A $899 laptop and a $750 mini-tower set-up. The only sub $1000 Mac is the mini. That isn't enough IMO. The software is fine.
I can see how they could get to an $899 laptop if they stuck a celeron in a MacBook, chopped the hard disk size and maybe dropped the camera, bluetooth and maybe more if they were really penny pinching. I'm not sure they'd actually sell a lot though.
How did you get to $750 though for a mini-tower?
Personally, I can't see them doing that. A Conroe based $1000 double height Mac Mini enclosure* with graphics card, space for 4GB ram, spare PCIe slot and 250GB 3.5" HD maybe. That wouldn't really affect Mini or iMac sales as they'd still be cheaper overall and you've still got the space/seperate boxes thing. Maybe it would the lower end MacPro market but I think it'd make up the loss from that end.
They could call it the 'Mac'.
Always puzzled me that they no longer have a product in their range simply called 'Mac'.
I'd buy one. And a 23" Cinema Display. They'd probably sell a lot more displays if they had a $1000 Mac.
Will they do it though? No idea. If they don't I suspect it'll be another iMac for me. I like them too.
* is the Mini dimensions big enough for a PCIe card? I've not bought a card in 6 years!
I guess now they've set the Intel Mac baseline as Core Duo (albeit Core solo in a Mini), and the processor is doing such a great job of hidding the weakness in this transiton (Rosetta etc). That's great.
The question I'd like to see answered is, with Intel chip price depreciation, will Apple respond quickly and lower the the MacBook, Mac Mini price price points (or add more stuff) - as soon as their margins increase. OR will they hold on to price points and milk each product for as long as possible. This is the key question for me and this is their chance to increase the market share.
Effectively, what I would like to see is the Mini drop in price 2 months down the line to $500 and $700 - and the MacBook done to $1000 - by September, or a superdrive inside.
As for the iMac - and the supposed canibilisation of the product. Basically - I beleive the product sells itself really well as a lifestyle choice - it looks great and fits purpose great for many homes. However, there are hoards of people who don't want to buy one becuase they don't want a screen/(or another iMac). The alternative M
ac should be offered but somehow at less of a bargain than the all-in-one iMac.
OK iMac low end is now $1299 lets make the new Mac $1050 You lose Screen/iSight/(maybe front row), You get expandability (1 or 2 hard drives) - and a free PCIe slot (maybe replacable graphics/processor). You think ths kills iMac? I don't think so. Some people completely sold on what iMac represents others complete opposite. Hell even call it Mac Mini's big brother and market without keyboard/mouse at less than $1000.
If SJ was here, I bet he'd point out that the REASON its the best OS is because it's development over the years have been controlled and restricted to Apple's own hardware. You can't have it both ways.
in fact the success of the ipod/ itunes is just that attitude and culture. by controlling hardware and software the customer gets a better experience. also MS is trying to emulate this "new model" but fails....why it's culture is a software elitist approach. they don't have layers of expertise in melding software AND hardware. this was discussed by several pc anaylists i've read recently. and MS can't gain this with accusitions, it has to be intergral part of every dept and changing a corp cultrue the size of MS is very difficult. apple can stay the BMW of computers....ultimate computer experince machine. it's funny everyone is talking market share, but who is everyone chasing??? apple for many reasons. SJ needs to stay healthy.
Personally, I can't see them doing that. A Conroe based $1000 double height Mac Mini enclosure* with graphics card, space for 4GB ram, spare PCIe slot and 250GB 3.5" HD maybe. That wouldn't really affect Mini or iMac sales as they'd still be cheaper overall and you've still got the space/seperate boxes thing. Maybe it would the lower end MacPro market but I think it'd make up the loss from that end.
I think it is feasible in terms of how they do their costing, the only issue is whether such a product would pass their dogma of keeping their number product varieties very, very small. Comparing retail prices, a 250GB desktop drive is about the price of maybe a 80GB notebook drive. Desktop memory is cheaper than notebook memory and desktop processors are cheaper than the notebook processors. Even if they included a video card that is weak, if they made it PCIe, the fact that it is upgradeable would help it as a selling point and be an overall nice machine to entice gamers. The one big problem is that Apple hasn't ever used a standard system form factor to allow main board replacement, and that is one of the big complaints of the people that like easy repairability, though no other replacement board would run Mac OS legally.
The one big problem is that Apple hasn't ever used a standard system form factor to allow main board replacement, and that is one of the big complaints of the people that like easy repairability, though no other replacement board would run Mac OS legally.
I really can't see Apple making an ATX mid tower or even SFF. They're both particularly ugly forms - one too big, the other too long. These days also overkill for most people as they're mostly boxes of air and empty slots. Plus if they did use standard motherboard layouts, all that would happen is you'd get those same whiners buying the smaller Mac and sticking them in huge beige/black/silver towers with perspex sides to claim how 133t they are.
Jobs and Ives would throw their designer crayons out the pram. There's a certain dictatorial style that Apple like, even if their users often are far from stylish.
I really can't see Apple making an ATX mid tower or even SFF. They're both particularly ugly forms - one too big, the other too long.
That is an astonishing statement about the company that makes the PowerMac, suggesting either a contradiction in the statement or a contradiction in the company. I know it's a mid to high end workstation, but they are also promoted in stores that don't sell workstations, so there is no frame of reference for the consumer when they see that.
These days also overkill for most people as they're mostly boxes of air and empty slots.
The machine doesn't need to target everyone in the general market. The type of person that would never upgrade or add to a system can always buy an iMac or a mini. There is no such thing as one machine fits all, on cost alone, the workstations simply don't fit much of the gaming market, nothing else Apple makes really does either. An affordable cube might, I think the old one had one PCI and one AGP, and that might be good enough, many computers in the Shuttle form factor only had two slots.
Plus if they did use standard motherboard layouts, all that would happen is you'd get those same whiners buying the smaller Mac and sticking them in huge beige/black/silver towers with perspex sides to claim how 133t they are.
So what? What the customer with a consumer product does has no reflection on the maker. If they really are trying to track the gamer and mid-range power user, they'll have to offer some slots. Not offering any sort of reasonable upgradeability gets a three year old iMac that won't do USB 2.0, which is sad in comparison with my eight year old x86 workstation which I've added them.
Jobs and Ives would throw their designer crayons out the pram. There's a certain dictatorial style that Apple like, even if their users often are far from stylish.
Are they aware that they've cultivated this sort of sissy image? It really sounds to me that they are pretty childish in some of their attitudes.
[B]I can see how they could get to an $899 laptop if they stuck a celeron in a MacBook, chopped the hard disk size and maybe dropped the camera, bluetooth and maybe more if they were really penny pinching.
It wouldn't need to be a celeron -- Pentium-M laptops start about $600. Once Apple gets over the early adopter wave, there's no reason there couldn't be a Core Solo version of the MacBook starting at $900 and including the camera. If they really striped it down, they could sell it for $700 and still make a nice profit.
Personally, I don't think Apple will ever have a big piece of the market pie, however, I think that's a good thing because it will make them continue to produce a quality product in an effort to catch up with the PC market. I also believe that the prices Apple sets for their computers is totally fair. You do get what you pay for and those PC's that sell for under $300 are junk, pure and simple. Apple hardware is very reliable and their software is second to none IMO, so for the Mac faithful this is a good thing.
Over all I would say Apple is not really chasing marketshare. At the current point it would be a futile race that Apple lost long ago.
Apple has had recent record breaking years with huge profits but very little marketshare growth. I would count the profit as being far more important than marketshare.
What Apple has and should continue is sell to the better educated and higher income 2 to 5 percent of the market.
Developers know this is the juicier part of the market that is more likely to buy expensive software.
As far as I've seen in my everyday observation, Mac OS is the only alternative operating system (apart from Windows) that you will see being commonly (or exclusively) used in certain businesses. That's pretty good for 2 to 5 percent of the market.
Over all I would say Apple is not really chasing marketshare. At the current point it would be a futile race that Apple lost long ago.
Apple has had recent record breaking years with huge profits but very little marketshare growth. I would count the profit as being far more important than marketshare.
What Apple has and should continue is sell to the better educated and higher income 2 to 5 percent of the market.
Developers know this is the juicier part of the market that is more likely to buy expensive software.
As far as I've seen in my everyday observation, Mac OS is the only alternative operating system (apart from Windows) that you will see being commonly (or exclusively) used in certain businesses. That's pretty good for 2 to 5 percent of the market.
Apple almost doubled their marketshare the past 18 months. The pause now is due to the Intel transition. In an interview on Marketwatch right after the NY store opening, where he was sitting in the store, he expressed interest in Apple doubling its marketshare. So, I don't think that it is out of Apple's eye just yet.
Grabbing the jewels, and becoming the majority OS, is a different matter.
Apple's marketshare used to be 10% so it can be said Apple has finally stopped the bleeding and is regaining marketshare it previously had.
The computer market is so diverse. Apple computers will not be used for kiosks or cash registers the same way cheap PC's are.
Their marketshare looks like a valley over time. Right now we are clawing our way up the other side, but went back down a few feet to the ledge below us to rest.
In my neighborhood in Brooklyn little stores use Macs as a point of sale system.
Mostly this is because these are artists with art, book, or music stores and having a Mac in the store goes along with the image and mythos.
What I meant is you won't see large grocery store chains or national retail chains using Mac's for point of sales the way they use PC's. There are millions of these computers they are counted in the general computer market share, but Apple does not really play to that market.
If computer marketshare were subdivided into video, photography, graphic arts, web development, sound recording and mixing. The marketshare numbers would then be entirely different.
What I meant is you won't see large grocery store chains or national retail chains using Mac's for point of sales the way they use PC's. There are millions of these computers they are counted in the general computer market share, but Apple does not really play to that market.
Yep. At one point every Woolworth, Footlocker, Kinney store across the US had software I wrote in it for IBM. We had a bug that affected about 1% of their tills which didn't sound like a lot but that was 6000 tills!
I'd not be surprised if the whole PC POS market share totally eclipsed Apple's entire market share alone.
Comments
Originally posted by backtomac
A $899 laptop and a $750 mini-tower set-up. The only sub $1000 Mac is the mini. That isn't enough IMO. The software is fine.
I can see how they could get to an $899 laptop if they stuck a celeron in a MacBook, chopped the hard disk size and maybe dropped the camera, bluetooth and maybe more if they were really penny pinching. I'm not sure they'd actually sell a lot though.
How did you get to $750 though for a mini-tower?
Personally, I can't see them doing that. A Conroe based $1000 double height Mac Mini enclosure* with graphics card, space for 4GB ram, spare PCIe slot and 250GB 3.5" HD maybe. That wouldn't really affect Mini or iMac sales as they'd still be cheaper overall and you've still got the space/seperate boxes thing. Maybe it would the lower end MacPro market but I think it'd make up the loss from that end.
They could call it the 'Mac'.
Always puzzled me that they no longer have a product in their range simply called 'Mac'.
I'd buy one. And a 23" Cinema Display. They'd probably sell a lot more displays if they had a $1000 Mac.
Will they do it though? No idea. If they don't I suspect it'll be another iMac for me. I like them too.
* is the Mini dimensions big enough for a PCIe card? I've not bought a card in 6 years!
The question I'd like to see answered is, with Intel chip price depreciation, will Apple respond quickly and lower the the MacBook, Mac Mini price price points (or add more stuff) - as soon as their margins increase. OR will they hold on to price points and milk each product for as long as possible. This is the key question for me and this is their chance to increase the market share.
Effectively, what I would like to see is the Mini drop in price 2 months down the line to $500 and $700 - and the MacBook done to $1000 - by September, or a superdrive inside.
As for the iMac - and the supposed canibilisation of the product. Basically - I beleive the product sells itself really well as a lifestyle choice - it looks great and fits purpose great for many homes. However, there are hoards of people who don't want to buy one becuase they don't want a screen/(or another iMac). The alternative M
ac should be offered but somehow at less of a bargain than the all-in-one iMac.
OK iMac low end is now $1299 lets make the new Mac $1050 You lose Screen/iSight/(maybe front row), You get expandability (1 or 2 hard drives) - and a free PCIe slot (maybe replacable graphics/processor). You think ths kills iMac? I don't think so. Some people completely sold on what iMac represents others complete opposite. Hell even call it Mac Mini's big brother and market without keyboard/mouse at less than $1000.
Originally posted by McHuman
If SJ was here, I bet he'd point out that the REASON its the best OS is because it's development over the years have been controlled and restricted to Apple's own hardware. You can't have it both ways.
in fact the success of the ipod/ itunes is just that attitude and culture. by controlling hardware and software the customer gets a better experience. also MS is trying to emulate this "new model" but fails....why it's culture is a software elitist approach. they don't have layers of expertise in melding software AND hardware. this was discussed by several pc anaylists i've read recently. and MS can't gain this with accusitions, it has to be intergral part of every dept and changing a corp cultrue the size of MS is very difficult. apple can stay the BMW of computers....ultimate computer experince machine. it's funny everyone is talking market share, but who is everyone chasing??? apple for many reasons. SJ needs to stay healthy.
i found the link
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...f_main_tff_top
Originally posted by aegisdesign
How did you get to $750 though for a mini-tower?
Personally, I can't see them doing that. A Conroe based $1000 double height Mac Mini enclosure* with graphics card, space for 4GB ram, spare PCIe slot and 250GB 3.5" HD maybe. That wouldn't really affect Mini or iMac sales as they'd still be cheaper overall and you've still got the space/seperate boxes thing. Maybe it would the lower end MacPro market but I think it'd make up the loss from that end.
I think it is feasible in terms of how they do their costing, the only issue is whether such a product would pass their dogma of keeping their number product varieties very, very small. Comparing retail prices, a 250GB desktop drive is about the price of maybe a 80GB notebook drive. Desktop memory is cheaper than notebook memory and desktop processors are cheaper than the notebook processors. Even if they included a video card that is weak, if they made it PCIe, the fact that it is upgradeable would help it as a selling point and be an overall nice machine to entice gamers. The one big problem is that Apple hasn't ever used a standard system form factor to allow main board replacement, and that is one of the big complaints of the people that like easy repairability, though no other replacement board would run Mac OS legally.
Originally posted by JeffDM
The one big problem is that Apple hasn't ever used a standard system form factor to allow main board replacement, and that is one of the big complaints of the people that like easy repairability, though no other replacement board would run Mac OS legally.
I really can't see Apple making an ATX mid tower or even SFF. They're both particularly ugly forms - one too big, the other too long. These days also overkill for most people as they're mostly boxes of air and empty slots. Plus if they did use standard motherboard layouts, all that would happen is you'd get those same whiners buying the smaller Mac and sticking them in huge beige/black/silver towers with perspex sides to claim how 133t they are.
Jobs and Ives would throw their designer crayons out the pram. There's a certain dictatorial style that Apple like, even if their users often are far from stylish.
Bring back the cube!
I really can't see Apple making an ATX mid tower or even SFF. They're both particularly ugly forms - one too big, the other too long.
That is an astonishing statement about the company that makes the PowerMac, suggesting either a contradiction in the statement or a contradiction in the company. I know it's a mid to high end workstation, but they are also promoted in stores that don't sell workstations, so there is no frame of reference for the consumer when they see that.
These days also overkill for most people as they're mostly boxes of air and empty slots.
The machine doesn't need to target everyone in the general market. The type of person that would never upgrade or add to a system can always buy an iMac or a mini. There is no such thing as one machine fits all, on cost alone, the workstations simply don't fit much of the gaming market, nothing else Apple makes really does either. An affordable cube might, I think the old one had one PCI and one AGP, and that might be good enough, many computers in the Shuttle form factor only had two slots.
Plus if they did use standard motherboard layouts, all that would happen is you'd get those same whiners buying the smaller Mac and sticking them in huge beige/black/silver towers with perspex sides to claim how 133t they are.
So what? What the customer with a consumer product does has no reflection on the maker. If they really are trying to track the gamer and mid-range power user, they'll have to offer some slots. Not offering any sort of reasonable upgradeability gets a three year old iMac that won't do USB 2.0, which is sad in comparison with my eight year old x86 workstation which I've added them.
Jobs and Ives would throw their designer crayons out the pram. There's a certain dictatorial style that Apple like, even if their users often are far from stylish.
Are they aware that they've cultivated this sort of sissy image? It really sounds to me that they are pretty childish in some of their attitudes.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
[B]I can see how they could get to an $899 laptop if they stuck a celeron in a MacBook, chopped the hard disk size and maybe dropped the camera, bluetooth and maybe more if they were really penny pinching.
It wouldn't need to be a celeron -- Pentium-M laptops start about $600. Once Apple gets over the early adopter wave, there's no reason there couldn't be a Core Solo version of the MacBook starting at $900 and including the camera. If they really striped it down, they could sell it for $700 and still make a nice profit.
Originally posted by melgross
You haven;'t made one good argument yet. These aren't worth debating.
That's because you haven't got a plausible response and you don't like losing a debate.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
That's because you haven't got a plausible response and you don't like losing a debate.
Vinea
No. These points were finished as a debate some time ago. you just like debating .
Originally posted by melgross
No. These points were finished as a debate some time ago. you just like debating .
Don't make stupid, unsupported assertions and I wont call you on them.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
Don't make stupid, unsupported assertions and I wont call you on them.
Vinea
When you stop doing it, we can all rest easy.
Apple has had recent record breaking years with huge profits but very little marketshare growth. I would count the profit as being far more important than marketshare.
What Apple has and should continue is sell to the better educated and higher income 2 to 5 percent of the market.
Developers know this is the juicier part of the market that is more likely to buy expensive software.
As far as I've seen in my everyday observation, Mac OS is the only alternative operating system (apart from Windows) that you will see being commonly (or exclusively) used in certain businesses. That's pretty good for 2 to 5 percent of the market.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Over all I would say Apple is not really chasing marketshare. At the current point it would be a futile race that Apple lost long ago.
Apple has had recent record breaking years with huge profits but very little marketshare growth. I would count the profit as being far more important than marketshare.
What Apple has and should continue is sell to the better educated and higher income 2 to 5 percent of the market.
Developers know this is the juicier part of the market that is more likely to buy expensive software.
As far as I've seen in my everyday observation, Mac OS is the only alternative operating system (apart from Windows) that you will see being commonly (or exclusively) used in certain businesses. That's pretty good for 2 to 5 percent of the market.
Apple almost doubled their marketshare the past 18 months. The pause now is due to the Intel transition. In an interview on Marketwatch right after the NY store opening, where he was sitting in the store, he expressed interest in Apple doubling its marketshare. So, I don't think that it is out of Apple's eye just yet.
Grabbing the jewels, and becoming the majority OS, is a different matter.
Apple almost doubled their marketshare the past 18 months.
Apple's marketshare used to be 10% so it can be said Apple has finally stopped the bleeding and is regaining marketshare it previously had.
The computer market is so diverse. Apple computers will not be used for kiosks or cash registers the same way cheap PC's are.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Apple's marketshare used to be 10% so it can be said Apple has finally stopped the bleeding and is regaining marketshare it previously had.
The computer market is so diverse. Apple computers will not be used for kiosks or cash registers the same way cheap PC's are.
Their marketshare looks like a valley over time. Right now we are clawing our way up the other side, but went back down a few feet to the ledge below us to rest.
Originally posted by TenoBell
The computer market is so diverse. Apple computers will not be used for kiosks or cash registers the same way cheap PC's are.
Just as a side point, but there's some really nice innovative point of sale software new to Macs using the Mac's strengths.
Some are even quite pretty...
http://www.xsilva.com/
Mostly this is because these are artists with art, book, or music stores and having a Mac in the store goes along with the image and mythos.
What I meant is you won't see large grocery store chains or national retail chains using Mac's for point of sales the way they use PC's. There are millions of these computers they are counted in the general computer market share, but Apple does not really play to that market.
If computer marketshare were subdivided into video, photography, graphic arts, web development, sound recording and mixing. The marketshare numbers would then be entirely different.
Originally posted by TenoBell
What I meant is you won't see large grocery store chains or national retail chains using Mac's for point of sales the way they use PC's. There are millions of these computers they are counted in the general computer market share, but Apple does not really play to that market.
Yep. At one point every Woolworth, Footlocker, Kinney store across the US had software I wrote in it for IBM. We had a bug that affected about 1% of their tills which didn't sound like a lot but that was 6000 tills!
I'd not be surprised if the whole PC POS market share totally eclipsed Apple's entire market share alone.