So what pray tell makes a Mac tower or any mac such a necessity in your life if you aren't a professional user (of any kind) that needs software that is exclusively Mac?
Quote:
]Except that most potential switchers are used to being able to get expansion abilities even in machines cheaper than the $@#%ing Mini.
Which brings us back to the perception that some folks are complaining that Apples should be priced like Dells.
/shrug
A $1600 low end Mac Pro fills the need for a lower priced tower but won't come close to meeting the desire for a switcher wanting expansion in a machine priced like a Mini (or less).
Quote:
For most desktop users, no expansion cheaper than $2124 means no sale. No sale means no market share for Apple. It's that simple.
Apple is seeking market share in the laptop market which is a growth segment rather than the desktop that some analysts feel is a declining market. iMacs using notebook components may decrease Apple's cost in building laptops despite selling fewer notebooks overall than Dell with much cheaper notebooks. That might be the only compelling reason to go Merom over Conroe in the next rev iMac but I doubt Apple will do that. Sales of the iMac may suffer too much from the performance hit.
Nothing is "that simple".
Quote:
A $1000 tower isn't nearly as extravagant a purchase as a $2200 tower, no matter what your income level is.
Please. If you can't see that a $1000 computer is an extravagant purchase for someone living on minium wage (and not living home with mom and dad) you've never been vaguely poor.
Quote:
Condescending much?
Only to folks that equate a Mac tower to a basic necessity and whine that you need to win the lottery to afford a Mac Pro which is comparatively inexpensive as a Mac tower from a historical basis. $1600 in 1995 is roughly equivalent to $2000 in 2005 (using various mechanisms compute inflation like CPI, GDP, etc).
Needs or wants? I can say I need a 22 year old blond supermodel for "expansion". My wife will say I need a lot more $$$ or look like Brad Pitt to trade up.
Since when is talking about something you want considered whining?
Eh, I consider it whining when most folks discussing the topic have agreed that a $1600 tower is a Good Thing and should be offered in Apple's line up (some day soon but not likely by Paris) but some folks have moved to the OMG Apple suxxors because they don't have a $999 tower today and will never gain share, are doomed, are executing poorly, are too expensive, etc.
I understand where certain people are coming from. Most people don't ever upgrade their machines. Most people would do perfectly fine with what Apple does offer.
I certainly understand your point but much of it seems to be a perception issue which can be mitigated by marketing rather than changing your lineup (perhaps with unintended serious consequences). It (perception of branding vs sice) is also susceptible to the iPod halo effect.
With your friend you might say that a mac mini (or iMac) is more like a diamond which is a compressed lump of coal while a low cost tower is more like...a lump of coal.
Seems to me that all this talk about low-end, high-end, what people want, what people actually need, whining versus discussing is missing the main point. That Apple has stated they wish to increase market share. If you take them at their word, then Apple needs to identify that additional market segment that best fits their desire for more market share. If I were responsible for this at Apple, it's what I would do.
Business is out of the question. Apple appears to have settled on the laptop 1 to 1 for schools. Enterprise is a very hard nut to crack, although the new xServes seem a good value no matter what operating system they end up running, but with minimal effect on market share, especially since they aren't even desktop computers.
That more or less leaves the consumer. I think that everyone would agree that Apple currently couldn't come close to its' current margins in the low-end box, effectively eliminating this market. That leaves only the mid to upper end consumer market.
What do these people expect in a computer? I say, based on the Windows models currently being sold they expect some expansion capability, whether they need/use it or not. Also, based on the competitive price points of Apple's current line up, I contend that Apple can maintain their current margins with a mid to upper end consumer desktop(re: $799 - $1299+).
Will Apple go out of business if they don't more aggressively go after additional sales, no, of course not. But then all their comments about increasing market share becomes only baseless posturing. I happen to think that Apple executives do intend to capture market share and will introduce a headless xMac and would expect it before Vista ships. But that's just me.
Think about it. The current towers Apple offers are less expensive than the competition and are undoubtedly Workstations. That leaves a gapping whole between the email web surfing Mac mini and useful eye catching iMac, which are targeting small niche markets.
I'll repeat some one else's statement. "Apple, pull the trigger". This opportunity will not last, mind share with iPod, Vista delays, consumer frustration with Microsoft.
I say, based on the Windows models currently being sold they expect some expansion capability, whether they need/use it or not.
AND:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Quote:
most home users don't really want expansion, or can be talked out of it.
Uh huh, that's why the vast, vast majority of desktop computers sold are expandable towers.
No, actually, that's NOT why the vast, vast majority of Windows models currently being sold are expandable towers. The REAL reason is because they are EASY and CHEAP to assemble. You get a generic case, you slap components into it and you sell it as an OEM machine. In fact, it's nothing better than what any halfway computer-savvy could build off of NewEgg. That's why they're so cheap, and that's why they sell those instead of building computers that actually have to be designed (i.e. spending money to make sure that consumer needs are met). Don't fool yourself into thinking Dell is doing market feedback analysis and finding that people actually like those beasts for a practical reason.
(Just look at the laptops they build. Even those are hardly better...)
In fact the market segment that conciously chooses these machines for some practical, realistic upgradability issue is very small as has been mentioned. The rest of people buying them is just because that's what is available and what is cheap.
No, actually, that's NOT why the vast, vast majority of Windows models currently being sold are expandable towers. The REAL reason is because they are EASY and CHEAP to assemble. You get a generic case, you slap components into it and you sell it as an OEM machine. In fact, it's nothing better than what any halfway computer-savvy could build off of NewEgg. That's why they're so cheap, and that's why they sell those instead of building computers that actually have to be designed (i.e. spending money to make sure that consumer needs are met). Don't fool yourself into thinking Dell is doing market feedback analysis and finding that people actually like those beasts for a practical reason.
(Just look at the laptops they build. Even those are hardly better...)
In fact the market segment that conciously chooses these machines for some practical, realistic upgradability issue is very small as has been mentioned. The rest of people buying them is just because that's what is available and what is cheap.
Quote:
ApplePi
For instance I asked a friend of mine lately if she would use a mac. She said yes it makes no difference to her if it was a mac or a PC. So I asked why she doesn't use a mac instead. She said they were too expensive. Well there is the Mac Mini that's only $600, have you seen that I said. She said she had but she doesn't want a little cube thing. That's exactly what she said and how she described it. And she's not a computer person. If something goes wrong with her current PC tower she's going to come to me or this other guy she knows to fix it. She's definitely not the type to play around on the inside or require anything more then a mini could offer her. But I can only guess (note the word guess) that in her mind it's about feeling like she's getting more for her money with a tower. Just by the way she worded it to me.
Rinse and repeat millions of times a year. Your statement "the market segment that conciously chooses these machines for some practical, realistic upgradability issue is very small as has been mentioned" is completely right, but it is what they expect in a computer. Otherwise, the AIO or the Mac mini clone from AOpen in the Windows world would sell more. And the AIO still exists in the Windows world, why, because enough sell to make selling them worthwhile, just like the iMac sells. It just happens to be a niche market product appealing to a relatively small % of people that use Windows.
However, your statement "The rest of people buying them is just because that's what is available and what is cheap." is wrong when considering a $799 - $1299+ computer in the mid to upper end consumer products.
So the options for someone who wants an expandable computer are:
1. Work a second job (or a third job if you're already working 2 jobs), take the corresponding hit to your health/sanity if you're already swamped with work, all in order to buy a computer about 1,000 times more powerful than you need
2. Just go to Dell where just about every desktop they have is expandable, including cheap crap starting at $350
Now, which of these choices do you really think your average consumer is going to choose?!
Yeah that's it exactly. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Otherwise, the AIO or the Mac mini clone from AOpen in the Windows world would sell more. And the AIO still exists in the Windows world, why, because enough sell to make selling them worthwhile, just like the iMac sells. It just happens to be a niche market product appealing to a relatively small % of people that use Windows.
They don't sell more because 1) They look like crap, 2) Don't fulfill the needs of customers the way Apple's AIO do, and/or 3) Are more expensive than similarly specced towers (because towers don't need any R&D money).
So yes, the only people who buy them in the Windows world have some other agenda- many times just trying to look "innovative."
At some point folks need to realize that to some degree Apple wants to be a premium brand.
Apple isn't looking to switch the WALMART crowd over.
They don't want to sell $400 laptops with a 3-5% profit margin.
These are not the kind of customers you want to build your business on.
People who buy $400 laptops will still not be happy they will always want one more thing for FREE.
They will spend hundreds of hours on tech support lines and 1 day before their warranty runs out demand that they get a replacement because their current machine is a lemon.
Seems to me that all this talk about low-end, high-end, what people want, what people actually need, whining versus discussing is missing the main point. That Apple has stated they wish to increase market share. If you take them at their word, then Apple needs to identify that additional market segment that best fits their desire for more market share. If I were responsible for this at Apple, it's what I would do.
IMHO they wish to increase market share on their terms...which presently appear to include AIOs taking a prominent role in their desktop lineup...not increase share at all costs.
The most likely addition to the lineup is a cheaper Mac Pro and an upgraded Mac Mini into a media center Mini. Both would help close that perceived desktop gap without a mid-tower.
Eh, I consider it whining when most folks discussing the topic have agreed that a $1600 tower is a Good Thing and should be offered in Apple's line up (some day soon but not likely by Paris) . . .
That's strange. My impression is that when a mini tower is mentioned many say it will destroy other Mac sales because it must sell cheap with low profit margin.
Quote:
. . . but some folks have moved to the OMG Apple suxxors because they don't have a $999 tower today and will never gain share, are doomed, are executing poorly, are too expensive, etc. . .
Maybe one or two, but I believe most of us are pretty upbeat. Regarding Apple executing poorly? I said this before -- they are executing fine, but just not building the right product.
At some point folks need to realize that to some degree Apple wants to be a premium brand.
Apple isn't looking to switch the WALMART crowd over. . .
What is not Premium about an Apple designed, Mac mini tower that starts at $999, which is its lowest and cheapest configuration? Such a Mac isn't going to interest the $400 shoppers.
The most likely addition to the lineup is a cheaper Mac Pro...
That's exactly what I've been asking for.
Mac pro dual
2.4ghz Core 2 Duo-$316
P965~$150
1gb (2x512) DDR2 DIMM $120
Absolute top the line 500w power supply $100
Total $686
Mac Pro quad
2x2.66 Xeon 5100-$1380
5000x~$500
1gb (2x512) DDR2 FB-DIMM $200
1000w power supply $350
total 2430
difference $1744
Granted this isn't exactly scientific and Apple isn't pay even close to these same prices, but, like I said before, because of material cost differences A conroe Mac Pro would be much, much cheaper. A Core 2 Duo using the same type of margins is very possible for $1499. The margin might actually be a little more.
Granted this isn't exactly scientific and Apple isn't pay even close to these same prices, but, like I said before, because of material cost differences A conroe Mac Pro would be much, much cheaper. A Core 2 Duo using the same type of margins is very possible for $1499. The margin might actually be a little more.
So we're essentially arguing about $200 between a $1699 Mac Pro Dual which I agree is likely and a $1499 Mac Pro Dual which I think is less likely?
They don't sell more because 1) They look like crap,
Thanks for your subjective opinion. I remember many Mac fans describing the iMacs as ugly, or do you not remember the big chin analogies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
2) Don't fulfill the needs of customers the way Apple's AIO do
It does for the people who buy them. Wish I could scrounge up the sales figures for the Windows AIO computers. Wonder if it is the 1% - 2% range that Apple's version is hovering at? I honestly don't know, but might be a very revealing statistic, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
3) ...... (because towers don't need any R&D money)
For manufacturers like Dell, Gateway and HP, this statement is patently false. Each of these manufacturers test the components for their towers and make decisions accordingly. I don't know if the AIOs do in fact cost more than similarly spec.'d towers and if they are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why. Oh heck, I will: On a side note, I have read where Apple is squeezing the most they can from the Mac faithful to maintain high margins, maybe that's the reasoning in the Windows AIOs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
So yes, the only people who buy them in the Windows world have some other agenda- many times just trying to look "innovative."
I doubt that and will not assign an "agenda" to people who bought them, other than to say they bought them because they liked them and felt it met there needs(perceived or real). And heaven forbid they actually find them visually appealing.
IMHO they wish to increase market share on their terms...which presently appear to include AIOs taking a prominent role in their desktop lineup...not increase share at all costs.
....
Vinea
Their terms aren't working and haven't been working for years for desktops. Like I've said, and other people have said, it is easier to sell people what they want rather than educate them in what Apple believes they need. A lot easier. A whole lot easier. A whole heck of a lot easier.
So we're essentially arguing about $200 between a $1699 Mac Pro Dual which I agree is likely and a $1499 Mac Pro Dual which I think is less likely?
So why even talk about a $686 Mac pro dual?
Vinea
$686 is retail costs for said parts. Do you ever try to comprehend what other people write or jsut dismiss everything off hand because it doesn't come out of Steve's mouth?
For manufacturers like Dell, Gateway and HP, this statement is patently false. Each of these manufacturers test the components for their towers and make decisions accordingly. I don't know if the AIOs do in fact cost more than similarly spec.'d towers and if they are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why. Oh heck, I will: On a side note, I have read where Apple is squeezing the most they can from the Mac faithful to maintain high margins, maybe that's the reasoning in the Windows AIOs?
I would not say that it is patently false. The whole point of R&D is Research & Development. Testing components and seeing which ones work best is part of Development. There is no Research on their part. The list of Apple Researched items is too large just to fit on this post, but include my favorites:
Comments
The difference between a 1600 imac and 2100 Mac Pro
Is $500 and a monitor.
Sounds like you assume everyone uses their computers exactly as you do.
So you're saying that if the Mac Pro was magically $1600 or $999 the machine would suck and not be suitable for you? Because it would be "overkill"?
Vinea
Uh, no it's not.
Nu-uh...is so.
So what pray tell makes a Mac tower or any mac such a necessity in your life if you aren't a professional user (of any kind) that needs software that is exclusively Mac?
]Except that most potential switchers are used to being able to get expansion abilities even in machines cheaper than the $@#%ing Mini.
Which brings us back to the perception that some folks are complaining that Apples should be priced like Dells.
/shrug
A $1600 low end Mac Pro fills the need for a lower priced tower but won't come close to meeting the desire for a switcher wanting expansion in a machine priced like a Mini (or less).
For most desktop users, no expansion cheaper than $2124 means no sale. No sale means no market share for Apple. It's that simple.
Apple is seeking market share in the laptop market which is a growth segment rather than the desktop that some analysts feel is a declining market. iMacs using notebook components may decrease Apple's cost in building laptops despite selling fewer notebooks overall than Dell with much cheaper notebooks. That might be the only compelling reason to go Merom over Conroe in the next rev iMac but I doubt Apple will do that. Sales of the iMac may suffer too much from the performance hit.
Nothing is "that simple".
A $1000 tower isn't nearly as extravagant a purchase as a $2200 tower, no matter what your income level is.
Please. If you can't see that a $1000 computer is an extravagant purchase for someone living on minium wage (and not living home with mom and dad) you've never been vaguely poor.
Condescending much?
Only to folks that equate a Mac tower to a basic necessity and whine that you need to win the lottery to afford a Mac Pro which is comparatively inexpensive as a Mac tower from a historical basis. $1600 in 1995 is roughly equivalent to $2000 in 2005 (using various mechanisms compute inflation like CPI, GDP, etc).
http://eh.net/hmit/
Good for you. Some people's needs are different.
Needs or wants? I can say I need a 22 year old blond supermodel for "expansion". My wife will say I need a lot more $$$ or look like Brad Pitt to trade up.
Vinea
Since when is talking about something you want considered whining?
Eh, I consider it whining when most folks discussing the topic have agreed that a $1600 tower is a Good Thing and should be offered in Apple's line up (some day soon but not likely by Paris) but some folks have moved to the OMG Apple suxxors because they don't have a $999 tower today and will never gain share, are doomed, are executing poorly, are too expensive, etc.
Macs are expensive? The surprise!
Vinea
I understand where certain people are coming from. Most people don't ever upgrade their machines. Most people would do perfectly fine with what Apple does offer.
I certainly understand your point but much of it seems to be a perception issue which can be mitigated by marketing rather than changing your lineup (perhaps with unintended serious consequences). It (perception of branding vs sice) is also susceptible to the iPod halo effect.
With your friend you might say that a mac mini (or iMac) is more like a diamond which is a compressed lump of coal while a low cost tower is more like...a lump of coal.
Vinea
Nu-uh...is so.
My wife will say I need a lot more $$$ or look like Brad Pitt to trade up.
Vinea
Business is out of the question. Apple appears to have settled on the laptop 1 to 1 for schools. Enterprise is a very hard nut to crack, although the new xServes seem a good value no matter what operating system they end up running, but with minimal effect on market share, especially since they aren't even desktop computers.
That more or less leaves the consumer. I think that everyone would agree that Apple currently couldn't come close to its' current margins in the low-end box, effectively eliminating this market. That leaves only the mid to upper end consumer market.
What do these people expect in a computer? I say, based on the Windows models currently being sold they expect some expansion capability, whether they need/use it or not. Also, based on the competitive price points of Apple's current line up, I contend that Apple can maintain their current margins with a mid to upper end consumer desktop(re: $799 - $1299+).
Will Apple go out of business if they don't more aggressively go after additional sales, no, of course not. But then all their comments about increasing market share becomes only baseless posturing. I happen to think that Apple executives do intend to capture market share and will introduce a headless xMac and would expect it before Vista ships. But that's just me.
Think about it. The current towers Apple offers are less expensive than the competition and are undoubtedly Workstations. That leaves a gapping whole between the email web surfing Mac mini and useful eye catching iMac, which are targeting small niche markets.
I'll repeat some one else's statement. "Apple, pull the trigger". This opportunity will not last, mind share with iPod, Vista delays, consumer frustration with Microsoft.
I say, based on the Windows models currently being sold they expect some expansion capability, whether they need/use it or not.
AND:
most home users don't really want expansion, or can be talked out of it.
Uh huh, that's why the vast, vast majority of desktop computers sold are expandable towers.
No, actually, that's NOT why the vast, vast majority of Windows models currently being sold are expandable towers. The REAL reason is because they are EASY and CHEAP to assemble. You get a generic case, you slap components into it and you sell it as an OEM machine. In fact, it's nothing better than what any halfway computer-savvy could build off of NewEgg. That's why they're so cheap, and that's why they sell those instead of building computers that actually have to be designed (i.e. spending money to make sure that consumer needs are met). Don't fool yourself into thinking Dell is doing market feedback analysis and finding that people actually like those beasts for a practical reason.
(Just look at the laptops they build. Even those are hardly better...)
In fact the market segment that conciously chooses these machines for some practical, realistic upgradability issue is very small as has been mentioned. The rest of people buying them is just because that's what is available and what is cheap.
AND:
No, actually, that's NOT why the vast, vast majority of Windows models currently being sold are expandable towers. The REAL reason is because they are EASY and CHEAP to assemble. You get a generic case, you slap components into it and you sell it as an OEM machine. In fact, it's nothing better than what any halfway computer-savvy could build off of NewEgg. That's why they're so cheap, and that's why they sell those instead of building computers that actually have to be designed (i.e. spending money to make sure that consumer needs are met). Don't fool yourself into thinking Dell is doing market feedback analysis and finding that people actually like those beasts for a practical reason.
(Just look at the laptops they build. Even those are hardly better...)
In fact the market segment that conciously chooses these machines for some practical, realistic upgradability issue is very small as has been mentioned. The rest of people buying them is just because that's what is available and what is cheap.
ApplePi
For instance I asked a friend of mine lately if she would use a mac. She said yes it makes no difference to her if it was a mac or a PC. So I asked why she doesn't use a mac instead. She said they were too expensive. Well there is the Mac Mini that's only $600, have you seen that I said. She said she had but she doesn't want a little cube thing. That's exactly what she said and how she described it. And she's not a computer person. If something goes wrong with her current PC tower she's going to come to me or this other guy she knows to fix it. She's definitely not the type to play around on the inside or require anything more then a mini could offer her. But I can only guess (note the word guess) that in her mind it's about feeling like she's getting more for her money with a tower. Just by the way she worded it to me.
Rinse and repeat millions of times a year. Your statement "the market segment that conciously chooses these machines for some practical, realistic upgradability issue is very small as has been mentioned" is completely right, but it is what they expect in a computer. Otherwise, the AIO or the Mac mini clone from AOpen in the Windows world would sell more. And the AIO still exists in the Windows world, why, because enough sell to make selling them worthwhile, just like the iMac sells. It just happens to be a niche market product appealing to a relatively small % of people that use Windows.
However, your statement "The rest of people buying them is just because that's what is available and what is cheap." is wrong when considering a $799 - $1299+ computer in the mid to upper end consumer products.
So the options for someone who wants an expandable computer are:
1. Work a second job (or a third job if you're already working 2 jobs), take the corresponding hit to your health/sanity if you're already swamped with work, all in order to buy a computer about 1,000 times more powerful than you need
2. Just go to Dell where just about every desktop they have is expandable, including cheap crap starting at $350
Now, which of these choices do you really think your average consumer is going to choose?!
Yeah that's it exactly. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Otherwise, the AIO or the Mac mini clone from AOpen in the Windows world would sell more. And the AIO still exists in the Windows world, why, because enough sell to make selling them worthwhile, just like the iMac sells. It just happens to be a niche market product appealing to a relatively small % of people that use Windows.
They don't sell more because 1) They look like crap, 2) Don't fulfill the needs of customers the way Apple's AIO do, and/or 3) Are more expensive than similarly specced towers (because towers don't need any R&D money).
So yes, the only people who buy them in the Windows world have some other agenda- many times just trying to look "innovative."
Apple isn't looking to switch the WALMART crowd over.
They don't want to sell $400 laptops with a 3-5% profit margin.
These are not the kind of customers you want to build your business on.
People who buy $400 laptops will still not be happy they will always want one more thing for FREE.
They will spend hundreds of hours on tech support lines and 1 day before their warranty runs out demand that they get a replacement because their current machine is a lemon.
Apple doesn't want to go after these folks.
Seems to me that all this talk about low-end, high-end, what people want, what people actually need, whining versus discussing is missing the main point. That Apple has stated they wish to increase market share. If you take them at their word, then Apple needs to identify that additional market segment that best fits their desire for more market share. If I were responsible for this at Apple, it's what I would do.
IMHO they wish to increase market share on their terms...which presently appear to include AIOs taking a prominent role in their desktop lineup...not increase share at all costs.
The most likely addition to the lineup is a cheaper Mac Pro and an upgraded Mac Mini into a media center Mini. Both would help close that perceived desktop gap without a mid-tower.
Vinea
Eh, I consider it whining when most folks discussing the topic have agreed that a $1600 tower is a Good Thing and should be offered in Apple's line up (some day soon but not likely by Paris) . . .
That's strange. My impression is that when a mini tower is mentioned many say it will destroy other Mac sales because it must sell cheap with low profit margin.
. . . but some folks have moved to the OMG Apple suxxors because they don't have a $999 tower today and will never gain share, are doomed, are executing poorly, are too expensive, etc. . .
Maybe one or two, but I believe most of us are pretty upbeat. Regarding Apple executing poorly? I said this before -- they are executing fine, but just not building the right product.
At some point folks need to realize that to some degree Apple wants to be a premium brand.
Apple isn't looking to switch the WALMART crowd over. . .
What is not Premium about an Apple designed, Mac mini tower that starts at $999, which is its lowest and cheapest configuration? Such a Mac isn't going to interest the $400 shoppers.
The most likely addition to the lineup is a cheaper Mac Pro...
That's exactly what I've been asking for.
Mac pro dual
2.4ghz Core 2 Duo-$316
P965~$150
1gb (2x512) DDR2 DIMM $120
Absolute top the line 500w power supply $100
Total $686
Mac Pro quad
2x2.66 Xeon 5100-$1380
5000x~$500
1gb (2x512) DDR2 FB-DIMM $200
1000w power supply $350
total 2430
difference $1744
Granted this isn't exactly scientific and Apple isn't pay even close to these same prices, but, like I said before, because of material cost differences A conroe Mac Pro would be much, much cheaper. A Core 2 Duo using the same type of margins is very possible for $1499. The margin might actually be a little more.
That's exactly what I've been asking for.
...
Granted this isn't exactly scientific and Apple isn't pay even close to these same prices, but, like I said before, because of material cost differences A conroe Mac Pro would be much, much cheaper. A Core 2 Duo using the same type of margins is very possible for $1499. The margin might actually be a little more.
So we're essentially arguing about $200 between a $1699 Mac Pro Dual which I agree is likely and a $1499 Mac Pro Dual which I think is less likely?
So why even talk about a $686 Mac pro dual?
Vinea
They don't sell more because 1) They look like crap,
Thanks for your subjective opinion. I remember many Mac fans describing the iMacs as ugly, or do you not remember the big chin analogies.
2) Don't fulfill the needs of customers the way Apple's AIO do
It does for the people who buy them. Wish I could scrounge up the sales figures for the Windows AIO computers. Wonder if it is the 1% - 2% range that Apple's version is hovering at? I honestly don't know, but might be a very revealing statistic, no?
3) ...... (because towers don't need any R&D money)
For manufacturers like Dell, Gateway and HP, this statement is patently false. Each of these manufacturers test the components for their towers and make decisions accordingly. I don't know if the AIOs do in fact cost more than similarly spec.'d towers and if they are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why. Oh heck, I will: On a side note, I have read where Apple is squeezing the most they can from the Mac faithful to maintain high margins, maybe that's the reasoning in the Windows AIOs?
So yes, the only people who buy them in the Windows world have some other agenda- many times just trying to look "innovative."
I doubt that and will not assign an "agenda" to people who bought them, other than to say they bought them because they liked them and felt it met there needs(perceived or real). And heaven forbid they actually find them visually appealing.
IMHO they wish to increase market share on their terms...which presently appear to include AIOs taking a prominent role in their desktop lineup...not increase share at all costs.
....
Vinea
Their terms aren't working and haven't been working for years for desktops. Like I've said, and other people have said, it is easier to sell people what they want rather than educate them in what Apple believes they need. A lot easier. A whole lot easier. A whole heck of a lot easier.
So we're essentially arguing about $200 between a $1699 Mac Pro Dual which I agree is likely and a $1499 Mac Pro Dual which I think is less likely?
So why even talk about a $686 Mac pro dual?
Vinea
$686 is retail costs for said parts. Do you ever try to comprehend what other people write or jsut dismiss everything off hand because it doesn't come out of Steve's mouth?
For manufacturers like Dell, Gateway and HP, this statement is patently false. Each of these manufacturers test the components for their towers and make decisions accordingly. I don't know if the AIOs do in fact cost more than similarly spec.'d towers and if they are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why. Oh heck, I will: On a side note, I have read where Apple is squeezing the most they can from the Mac faithful to maintain high margins, maybe that's the reasoning in the Windows AIOs?
I would not say that it is patently false. The whole point of R&D is Research & Development. Testing components and seeing which ones work best is part of Development. There is no Research on their part. The list of Apple Researched items is too large just to fit on this post, but include my favorites:
MagSafe
Ambient Light Sensor
Scroll Ball (a.k.a. The Little Tit)
iMac enclosure (G3, G4, G5/Intel)