one profitable computer with another profitable computer, which appeals to a much wider market. I simply cannot see how this would be a bad thing for Apple.
Why do some people assume a slightly larger, more configurable machine would cost Apple more to produce? It simply isn't true. I have demonstrated this on page 14 of this thread. Have you seen the packaging in the mini? It must have cost a fair amount to develop, and quite a bit to assemble. Developing a mini tower would have cost Apple less than developing the mini. But, what is done is done. It wouldn't cost Apple that much in R&D to develop a small tower computer.
Yes, 500 GB HDDs are expensive. But the mini tops out at 120 GB. 160 GB to 250 GB HDDs are a lot cheaper than 500 GB ones.
These comments raise a couple of issues:
1. What you seem to forget sometimes is that you are quite a wealthy person. Some people have to save up to buy computers, and don't like to spend more than they have to. Just because they don't have all that much money to spend on hardware, doesn't mean that they aren't willing to spend a bit to get what they need. But to tell someone, if they want OS X, their own monitor, and an HDD bigger than 120 GB, they should buy a PowerMac, is just ridiculous.
Yes, they could buy a mini and an external HDD, but that would be more expensive than putting a bigger HDD inside the mini, if only it was possible. An external HDD is an inelegant solution that Apple could have avoided with a more configurable low-end computer.
2. The computer I've been talking about in this thread, would be more configurable than the mini. So, Apple could have it start at $499 ($399 when Celeron 4xx arrives), and offer other standard configs with more features for more money. The machine I'm talking about could easily span a $399 to $1499 price range.
So, at the bottom end, this computer would appeal to those looking for a $399 computer. It would also appeal to people looking for a small, configurable computer. I am willing to accept that on the whole, those are two different sets of people. It doesn't change any of my arguments.
I'm not just talking about a very inexpensive computer. I'm also talking about a configurable one that is less than $999. There are simply loads of these available to you if you are a Windows user.
I agree. Going that low would do Apple no good. But both a $199 and $299 computer are very different from a $399 one (they are around 50% and 37% cheaper, respectively)
Well, I think that's only if they aren't offering features as standard at a price point where they should be offering said features. (e.g., if the $599 mac mini didn't include wireless, I think it would be fair enough to complain about that). However, to complain about a lack of wireless in a $399 or $499 computer would be churlish.
So, in conclusion:
A small tower (just big enough to contain full-size HD, optical drive and space for one PCI-E card) would appeal to everyone to whom a Mac mini appeals, and also, to a load of people to whom a Mac mini does not appeal. So, I'm talking about replacing one profitable computer with another profitable computer, which appeals to a much wider market. I simply cannot see how this would be a bad thing for Apple.
That's a lot to respond to, so I'm going to do it here, at the bottom, rather than make the post too complex with more quoting. I hope that's ok.
If you look at the "Mini" PC models, you will see that they cost MORE than a Mini, once you add anything other than the bare basics. This shows that the costing model Apple uses is correct. A mini anything is always going to cost significantly more. Thats why 1" drives cost more per Gb than 1.8" ones, which cost more per GB than 2.5" ones, which cost more per GB than 3.5" ones.
But, if Apple makes the machine just a little bit bigger, to accommodate a 3.5" drive, it will cost more. We will still be talking about a miniaturized machine, with all of the attendant increases in cost. But, now we will also be talking about a significantly bigger power supply needed for the much hungrier 3.5" drive. This will definitely hold true if Apple has to accommodate the needs of someone stuffing that 500GB (or larger, when it comes out later this year) drive in the case. 3.5" drives also put out far more heat than the 2.5" models do. 7,200 rpm drives put out even more heat, and there are a few (or there were last I looked) 10,000ATA drives that put out even more heat than that (as well as requiring even MORE power).
Will Apple need to add fans to the case as well? That makes it bigger still. What about the quietness of the machines? That has been praised all over the web. These changes will make this a pretty noisy machine, compared to what it is now, which is almost silent.
The packaging of the Mini might cost Apple $10. $15 at the outside. I'm not sure it even does cost that much. When you get to hundreds of thousands, packaging costs drop precipitously. That's my experience. You can look up custom packaging costs. They are out there, if you want to bother.
Insofar as a mini tower goes, well, you should have read the several posts I've made about that. That was my suggestion soon after Apple came out with the first G5 towers. I presented the plans (yup, I actually drew out plans) to my friends in Apple engineering management. They thought the plans made sense, and could be produced, but that "upper" management didn't want to go in that direction. Too bad. They were really very nice. They maintained the aluminum chassis, but were smaller, and didn't have the expensive metalwork for the handles or feet. There were other major changes inside, in the electronics as well to get the price to $999.
Sometimes I wish it WAS possible to build a Mac clone. I think I could have been successful. But, no matter.
1. I don't know what "quite a wealthy person" means. It's all relative. I certainly don't think of myself that way.
First of all, very few people these days "need" a 500GB HD. Those who do, tend to be hobbyists. Hobbyists are usually willing to spend more to get what they want. After all, it's a hobby. The rest who really need it ARE willing to save up for it. Drive costs are dropping, by the time someone needs to upgrade to one, they will cost a good deal less. Besides, 2.5" drive sizes are going up, and the costs for them are dropping as well. If someone opts for the smaller drive now, by the time they need the biggest one, it will be over 200GB, and cheaper than the 160 is now. Buying it on the market will make it cheaper than buying it from Apple.
Look, I know plenty of people who can't afford to buy an iMac, much less a PM, with all of the attendant trimmings. I don't live in a castle all of the time, I do come out to play.
In my user group alone, we have a fair percentage of people with 6000 and 7000 series of machines running 7.5.1. I know what it means for them to consider a new machine. I know people who rely on others to give them old machines, because they can't, or won't, spend the money for one themselves. Some of these people save up for YEARS to buy a new machine. So, I either donate (depending on what it is) my older stuff to the schools, or the user group.
Believe me, I do understand.
Also, the external solutions aren't inelegant. In fact, they are VERY elegant. They also offer more connectivity, and you can decide what size drive you will get. These drive cases and drives cost less that if the choice came from Apple. The cases themselves don't cost much, once you consider what it is you are getting.
2. To a great extent, you are right. But the price of $499 would still be a stripped down model, just like the PC mini versions out there are. It wouldn't be complete. People are complaining that they are not getting a Superdrive in that $599 model. It just goes to show how close to the line the machine is.
If you look at the reviews of the iMac, for example, one of the virtues mentioned in most of these reviews is that the consumer doesn't have to think about the purchase. It's all there. The Mini, of course, isn't quite that simple, because you still need the monitor and keyboard mouse combo. But, it's close.
Apple wants the sale to go something like this:
"What will I need other than my monitor, keyboard, mouse, and printer?"
Nothing.
"What if I want to connect to a wireless network?"
Just this $49 wireless router.
"Yes, but what about for the computer?"
Nothing.
Etc.
Of course, the only fly here is that a modem is no longer included, but, it seems as though most Mac users elect to go for broadband.
If Apple removed several of these features, customers would be back to the "what do I need to buy to do..."
"Will the Celeron play HD trailers from Apple's web site, and others?"
No.
The interesting thing is that those who can afford less will usually buy a product that costs more, but already has these features, rather than buy something that needs to have them added later.
The problem with thinking about lacking these features upon first sale, is that they can't be added later, usually. Then what does Apple do if a customer wants to add WiFi to their machine 18 months after they bought it?
That would call for an extensive redesign of the machine, with customer friendly slots or connectors inside the machine. Oops, the price just went up again.
Well, primarily for a graphics card, if the user wants one. The motherboard would have integrated graphics as standard.
Of course, you wouldn't necessarily have to use the PCIe for a graphics card. You could use it for a TV tuner card etc.
I understand the request, I really do ... but I just don't see it as practical. You say keep integrated graphics as standard, make the mini a bit bigger so we have an open PCIe slot for graphics or whatever else the user may want. What if it's a user that wants PCIe graphics AND a tuner? Are they forced to buy a PowerMac at this point ... or do they pick which card they'd rather have? They may not need all the power of the PowerMac (or want to spend the $ on one...) so now THOSE people are constrained.
Well, primarily for a graphics card, if the user wants one. The motherboard would have integrated graphics as standard.
Of course, you wouldn't necessarily have to use the PCIe for a graphics card. You could use it for a TV tuner card etc.
My mini tower design allows for three full size slots. Is the "small" tower full depth and width to enable a full size slot? Or is it like the Cube which offered an extra slot, but half length, and slightly shorter height?
If you look at the "Mini" PC models, you will see that they cost MORE than a Mini, once you add anything other than the bare basics.
And the ones with the same form-factor as the current Mac Mini cost a lot more than it.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But, if Apple makes the machine just a little bit bigger, to accommodate a 3.5" drive, it will cost more. We will still be talking about a miniaturized machine, with all of the attendant increases in cost.
If you are going to say that the computer I suggest would actually cost more than the Mac mini, please quote my post from page 14 (the one that says "on to flogging my dead horse...") and indicate where my reasoning has gone wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But, now we will also be talking about a significantly bigger power supply needed for the much hungrier 3.5" drive. This will definitely hold true if Apple has to accommodate the needs of someone stuffing that 500GB (or larger, when it comes out later this year) drive in the case.
You are right, the power supply would have to be beefier than the current Mac mini. However, brining the PSU into the computer casework would save on packaging and this extra money could be spent on an uprated PSU. Pretty much the only things that would have to change would be the output devices in the PSU. The component costs would not be much higher (a couple of dollars at the most).
Higher capacity desktop HDDs only require more power than lower capacity desktop HDDs if they have more platters. Capacity increases from improvements in data density do not add to the power requirements.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
3.5" drives also put out far more heat than the 2.5" models do. 7,200 rpm drives put out even more heat, and there are a few (or there were last I looked) 10,000ATA drives that put out even more heat than that (as well as requiring even MORE power).
Will Apple need to add fans to the case as well? That makes it bigger still. What about the quietness of the machines? That has been praised all over the web. These changes will make this a pretty noisy machine, compared to what it is now, which is almost silent.
Yes, this is something that I have been thinking about. The machine would not support 10,000 rpm drives. It would probably require a fan. But, laptop HD and optical drives could be an option (no reason why they couldn't go into a bigger case), which when taken would mean the computer could ship without a fan. Now the user gets to choose between large HDDs in conjunction with more capable optical drives, and quietness of the machine, rather than Apple making the choice for them.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The packaging of the Mini might cost Apple $10. $15 at the outside. I'm not sure it even does cost that much. When you get to hundreds of thousands, packaging costs drop precipitously. That's my experience. You can look up custom packaging costs. They are out there, if you want to bother.
I can believe that. Making a computer bigger makes the volume increase faster than the surface area, and it's surface area that costs in terms of packaging. I already acknowledged that the casework would be more costly, but that other savings would significantly outweigh the costs increases.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Insofar as a mini tower goes, well, you should have read the several posts I've made about that. That was my suggestion soon after Apple came out with the first G5 towers. I presented the plans (yup, I actually drew out plans) to my friends in Apple engineering management. They thought the plans made sense, and could be produced, but that "upper" management didn't want to go in that direction. Too bad. They were really very nice. They maintained the aluminum chassis, but were smaller, and didn't have the expensive metalwork for the handles or feet. There were other major changes inside, in the electronics as well to get the price to $999.
Sounds nice. Maybe one day Steve will wake up. I suppose no-one's perfect, he's got it right nearly all the rest of the time.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
1. I don't know what "quite a wealthy person" means. It's all relative. I certainly don't think of myself that way.
In this thread you state that you own 10,000 Apple shares. At the moment, they are worth $677,200. In my experience someone with that many shares in one company, probably has money invested elsewhere too. Even if you don't, it still makes you wealthy in my book, and I am sure many others'. But you are right, it's all relative.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
First of all, very few people these days "need" a 500GB HD. Those who do, tend to be hobbyists.
Why this fixation on 500 GB? Like I said, the mini tops out at 120 GB and 120 GB laptop HDD is a lot more expensive than a 120 GB desktop HDD.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Look, I know plenty of people who can't afford to buy an iMac, much less a PM, with all of the attendant trimmings. I don't live in a castle all of the time, I do come out to play.
In my user group alone, we have a fair percentage of people with 6000 and 7000 series of machines running 7.5.1. I know what it means for them to consider a new machine. I know people who rely on others to give them old machines, because they can't, or won't, spend the money for one themselves. Some of these people save up for YEARS to buy a new machine. So, I either donate (depending on what it is) my older stuff to the schools, or the user group.
Believe me, I do understand.
O.K. Point well made, and point taken. I hope I did not cause offence.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But the price of $499 would still be a stripped down model, just like the PC mini versions out there are. It wouldn't be complete.
Yes, I am well aware of this. But it would be able to run OS X and iLife very well (better than current low-end iBooks).
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
People are complaining that they are not getting a Superdrive in that $599 model.
They are? Well, like I said, I think they are being churlish. The mini is a great deal if you happen to want exactly what it is offering.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If you look at the reviews of the iMac, for example, one of the virtues mentioned in most of these reviews is that the consumer doesn't have to think about the purchase. It's all there.
Agreed. The iMac is a brilliant machine.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Apple wants the sale to go something like this:
"What will I need other than my monitor, keyboard, mouse, and printer?"
Nothing.
"What if I want to connect to a wireless network?"
Just this $49 wireless router.
"Yes, but what about for the computer?"
Nothing.
Etc.
No reason that couldn't happen with a $599 configuration of the computer I suggest.
Comments
You really like twisting words, don't you
I was going by what you originally said.
Apple screwed people over by not having the option for a decent video card. Most users just don't care about the GPU.
Those people have not been screwed over by IGP. All users - most users = some users. Those users have been screwed over by no GPU upgradeability.
The only problem with this line of logic is the fact that you buy the Mac mini knowing its not upgradable. If you don't want IGP don't buy the mini.
What I can agree with is that Apple needs to offer a small tower that does have upgradable GPU.
$499 machine, and explain to me why that machine would either not be profitable, or be a bad idea for Apple to make for some other reason, then please, be my guest.
I don't feel that $100 is that big of a deal. Several people I know who have bought Dell computers. They were lured in by the advertisement of $399. But by the time they've added on all the things one wants for a modern computer, they come to or far exceeded $1000.
I can't see mini sales rising sharply because they cost $100 dollars less with less features.
Either you are going to buy it or you're not.
Originally posted by TenoBell
What I can agree with is that Apple needs to offer a small tower that does have upgradable GPU.
O.K., great. So why make that machine and the mini two different machines?
If Apple came out with a small tower alongside the mini, it would just cannibalise mini sales because most people don't buy the mini for its ultra-compactness, they buy it because it is inexpensive. Have a compact tower, that starts cheap, and do away with the mini (or better yet, go back in time and never develop the mini in the first place, just the mini tower; it would have been cheaper. Shame that's impossible.)
Trust me Apple would not mind if a more expensive computer cannibalized sales of a less expensive computer.
Originally posted by TenoBell
In my mind the small tower would have similar specs to the iMac, 2 PCIe slots, 4 RAM slots upgradable to 4GB of RAM, 3.5 HHD, cost $999 to $1499.
Trust me Apple would not mind if a more expensive computer cannibalized sales of a less expensive computer.
Oh, O.K.
The small tower you have in mind is different from the one I do. What is it that would make it start at $999? Conroe?
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yes the $999 small tower can have the same Duo Yonah processor as the highest Mac mini
Then why would it start at $999? That would have much higher margins* than the mini** (and therefore may not be perceived to be good value)
* The Core Duo mini costs $799. A mini tower such as you suggest would actually cost Apple less than the mini (desktop parts vs. laptop parts, lower assembly costs)
** maybe I've answered my own question?
-Faster Front Side Bus
-PCIe exansion slots with a PCIe GPU.
-4 Full RAM slots
Will certainly all be more expensive than items in the Mac mini.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I haven't gone through all the work of pricing it out but Conroe should be a more expensive chip than Yonah.
Yes, I know that. That's why I highlighted the bit where you said the tower would have Core Duo (yonah).
Originally posted by TenoBell
-PCIe exansion slots with a PCIe GPU.
Good point about the GPU.
If Apple did something as you suggest, and it started at $849, it'd be a good deal. I've got my fingers crossed that they are going to bite the bullet and finally do it. Then I'll just have to lament the fact that they don't think a lower-end tower is worth making
Another way to look at it:
iMac's use Duo Yonah, are not expandale, and start at $1299.
Originally posted by Flounder
It seems one of the big arguments for some $399 machine is "increase market share and thus increase developer support."
But do people that spend $399 on a computer actually buy much of any software?
It seems unlikely. It would help with maybe getting better video compatability on the web for macs, but beyond that I don't think I see it.
I know a bunch of people who would pick up a $399 Mac. Prolly for email, web, Office, and the iLife stuff.
Buying software? I dunno, but I think the way it goes that the more People pick up a system to run OS X, the bigger market share OS X has a chance at gaining.
Originally posted by Faasnat
I know a bunch of people who would pick up a $399 Mac. Prolly for email, web, Office, and the iLife stuff.
Buying software? I dunno, but I think the way it goes that the more People pick up a system to run OS X, the bigger market share OS X has a chance at gaining.
I think iLife is worth more than to be stuck in a 399 box, especially with OSX... I asked before: what is the value of iLife? If we consider the current price of 79 to be an upgrade price (as it comes included on all machines), then the original cost would be about 149, which doesn't leave much room for OSX on a 399 box.
People also have to be willing to buy other things in the Mac ecosystem. Why is it mentioned so many times, that the reason why people stay (along with other reasons, of course) with Windows is because of the amount of software available?
People spending $399 for a computer are less likely to also buy some of that software.
The Mac, like every other computer platform, lives and dies by the amount, and quality, of software available for it. This is also true, to a somewhat lessor extent, for hardware.
People complain that they can't get a Mini with a 500GB HD. and, yes, they have, right here, on this site, in several threads. Yet, some of them as well, insist on a $399 or $499 machine.
How many people buying such machines would spend the extra money to purchase such an expensive drive?
To change the entire design of the Mini to allow such a thing, for those who would buy them, would likely raise the price even further. That would move this goal even further away.
Apple has a vision of what their products should be, and how they should get there. They also decide which possible customers they will have to give up to accomplish that. Every company must make those decisions. Not everyone will be happy with them.
I haven't always been happy with them, and I've said so. But, at the same time, we must understand that we simply do not have the information that Apple does. They don't do things in a vacuum.
If people won't, or can't, pay that extra $100 for a Mini, too bad. That's just the way it is. You just have to get over it. Every company in the world works this way.
What if Apple released a $299 computer? How about a $199 model?
Is it possible? Sure, if they want to make something unusable by modern standards. Apple has decided that in order to provide what they consider to be the minimum "Mac" experience, their machines must have certain features as standard. And, I should mention, MANY people on these same threads have complained, in the not too distant past, that Apple MUST include these features as standard. to them, Apple, in not including them, would be "ripping off" its customers, because then we would have to pay for features that are beginning to become standard, even in the PC world.
I guess that Apple can't win here.
Originally posted by melgross
To change the entire design of the Mini to allow such a thing, for those who would buy them, would likely raise the price even further. That would move this goal even further away.
Why do some people assume a slightly larger, more configurable machine would cost Apple more to produce? It simply isn't true. I have demonstrated this on page 14 of this thread. Have you seen the packaging in the mini? It must have cost a fair amount to develop, and quite a bit to assemble. Developing a mini tower would have cost Apple less than developing the mini. But, what is done is done. It wouldn't cost Apple that much in R&D to develop a small tower computer.
Originally posted by melgross
People spending $399 for a computer are less likely to also buy some of that software.
The Mac, like every other computer platform, lives and dies by the amount, and quality, of software available for it. This is also true, to a somewhat lessor extent, for hardware.
People complain that they can't get a Mini with a 500GB HD. and, yes, they have, right here, on this site, in several threads. Yet, some of them as well, insist on a $399 or $499 machine.
How many people buying such machines would spend the extra money to purchase such an expensive drive?
Yes, 500 GB HDDs are expensive. But the mini tops out at 120 GB. 160 GB to 250 GB HDDs are a lot cheaper than 500 GB ones.
These comments raise a couple of issues:
1. What you seem to forget sometimes is that you are quite a wealthy person. Some people have to save up to buy computers, and don't like to spend more than they have to. Just because they don't have all that much money to spend on hardware, doesn't mean that they aren't willing to spend a bit to get what they need. But to tell someone, if they want OS X, their own monitor, and an HDD bigger than 120 GB, they should buy a PowerMac, is just ridiculous.
Yes, they could buy a mini and an external HDD, but that would be more expensive than putting a bigger HDD inside the mini, if only it was possible. An external HDD is an inelegant solution that Apple could have avoided with a more configurable low-end computer.
2. The computer I've been talking about in this thread, would be more configurable than the mini. So, Apple could have it start at $499 ($399 when Celeron 4xx arrives), and offer other standard configs with more features for more money. The machine I'm talking about could easily span a $399 to $1499 price range.
So, at the bottom end, this computer would appeal to those looking for a $399 computer. It would also appeal to people looking for a small, configurable computer. I am willing to accept that on the whole, those are two different sets of people. It doesn't change any of my arguments.
Originally posted by melgross
If people won't, or can't, pay that extra $100 for a Mini, too bad. That's just the way it is. You just have to get over it. Every company in the world works this way.
I'm not just talking about a very inexpensive computer. I'm also talking about a configurable one that is less than $999. There are simply loads of these available to you if you are a Windows user.
Originally posted by melgross
What if Apple released a $299 computer? How about a $199 model?
Is it possible? Sure, if they want to make something unusable by modern standards. Apple has decided that in order to provide what they consider to
be the minimum "Mac" experience
I agree. Going that low would do Apple no good. But both a $199 and $299 computer are very different from a $399 one (they are around 50% and 37% cheaper, respectively)
Originally posted by melgross
And, I should mention, MANY people on these same threads have complained, in the not too distant past, that Apple MUST include these features as standard. to them, Apple, in not including them, would be "ripping off" its customers, because then we would have to pay for features that are beginning to become standard, even in the PC world.
Well, I think that's only if they aren't offering features as standard at a price point where they should be offering said features. (e.g., if the $599 mac mini didn't include wireless, I think it would be fair enough to complain about that). However, to complain about a lack of wireless in a $399 or $499 computer would be churlish.
So, in conclusion:
A small tower (just big enough to contain full-size HD, optical drive and space for one PCI-E card) would appeal to everyone to whom a Mac mini appeals, and also, to a load of people to whom a Mac mini does not appeal. So, I'm talking about replacing one profitable computer with another profitable computer, which appeals to a much wider market. I simply cannot see how this would be a bad thing for Apple.
Originally posted by lundy
What would the PCIe slot in this small tower be for?
The ever-elusive upgradable Macintosh computer
cue twighlight zone music...
Originally posted by lundy
What would the PCIe slot in this small tower be for?
Well, primarily for a graphics card, if the user wants one. The motherboard would have integrated graphics as standard.
Of course, you wouldn't necessarily have to use the PCIe for a graphics card. You could use it for a TV tuner card etc.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Why do some people assume a slightly larger, more configurable machine would cost Apple more to produce? It simply isn't true. I have demonstrated this on page 14 of this thread. Have you seen the packaging in the mini? It must have cost a fair amount to develop, and quite a bit to assemble. Developing a mini tower would have cost Apple less than developing the mini. But, what is done is done. It wouldn't cost Apple that much in R&D to develop a small tower computer.
Yes, 500 GB HDDs are expensive. But the mini tops out at 120 GB. 160 GB to 250 GB HDDs are a lot cheaper than 500 GB ones.
These comments raise a couple of issues:
1. What you seem to forget sometimes is that you are quite a wealthy person. Some people have to save up to buy computers, and don't like to spend more than they have to. Just because they don't have all that much money to spend on hardware, doesn't mean that they aren't willing to spend a bit to get what they need. But to tell someone, if they want OS X, their own monitor, and an HDD bigger than 120 GB, they should buy a PowerMac, is just ridiculous.
Yes, they could buy a mini and an external HDD, but that would be more expensive than putting a bigger HDD inside the mini, if only it was possible. An external HDD is an inelegant solution that Apple could have avoided with a more configurable low-end computer.
2. The computer I've been talking about in this thread, would be more configurable than the mini. So, Apple could have it start at $499 ($399 when Celeron 4xx arrives), and offer other standard configs with more features for more money. The machine I'm talking about could easily span a $399 to $1499 price range.
So, at the bottom end, this computer would appeal to those looking for a $399 computer. It would also appeal to people looking for a small, configurable computer. I am willing to accept that on the whole, those are two different sets of people. It doesn't change any of my arguments.
I'm not just talking about a very inexpensive computer. I'm also talking about a configurable one that is less than $999. There are simply loads of these available to you if you are a Windows user.
I agree. Going that low would do Apple no good. But both a $199 and $299 computer are very different from a $399 one (they are around 50% and 37% cheaper, respectively)
Well, I think that's only if they aren't offering features as standard at a price point where they should be offering said features. (e.g., if the $599 mac mini didn't include wireless, I think it would be fair enough to complain about that). However, to complain about a lack of wireless in a $399 or $499 computer would be churlish.
So, in conclusion:
A small tower (just big enough to contain full-size HD, optical drive and space for one PCI-E card) would appeal to everyone to whom a Mac mini appeals, and also, to a load of people to whom a Mac mini does not appeal. So, I'm talking about replacing one profitable computer with another profitable computer, which appeals to a much wider market. I simply cannot see how this would be a bad thing for Apple.
That's a lot to respond to, so I'm going to do it here, at the bottom, rather than make the post too complex with more quoting. I hope that's ok.
If you look at the "Mini" PC models, you will see that they cost MORE than a Mini, once you add anything other than the bare basics. This shows that the costing model Apple uses is correct. A mini anything is always going to cost significantly more. Thats why 1" drives cost more per Gb than 1.8" ones, which cost more per GB than 2.5" ones, which cost more per GB than 3.5" ones.
But, if Apple makes the machine just a little bit bigger, to accommodate a 3.5" drive, it will cost more. We will still be talking about a miniaturized machine, with all of the attendant increases in cost. But, now we will also be talking about a significantly bigger power supply needed for the much hungrier 3.5" drive. This will definitely hold true if Apple has to accommodate the needs of someone stuffing that 500GB (or larger, when it comes out later this year) drive in the case. 3.5" drives also put out far more heat than the 2.5" models do. 7,200 rpm drives put out even more heat, and there are a few (or there were last I looked) 10,000ATA drives that put out even more heat than that (as well as requiring even MORE power).
Will Apple need to add fans to the case as well? That makes it bigger still. What about the quietness of the machines? That has been praised all over the web. These changes will make this a pretty noisy machine, compared to what it is now, which is almost silent.
The packaging of the Mini might cost Apple $10. $15 at the outside. I'm not sure it even does cost that much. When you get to hundreds of thousands, packaging costs drop precipitously. That's my experience. You can look up custom packaging costs. They are out there, if you want to bother.
Insofar as a mini tower goes, well, you should have read the several posts I've made about that. That was my suggestion soon after Apple came out with the first G5 towers. I presented the plans (yup, I actually drew out plans) to my friends in Apple engineering management. They thought the plans made sense, and could be produced, but that "upper" management didn't want to go in that direction. Too bad. They were really very nice. They maintained the aluminum chassis, but were smaller, and didn't have the expensive metalwork for the handles or feet. There were other major changes inside, in the electronics as well to get the price to $999.
Sometimes I wish it WAS possible to build a Mac clone. I think I could have been successful. But, no matter.
1. I don't know what "quite a wealthy person" means. It's all relative. I certainly don't think of myself that way.
First of all, very few people these days "need" a 500GB HD. Those who do, tend to be hobbyists. Hobbyists are usually willing to spend more to get what they want. After all, it's a hobby. The rest who really need it ARE willing to save up for it. Drive costs are dropping, by the time someone needs to upgrade to one, they will cost a good deal less. Besides, 2.5" drive sizes are going up, and the costs for them are dropping as well. If someone opts for the smaller drive now, by the time they need the biggest one, it will be over 200GB, and cheaper than the 160 is now. Buying it on the market will make it cheaper than buying it from Apple.
Look, I know plenty of people who can't afford to buy an iMac, much less a PM, with all of the attendant trimmings. I don't live in a castle all of the time, I do come out to play.
In my user group alone, we have a fair percentage of people with 6000 and 7000 series of machines running 7.5.1. I know what it means for them to consider a new machine. I know people who rely on others to give them old machines, because they can't, or won't, spend the money for one themselves. Some of these people save up for YEARS to buy a new machine. So, I either donate (depending on what it is) my older stuff to the schools, or the user group.
Believe me, I do understand.
Also, the external solutions aren't inelegant. In fact, they are VERY elegant. They also offer more connectivity, and you can decide what size drive you will get. These drive cases and drives cost less that if the choice came from Apple. The cases themselves don't cost much, once you consider what it is you are getting.
2. To a great extent, you are right. But the price of $499 would still be a stripped down model, just like the PC mini versions out there are. It wouldn't be complete. People are complaining that they are not getting a Superdrive in that $599 model. It just goes to show how close to the line the machine is.
If you look at the reviews of the iMac, for example, one of the virtues mentioned in most of these reviews is that the consumer doesn't have to think about the purchase. It's all there. The Mini, of course, isn't quite that simple, because you still need the monitor and keyboard mouse combo. But, it's close.
Apple wants the sale to go something like this:
"What will I need other than my monitor, keyboard, mouse, and printer?"
Nothing.
"What if I want to connect to a wireless network?"
Just this $49 wireless router.
"Yes, but what about for the computer?"
Nothing.
Etc.
Of course, the only fly here is that a modem is no longer included, but, it seems as though most Mac users elect to go for broadband.
If Apple removed several of these features, customers would be back to the "what do I need to buy to do..."
"Will the Celeron play HD trailers from Apple's web site, and others?"
No.
The interesting thing is that those who can afford less will usually buy a product that costs more, but already has these features, rather than buy something that needs to have them added later.
The problem with thinking about lacking these features upon first sale, is that they can't be added later, usually. Then what does Apple do if a customer wants to add WiFi to their machine 18 months after they bought it?
That would call for an extensive redesign of the machine, with customer friendly slots or connectors inside the machine. Oops, the price just went up again.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Well, primarily for a graphics card, if the user wants one. The motherboard would have integrated graphics as standard.
Of course, you wouldn't necessarily have to use the PCIe for a graphics card. You could use it for a TV tuner card etc.
I understand the request, I really do ... but I just don't see it as practical. You say keep integrated graphics as standard, make the mini a bit bigger so we have an open PCIe slot for graphics or whatever else the user may want. What if it's a user that wants PCIe graphics AND a tuner? Are they forced to buy a PowerMac at this point ... or do they pick which card they'd rather have? They may not need all the power of the PowerMac (or want to spend the $ on one...) so now THOSE people are constrained.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Well, primarily for a graphics card, if the user wants one. The motherboard would have integrated graphics as standard.
Of course, you wouldn't necessarily have to use the PCIe for a graphics card. You could use it for a TV tuner card etc.
My mini tower design allows for three full size slots. Is the "small" tower full depth and width to enable a full size slot? Or is it like the Cube which offered an extra slot, but half length, and slightly shorter height?
Originally posted by melgross
If you look at the "Mini" PC models, you will see that they cost MORE than a Mini, once you add anything other than the bare basics.
And the ones with the same form-factor as the current Mac Mini cost a lot more than it.
Originally posted by melgross
But, if Apple makes the machine just a little bit bigger, to accommodate a 3.5" drive, it will cost more. We will still be talking about a miniaturized machine, with all of the attendant increases in cost.
If you are going to say that the computer I suggest would actually cost more than the Mac mini, please quote my post from page 14 (the one that says "on to flogging my dead horse...") and indicate where my reasoning has gone wrong.
Originally posted by melgross
But, now we will also be talking about a significantly bigger power supply needed for the much hungrier 3.5" drive. This will definitely hold true if Apple has to accommodate the needs of someone stuffing that 500GB (or larger, when it comes out later this year) drive in the case.
You are right, the power supply would have to be beefier than the current Mac mini. However, brining the PSU into the computer casework would save on packaging and this extra money could be spent on an uprated PSU. Pretty much the only things that would have to change would be the output devices in the PSU. The component costs would not be much higher (a couple of dollars at the most).
Higher capacity desktop HDDs only require more power than lower capacity desktop HDDs if they have more platters. Capacity increases from improvements in data density do not add to the power requirements.
Originally posted by melgross
3.5" drives also put out far more heat than the 2.5" models do. 7,200 rpm drives put out even more heat, and there are a few (or there were last I looked) 10,000ATA drives that put out even more heat than that (as well as requiring even MORE power).
Will Apple need to add fans to the case as well? That makes it bigger still. What about the quietness of the machines? That has been praised all over the web. These changes will make this a pretty noisy machine, compared to what it is now, which is almost silent.
Yes, this is something that I have been thinking about. The machine would not support 10,000 rpm drives. It would probably require a fan. But, laptop HD and optical drives could be an option (no reason why they couldn't go into a bigger case), which when taken would mean the computer could ship without a fan. Now the user gets to choose between large HDDs in conjunction with more capable optical drives, and quietness of the machine, rather than Apple making the choice for them.
Originally posted by melgross
The packaging of the Mini might cost Apple $10. $15 at the outside. I'm not sure it even does cost that much. When you get to hundreds of thousands, packaging costs drop precipitously. That's my experience. You can look up custom packaging costs. They are out there, if you want to bother.
I can believe that. Making a computer bigger makes the volume increase faster than the surface area, and it's surface area that costs in terms of packaging. I already acknowledged that the casework would be more costly, but that other savings would significantly outweigh the costs increases.
Originally posted by melgross
Insofar as a mini tower goes, well, you should have read the several posts I've made about that. That was my suggestion soon after Apple came out with the first G5 towers. I presented the plans (yup, I actually drew out plans) to my friends in Apple engineering management. They thought the plans made sense, and could be produced, but that "upper" management didn't want to go in that direction. Too bad. They were really very nice. They maintained the aluminum chassis, but were smaller, and didn't have the expensive metalwork for the handles or feet. There were other major changes inside, in the electronics as well to get the price to $999.
Sounds nice. Maybe one day Steve will wake up. I suppose no-one's perfect, he's got it right nearly all the rest of the time.
Originally posted by melgross
1. I don't know what "quite a wealthy person" means. It's all relative. I certainly don't think of myself that way.
In this thread you state that you own 10,000 Apple shares. At the moment, they are worth $677,200. In my experience someone with that many shares in one company, probably has money invested elsewhere too. Even if you don't, it still makes you wealthy in my book, and I am sure many others'. But you are right, it's all relative.
Originally posted by melgross
First of all, very few people these days "need" a 500GB HD. Those who do, tend to be hobbyists.
Why this fixation on 500 GB? Like I said, the mini tops out at 120 GB and 120 GB laptop HDD is a lot more expensive than a 120 GB desktop HDD.
Originally posted by melgross
Look, I know plenty of people who can't afford to buy an iMac, much less a PM, with all of the attendant trimmings. I don't live in a castle all of the time, I do come out to play.
In my user group alone, we have a fair percentage of people with 6000 and 7000 series of machines running 7.5.1. I know what it means for them to consider a new machine. I know people who rely on others to give them old machines, because they can't, or won't, spend the money for one themselves. Some of these people save up for YEARS to buy a new machine. So, I either donate (depending on what it is) my older stuff to the schools, or the user group.
Believe me, I do understand.
O.K. Point well made, and point taken. I hope I did not cause offence.
Originally posted by melgross
But the price of $499 would still be a stripped down model, just like the PC mini versions out there are. It wouldn't be complete.
Yes, I am well aware of this. But it would be able to run OS X and iLife very well (better than current low-end iBooks).
Originally posted by melgross
People are complaining that they are not getting a Superdrive in that $599 model.
They are? Well, like I said, I think they are being churlish. The mini is a great deal if you happen to want exactly what it is offering.
Originally posted by melgross
If you look at the reviews of the iMac, for example, one of the virtues mentioned in most of these reviews is that the consumer doesn't have to think about the purchase. It's all there.
Agreed. The iMac is a brilliant machine.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple wants the sale to go something like this:
"What will I need other than my monitor, keyboard, mouse, and printer?"
Nothing.
"What if I want to connect to a wireless network?"
Just this $49 wireless router.
"Yes, but what about for the computer?"
Nothing.
Etc.
No reason that couldn't happen with a $599 configuration of the computer I suggest.