My ignorance of Intel's naming scheme practically voids my last post. I thought a Pentium-D was a pre-core processor like the Pentium-M. The similarity in the naming scheme had me believing it was old tech. If backtomac hadn't mentioned it I would have had no idea.
Why put in the ICD? Most PC switchers would be happier with a cheaper Pent D. IMO. Throw in a Pent D 820 or a Pent D 805, cheaper still at $130.
No they wouldn't. They'd be happy with the price. Then a week later they'd hate it. And Apple would have an instant reputation as a terrible computer maker.
Then, they would only make $10 a computer. Which seems fair. Except that the engineering, advertising, stocking, etc., would cost a couple million. And it probably wouldn't sell as much as you think it would. And it probably would steal a few sales from a higher model computer.
It's a lose-lose situation. If you want to be cheap, by a second-hand computer.
Well I think Apple could offer a cheaper machine with the dual core pent d. As I recall the ICS is still over $200, I could be wrong. These pent ds are either $133 for the 805 or $160 for the 820. With all that Intel has to offer, why limit yourself to two chips? A pent d mac wouldn't be a screamer but for $800-900, what do you expect?
An article at macworld discussed how macs were poised to double market share but need more low cost options. Link below.
No they wouldn't. They'd be happy with the price. Then a week later they'd hate it. And Apple would have an instant reputation as a terrible computer maker.
Then, they would only make $10 a computer. Which seems fair. Except that the engineering, advertising, stocking, etc., would cost a couple million. And it probably wouldn't sell as much as you think it would. And it probably would steal a few sales from a higher model computer.
It's a lose-lose situation. If you want to be cheap, by a second-hand computer.
I think you are being overly critical of this chip. Annadtech felt it was a good deal for the money. Only the dual core opteron and dual core athlon did better and were signicantly more expensive.
IMO a persons opinion about their computer is based more on stability than raw speed. In this regard, I would think a mac with a Pent D would be well liked by most users.
My ignorance of Intel's naming scheme practically voids my last post. I thought a Pentium-D was a pre-core processor like the Pentium-M. The similarity in the naming scheme had me believing it was old tech. If backtomac hadn't mentioned it I would have had no idea.
The Pentium D is a two-core version of the Pentium 4, and as such uses the Netburst architecture.
The Pentium M is the predecessor of the Core Solo/Duo (though it only exists as single-core). The Celeron M is a lite version of the Pentium M.
Apple is unlikely to use any Netburst-based CPU, and they'll all be extinct during the course of this year anyway.
The Pentium D is a two-core version of the Pentium 4, and as such uses the Netburst architecture.
The Pentium M is the predecessor of the Core Solo/Duo (though it only exists as single-core). The Celeron M is a lite version of the Pentium M.
Apple is unlikely to use any Netburst-based CPU, and they'll all be extinct during the course of this year anyway.
Well I learn more, and more as this thread goes on. You are right though. It's just as bad to suit up a netburst processor with a macintosh around it when it's all dead technology. Put it this way. If PC users want to switch into old technology Apple will have some in a few years (via ebay). There you go.
I'm not trying to offend anyone by that, but Apple is not in the habit of buying parts from a previous run to make their machines. (unless they were constricted by motorola) They will continue to use the newest processors, and many people will sell their MBP when Apple puts a merom in new ones. It wont be long before we start seeing MBP's on ebay for a better price.
On that note... Don't expect to get them cheap either. Macs hold their value like you would not believe. If I bought a $3,500.00 PowerMac 2x Dual Core system when they came out I could probably get close to, or better than $3,000.00 for it on ebay a year, and a half later. And that's with no reserve.
Apple has very expensive custom cases. They either use heavy 12 qauge anodized aluminum, or expensive clear polycarbonate. These cases cost, at the retail level, somewhere in the $300 range.
If you don't believe that. You can look at some aluminum cases from a couple of PC case manufacturers. They cost about $225 to $250. These are much cheaper, thinner 18 gauge. They don't include the power supplies either.
I mention them, because whenever these "good" cases get reviewed on ExtremeTech, or other technical sites like it, the posters scream about how expensive the cases are, and how they can get cases "just as good" WITH the power supplies, for $50.
Apple can use cases that don't cost as much. They could cut perhaps $200 off the price, and still have a better case.
Apple has very expensive custom cases. They either use heavy 12 qauge anodized aluminum, or expensive clear polycarbonate. These cases cost, at the retail level, somewhere in the $300 range.
If you don't believe that. You can look at some aluminum cases from a couple of PC case manufacturers. They cost about $225 to $250. These are much cheaper, thinner 18 gauge. They don't include the power supplies either.
I mention them, because whenever these "good" cases get reviewed on ExtremeTech, or other technical sites like it, the posters scream about how expensive the cases are, and how they can get cases "just as good" WITH the power supplies, for $50.
Apple can use cases that don't cost as much. They could cut perhaps $200 off the price, and still have a better case.
Every bit helps.
An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.
An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.
Actually the problem is the lack of margins. Nobody is making money in this portion of the market (much less the lower end machines). The iMac mini is Apple's contribution at this price point, I wouldn't count on much more.
An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.
An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.
It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.
All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.
Actually the problem is the lack of margins. Nobody is making money in this portion of the market (much less the lower end machines). The iMac mini is Apple's contribution at this price point, I wouldn't count on much more.
Margins are everything. But, when you use less expensive materials that cost less to work, the margins can be the same.
Polycarbonate costs three times as much as more standard plastics used for cases. It also costs much more to work, as it requires a temp of about 500 degrees, rather than the 220 or so most other plastics do. The polished surface also is much more expensive to manufacture. Molded in color is also much less expensive than the extra steps required in spray painting the interior.
The same thing is true about the heavy qauge aluminum they use.
[B]An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.
Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.
So, by your logic, all Apple should produce is the MacBook Pro, and the Powermac.
But, it doesn't work that way. Far more sales are generated by these products than are taken away from the more expensive lines.
Quote:
It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.
While I hear less complaints about the Mac's price that I have been, on forums , there is still a large number of people who are turned off by either the prices, or by what Apple offers for the prices that they do.
Thr truth is that the box the machine comes in is just an expensive wrapper. There is no evidence that the materials used, or the extensive custom designs add to anything other than the looks and price.
If Apple produced a less expensive machine, then people who would not have considered buying a Mac, might change their minds. Many people I know in the PC side of things REALLY want to see at least a removable graphics card.
If Apple did produce that $800 to $900 machine, brought their monitors down in price a bit, and came out with an affordable 19", like everyone else has done, people would buy the computer and the monitor. Apple wouldn't lose anything.
Quote:
All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.
You're making a bad assumption that this would have to be bad.
An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.
It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.
All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.
Would they be stealing sales from the iMac or getting a pc user to switch? I don't know the answer to that question but as I mentioned in an earlier post, Macworld has a an article from a report that suggests that macs are poised to double their market share BUT need more offerings to entice windows users to switch. The mini is a good option IMO but some users prefer the old mini tower. I don't know why. My dad falls into this category. I've tried to get him to get a mini but it just doesn't look like computer to him.
As far as quality, I judge it by the stability of OS more so than anything else. But also I look at how things fit together ect.. Even the MBP has had some issues here and it costs significantly more. I'm not sure how much of a role cpu speed plays in one's perception of quality.
Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.
Um, no. Mini sales don't take away from the iMac, because the iMac is nearly twice as expensive. It caters to a different group. It has a significantly faster overall design, with a 3.5-inch drive, a very good graphics chip, a high-quality built-in screen, a built-in camera, and so on.
iMac sales won't take way from the Mac Pro either, because, again, there's a large price gap. The Mac Pro will offer customizability, much, much higher performance (quad config), high-end graphics options, multiple drives, the ability to drive two 30-inch displays, etc.
Likewise, the MacBook Pro has distinctive features over the MacBook.
The current product matrix is very well-designed in that no product cannibalizes another's sales much at all. A low-end customizable headless Mac would dramatically change this.
Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.
So, by your logic, all Apple should produce is the MacBook Pro, and the Powermac.
But, it doesn't work that way. Far more sales are generated by these products than are taken away from the more expensive lines.
#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?
I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.
#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?
I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.
I wouldn't want Apple to put out a pos either but would a mini tower enclosure with a dual core pent d (820 or 805) and intel IG be a pos in your opinion? To me it would just be a larger form mini. I bet it would perform about on par with a ICS. Certainly no screamer but perhaps not a pos. I've been trying to find a comparison between an ICS and a pent d820 but no luck so far.
Um, no. Mini sales don't take away from the iMac, because the iMac is nearly twice as expensive. It caters to a different group. It has a significantly faster overall design, with a 3.5-inch drive, a very good graphics chip, a high-quality built-in screen, a built-in camera, and so on.
iMac sales won't take way from the Mac Pro either, because, again, there's a large price gap. The Mac Pro will offer customizability, much, much higher performance (quad config), high-end graphics options, multiple drives, the ability to drive two 30-inch displays, etc.
Likewise, the MacBook Pro has distinctive features over the MacBook.
The current product matrix is very well-designed in that no product cannibalizes another's sales much at all. A low-end customizable headless Mac would dramatically change this.
That was in a response to someone who had ideas in that direction.
Actually, I don't hink that too many sales are taken by any one single model from another. But, it does happen. Sometimes people shift their purchases upwards, and sometimes downwards.
#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?
I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.
I didn't quote you. It was a reply. But, whether or not you like it, it is the same logic.
Comments
Originally posted by backtomac
Why put in the ICD? Most PC switchers would be happier with a cheaper Pent D. IMO. Throw in a Pent D 820 or a Pent D 805, cheaper still at $130.
No they wouldn't. They'd be happy with the price. Then a week later they'd hate it. And Apple would have an instant reputation as a terrible computer maker.
Then, they would only make $10 a computer. Which seems fair. Except that the engineering, advertising, stocking, etc., would cost a couple million. And it probably wouldn't sell as much as you think it would. And it probably would steal a few sales from a higher model computer.
It's a lose-lose situation. If you want to be cheap, by a second-hand computer.
An article at macworld discussed how macs were poised to double market share but need more low cost options. Link below.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04...rand/index.php
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
No they wouldn't. They'd be happy with the price. Then a week later they'd hate it. And Apple would have an instant reputation as a terrible computer maker.
Then, they would only make $10 a computer. Which seems fair. Except that the engineering, advertising, stocking, etc., would cost a couple million. And it probably wouldn't sell as much as you think it would. And it probably would steal a few sales from a higher model computer.
It's a lose-lose situation. If you want to be cheap, by a second-hand computer.
I think you are being overly critical of this chip. Annadtech felt it was a good deal for the money. Only the dual core opteron and dual core athlon did better and were signicantly more expensive.
IMO a persons opinion about their computer is based more on stability than raw speed. In this regard, I would think a mac with a Pent D would be well liked by most users.
Originally posted by onlooker
My ignorance of Intel's naming scheme practically voids my last post. I thought a Pentium-D was a pre-core processor like the Pentium-M. The similarity in the naming scheme had me believing it was old tech. If backtomac hadn't mentioned it I would have had no idea.
The Pentium D is a two-core version of the Pentium 4, and as such uses the Netburst architecture.
The Pentium M is the predecessor of the Core Solo/Duo (though it only exists as single-core). The Celeron M is a lite version of the Pentium M.
Apple is unlikely to use any Netburst-based CPU, and they'll all be extinct during the course of this year anyway.
Originally posted by Chucker
The Pentium D is a two-core version of the Pentium 4, and as such uses the Netburst architecture.
The Pentium M is the predecessor of the Core Solo/Duo (though it only exists as single-core). The Celeron M is a lite version of the Pentium M.
Apple is unlikely to use any Netburst-based CPU, and they'll all be extinct during the course of this year anyway.
Well I learn more, and more as this thread goes on. You are right though. It's just as bad to suit up a netburst processor with a macintosh around it when it's all dead technology. Put it this way. If PC users want to switch into old technology Apple will have some in a few years (via ebay). There you go.
I'm not trying to offend anyone by that, but Apple is not in the habit of buying parts from a previous run to make their machines. (unless they were constricted by motorola) They will continue to use the newest processors, and many people will sell their MBP when Apple puts a merom in new ones. It wont be long before we start seeing MBP's on ebay for a better price.
On that note... Don't expect to get them cheap either. Macs hold their value like you would not believe. If I bought a $3,500.00 PowerMac 2x Dual Core system when they came out I could probably get close to, or better than $3,000.00 for it on ebay a year, and a half later. And that's with no reserve.
If you don't believe that. You can look at some aluminum cases from a couple of PC case manufacturers. They cost about $225 to $250. These are much cheaper, thinner 18 gauge. They don't include the power supplies either.
I mention them, because whenever these "good" cases get reviewed on ExtremeTech, or other technical sites like it, the posters scream about how expensive the cases are, and how they can get cases "just as good" WITH the power supplies, for $50.
Apple can use cases that don't cost as much. They could cut perhaps $200 off the price, and still have a better case.
Every bit helps.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple has very expensive custom cases. They either use heavy 12 qauge anodized aluminum, or expensive clear polycarbonate. These cases cost, at the retail level, somewhere in the $300 range.
If you don't believe that. You can look at some aluminum cases from a couple of PC case manufacturers. They cost about $225 to $250. These are much cheaper, thinner 18 gauge. They don't include the power supplies either.
I mention them, because whenever these "good" cases get reviewed on ExtremeTech, or other technical sites like it, the posters scream about how expensive the cases are, and how they can get cases "just as good" WITH the power supplies, for $50.
Apple can use cases that don't cost as much. They could cut perhaps $200 off the price, and still have a better case.
Every bit helps.
An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.
Originally posted by backtomac
An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.
The only problem is the will on Apple's part.
Originally posted by melgross
The only problem is the will on Apple's part.
Actually the problem is the lack of margins. Nobody is making money in this portion of the market (much less the lower end machines). The iMac mini is Apple's contribution at this price point, I wouldn't count on much more.
Originally posted by backtomac
An $800-900 complete mac system is possible by using a sub $200 cpu, Intel IG, and a cheaper enclosure. With intel helping on some of the engineering it's really only a matter of will on Apple's part. There is no economic reason why this couldn't happen.
An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.
It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.
All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.
Originally posted by Programmer
Actually the problem is the lack of margins. Nobody is making money in this portion of the market (much less the lower end machines). The iMac mini is Apple's contribution at this price point, I wouldn't count on much more.
Margins are everything. But, when you use less expensive materials that cost less to work, the margins can be the same.
Polycarbonate costs three times as much as more standard plastics used for cases. It also costs much more to work, as it requires a temp of about 500 degrees, rather than the 220 or so most other plastics do. The polished surface also is much more expensive to manufacture. Molded in color is also much less expensive than the extra steps required in spray painting the interior.
The same thing is true about the heavy qauge aluminum they use.
Originally posted by onlooker
[B]An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.
Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.
So, by your logic, all Apple should produce is the MacBook Pro, and the Powermac.
But, it doesn't work that way. Far more sales are generated by these products than are taken away from the more expensive lines.
It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.
While I hear less complaints about the Mac's price that I have been, on forums , there is still a large number of people who are turned off by either the prices, or by what Apple offers for the prices that they do.
Thr truth is that the box the machine comes in is just an expensive wrapper. There is no evidence that the materials used, or the extensive custom designs add to anything other than the looks and price.
If Apple produced a less expensive machine, then people who would not have considered buying a Mac, might change their minds. Many people I know in the PC side of things REALLY want to see at least a removable graphics card.
If Apple did produce that $800 to $900 machine, brought their monitors down in price a bit, and came out with an affordable 19", like everyone else has done, people would buy the computer and the monitor. Apple wouldn't lose anything.
All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.
You're making a bad assumption that this would have to be bad.
Originally posted by onlooker
An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products. The only way I see Apple doing something like this is if they decided to cut another product. And right now that would be the iMac. I just cant see that happening. The iMac is a high quality Machine for the most part.
It's funny how I hear a lot of PC users complaining about how they spent less on a cheaper PC, and should have gotten a more expensive Mac because their PC is a POS, but the fact is that Macs are relatively inexpensive compared to PC's with identical specs, and what people are really complaining about is they went cheap, and now they weep.
All Apple needs right now is to make some cheap suck @ss box that every Mac, and Mac/windows user can complain about to help their image.
Would they be stealing sales from the iMac or getting a pc user to switch? I don't know the answer to that question but as I mentioned in an earlier post, Macworld has a an article from a report that suggests that macs are poised to double their market share BUT need more offerings to entice windows users to switch. The mini is a good option IMO but some users prefer the old mini tower. I don't know why. My dad falls into this category. I've tried to get him to get a mini but it just doesn't look like computer to him.
As far as quality, I judge it by the stability of OS more so than anything else. But also I look at how things fit together ect.. Even the MBP has had some issues here and it costs significantly more. I'm not sure how much of a role cpu speed plays in one's perception of quality.
Originally posted by melgross
Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.
Um, no. Mini sales don't take away from the iMac, because the iMac is nearly twice as expensive. It caters to a different group. It has a significantly faster overall design, with a 3.5-inch drive, a very good graphics chip, a high-quality built-in screen, a built-in camera, and so on.
iMac sales won't take way from the Mac Pro either, because, again, there's a large price gap. The Mac Pro will offer customizability, much, much higher performance (quad config), high-end graphics options, multiple drives, the ability to drive two 30-inch displays, etc.
Likewise, the MacBook Pro has distinctive features over the MacBook.
The current product matrix is very well-designed in that no product cannibalizes another's sales much at all. A low-end customizable headless Mac would dramatically change this.
Originally posted by melgross
Mini sales take from the iMac. iMac sales take from the Powermac. Macbook sales will take from the MacBook Pro.
So, by your logic, all Apple should produce is the MacBook Pro, and the Powermac.
But, it doesn't work that way. Far more sales are generated by these products than are taken away from the more expensive lines.
#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?
I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.
Originally posted by onlooker
#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?
I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.
I wouldn't want Apple to put out a pos either but would a mini tower enclosure with a dual core pent d (820 or 805) and intel IG be a pos in your opinion? To me it would just be a larger form mini. I bet it would perform about on par with a ICS. Certainly no screamer but perhaps not a pos. I've been trying to find a comparison between an ICS and a pent d820 but no luck so far.
Originally posted by Chucker
Um, no. Mini sales don't take away from the iMac, because the iMac is nearly twice as expensive. It caters to a different group. It has a significantly faster overall design, with a 3.5-inch drive, a very good graphics chip, a high-quality built-in screen, a built-in camera, and so on.
iMac sales won't take way from the Mac Pro either, because, again, there's a large price gap. The Mac Pro will offer customizability, much, much higher performance (quad config), high-end graphics options, multiple drives, the ability to drive two 30-inch displays, etc.
Likewise, the MacBook Pro has distinctive features over the MacBook.
The current product matrix is very well-designed in that no product cannibalizes another's sales much at all. A low-end customizable headless Mac would dramatically change this.
That was in a response to someone who had ideas in that direction.
Actually, I don't hink that too many sales are taken by any one single model from another. But, it does happen. Sometimes people shift their purchases upwards, and sometimes downwards.
Apple does have gaps in their lines.
Originally posted by onlooker
#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?
I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.
I didn't quote you. It was a reply. But, whether or not you like it, it is the same logic.