Were you only referring to current mac users? Because 75% of people that buy mac desktops is pretty danged small.
The point is that those 75% tower users (a number Gar pulled out of thin air) are windows users and that's why they don't buy iMacs. Not the form factor.
Using that same bogus 75% number for just Macintosh desktop users, the reason they aren't buying iMacs are because they are "pro" or "pro-sumer" users and need (not just want) the expansion capability.
I would also guess that among Macintosh users the majority have purchased iMacs over Powermacs over the last few years.
Vinea
The number of towers sold are less than 50% for even Windows when it is considered that about 50% of all sales are now laptops.
But, in the Windows world, almost all computers that aren't laptops, ARE towers. It's not as though Windows people have much of a chioce there (sound familliar?).
It's just the opposite for Macs, most non-laptops are NOT towers. Same lack of choice, but flipped 180%.
The iMacs have always been well designed. I think that makes a big difference.
...
Which I don't agree with, the iMac is a great computer in of itself.
Yes, the iMacs have been well designed and is a great computer. I might even buy one but I think I'll opt for the mini and pair it with a mid-sized HDTV.
Mr. H effectively wants a Core Duo Cube at $499.
Maybe it might fly at $999 but probably would suffer the same "who's it for" issues as the cube at that price point. You effectively need to build in the profit on a monitor into the cube since you have to expect that for each cube you sell you're losing a iMac sale.
Quote:
The compact Power Mac G4 Cube workstation raises at least as many questions as it answers. But there?s no question that the machine is powerful, stylish and unique.
Apple Computer Inc. turned itself around in recent years by simplifying its product line to four types of systems: the popular consumer iMac, its portable iBook version, the powerful G4 desktop system and its portable equivalent, the PowerBook.
Dropping the Cube into the middle of this square confuses the picture. At a starting price of $1,799?less a $300 rebate with a monitor purchase?the Cube is too pricey to outfit an entire office of users.
Hard-core Mac data wranglers might well prefer the blander G4 tower, which accepts dual processors and can be heavily customized and upgraded. In contrast, the Cube?s unique architecture makes adding internal drives and expansion cards difficult or impossible. Before buying, consider whether you have a history of making such hardware upgrades.
The Cube accepts up to 1.5G of RAM, a 40G hard drive and an optional 32M, 3-D graphics card. That?s plenty for most users.
This article, from the Chicago Tribune, about the new Mini, sums up what most people, who are not, like us, already Mac users, will consider when switching.
Some of it applies to all Mac's, of course.
The article is pretty accurate, from a PC users standpoint. And that's what matters.
Maybe it might fly at $999 but probably would suffer the same "who's it for" issues as the cube at that price point. You effectively need to build in the profit on a monitor into the cube since you have to expect that for each cube you sell you're losing a iMac sale.
The computer landscape is a bit different today than it was in 2000. A small tower would easily fill in the space for people who want the iMac with exapandability for which the PowerMac is too much.
You are right Apple would loose some monitor sales and lower iMac sales. What they have to balance out are the over all sales. How many people don't buy a Mac at all because the PM is too much, don't want an iMac, but would buy a small tower.
Quote:
Dropping the Cube into the middle of this square confuses the picture. At a starting price of $1,799?less a $300 rebate with a monitor purchase?the Cube is too pricey to outfit an entire office of users.
The ultimate problem with the Cube is that the market decided that $1799 was too expensive. Instead of dropping the price Apple dropped the entire computer. $999 - $1499 would be accepted much more readily by the market, even if an Apple monitor is not purchased with it.
The computer landscape is a bit different today than it was in 2000. A small tower would easily fill in the space for people who want the iMac with exapandability for which the PowerMac is too much.
You are right Apple would loose some monitor sales and lower iMac sales. What they have to balance out are the over all sales. How many people don't buy a Mac at all because the PM is too much, don't want an iMac, but would buy a small tower.
The ultimate problem with the Cube is that the market decided that $1799 was too expensive. Instead of dropping the price Apple dropped the entire computer. $999 - $1499 would be accepted much more readily by the market, even if an Apple monitor is not purchased with it.
Apple made several mistakes with the Cube. One of the biggest ones was placing it as a high mid range machine. The critism was that Apple should have placed the (at the time) much cheaper, but still viable G3 into the machine, instead of the G4.
The second one, is one that Apple has always had. They refuse to explain exactly what their machines are. While everyone who was a techie knew that the machine was highly upgradeable, and had an open slot as well, Apple never made that a widely known fact.
Therefore, I kept on hearing people say, and would read, that the Cube wasn't expandable, or very upgradable.
If Apple had taken the time, and effort, to dispel that rumor, the machine might have sold well enough for it to gather a following. If Apple used the G3 to keep the price down, as well, then it could have become popular.
But, they failed on both fronts.
Apple spent all of their marketing dollars (never enough from Apple to begin with) on how it looked, and the size.
You effectively need to build in the profit on a monitor into the cube since you have to expect that for each cube you sell you're losing a iMac sale.
I can't imagine how each cube ("Cube06" - a modern cube) sale would be a loss of an iMac. The two are entirely different machines. I can't see why someone who wants an iMac would buy a Cube06 if an iMac were unavailable, and I definitely can't see why someone who wants a Cube06 would buy an iMac.
I can't ever see myself buying an iMac. Not unless they revert to something like the 2G models, and make the monitor removable, anyway.
If Apple did offer the small tower the best case scenario would be to increase sales while not too negatively affecting sales of the iMac or PowerMac.
The absolute worse case scenario would be if current Apple customers in significant numbers who would have bought a new iMac or PowerMac bought the small tower, while few new Apple customers bought any new Macintosh at all.
If Apple did offer the small tower the best case scenario would be to increase sales while not too negatively affecting sales of the iMac or PowerMac.
The absolute worse case scenario would be if current Apple customers in significant numbers who would have bought a new iMac or PowerMac bought the small tower, while few new Apple customers bought any new Macintosh at all.
A Cube06 might possibly affect sales of the cheapest "PowerMac" (or whatever it's going to be called, I guess), I can see how that might work. Even so, the solution is probably to make the PM replacement significantly more powerful. What they've done already with Twin-Dual Core G5s is a good precedent.
I can forsee a line like this:
Mac mini: $599 (Solo), $799 (Duo + SuperDrive, etc)
They could probably expand the iMac range in a similar range, as it's rather narrowly focussed at the moment. I'm not sure about a "High end iMac", but a low end iMac, one would have thought, is very possible. A $799 "iMac mini" with a Core Solo and 13" Wide Screen. They could even go the opposite way to that of the mid-market iMacs, and put the circuits in the keyboard.
On the other hand, perhaps those would compete with the iBooks (MacBooks.) Wouldn't be hard though to keep the profit margins roughly equal.
There are machines missing from Apple's line-up, and the current controversy over the 3D acceleration (or lack of it) in the Mac minis has highlighted the lack of certain machines in particular. I doubt there'd be this fury if there was a seperate range of mid-priced ($800-1,200 in today's market) headless Macs.
A Cube06 might possibly affect sales of the cheapest "PowerMac" (or whatever it's going to be called, I guess), I can see how that might work. Even so, the solution is probably to make the PM replacement significantly more powerful. What they've done already with Twin-Dual Core G5s is a good precedent.
I can forsee a line like this:
Mac mini: $599 (Solo), $799 (Duo + SuperDrive, etc)
They could probably expand the iMac range in a similar range, as it's rather narrowly focussed at the moment. I'm not sure about a "High end iMac", but a low end iMac, one would have thought, is very possible. A $799 "iMac mini" with a Core Solo and 13" Wide Screen. They could even go the opposite way to that of the mid-market iMacs, and put the circuits in the keyboard.
On the other hand, perhaps those would compete with the iBooks (MacBooks.) Wouldn't be hard though to keep the profit margins roughly equal.
There are machines missing from Apple's line-up, and the current controversy over the 3D acceleration (or lack of it) in the Mac minis has highlighted the lack of certain machines in particular. I doubt there'd be this fury if there was a seperate range of mid-priced ($800-1,200 in today's market) headless Macs.
I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.
I'm not sure if he wants to expand it yet again.
Have, fun guys, I'll be gone for the evening. My daughter's school beckons.
I agree, at this point the only way to get a Macintosh that allows the changing of graphics cards or the use of TV tuner cards is the Power Mac.
I agree people would not care so much about the mini if their were a mid-range desktop.
Quote:
I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.
I'm sure this is of some concern, but I don't think one more computer configuration will hurt.
I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.
I'm not sure if he wants to expand it yet again.
Have, fun guys, I'll be gone for the evening. My daughter's school beckons.
Well, the problem was that the choices were poor and it wasn't obvious what on earth was what. In terms of what's proposed here, we're actually looking at three computer lines:
Mac, iMac, and Macbook (oh, and Xserve I guess)
That's it. Each line is subdivided to cater for low, mid, and high end. (Well, Macbook mid- and high-, iMac low- and mid-), but you'd expect that in any line.
I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.
I'm not sure if he wants to expand it yet again.
Have, fun guys, I'll be gone for the evening. My daughter's school beckons.
That was back in the Performa days where the pro and consumer machines overlapped in price and performance a bit more than they do today and covered a much smaller market. I agree that a Mini-Tower/Cube might not be needed today I do think that the market could support one without the "confusion" of the Performas and Quadras. There is, in my opinion, room for a "Headless" mac in the $1499-1699 price range that offers better graphics than the Mini, and if Apple starts competing in the gameing market a graphics card that can be upgraded. I'm less convinced about the need for other upgrade cards, though I can see why people would want them. I think that it would be nice to have an upgrade card mostly for add ons like video in, USB 3, and Firewire 1600 (or whatever the next step is in the evolution).
That was back in the Performa days where the pro and consumer machines overlapped in price and performance a bit more than they do today and covered a much smaller market. I agree that a Mini-Tower/Cube might not be needed today I do think that the market could support one without the "confusion" of the Performas and Quadras. There is, in my opinion, room for a "Headless" mac in the $1499-1699 price range that offers better graphics than the Mini, and if Apple starts competing in the gameing market a graphics card that can be upgraded. I'm less convinced about the need for other upgrade cards, though I can see why people would want them. I think that it would be nice to have an upgrade card mostly for add ons like video in, USB 3, and Firewire 1600 (or whatever the next step is in the evolution).
When the power macs come out perhaps they can have an entry level version that has a core duo processor with nice video card and expansion options. The true power macs can pack conroe cpus. This would fill in that gap that every one is fussing about.
Comments
Originally posted by vinea
No, that was Gar.
Or your mini-tower. When you asked:
Were you only referring to current mac users? Because 75% of people that buy mac desktops is pretty danged small.
The point is that those 75% tower users (a number Gar pulled out of thin air) are windows users and that's why they don't buy iMacs. Not the form factor.
Using that same bogus 75% number for just Macintosh desktop users, the reason they aren't buying iMacs are because they are "pro" or "pro-sumer" users and need (not just want) the expansion capability.
I would also guess that among Macintosh users the majority have purchased iMacs over Powermacs over the last few years.
Vinea
The number of towers sold are less than 50% for even Windows when it is considered that about 50% of all sales are now laptops.
But, in the Windows world, almost all computers that aren't laptops, ARE towers. It's not as though Windows people have much of a chioce there (sound familliar?).
It's just the opposite for Macs, most non-laptops are NOT towers. Same lack of choice, but flipped 180%.
Originally posted by TenoBell
[B]
The iMacs have always been well designed. I think that makes a big difference.
...
Which I don't agree with, the iMac is a great computer in of itself.
Yes, the iMacs have been well designed and is a great computer. I might even buy one but I think I'll opt for the mini and pair it with a mid-sized HDTV.
Mr. H effectively wants a Core Duo Cube at $499.
Maybe it might fly at $999 but probably would suffer the same "who's it for" issues as the cube at that price point. You effectively need to build in the profit on a monitor into the cube since you have to expect that for each cube you sell you're losing a iMac sale.
The compact Power Mac G4 Cube workstation raises at least as many questions as it answers. But there?s no question that the machine is powerful, stylish and unique.
Apple Computer Inc. turned itself around in recent years by simplifying its product line to four types of systems: the popular consumer iMac, its portable iBook version, the powerful G4 desktop system and its portable equivalent, the PowerBook.
Dropping the Cube into the middle of this square confuses the picture. At a starting price of $1,799?less a $300 rebate with a monitor purchase?the Cube is too pricey to outfit an entire office of users.
Hard-core Mac data wranglers might well prefer the blander G4 tower, which accepts dual processors and can be heavily customized and upgraded. In contrast, the Cube?s unique architecture makes adding internal drives and expansion cards difficult or impossible. Before buying, consider whether you have a history of making such hardware upgrades.
The Cube accepts up to 1.5G of RAM, a 40G hard drive and an optional 32M, 3-D graphics card. That?s plenty for most users.
http://www.gcn.com/print/vol19_no33/3279-1.html
Which switchers would one get with a Cube over a Mini? Gamers?
Line up killer software game titles first. Get some exclusive titles for the Mac only.
Vinea
Originally posted by melgross
Little things, such as the one button mouse, used to drive them crazy.
The one button mouse drives me crazy. While right mouse is not entirely intuitive <cmd> button is even less so.
Especially since it requires off-hand coordination on a different input device.
This post might seem like digression, but, it's not. It goes to Vinea's post about WHY people "prefer" things.
And that is a powerful reason why Apple has such a hard time, in addition to all of the other things we have been discussing here.
So "prefer" was a little bit loaded.
More folks are "used to" Windows.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
The one button mouse drives me crazy. While right mouse is not entirely intuitive <cmd> button is even less so.
Especially since it requires off-hand coordination on a different input device.
So "prefer" was a little bit loaded.
More folks are "used to" Windows.
Vinea
The point about the mouse is that it hasn't truely been an issue, for those who know, for around 15 years.
But, that, and other points, are Apple's fault.
Some of it applies to all Mac's, of course.
The article is pretty accurate, from a PC users standpoint. And that's what matters.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/techno...ck=1&cset=true
Originally posted by vinea
No, that was Gar.
Damn it!
Sorry, I'm really, really tired today.
Originally posted by vinea
Mr. H effectively wants a Core Duo Cube at $499.
Not quite; I suppose you could sum it up as a Core Solo Cube at $499.
that's one freaky multiplier..
Mr. H effectively wants a Core Duo Cube at $499.
Yeah we know that's not going to happen.
Maybe it might fly at $999 but probably would suffer the same "who's it for" issues as the cube at that price point. You effectively need to build in the profit on a monitor into the cube since you have to expect that for each cube you sell you're losing a iMac sale.
The computer landscape is a bit different today than it was in 2000. A small tower would easily fill in the space for people who want the iMac with exapandability for which the PowerMac is too much.
You are right Apple would loose some monitor sales and lower iMac sales. What they have to balance out are the over all sales. How many people don't buy a Mac at all because the PM is too much, don't want an iMac, but would buy a small tower.
Dropping the Cube into the middle of this square confuses the picture. At a starting price of $1,799?less a $300 rebate with a monitor purchase?the Cube is too pricey to outfit an entire office of users.
The ultimate problem with the Cube is that the market decided that $1799 was too expensive. Instead of dropping the price Apple dropped the entire computer. $999 - $1499 would be accepted much more readily by the market, even if an Apple monitor is not purchased with it.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yeah we know that's not going to happen.
The computer landscape is a bit different today than it was in 2000. A small tower would easily fill in the space for people who want the iMac with exapandability for which the PowerMac is too much.
You are right Apple would loose some monitor sales and lower iMac sales. What they have to balance out are the over all sales. How many people don't buy a Mac at all because the PM is too much, don't want an iMac, but would buy a small tower.
The ultimate problem with the Cube is that the market decided that $1799 was too expensive. Instead of dropping the price Apple dropped the entire computer. $999 - $1499 would be accepted much more readily by the market, even if an Apple monitor is not purchased with it.
Apple made several mistakes with the Cube. One of the biggest ones was placing it as a high mid range machine. The critism was that Apple should have placed the (at the time) much cheaper, but still viable G3 into the machine, instead of the G4.
The second one, is one that Apple has always had. They refuse to explain exactly what their machines are. While everyone who was a techie knew that the machine was highly upgradeable, and had an open slot as well, Apple never made that a widely known fact.
Therefore, I kept on hearing people say, and would read, that the Cube wasn't expandable, or very upgradable.
If Apple had taken the time, and effort, to dispel that rumor, the machine might have sold well enough for it to gather a following. If Apple used the G3 to keep the price down, as well, then it could have become popular.
But, they failed on both fronts.
Apple spent all of their marketing dollars (never enough from Apple to begin with) on how it looked, and the size.
Originally posted by vinea
You effectively need to build in the profit on a monitor into the cube since you have to expect that for each cube you sell you're losing a iMac sale.
I can't imagine how each cube ("Cube06" - a modern cube) sale would be a loss of an iMac. The two are entirely different machines. I can't see why someone who wants an iMac would buy a Cube06 if an iMac were unavailable, and I definitely can't see why someone who wants a Cube06 would buy an iMac.
I can't ever see myself buying an iMac. Not unless they revert to something like the 2G models, and make the monitor removable, anyway.
The absolute worse case scenario would be if current Apple customers in significant numbers who would have bought a new iMac or PowerMac bought the small tower, while few new Apple customers bought any new Macintosh at all.
I can't imagine how each cube ("Cube06" - a modern cube) sale would be a loss of an iMac.
Their is somewhat of a risk.
If Apple offered a desktop at $999. This would enable people to buy that computer and a monitor cheaper than if they bought a whole iMac.
The caveat however is you could not buy the $999 small desktop and a really good quality monitor for cheaper than the $1299 iMac.
Originally posted by TenoBell
If Apple did offer the small tower the best case scenario would be to increase sales while not too negatively affecting sales of the iMac or PowerMac.
The absolute worse case scenario would be if current Apple customers in significant numbers who would have bought a new iMac or PowerMac bought the small tower, while few new Apple customers bought any new Macintosh at all.
A Cube06 might possibly affect sales of the cheapest "PowerMac" (or whatever it's going to be called, I guess), I can see how that might work. Even so, the solution is probably to make the PM replacement significantly more powerful. What they've done already with Twin-Dual Core G5s is a good precedent.
I can forsee a line like this:
Mac mini: $599 (Solo), $799 (Duo + SuperDrive, etc)
Mac cube: $999 (Duo, 1gig, gfx), $1499 (Faster Duo, SD, etc)
Mac Pro: $1999 (Twin Duo), $2999 (Faster Duos)
They could probably expand the iMac range in a similar range, as it's rather narrowly focussed at the moment. I'm not sure about a "High end iMac", but a low end iMac, one would have thought, is very possible. A $799 "iMac mini" with a Core Solo and 13" Wide Screen. They could even go the opposite way to that of the mid-market iMacs, and put the circuits in the keyboard.
On the other hand, perhaps those would compete with the iBooks (MacBooks.) Wouldn't be hard though to keep the profit margins roughly equal.
There are machines missing from Apple's line-up, and the current controversy over the 3D acceleration (or lack of it) in the Mac minis has highlighted the lack of certain machines in particular. I doubt there'd be this fury if there was a seperate range of mid-priced ($800-1,200 in today's market) headless Macs.
Originally posted by peharri
A Cube06 might possibly affect sales of the cheapest "PowerMac" (or whatever it's going to be called, I guess), I can see how that might work. Even so, the solution is probably to make the PM replacement significantly more powerful. What they've done already with Twin-Dual Core G5s is a good precedent.
I can forsee a line like this:
Mac mini: $599 (Solo), $799 (Duo + SuperDrive, etc)
Mac cube: $999 (Duo, 1gig, gfx), $1499 (Faster Duo, SD, etc)
Mac Pro: $1999 (Twin Duo), $2999 (Faster Duos)
They could probably expand the iMac range in a similar range, as it's rather narrowly focussed at the moment. I'm not sure about a "High end iMac", but a low end iMac, one would have thought, is very possible. A $799 "iMac mini" with a Core Solo and 13" Wide Screen. They could even go the opposite way to that of the mid-market iMacs, and put the circuits in the keyboard.
On the other hand, perhaps those would compete with the iBooks (MacBooks.) Wouldn't be hard though to keep the profit margins roughly equal.
There are machines missing from Apple's line-up, and the current controversy over the 3D acceleration (or lack of it) in the Mac minis has highlighted the lack of certain machines in particular. I doubt there'd be this fury if there was a seperate range of mid-priced ($800-1,200 in today's market) headless Macs.
I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.
I'm not sure if he wants to expand it yet again.
Have, fun guys, I'll be gone for the evening. My daughter's school beckons.
I agree people would not care so much about the mini if their were a mid-range desktop.
I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.
I'm sure this is of some concern, but I don't think one more computer configuration will hurt.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.
I'm not sure if he wants to expand it yet again.
Have, fun guys, I'll be gone for the evening. My daughter's school beckons.
Well, the problem was that the choices were poor and it wasn't obvious what on earth was what. In terms of what's proposed here, we're actually looking at three computer lines:
Mac, iMac, and Macbook (oh, and Xserve I guess)
That's it. Each line is subdivided to cater for low, mid, and high end. (Well, Macbook mid- and high-, iMac low- and mid-), but you'd expect that in any line.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't know how many people here remember this, but Apple was accused of having too many choices. It was said to confuse the consumer. Jobs simplified the line-up.
I'm not sure if he wants to expand it yet again.
Have, fun guys, I'll be gone for the evening. My daughter's school beckons.
That was back in the Performa days where the pro and consumer machines overlapped in price and performance a bit more than they do today and covered a much smaller market. I agree that a Mini-Tower/Cube might not be needed today I do think that the market could support one without the "confusion" of the Performas and Quadras. There is, in my opinion, room for a "Headless" mac in the $1499-1699 price range that offers better graphics than the Mini, and if Apple starts competing in the gameing market a graphics card that can be upgraded. I'm less convinced about the need for other upgrade cards, though I can see why people would want them. I think that it would be nice to have an upgrade card mostly for add ons like video in, USB 3, and Firewire 1600 (or whatever the next step is in the evolution).
I saw one japanese site that posted core duo at 1.5GHz and maybe that was hacked core solo mac mini?......
Originally posted by JCG
That was back in the Performa days where the pro and consumer machines overlapped in price and performance a bit more than they do today and covered a much smaller market. I agree that a Mini-Tower/Cube might not be needed today I do think that the market could support one without the "confusion" of the Performas and Quadras. There is, in my opinion, room for a "Headless" mac in the $1499-1699 price range that offers better graphics than the Mini, and if Apple starts competing in the gameing market a graphics card that can be upgraded. I'm less convinced about the need for other upgrade cards, though I can see why people would want them. I think that it would be nice to have an upgrade card mostly for add ons like video in, USB 3, and Firewire 1600 (or whatever the next step is in the evolution).
When the power macs come out perhaps they can have an entry level version that has a core duo processor with nice video card and expansion options. The true power macs can pack conroe cpus. This would fill in that gap that every one is fussing about.
Originally posted by backtomac
The true power macs can pack conroe cpus. This would fill in that gap that every one is fussing about.
That isn't what Conroe is for. Conroe will be going into mid-range PCs. Mac workstations better have Woodcrest if Apple want to be taken seriously.