If priced correctly, with the right hardware configurations, it would not. And even if it stole sales from the iMac, it would have a larger profit margin to make up for it, due to the fact that it uses cheaper (than laptop) desktop parts and does not include a display. As for the Mac Pro, a single conroe w/ standard mobo is a heck of a lot cheaper than 2 xeons and a dual socket mobo, so again it delivers a greater margin. This statement is completely false.
Quote:
2. not going to sell enough why would anyone want such a machine? Come on, 95% of all desktops sold isn't that much for a form factor.
What exactly does that mean? It would sell fine, saying as it makes for a perfect switcher machine. Most switchers need more than just the absolute basics (mini) and already have a display/speakers/etc and would rather not see well-spent money go to the trash.
Quote:
3. not cool enough for Apple, too PC like.
I'm sure J Ive and the design team at Apple can think up a way to make it look better than a $15 plastic case. It's not that hard ya know.
Quote:
4. regular PC users are idiots. Anyone with a brain is going to think exactly as Apple.
I don't quite beleive ~90% of the world is populated with idiots.
So suddenly Jobs and Co are the smartest people alive, and everyone should think like them? What exactly gives you that idea? Just because your a completely loyal boneheaded fanboi, doesn't mean Apple is right in everything they do.
I think your the one being the idiot over here.
Quote:
5. When you add external Card readers, hard drives, hubs, and a giant power strip, the iMac does the same thing
This is more expensive than a 'normal' desktop, creates a lot of clutter, and is a complete pain in the arse. And i know this as a fact, saying that I have that set-up with my laptop. It just doesn;t work. Not to mention that for things like backing up, and other speed-hungry tasks, hubs and external HDs take a huge toll on speed.
Quote:
6. With 2.0ghz CPUS, a 20" Apple display, and Airport/Bluetooth, the Mac Pro is only $3000.
Did you win the lottery or something? Cuz $3000 was a heck of a lot of money last time I checked.
Quote:
7. Since everyone is either only reading emails or working professional projects, Apple's lineup is good enough for everyone. If your needs cannot be met, change yourself
Wow. Do you honestly think that the Apple loyal can be so easily split? Or are you just such a fanboy that you have led yourself to beleive that the fault always lies with the customer? I should not have to change myself to fit within Apples lineup, nor should I have to pay through the nose for something I'll never completely use (MP).
Quote:
8. Look at what happened when we released the cube,
The cube died because it was extremely overpriced for what it was. It was underpowered and offered no expandability. The cube was meant for absolutely silent operation, and people just didn't want it.
And to get back at your second statement, why would anyone want such a machine?
Quote:
9. be quiet you PC heathen I don't care how long you've actually been using Macs, you're opinion doesn't count
Don't be so self-centered, the world don't revolve around you, you know!
Quote:
10. Steve says so and because steve is our god, it must be the case
So, if Steve decided that all of Apple's future computers were going to run Vista/XP, you'd blindingly follow him and say that the OS you shunted for years was suddenly oh so great?
If priced correctly, with the right hardware configurations, it would not. And even if it stole sales from the iMac, it would have a larger profit margin to make up for it, due to the fact that it uses cheaper (than laptop) desktop parts and does not include a display. As for the Mac Pro, a single conroe w/ standard mobo is a heck of a lot cheaper than 2 xeons and a dual socket mobo, so again it delivers a greater margin. This statement is completely false.
What exactly does that mean? It would sell fine, saying as it makes for a perfect switcher machine. Most switchers need more than just the absolute basics (mini) and already have a display/speakers/etc and would rather not see well-spent money go to the trash.
I'm sure J Ive and the design team at Apple can think up a way to make it look better than a $15 plastic case. It's not that hard ya know.
I don't quite beleive ~90% of the world is populated with idiots.
So suddenly Jobs and Co are the smartest people alive, and everyone should think like them? What exactly gives you that idea? Just because your a completely loyal boneheaded fanboi, doesn't mean Apple is right in everything they do.
I think your the one being the idiot over here.
This is more expensive than a 'normal' desktop, creates a lot of clutter, and is a complete pain in the arse. And i know this as a fact, saying that I have that set-up with my laptop. It just doesn;t work. Not to mention that for things like backing up, and other speed-hungry tasks, hubs and external HDs take a huge toll on speed.
Did you win the lottery or something? Cuz $3000 was a heck of a lot of money last time I checked.
Wow. Do you honestly think that the Apple loyal can be so easily split? Or are you just such a fanboy that you have led yourself to beleive that the fault always lies with the customer? I should not have to change myself to fit within Apples lineup, nor should I have to pay through the nose for something I'll never completely use (MP).
The cube died because it was extremely overpriced for what it was. It was underpowered and offered no expandability. The cube was meant for absolutely silent operation, and people just didn't want it.
And to get back at your second statement, why would anyone want such a machine?
Don't be so self-centered, the world don't revolve around you, you know!
So, if Steve decided that all of Apple's future computers were going to run Vista/XP, you'd blindingly follow him and say that the OS you shunted for years was suddenly oh so great?
Noah
Did you read the last line.
"Have I forgot any other irrational thing I've actually seem thrown out there? God, I should submit this to Dave Letterman."
If priced correctly, with the right hardware configurations, it would not.
Prove it.
Quote:
And even if it stole sales from the iMac, it would have a larger profit margin to make up for it, due to the fact that it uses cheaper (than laptop) desktop parts and does not include a display.
Wrong, it would have a lower profit margin, because it would be competing with significantly more third-party alternative computers, and as such would have to be released at a commodity price to sell at all.
And at any rate, if it "steals" sales from the iMac and Mac Pro, who cares? The sales it "stole" would most likely be sales the iMac and Mac Pro never deserved in the first place - people who settle for one of those two models because the model they really want doesn't exist.
What ApplePi said about survival of the fittest was spot on. If the iMac is a machine people will want to buy, then people will buy it. If it dies because of a mid tower, then perhaps it's not the best machine suited for the market it's trying to serve. In the end, it's more important that Apple sells more computers than that they sell X amount of some individual model.
For what it's worth, I think the iMac would still do okay. It's got a bunch of things going for it - Front Row, the built-in iSight, a huge screen (by most people's standards in that market), a small footprint, and the fact that it is a very aesthetically pleasing machine. The Mac Pro would lose a few sales from the people rich/stupid/desperate enough to buy a Mac Pro just to get some basic expansion, but it never deserved those sales in the first place and is quite poorly suited to a user who only needs some basic expansion, not a monster quad-core workstation.
Quote:
Wrong, it would have a lower profit margin, because it would be competing with significantly more third-party alternative computers, and as such would have to be released at a commodity price to sell at all.
Well, the fact that some people are rich/stupid/desperate enough to buy a Mac Pro just to get some basic expansion seems to kind of contradict this statement. People looking for a simple open slot and hard drive bay would be grateful to pay just about any price for this machine, as long as it was less than the $2000 that the Power Mac G5 / Mac Pro has cost. Now true, it might be an image issue if the Apple mid-tower cost more than a Dell mid-tower, but 1) Apple seems to have shown that they can compete with Dell with the Mac Pro at least, and 2) there's already an image issue, because switchers are going to compare what Apple would give them to what they could get from Dell, and currently for a mid-range desktop user that'll be about $1000 vs. $2124. No contest.
And at any rate, if it "steals" sales from the iMac and Mac Pro, who cares? The sales it "stole" would most likely be sales the iMac and Mac Pro never deserved in the first place - people who settle for one of those two models because the model they really want doesn't exist.
What ApplePi said about survival of the fittest was spot on. If the iMac is a machine people will want to buy, then people will buy it. If it dies because of a mid tower, then perhaps it's not the best machine suited for the market it's trying to serve. In the end, it's more important that Apple sells more computers than that they sell X amount of some individual model.
For what it's worth, I think the iMac would still do okay. It's got a bunch of things going for it - Front Row, the built-in iSight, a huge screen (by most people's standards in that market), a small footprint, and the fact that it is a very aesthetically pleasing machine. The Mac Pro would lose a few sales from the people rich/stupid/desperate enough to buy a Mac Pro just to get some basic expansion, but it never deserved those sales in the first place and is quite poorly suited to a user who only needs some basic expansion, not a monster quad-core workstation.
Well, the fact that some people are rich/stupid/desperate enough to buy a Mac Pro just to get some basic expansion seems to kind of contradict this statement. People looking for a simple open slot and hard drive bay would be grateful to pay just about any price for this machine, as long as it was less than the $2000 that the Power Mac G5 / Mac Pro has cost. Now true, it might be an image issue if the Apple mid-tower cost more than a Dell mid-tower, but 1) Apple seems to have shown that they can compete with Dell with the Mac Pro at least, and 2) there's already an image issue, because switchers are going to compare what Apple would give them to what they could get from Dell, and currently for a mid-range desktop user that'll be about $1000 vs. $2124. No contest.
Plus, has anyone ever actually considered that if such a machine were released and Apple became a more viable option, the iMac sales might actually increase? The Mac community has been think in terms of only its own numbers far too long.
. . . it would have a lower profit margin, because it would be competing with significantly more third-party alternative computers, and as such would have to be released at a commodity price to sell at all.
Oh, oh. What third-party Mac mini towers are you talking about?
There are none of course. Therefore, Apple can price a Mac mini tower however they wish. If the price is too low, it will take sales from other Macs. If it is too high, a mini tower will not sell. Any particular model Mac is not competing with its Windows equivalent model. The competition between Macs and Windows PCs is a platform wide competition. A particular model Mac, or model Windows PC, competes within its own platform environment.
Now, concerning platform competition, the selection of models within a platform could influence a consumers decision to switch or not to switch. So, let's say a guy has been using Windows, but is looking at Macs. If he happens to like or need a professional, high performance workstation, he will look at what the Mac Pro offers. If he wants a mini tower and Mac doesn't have one, it presents a hurdle. He must see whether there is another model Mac that would satisfy him. Needless to say, the prospect of him switching to a Mac is less in this situation.
Since such a large number of Windows users seem to prefer a mini tower, the lack of a Mac mini tower means Apple is not getting the number of switcher that they could. However, Mac users will mostly stay Mac users and figure out the best way to cope, if they happen to want a mini tower. Some will just pay the difference and get more than they need in a Mac Pro. Others will be reconciled with an iMac or Mac Mini. Still others will make do with an older Mac from eBay or live with what they already have.
In that regard, I'm likely good for several years before needing a new Mac. If Steve wants to tempt me, he needs to have some other Mac in the product lineup. It might not be a mini tower -- I'm not stuck on that -- but a mini tower would sure be tempting.
You're trying to tell me that whilst the Mini (starts at $599) looks nice, Apple couldn't make a tower for $999 with the specs I outlined and make its appearance just as attractive as the Mini? That is some seriously flawed logic right there.
Bloody hell, that's even worse than a straight car analogy. The point of cars and planes is very different, there is very, very little overlap (there are very few journeys that people make by car that they would consider making by plane instead and visa versa). There is far, far more overlap in the capabilities of OS X and Windows.
You mean in the market place as a whole, or for individuals? Because, for many individuals, Mac OS can and has replaced Windows.
Really, without using any analogies whatsoever, you should provide some good reasons why Apple shouldn't have a $999 tower. It doesn't make any business sense for Apple not to offer a version of the most popular desktop configuration in the market.
1) You have no idea what I'm even commenting on do you?
You said:
"High quality in a car is expensive to achieve. For Audi to offer cheaper alternatives, they'd have to sacrifice a lot of their quality, and then what's the point of buying the resulting car, rather than a competitor's?"
As if that's even true.
What do you think audi offers that other companies do not? A special name for the shifting gears? Other than that, essentally any option you can name can and has been offered by another company.
Claiming that somehow an audi really is THAT much more expensive to produce is complete bullshit.
You're paying for a name mostly. Hmmm reminds me of a certain computer company.
2) You said:
"Bloody hell, that's even worse than a straight car analogy. The point of cars and planes is very different, there is very, very little overlap (there are very few journeys that people make by car that they would consider making by plane instead and visa versa). There is far, far more overlap in the capabilities of OS X and Windows."
Technically, um not they aren't, all vehichles serve the same 2-3 purposes.
Secondly I think it was pretty damn obvious I wasn't speaking in a realistic sense. I was saying imagine(being the key word here) audi made personal planes that were expected to replace cars. And if they did would cars really all be replaced.
The point of that "imagined tale" was to say that no matter what else was there and what it costed the market would not immediately change.
For TWO reasons:
1. The difference between cars and planes would scare people.
2. Audi would be ONE manufacturer making planes in a sea of car manufacturers, they could never own the market because of the sheer unification of other companies.
Now since you couldn't extrapolate that I will break it down for you.
1. Apple machines do not come with windows, that's scares people.
2. Apple is ONE computer company offering OSX vs a bajillion different pc vendors.
There is no possible way apple could own all the marketshare irregardless of what the f*** they build.
3) You said:
" You mean in the market place as a whole, or for individuals? Because, for many individuals, Mac OS can and has replaced Windows.
Really, without using any analogies whatsoever, you should provide some good reasons why Apple shouldn't have a $999 tower. It doesn't make any business sense for Apple not to offer a version of the most popular desktop configuration in the market."
The MARKETPLACE.
Fine no analogies(I didn't start them I used them because they seem so popular with you guys).
I personally would like a 999-1500 tower, I have said this a hundred times.
Apple does NOT offer one because people that are switching do not seem to need them. It wasn't a successful market segment in the past and like chucker said would allow its self to be competeting with other companies offerings right away.
Look at places like cnet they have "which is the best laptop" and list the macbook among other vendors offerings. When they say "which is the best desktop" the imac stands out because it's drastically different. A tower wouldn't it'd blend right in, apple doesn't want that, they want their products to be as different and interesting as possible because when they offered the middle ground idea they got stomped. And no matter what they make they'd never take a lot of the market.
One bitten, twice shy.
Personally I think they're in a good enough position now to afford the loss a mid-range tower might give them if it weren't successful, were as it was too risky in the past.
So to sumarize for the millionth time, I would be the first in line for one but I'm merely showing the other side the arguement and why apple is most likely afraid to do it.
You say many times that "Apple is executing well". Indeed, overall, Apple are doing very well. But apart from the last 12 months or so, Apple have lost market share every single year since 1996. Apple are executing well when it comes to iPods, iTunes and portables. But in the desktop space, I absolutely reject the notion that Apple is "executing well". There is a massive, gaping whole in their lineup which serves to totally ignore the market's most popular desktop configuration, and that doesn't make any business sense at all.
It seems we are arguing in circles (which is why I kinda bowed out) but I did want to pipe back in on this one statement.
Yes, I do believe that Apple is executing well on desktops. Both the mini and apparently the pro has transitioned from PPC to Intel more or less seamlessly. Whenever you transition architectures this smoothly you are executing well in my book.
Given that their desktops now have performance parity with the PC world I think the desktops should do a little better.
Is there a massive gaping hole in their lineup? Yes and no. Yes, there is no mid-tower in the 1500-2000 range. No, Apple feels that the AIO iMac is the product they wish to position there. There STILL might be a low end Mac Pro in that price point with a Conroe and who knows, even a cube resurrected.
/shrug.
I'm willing to wait a quarter or two to see how the new desktops shake out. I don't think its the end of the world that a mid-tower isn't in their lineup.
Vinea
PS regarding market share and software development - I don't think the situation is worsening with the exception of Microsoft pulling VBA from Office. I think with Parallels (and similar solution) the situation for interoperability with Windows improves. You wont be able to game but I'm going to bet it will always be able to run Office.
Is there a massive gaping hole in their lineup? Yes and no. Yes, there is no mid-tower in the 1500-2000 range. No, Apple feels that the AIO iMac is the product they wish to position there.
And they will never get much more than 5% because of it no matter how much better they are than Microsoft.
So? Are you gonna tell Ferrari to make cheaper cars because you can't find any alternative that uses a Ferrari engine?
No, it'd be more like Ferrari making a hydrogen engine and not letting anyone else have it. In the end everyone loses except the oil companies (aka Microsoft).
Bloody heck, yall people are getting straight goofy! undenyable, irrefutable fact number one:
THE MARKET IS NOT A PIE
the concept of "Stealing Sales" is utter rubbish. Quit talking nonsense. To assume that sales could be stolen is to adopt an illogical and false postulate that there are a limited number of sales available in the first place. I mean COME ON, you can't limit the number of possible sales to ANY limiting factor. Not even the human population is a reasonable limit, since, as well all know, ANY French Poodle who is ANYBODY just HAS to have an iMac!
Seriously though, the concept of limited available sales is silly. Apple can NOT force consumers to buy the computers it sells. The economy works in the oposite way. The market dictates what any particular company will manufacture. PEOPLE DO NOT BUY WHAT THEY DON'T WANT. Yes, I'm aware of buyer's remorse.
There's nothing mystical or majikal about the iMac. It's just an innovative computer which has had great success in it's time. Just like any successful product. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF NOONE EVER BUYS ANOTHER IMAC, because, believe it or not, Apple IS capable of producing computers other than the iMac. iMac had a major part in Apple turning itself around a few years ago, and as a result, many of us have lost our grip on reality, and have begun to believe, "The iMac saved Apple!" rather than seeing the truth of, "Apple saved itself with iMac!"
ok, I could rant for much longer on this, but I don't feel like it, so
And Chucker, you're clearly an intelligent person, and one who gives the world of technology a great deal of thought. Which is why I am absolutely flabbergasted by the imaturity and illogical nature of some of your posts.
So lets all try an exercise right now. Everyone must participate, or your left eyebrow will fall off. Here it is: Everone reflect on all the posts you have ever made, all the arguments you have ever presented. Good, now, in unison, everybody say with me,
"It's OK for me to be wrong!"
Ahhh, now wasn't that nice? Relieved a lot of stress I think.
Hopefully now we can get this thread back into the realm of DISCUSSION and away from 3rd grade arguments of, "Nuh uh! I didn't say it so it's not right, so there, PBBBBBBBBTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Comments
I can't imagine a Mac Mini ever having those specs...
really?? is could see that in 3 of 4 years...dangerous to say less, but it is possible
1. Would steal sales away from iMac or Mac Pro
If priced correctly, with the right hardware configurations, it would not. And even if it stole sales from the iMac, it would have a larger profit margin to make up for it, due to the fact that it uses cheaper (than laptop) desktop parts and does not include a display. As for the Mac Pro, a single conroe w/ standard mobo is a heck of a lot cheaper than 2 xeons and a dual socket mobo, so again it delivers a greater margin. This statement is completely false.
2. not going to sell enough why would anyone want such a machine? Come on, 95% of all desktops sold isn't that much for a form factor.
What exactly does that mean? It would sell fine, saying as it makes for a perfect switcher machine. Most switchers need more than just the absolute basics (mini) and already have a display/speakers/etc and would rather not see well-spent money go to the trash.
3. not cool enough for Apple, too PC like.
I'm sure J Ive and the design team at Apple can think up a way to make it look better than a $15 plastic case. It's not that hard ya know.
4. regular PC users are idiots. Anyone with a brain is going to think exactly as Apple.
I don't quite beleive ~90% of the world is populated with idiots.
So suddenly Jobs and Co are the smartest people alive, and everyone should think like them? What exactly gives you that idea? Just because your a completely loyal boneheaded fanboi, doesn't mean Apple is right in everything they do.
I think your the one being the idiot over here.
5. When you add external Card readers, hard drives, hubs, and a giant power strip, the iMac does the same thing
This is more expensive than a 'normal' desktop, creates a lot of clutter, and is a complete pain in the arse. And i know this as a fact, saying that I have that set-up with my laptop. It just doesn;t work. Not to mention that for things like backing up, and other speed-hungry tasks, hubs and external HDs take a huge toll on speed.
6. With 2.0ghz CPUS, a 20" Apple display, and Airport/Bluetooth, the Mac Pro is only $3000.
Did you win the lottery or something? Cuz $3000 was a heck of a lot of money last time I checked.
7. Since everyone is either only reading emails or working professional projects, Apple's lineup is good enough for everyone. If your needs cannot be met, change yourself
Wow. Do you honestly think that the Apple loyal can be so easily split? Or are you just such a fanboy that you have led yourself to beleive that the fault always lies with the customer? I should not have to change myself to fit within Apples lineup, nor should I have to pay through the nose for something I'll never completely use (MP).
8. Look at what happened when we released the cube,
The cube died because it was extremely overpriced for what it was. It was underpowered and offered no expandability. The cube was meant for absolutely silent operation, and people just didn't want it.
And to get back at your second statement, why would anyone want such a machine?
9. be quiet you PC heathen I don't care how long you've actually been using Macs, you're opinion doesn't count
Don't be so self-centered, the world don't revolve around you, you know!
10. Steve says so and because steve is our god, it must be the case
So, if Steve decided that all of Apple's future computers were going to run Vista/XP, you'd blindingly follow him and say that the OS you shunted for years was suddenly oh so great?
Noah
If priced correctly, with the right hardware configurations, it would not. And even if it stole sales from the iMac, it would have a larger profit margin to make up for it, due to the fact that it uses cheaper (than laptop) desktop parts and does not include a display. As for the Mac Pro, a single conroe w/ standard mobo is a heck of a lot cheaper than 2 xeons and a dual socket mobo, so again it delivers a greater margin. This statement is completely false.
What exactly does that mean? It would sell fine, saying as it makes for a perfect switcher machine. Most switchers need more than just the absolute basics (mini) and already have a display/speakers/etc and would rather not see well-spent money go to the trash.
I'm sure J Ive and the design team at Apple can think up a way to make it look better than a $15 plastic case. It's not that hard ya know.
I don't quite beleive ~90% of the world is populated with idiots.
So suddenly Jobs and Co are the smartest people alive, and everyone should think like them? What exactly gives you that idea? Just because your a completely loyal boneheaded fanboi, doesn't mean Apple is right in everything they do.
I think your the one being the idiot over here.
This is more expensive than a 'normal' desktop, creates a lot of clutter, and is a complete pain in the arse. And i know this as a fact, saying that I have that set-up with my laptop. It just doesn;t work. Not to mention that for things like backing up, and other speed-hungry tasks, hubs and external HDs take a huge toll on speed.
Did you win the lottery or something? Cuz $3000 was a heck of a lot of money last time I checked.
Wow. Do you honestly think that the Apple loyal can be so easily split? Or are you just such a fanboy that you have led yourself to beleive that the fault always lies with the customer? I should not have to change myself to fit within Apples lineup, nor should I have to pay through the nose for something I'll never completely use (MP).
The cube died because it was extremely overpriced for what it was. It was underpowered and offered no expandability. The cube was meant for absolutely silent operation, and people just didn't want it.
And to get back at your second statement, why would anyone want such a machine?
Don't be so self-centered, the world don't revolve around you, you know!
So, if Steve decided that all of Apple's future computers were going to run Vista/XP, you'd blindingly follow him and say that the OS you shunted for years was suddenly oh so great?
Noah
Did you read the last line.
"Have I forgot any other irrational thing I've actually seem thrown out there? God, I should submit this to Dave Letterman."
If priced correctly, with the right hardware configurations, it would not.
Prove it.
And even if it stole sales from the iMac, it would have a larger profit margin to make up for it, due to the fact that it uses cheaper (than laptop) desktop parts and does not include a display.
Wrong, it would have a lower profit margin, because it would be competing with significantly more third-party alternative computers, and as such would have to be released at a commodity price to sell at all.
Prove it.
How? With a crystal ball? A time machine?
And at any rate, if it "steals" sales from the iMac and Mac Pro, who cares? The sales it "stole" would most likely be sales the iMac and Mac Pro never deserved in the first place - people who settle for one of those two models because the model they really want doesn't exist.
What ApplePi said about survival of the fittest was spot on. If the iMac is a machine people will want to buy, then people will buy it. If it dies because of a mid tower, then perhaps it's not the best machine suited for the market it's trying to serve. In the end, it's more important that Apple sells more computers than that they sell X amount of some individual model.
For what it's worth, I think the iMac would still do okay. It's got a bunch of things going for it - Front Row, the built-in iSight, a huge screen (by most people's standards in that market), a small footprint, and the fact that it is a very aesthetically pleasing machine. The Mac Pro would lose a few sales from the people rich/stupid/desperate enough to buy a Mac Pro just to get some basic expansion, but it never deserved those sales in the first place and is quite poorly suited to a user who only needs some basic expansion, not a monster quad-core workstation.
Wrong, it would have a lower profit margin, because it would be competing with significantly more third-party alternative computers, and as such would have to be released at a commodity price to sell at all.
Well, the fact that some people are rich/stupid/desperate enough to buy a Mac Pro just to get some basic expansion seems to kind of contradict this statement. People looking for a simple open slot and hard drive bay would be grateful to pay just about any price for this machine, as long as it was less than the $2000 that the Power Mac G5 / Mac Pro has cost. Now true, it might be an image issue if the Apple mid-tower cost more than a Dell mid-tower, but 1) Apple seems to have shown that they can compete with Dell with the Mac Pro at least, and 2) there's already an image issue, because switchers are going to compare what Apple would give them to what they could get from Dell, and currently for a mid-range desktop user that'll be about $1000 vs. $2124. No contest.
You gotta give it to the "OMG HEADLESS" folks; they're persistent.
As are those who follow Apple without question.
How? With a crystal ball? A time machine?
And at any rate, if it "steals" sales from the iMac and Mac Pro, who cares? The sales it "stole" would most likely be sales the iMac and Mac Pro never deserved in the first place - people who settle for one of those two models because the model they really want doesn't exist.
What ApplePi said about survival of the fittest was spot on. If the iMac is a machine people will want to buy, then people will buy it. If it dies because of a mid tower, then perhaps it's not the best machine suited for the market it's trying to serve. In the end, it's more important that Apple sells more computers than that they sell X amount of some individual model.
For what it's worth, I think the iMac would still do okay. It's got a bunch of things going for it - Front Row, the built-in iSight, a huge screen (by most people's standards in that market), a small footprint, and the fact that it is a very aesthetically pleasing machine. The Mac Pro would lose a few sales from the people rich/stupid/desperate enough to buy a Mac Pro just to get some basic expansion, but it never deserved those sales in the first place and is quite poorly suited to a user who only needs some basic expansion, not a monster quad-core workstation.
Well, the fact that some people are rich/stupid/desperate enough to buy a Mac Pro just to get some basic expansion seems to kind of contradict this statement. People looking for a simple open slot and hard drive bay would be grateful to pay just about any price for this machine, as long as it was less than the $2000 that the Power Mac G5 / Mac Pro has cost. Now true, it might be an image issue if the Apple mid-tower cost more than a Dell mid-tower, but 1) Apple seems to have shown that they can compete with Dell with the Mac Pro at least, and 2) there's already an image issue, because switchers are going to compare what Apple would give them to what they could get from Dell, and currently for a mid-range desktop user that'll be about $1000 vs. $2124. No contest.
Plus, has anyone ever actually considered that if such a machine were released and Apple became a more viable option, the iMac sales might actually increase? The Mac community has been think in terms of only its own numbers far too long.
. . . it would have a lower profit margin, because it would be competing with significantly more third-party alternative computers, and as such would have to be released at a commodity price to sell at all.
Oh, oh. What third-party Mac mini towers are you talking about?
There are none of course. Therefore, Apple can price a Mac mini tower however they wish. If the price is too low, it will take sales from other Macs. If it is too high, a mini tower will not sell. Any particular model Mac is not competing with its Windows equivalent model. The competition between Macs and Windows PCs is a platform wide competition. A particular model Mac, or model Windows PC, competes within its own platform environment.
Now, concerning platform competition, the selection of models within a platform could influence a consumers decision to switch or not to switch. So, let's say a guy has been using Windows, but is looking at Macs. If he happens to like or need a professional, high performance workstation, he will look at what the Mac Pro offers. If he wants a mini tower and Mac doesn't have one, it presents a hurdle. He must see whether there is another model Mac that would satisfy him. Needless to say, the prospect of him switching to a Mac is less in this situation.
Since such a large number of Windows users seem to prefer a mini tower, the lack of a Mac mini tower means Apple is not getting the number of switcher that they could. However, Mac users will mostly stay Mac users and figure out the best way to cope, if they happen to want a mini tower. Some will just pay the difference and get more than they need in a Mac Pro. Others will be reconciled with an iMac or Mac Mini. Still others will make do with an older Mac from eBay or live with what they already have.
In that regard, I'm likely good for several years before needing a new Mac. If Steve wants to tempt me, he needs to have some other Mac in the product lineup. It might not be a mini tower -- I'm not stuck on that -- but a mini tower would sure be tempting.
Jerry
Oh, oh. What third-party Mac mini towers are you talking about?
Er, what? Third party any-personal-computer towers. Be it Dell, Acer or Gateway.
Er, what? Third party any-personal-computer towers. Be it Dell, Acer or Gateway.
And how many of them are available with Mac OS X?
Er, what? Third party any-personal-computer towers. Be it Dell, Acer or Gateway.
None of which run Mac OS X. Think about it.
And how many of them are available with Mac OS X?
So? Are you gonna tell Ferrari to make cheaper cars because you can't find any alternative that uses a Ferrari engine?
You're trying to tell me that whilst the Mini (starts at $599) looks nice, Apple couldn't make a tower for $999 with the specs I outlined and make its appearance just as attractive as the Mini? That is some seriously flawed logic right there.
Bloody hell, that's even worse than a straight car analogy. The point of cars and planes is very different, there is very, very little overlap (there are very few journeys that people make by car that they would consider making by plane instead and visa versa). There is far, far more overlap in the capabilities of OS X and Windows.
You mean in the market place as a whole, or for individuals? Because, for many individuals, Mac OS can and has replaced Windows.
Really, without using any analogies whatsoever, you should provide some good reasons why Apple shouldn't have a $999 tower. It doesn't make any business sense for Apple not to offer a version of the most popular desktop configuration in the market.
1) You have no idea what I'm even commenting on do you?
You said:
"High quality in a car is expensive to achieve. For Audi to offer cheaper alternatives, they'd have to sacrifice a lot of their quality, and then what's the point of buying the resulting car, rather than a competitor's?"
As if that's even true.
What do you think audi offers that other companies do not? A special name for the shifting gears? Other than that, essentally any option you can name can and has been offered by another company.
Claiming that somehow an audi really is THAT much more expensive to produce is complete bullshit.
You're paying for a name mostly. Hmmm reminds me of a certain computer company.
2) You said:
"Bloody hell, that's even worse than a straight car analogy. The point of cars and planes is very different, there is very, very little overlap (there are very few journeys that people make by car that they would consider making by plane instead and visa versa). There is far, far more overlap in the capabilities of OS X and Windows."
Technically, um not they aren't, all vehichles serve the same 2-3 purposes.
Secondly I think it was pretty damn obvious I wasn't speaking in a realistic sense. I was saying imagine(being the key word here) audi made personal planes that were expected to replace cars. And if they did would cars really all be replaced.
The point of that "imagined tale" was to say that no matter what else was there and what it costed the market would not immediately change.
For TWO reasons:
1. The difference between cars and planes would scare people.
2. Audi would be ONE manufacturer making planes in a sea of car manufacturers, they could never own the market because of the sheer unification of other companies.
Now since you couldn't extrapolate that I will break it down for you.
1. Apple machines do not come with windows, that's scares people.
2. Apple is ONE computer company offering OSX vs a bajillion different pc vendors.
There is no possible way apple could own all the marketshare irregardless of what the f*** they build.
3) You said:
" You mean in the market place as a whole, or for individuals? Because, for many individuals, Mac OS can and has replaced Windows.
Really, without using any analogies whatsoever, you should provide some good reasons why Apple shouldn't have a $999 tower. It doesn't make any business sense for Apple not to offer a version of the most popular desktop configuration in the market."
The MARKETPLACE.
Fine no analogies(I didn't start them I used them because they seem so popular with you guys).
I personally would like a 999-1500 tower, I have said this a hundred times.
Apple does NOT offer one because people that are switching do not seem to need them. It wasn't a successful market segment in the past and like chucker said would allow its self to be competeting with other companies offerings right away.
Look at places like cnet they have "which is the best laptop" and list the macbook among other vendors offerings. When they say "which is the best desktop" the imac stands out because it's drastically different. A tower wouldn't it'd blend right in, apple doesn't want that, they want their products to be as different and interesting as possible because when they offered the middle ground idea they got stomped. And no matter what they make they'd never take a lot of the market.
One bitten, twice shy.
Personally I think they're in a good enough position now to afford the loss a mid-range tower might give them if it weren't successful, were as it was too risky in the past.
So to sumarize for the millionth time, I would be the first in line for one but I'm merely showing the other side the arguement and why apple is most likely afraid to do it.
You gotta give it to the "OMG HEADLESS" folks; they're persistent.
And legion. 8)
Vinea:
You say many times that "Apple is executing well". Indeed, overall, Apple are doing very well. But apart from the last 12 months or so, Apple have lost market share every single year since 1996. Apple are executing well when it comes to iPods, iTunes and portables. But in the desktop space, I absolutely reject the notion that Apple is "executing well". There is a massive, gaping whole in their lineup which serves to totally ignore the market's most popular desktop configuration, and that doesn't make any business sense at all.
It seems we are arguing in circles (which is why I kinda bowed out) but I did want to pipe back in on this one statement.
Yes, I do believe that Apple is executing well on desktops. Both the mini and apparently the pro has transitioned from PPC to Intel more or less seamlessly. Whenever you transition architectures this smoothly you are executing well in my book.
Given that their desktops now have performance parity with the PC world I think the desktops should do a little better.
Is there a massive gaping hole in their lineup? Yes and no. Yes, there is no mid-tower in the 1500-2000 range. No, Apple feels that the AIO iMac is the product they wish to position there. There STILL might be a low end Mac Pro in that price point with a Conroe and who knows, even a cube resurrected.
/shrug.
I'm willing to wait a quarter or two to see how the new desktops shake out. I don't think its the end of the world that a mid-tower isn't in their lineup.
Vinea
PS regarding market share and software development - I don't think the situation is worsening with the exception of Microsoft pulling VBA from Office. I think with Parallels (and similar solution) the situation for interoperability with Windows improves. You wont be able to game but I'm going to bet it will always be able to run Office.
So? Are you gonna tell Ferrari to make cheaper cars because you can't find any alternative that uses a Ferrari engine?
lmao... That's one of the most ridiculous retorts I've ever read. Thanks.
/drdaz
Is there a massive gaping hole in their lineup? Yes and no. Yes, there is no mid-tower in the 1500-2000 range. No, Apple feels that the AIO iMac is the product they wish to position there.
And they will never get much more than 5% because of it no matter how much better they are than Microsoft.
So? Are you gonna tell Ferrari to make cheaper cars because you can't find any alternative that uses a Ferrari engine?
No, it'd be more like Ferrari making a hydrogen engine and not letting anyone else have it. In the end everyone loses except the oil companies (aka Microsoft).
Bloody heck, yall people are getting straight goofy! undenyable, irrefutable fact number one:
THE MARKET IS NOT A PIE
the concept of "Stealing Sales" is utter rubbish. Quit talking nonsense. To assume that sales could be stolen is to adopt an illogical and false postulate that there are a limited number of sales available in the first place. I mean COME ON, you can't limit the number of possible sales to ANY limiting factor. Not even the human population is a reasonable limit, since, as well all know, ANY French Poodle who is ANYBODY just HAS to have an iMac!
Seriously though, the concept of limited available sales is silly. Apple can NOT force consumers to buy the computers it sells. The economy works in the oposite way. The market dictates what any particular company will manufacture. PEOPLE DO NOT BUY WHAT THEY DON'T WANT. Yes, I'm aware of buyer's remorse.
There's nothing mystical or majikal about the iMac. It's just an innovative computer which has had great success in it's time. Just like any successful product. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF NOONE EVER BUYS ANOTHER IMAC, because, believe it or not, Apple IS capable of producing computers other than the iMac. iMac had a major part in Apple turning itself around a few years ago, and as a result, many of us have lost our grip on reality, and have begun to believe, "The iMac saved Apple!" rather than seeing the truth of, "Apple saved itself with iMac!"
ok, I could rant for much longer on this, but I don't feel like it, so
#include <rant.h>
And Chucker, you're clearly an intelligent person, and one who gives the world of technology a great deal of thought. Which is why I am absolutely flabbergasted by the imaturity and illogical nature of some of your posts.
So lets all try an exercise right now. Everyone must participate, or your left eyebrow will fall off. Here it is: Everone reflect on all the posts you have ever made, all the arguments you have ever presented. Good, now, in unison, everybody say with me,
"It's OK for me to be wrong!"
Ahhh, now wasn't that nice? Relieved a lot of stress I think.
Hopefully now we can get this thread back into the realm of DISCUSSION and away from 3rd grade arguments of, "Nuh uh! I didn't say it so it's not right, so there, PBBBBBBBBTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!"
<dives into foxhole>