They said all consumer Macs would get cheaper with the Intel switch. They didn't. Now you're saying the pro desktop will get cheaper with the Intel switch. It won't.
PPC's were CHEAPER that Intel's chips are. People keep forgetting this as well.
You're going a bit overboard here. The Intel chips APPLE chooses to use are more expensive than ppc chips. The netburst pent ds and celerons are a different matter.
Does it really matter what the bill of sales were for PPC parts vs. Intel parts? I think not, so long as it doesn't translate into higher priced products, which hasn't happened so far. Tragically that could change in regards to the Mac Pro line. We shall see.
Chucker, I appreciate the above quote, and I do apologize for the ad hominem personal attack.
Apology accepted.
So, here goes my "proper" answer.
Quote:
Originally posted by mugwump
The gap was not 14 months. The gap was one day.
With all due respect, that's silly. In terms of prices Apple charges customers, yes, the gap is one day. In terms of prices Apple pays, however, no. They keep buying components every few months, if even that infrequently; probably sometimes as often as multiple times a month, and needless to say, component prices have fallen a lot during that time span. So, assuming the $100 difference is mostly these "auxiliary" components (and *not* changed chipset/motherboard/RAM/CPU), those components were probably worth half or even less in late February 2006 than what they were in January 2005.
Quote:
If you're trying to argue something completely different, that Apple should offer an even cheaper, lower priced consumer desktop
No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine. I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini, although the recent low-end education iMac offer makes me hope the Mac mini could get bumped. With the MacBook all dual-core, perhaps Apple could ditch the Core Solo and go 1.67 Duo and 1.83 Duo instead.
Does it really matter what the bill of sales were for PPC parts vs. Intel parts? I think not, so long as it doesn't translate into higher priced products, which hasn't happened so far.
I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini, although the recent low-end education iMac offer makes me hope the Mac mini could get bumped. With the MacBook all dual-core, perhaps Apple could ditch the Core Solo and go 1.67 Duo and 1.83 Duo instead.
Right. Actually Intel is offering lower versions of the Core Duo to some OEMs: T2050 and T2250, dual core 1.60 and 1.73GHz with a reduces FSB to 533 instead of 667. Although it may look like a downstep (in terms of FSB) the T2250 is supposed to be faster, overall, than the standard [email protected] and 667FSB. It also allows for lower-cost memory, I believe. It could be a good way to bring all the Mac minis dual-core and at the original price points $499/699. That or wait for better prices on Core Duo and speedbump to 1.67 and 1.83, i agree.
Now about the Woodcrest workstations. I truly think that Apple should split the line in two in maybe offering 2 Conroe Towers (dual-core) and 2 Woodcrest Towers (dual dual-core):
$2499 2x 2.33Ghz Woodcrest, big enclosure, 4HD, 5/6 PCIe slots
$3499 2x 3.00Ghz Woodcrest, idem above
All with 1GB of RAM, 250GB HD, Superdrive, and mid-range GPUs.
For the iMacs, I don't see them with Conroe CPUs because of the heat and the noise induced. I also think people would like to be able to buy the 17" edu model too even at $999.
No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine. I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini,
I'm confused, if you are not dissatisifed with the Mac mini, Then why were you criticizing the price increase and discounting the features added earlier in the thread with comments like " Wooo, costs Apple 50 cents" and "Is bluetooth/wi-fi really worth $100," and "What extra features."
No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine.
I think we do. I would not call it a cheap desktop necessarily. More of an iMac with no monitor. Its pretty limiting to have the Mac Pro as the only desktop with any expansion at all. Many people don't need that much power or want to pay that price.
This is the point where the Cube would have been perfect. The form factor was small stylish and a feat of engineering to fit an entire computer into such a small space. The Cube with Conroe Extreme, one expansion slot, priced around $1500 to $1700.
I think we do. I would not call it a cheap desktop necessarily. More of an iMac with no monitor. Its pretty limiting to have the Mac Pro as the only desktop with any expansion at all. Many people don't need that much power or want to pay that price.
This is the point where the Cube would have been perfect. The form factor was small stylish and a feat of engineering to fit an entire computer into such a small space. The Cube with Conroe Extreme, one expansion slot, priced around $1500 to $1700.
That would be a great computer right now.
And like the original cube, under featured and overpriced for its target audience to sell many.
How exactly is the theoretical Intel Cube under featured and over priced?
The original Cube had 500Mhz G4, 20GB hard drive, ATI Rage 16MB GPU, and cost $1800.
EDIT:
The Conroe Duo Extreme clocks at 2.93GHz, 4MB of cache and is listed at $999. That is magnitudes better than the G4 in performance and surely much more expensive.
Even with specs similar to the iMac the theoretical Intel Cube would have at least 128MB dedicated GPU, 250GB HDD, wireless communication, gigabit ethernet, optical audio, should be able to expand to 4GB of system memory.
How exactly is the theoretical Intel Cube under featured and over priced?
The original Cube had 500Mhz G4, 20GB hard drive, ATI Rage 16MB GPU, and cost $1800.
It's basically an iMac without a display that is more expensive. That really defeats the purpose of the machine. Compared to prosumer PCs it would be 80% more in base price, have very limited expansion, lack of ports, and a slow notebook drive. I'm sure it would look really cool and the three or four people who bought the original cube would buy it, but also like the original cube it would only sell to those three or four.
What would sell:
Mac
Core 2 Duo E6200 @ 1.6ghz
$899
128mb GeForce 7300LE with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
3 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
80gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Card reader
Mac
$1099
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.8ghz
128mb GeForce 7300GT with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
3 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
160gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Card reader
Mac Media
$1299
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.8ghz
256mb GeForce 7600GS with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
PCI-express tuner card with ultra remote
2 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
80gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Front RCA/S-video jacks.
Card reader
Mac Media
$1599
Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.1ghz
256mb GeForce 7600GT with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
Nice lineup, BenRoethig. It makes so much sense there's no way Apple would do it.
A couple of things I'd change would be get rid of one of the 5 1/4" bays, and add a Firewire 800 port. I suspect that you wouldn't see an integrated card reader, either, 'cause Steve thinks they're ugly.
(Also-- bump the HD specs on the top two machines-- I don't think they'd start out with 80GB HDs.)
Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy. Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it, they raised the specs across the board. In doing so, the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture. For the consumer, all of the improvements are well worth $100, regardless of what Apple's actual costs are.
So yeah, the cost of the Intel mini is $100 more, but I'd be willing to bet that Apple's profit margin is lower, which esentially means Apple is getting more price competitive.
It could mean that. That has a lot to do with projected sales figures. (although the case design was paid for by then, and cheaper to manufacture) If Apple projected sales figures were doubling of what the original mini was I think they can significantly cut prices because they would be buying more parts in bulk, and that cuts costs right there. If they are buying from one of the same companies that makes other parts for other Apple products (like the iPod) They can also negotiate on prices there. LIke "well buy X amount of hard-drives from you at this price in the next 6 months if you sell us double what we ordered last time on this product at X amount.
Comments
Originally posted by mugwump
Upchucker,
[..] you're simply trolling.
At least I don't insult people by mangling their names and accusing them of trolling.
Originally posted by Chucker
Well, there is a Yonah-based Celeron M; somewhat retardedly/confusingly named, of course. Not sure if it's the 430.
300 series are Pentium-M based
400 series are Yonah based.
Originally posted by melgross
You said the magic words: could, and wanted to.
It's not that they can't. It's that they won't.
Exactly, Apple is a premium computer maker. They're leaving that market to HP, Dell, and the likes.
Originally posted by mugwump
Upchucker,
[..] you're simply trolling.
Originally posted by Chucker
At least I don't insult people by mangling their names and accusing them of trolling.
Chucker, I appreciate the above quote, and I do apologize for the ad hominem personal attack.
Originally posted by Chucker
Often claimed and always proved wrong.
They said all consumer Macs would get cheaper with the Intel switch. They didn't. Now you're saying the pro desktop will get cheaper with the Intel switch. It won't.
Hate to admit it but you seem to be right so far.
Originally posted by melgross
PPC's were CHEAPER that Intel's chips are. People keep forgetting this as well.
You're going a bit overboard here. The Intel chips APPLE chooses to use are more expensive than ppc chips. The netburst pent ds and celerons are a different matter.
Originally posted by mugwump
Chucker, I appreciate the above quote, and I do apologize for the ad hominem personal attack.
Apology accepted.
So, here goes my "proper" answer.
Originally posted by mugwump
The gap was not 14 months. The gap was one day.
With all due respect, that's silly. In terms of prices Apple charges customers, yes, the gap is one day. In terms of prices Apple pays, however, no. They keep buying components every few months, if even that infrequently; probably sometimes as often as multiple times a month, and needless to say, component prices have fallen a lot during that time span. So, assuming the $100 difference is mostly these "auxiliary" components (and *not* changed chipset/motherboard/RAM/CPU), those components were probably worth half or even less in late February 2006 than what they were in January 2005.
If you're trying to argue something completely different, that Apple should offer an even cheaper, lower priced consumer desktop
No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine. I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini, although the recent low-end education iMac offer makes me hope the Mac mini could get bumped. With the MacBook all dual-core, perhaps Apple could ditch the Core Solo and go 1.67 Duo and 1.83 Duo instead.
Originally posted by Foo Fighter
Does it really matter what the bill of sales were for PPC parts vs. Intel parts? I think not, so long as it doesn't translate into higher priced products, which hasn't happened so far.
Precisely my point.
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini, although the recent low-end education iMac offer makes me hope the Mac mini could get bumped. With the MacBook all dual-core, perhaps Apple could ditch the Core Solo and go 1.67 Duo and 1.83 Duo instead.
Right. Actually Intel is offering lower versions of the Core Duo to some OEMs: T2050 and T2250, dual core 1.60 and 1.73GHz with a reduces FSB to 533 instead of 667. Although it may look like a downstep (in terms of FSB) the T2250 is supposed to be faster, overall, than the standard [email protected] and 667FSB. It also allows for lower-cost memory, I believe. It could be a good way to bring all the Mac minis dual-core and at the original price points $499/699. That or wait for better prices on Core Duo and speedbump to 1.67 and 1.83, i agree.
Now about the Woodcrest workstations. I truly think that Apple should split the line in two in maybe offering 2 Conroe Towers (dual-core) and 2 Woodcrest Towers (dual dual-core):
$1499 2.67Ghz Conroe, smaller enclosure, 2HD, 2/3 PCIe slots
$1999 2.93Ghz Conroe (X6800), idem above
$2499 2x 2.33Ghz Woodcrest, big enclosure, 4HD, 5/6 PCIe slots
$3499 2x 3.00Ghz Woodcrest, idem above
All with 1GB of RAM, 250GB HD, Superdrive, and mid-range GPUs.
For the iMacs, I don't see them with Conroe CPUs because of the heat and the noise induced. I also think people would like to be able to buy the 17" edu model too even at $999.
$999 17" 1.83Ghz Core Duo, integrated GPU, 512RAM, 160HD
$1299 20" 2.00Ghz Core Duo, integrated GPU, 512RAM, 160HD
$1699 20" 2.16Ghz C2D Merom, dedicated GPU, 1GBRAM, 250HD
$2299 23" 2.33Ghz C2D Merom, dedicated GPU, 1GBRAM, 250HD
That's it for the desktop line-up IMO.
Originally posted by Chucker
Apology accepted.
No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine. I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini,
I'm confused, if you are not dissatisifed with the Mac mini, Then why were you criticizing the price increase and discounting the features added earlier in the thread with comments like " Wooo, costs Apple 50 cents" and "Is bluetooth/wi-fi really worth $100," and "What extra features."
No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine.
I think we do. I would not call it a cheap desktop necessarily. More of an iMac with no monitor. Its pretty limiting to have the Mac Pro as the only desktop with any expansion at all. Many people don't need that much power or want to pay that price.
This is the point where the Cube would have been perfect. The form factor was small stylish and a feat of engineering to fit an entire computer into such a small space. The Cube with Conroe Extreme, one expansion slot, priced around $1500 to $1700.
That would be a great computer right now.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I think we do. I would not call it a cheap desktop necessarily. More of an iMac with no monitor. Its pretty limiting to have the Mac Pro as the only desktop with any expansion at all. Many people don't need that much power or want to pay that price.
This is the point where the Cube would have been perfect. The form factor was small stylish and a feat of engineering to fit an entire computer into such a small space. The Cube with Conroe Extreme, one expansion slot, priced around $1500 to $1700.
That would be a great computer right now.
And like the original cube, under featured and overpriced for its target audience to sell many.
The original Cube had 500Mhz G4, 20GB hard drive, ATI Rage 16MB GPU, and cost $1800.
EDIT:
The Conroe Duo Extreme clocks at 2.93GHz, 4MB of cache and is listed at $999. That is magnitudes better than the G4 in performance and surely much more expensive.
Even with specs similar to the iMac the theoretical Intel Cube would have at least 128MB dedicated GPU, 250GB HDD, wireless communication, gigabit ethernet, optical audio, should be able to expand to 4GB of system memory.
Originally posted by TenoBell
How exactly is the theoretical Intel Cube under featured and over priced?
The original Cube had 500Mhz G4, 20GB hard drive, ATI Rage 16MB GPU, and cost $1800.
It's basically an iMac without a display that is more expensive. That really defeats the purpose of the machine. Compared to prosumer PCs it would be 80% more in base price, have very limited expansion, lack of ports, and a slow notebook drive. I'm sure it would look really cool and the three or four people who bought the original cube would buy it, but also like the original cube it would only sell to those three or four.
What would sell:
Mac
Core 2 Duo E6200 @ 1.6ghz
$899
128mb GeForce 7300LE with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
3 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
80gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Card reader
Mac
$1099
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.8ghz
128mb GeForce 7300GT with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
3 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
160gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Card reader
Mac Media
$1299
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.8ghz
256mb GeForce 7600GS with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
PCI-express tuner card with ultra remote
2 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
80gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Front RCA/S-video jacks.
Card reader
Mac Media
$1599
Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.1ghz
256mb GeForce 7600GT with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
PCI-express tuner card with ultra remote
2 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
80gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Front RCA/S-video jacks.
Card reader
Options:
256mb Geforce 7900GS
A couple of things I'd change would be get rid of one of the 5 1/4" bays, and add a Firewire 800 port. I suspect that you wouldn't see an integrated card reader, either, 'cause Steve thinks they're ugly.
(Also-- bump the HD specs on the top two machines-- I don't think they'd start out with 80GB HDs.)
Originally posted by solsun
Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy. Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it, they raised the specs across the board. In doing so, the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture. For the consumer, all of the improvements are well worth $100, regardless of what Apple's actual costs are.
So yeah, the cost of the Intel mini is $100 more, but I'd be willing to bet that Apple's profit margin is lower, which esentially means Apple is getting more price competitive.
It could mean that. That has a lot to do with projected sales figures. (although the case design was paid for by then, and cheaper to manufacture) If Apple projected sales figures were doubling of what the original mini was I think they can significantly cut prices because they would be buying more parts in bulk, and that cuts costs right there. If they are buying from one of the same companies that makes other parts for other Apple products (like the iPod) They can also negotiate on prices there. LIke "well buy X amount of hard-drives from you at this price in the next 6 months if you sell us double what we ordered last time on this product at X amount.
So yeah, the cost of the Intel mini is $100 more
But I hear they feel about $1000.00 faster.