A $999 Conroe tower will have significant effects on iMac sales. The point is that if you introduce a $999 Conroe tower you might as well abandon AIOs as they simply wont sell in the volumes to make them worthwhile.
I don't get how you can go on and on and on about how great the iMac is and how well it suits people's needs but then also think that that a Conroe tower would destroy its sales. Either the iMac is fulfilling people's needs and wants, or it isn't - so which is it Vinea?
The iMac and a Mini Tower appeal to different people and it seems like you are one of two or three people in this thread that don't get it.
The people to whom an iMac appeals to, on the most part are not interested in a tower. Potential switchers and Apple users who currently purchase exclusively second hand machines (and I'm sure that's a very significant number of people) are much more interested in a Mini Tower.
You haven't explained your justification for believing that the only thing that a Mini Tower would do is cannibalise sales of the iMac rather than:
1.) Bring more people to the platform.
2.) Encourage current Mac users who normally buy second hand Apple towers to buy new instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The one where you whined about my using a car example but didn't when a_greer did the same thing and in fact I was responding to his car example at the time.
What, I have to whinge every time someone makes a car analogy? I thought I made it pretty clear that car analogies don't work. No one should use car analogies in the Apple Vs. Everyone Else In The Computer Market debate, because niche car makers are in a very different position to Apple and the car market is very different to the computer market.
Given the fact that there's no way that Apple could build a computer with the Mac Pro's specs for $999, this is really a moot point, isn't it?
Nope, like the classic hooker joke, now we're just arguing about price.
Quote:
Well, how about a graphic artist? He needs to use apps like Photoshop, 3D rendering software, and other artsy things, so he's going to want more power than the Core Solo in the Mac mini provides, but not necessarily quad-core. He'll also want a dedicated graphics card since his whole business is dealing with graphics. He's got a nice, big monitor already which he wants to use, so the iMac is out. Also, he doesn't have the money to replace the whole computer if the USB ports happen to fail on his machine. So what he needs is a mid-range machine with some basic expansion capabilities, but as an art major, he may not have $2200 just to throw around.
A graphic artist is a pro user is she not? And why are you comparing against a Core Solo Mini anyway and not an iMac that would have a dedicated graphics and currently Core Duo and we expect Conroe. And her big monitor can still be used. A student might be better off with a MB or MBP...which is also usable with her monitor.
What "basic expansion" capability are you really losing with a $1299 iMac for an art major?
Quote:
Also: If someone uses a computer for their job and is on a tight budget, he may prefer a $999 mini-tower over a $600 mini.
Sure. But a $999 mini-tower destroys the $1299/$1699 AIO iMac. As far as replacement cycles it depends on the details. A $600 mini every two years is likely better than a $999 mini-tower every 4 even if its $200 more expensive.
Quote:
Furthermore, if his USB ports blow out, or if some hypothetical USB 3.0 or Serial ATA or some other standard becomes necessary for him to use some peripheral he needs for his job, he can add a $100 card instead of buying a new $600 machine. In doing so, he just saved $500.
Or he waits a few months until his replacement cycle is up and gets the new feature in the next mini even further reducing the $200 difference by $100.
Quote:
The desktop market is declining slightly because the desktop users who don't need expansion have been discovering the laptop market. The desktop market is still huge, and consists of the people who do need expansion. Apple could grow much more market share if they would gain market share in both the laptop and desktop markets. This seems fairly intuitive to me...
Sure, if you ignore the fact that the CEO is idealistic you can make the determination that increasing market share at the expense of vision is a good thing. On the other hand the guy seem to like the AIO and would you rather have ANOTHER guy at the helm despite Steve's quirks?
Quote:
Huh? When was I talking about the iMac or what processor it uses?
You were saying the situation was "simple" and I was pointing out the synergy effects of the AIO sales with respect to driving down part cost for laptops because they use some of the same components. So nothing is as simple as it might look.
We know that desktop market is in decline for whatever reason so the players have to compete harder for a smaller market but the laptop market is growing.
Do you prefer to have the best price advantage in the desktop or laptop arena? If you could use your desktop sales to reduce your laptop costs is that a win despite smaller desktop sales? That's the only reason I can think of for iMacs to go merom over conroe is to get better unit costs on mobile chips from intel.
Quote:
WTF? What I said was: "A $1000 tower isn't nearly as extravagant a purchase as a $2200 tower, no matter what your income level is."
IOW, no matter how extravagant a $1000 tower is to you, a $2200 tower is far, far worse.
I'm not sure how you can argue with this fact.
Simple. When both are so extravagent for that market that the difference is meaningless. For example, does it really matter to you the price difference between an $11M Gulfstream G100 and a $19M Gulfstream G200? Or a $10,000 watch and a $20,000 watch? It sure doesn't to me. I can maybe afford a $10,000 watch but I have no business buying one and I don't care how much better the user interface and ergonomics are in comparison to the watches I do own.
I don't get how you can go on and on and on about how great the iMac is and how well it suits people's needs but then also think that that a Conroe tower would destroy its sales. Either the iMac is fulfilling people's needs and wants, or it isn't - so which is it Vinea?
Neither. You keep claiming that I have a reading comprehension problem but I keep stating that Apple likes AIOs, likely for idealist reasons. Its Steve driven, not Vinea driven.
I personally don't care for AIOs and I've stated that a few times already.
Quote:
The iMac and a Mini Tower appeal to different people and it seems like you are one of two or three people in this thread that don't get it.
You only believe I don't get it because you would prefer to put strawman arguments up.
I think most folk buying $1200 17" iMacs would respond favorably to a $999 elegantly designed mini-tower and find a $200 monitor somewhere else. Likewise 20" iMac purchasers and a $699 20" ACD (or bump the price and get a 23" ACD).
Quote:
The people to whom an iMac appeals to, on the most part are not interested in a tower. Potential switchers and Apple users who currently purchase exclusively second hand machines (and I'm sure that's a very significant number of people) are much more interested in a Mini Tower.
Your allies disagree and point to the fact that the majority of computer users prefer towers and many iMac purchasers lack a choice in the mid range or they'd buy towers as well.
Quote:
You haven't explained your justification for believing that the only thing that a Mini Tower would do is cannibalise sales of the iMac rather than:
That's because I never said the ONLY thing that a mini-tower would do is cannibalize iMac sales.
Quote:
1.) Bring more people to the platform.
I only question how many. If you could show 3 for 1 then you could perhaps convince Steve...but I think its hard to guarantee that many. 3 for 2 breaks even and given the loyalty to the AIO design I don't think that will move Apple to do so.
Quote:
2.) Encourage current Mac users who normally buy second hand Apple towers to buy new instead.
From the perspective of installed base this is kind of a good thing. It means the market for 3rd party products remain higher and this insulates Apple a bit from your contention that Apple would have too little installed base to attract enough developers.
Quote:
What, I have to whinge every time someone makes a car analogy? I thought I made it pretty clear that car analogies don't work. No one should use car analogies in the Apple Vs. Everyone Else In The Computer Market debate, because niche car makers are in a very different position to Apple and the car market is very different to the computer market.
No, you simply have to NOT whinge when someone responds to a car analogy right after you agree with that analogy without saying boo. Its not as if I brought it up in the first place but merely responded in the same vein. Hardly requires any patience from any reasonable individual.
I also do not agree with your assertion that OSX lack sufficient mass to maintain a healthy developer base even as a niche OS.
What, I have to whinge every time someone makes a car analogy? I thought I made it pretty clear that car analogies don't work. No one should use car analogies in the Apple Vs. Everyone Else In The Computer Market debate, because niche car makers are in a very different position to Apple and the car market is very different to the computer market.
I looked up the infamous "car analogy" post by a_greer, and it was this:
Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...
A totally different argument from the market-share argument you outlined. When people say car analogies suck, it's the "Apple has a low market share - so what, so does Mercedes" analogy they're talking about. It doesn't mean that any other analogy automatically sucks just because it happens to have a car in it.
Since it's already been demonstrated that Apple can achieve at least 28% margins on an elegant Conroe-based tower starting at $999, I don't know why we even have to talk about DELL.
It hasn't been demonstrated, its been asserted with quesitonable numbers.
What has been demonstrated is $800 white box conroes and $1100 Gateway conroes. Both of which typically do not run with 28% margins.
Quote:
I reckon DELL could sell a version of the proposed $999 Apple tower for $799. It's just that they've got a lot of Pentium Ds to shift right now. In 3 - 4 months, I reckon we'll see $799 Conroe towers from DELL.
In 3-4 months the situation is different from today and that's a 50% drop from current pricing (since they include a 19" monitor on many of their models).
A totally different argument from the market-share argument you outlined. When people say car analogies suck, it's the "Apple has a low market share - so what, so does Mercedes" analogy they're talking about. It doesn't mean that any other analogy automatically sucks just because it happens to have a car in it.
And why don't you look up what I wrote? Because I was responding using the same exact context in exactly the same way and never brought up market share.
Here, I did it for you:
Quote:
Ummm...that's like saying that Porsche needs to offer a pickup because you want one. You're lucky they offer you a high end SUV and soon a sedan. Even if they did offer a pickup it certainly wouldn't be cheap.
He's unhappy because not every manufacturer offers every kind of vehicle. If you're hung up on the Porsche label then I suppose Subaru doesn't really offer a full sized pickup either that I remember. Sedans, SUVs, station wagons and the Baja. None of which will tow a travel trailer either. OMG Subaru suxxors. They don't try to meet the needs of their consumers. Feh.
There's nothing wrong with car analogies vis a vis market share anyway but that's a different point. I picked Porsche because I was 99% sure they didn't have a pickup and I actually had to check if Subaru did or not. Oddly, Volvo does go directly from SUV to Semis or pretty close for towing...maybe there is something between XC90 and the VN430 but its not obvious on their site. Volvo suxxors too I guess.
Nope, like the classic hooker joke, now we're just arguing about price.
Quote:
A graphic artist is a pro user is she not?
By "pro user", I have obviously been referring to "the users that require Pro-level machines." Are we going to get into a semantics argument now? Oh joy!
Quote:
And why are you comparing against a Core Solo Mini anyway and not an iMac that would have a dedicated graphics and currently Core Duo and we expect Conroe. And her big monitor can still be used. A student might be better off with a MB or MBP...which is also usable with her monitor.
Because like I said, this hypothetical user already has a monitor she wants to use. That makes AIOs and laptops out of the question. Yes, I know you can connect an external monitor to those, but it's unwieldy and wastes a lot of desk space, plus you're paying for a monitor you're not using.
Quote:
What "basic expansion" capability are you really losing with a $1299 iMac for an art major?
Apparently you didn't read the text you quoted. Here it is again:
"Well, how about a graphic artist? He needs to use apps like Photoshop, 3D rendering software, and other artsy things, so he's going to want more power than the Core Solo in the Mac mini provides, but not necessarily quad-core. He'll also want a dedicated graphics card since his whole business is dealing with graphics. He's got a nice, big monitor already which he wants to use, so the iMac is out. Also, he doesn't have the money to replace the whole computer if the USB ports happen to fail on his machine. So what he needs is a mid-range machine with some basic expansion capabilities, but as an art major, he may not have $2200 just to throw around."
Basic expansion capabilities:
1. Ability to use whatever monitor
2. Ability to replace parts that fail without having to chuck the whole machine
3. Ability to upgrade the graphics card
Additionally, one thing I didn't mention
4. Ability to add a second hard drive for extra space or backup purposes
Quote:
Sure. But a $999 mini-tower destroys the $1299/$1699 AIO iMac. As far as replacement cycles it depends on the details. A $600 mini every two years is likely better than a $999 mini-tower every 4 even if its $200 more expensive.
No it's not, because the $999 mini-tower can do more and is more expandable, even four years later.
Quote:
Or he waits a few months until his replacement cycle is up and gets the new feature in the next mini even further reducing the $200 difference by $100.
What if the user ends up needing external SATA ports, but Steve decides the mini isn't worthy of that feature? Currently you'd have to spend $2124.
Quote:
Sure, if you ignore the fact that the CEO is idealistic you can make the determination that increasing market share at the expense of vision is a good thing. On the other hand the guy seem to like the AIO and would you rather have ANOTHER guy at the helm despite Steve's quirks?
Steve isn't completely inpermeable to reason. Everyone thought the Mac mini was a "no way in hell" sort of thing too.
Quote:
You were saying the situation was "simple" and I was pointing out the synergy effects of the AIO sales with respect to driving down part cost for laptops because they use some of the same components. So nothing is as simple as it might look.
Since the laptops are far outselling the iMac, I doubt that's too much of an issue.
Even as is, the iMac is probably destined to get Conroe next rev anyway.
Quote:
We know that desktop market is in decline for whatever reason so the players have to compete harder for a smaller market but the laptop market is growing.
40% of the whole market is huge and well worth going for. Right now Apple is less than 5% of the market, as a comparison.
Quote:
Simple. When both are so extravagent for that market that the difference is meaningless.
And if the $999 tower is just barely within your grasp, then the $2124 tower is still outside it. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.
And why don't you look up what I wrote? Because I was responding using the same exact context in exactly the same way and never brought up market share.
Sure thing, here's your quote:
Quote:
Ummm...that's like saying that Porsche needs to offer a pickup because you want one. You're lucky they offer you a high end SUV and soon a sedan. Even if they did offer a pickup it certainly wouldn't be cheap.
The problem with that is, the nature of the differences between the car and Mac market makes a_greer's argument stronger while it makes yours weaker. If you walked into a dealership and your only options were a Ford Ranger and a semi, and you were locked into the platform that this particular dealership monopolized so that you couldn't buy an appropriate vehicle from another dealership and still drive on the same roads, that would make your situation suck even more. Your analogy depends on the ability to buy a pickup from some company other than Porsche. If you could only buy Porsche vehicles to drive on the roads you need to drive on, then the situation in your analogy would suck very, very much for a consumer who needed a pickup.
As for a mini-tower killing off the iMac: I don't believe this would happen, but if the iMac is not capable of competing with a mini-tower, then that is the iMac's fault, not the mini-tower's. If simply adding a mini-tower would immediately kill the iMac, then maybe the iMac deserves to die. If you want to sell machines, you have to make machines that people want to buy. And I have an iMac.
I did not agree with the analogy. It was clear he was using a car analogy to try and convince me that Apple need a mid-range tower. I pointed out that actually, he didn't need to convince me of that. The fact he used a car analogy to try and convince me is neither here nor there.
One last time: I despise car analogies because the car and computer markets are not analogous.
1. If someone were to list the people who responded to this thread, then put them into one of two groups of favoring or opposing a Mac mini tower, what would be the percentage in favor? It seems to be about 50 percent. If this represents typical Mac users, 50 percent want a mini tower, and 50 percent are divided between, an iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, or resurrecting the Cube. Conclusion? The market for a Mac mini tower is there. If we consider switchers, who are known to prefer a mini tower, the demand is very great.
2. An old argument for why Macs cost more is that Apple has much higher R&D expenses. Now that Apple is using Intel chips, Apple's R&D is lower. Apple no longer needs to develop their own interface chip set. Apple can better compete with Windows computers.
3. Most of those who favor sticking with the Mac Mini and iMac want to have an upgradable graphics card. Once Apple pays for putting PCI-e on the board for a graphics card, the addition of slots for other cards is negligible. Just cost of the connectors, not much more. It make no economic sense not to take advantage of PCI-e unless Apple want to keep the case very small. That's a lot to pay for the ability to change out the graphics card, no?
Okay, these observation are from someone who doesn't know much about building computers, so I'd like to know whether I'm way off base or not.
You complain that a Mac Pro is overkill. So what? If the price is right who cares if its "overkill"...you're just arguing about price at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS
By "pro user", I have obviously been referring to "the users that require Pro-level machines." Are we going to get into a semantics argument now? Oh joy!
And equally obvious when we're talking about disposable income and expensive toys that when I exclude pro-users I mean everyone that might depend on a mac exclusively to make a living.
Someone who uses their computer for a living is a pro user regardless of whether they use a $999 conroe or a $2000 woodcrest.
Quote:
Basic expansion capabilities:
1. Ability to use whatever monitor
Possible. They don't have the ability to use two or more of any monitors but one certainly. It may be "annoying" but its doable.
Quote:
2. Ability to replace parts that fail without having to chuck the whole machine
That's called "applecare"
Quote:
3. Ability to upgrade the graphics card
Yes, this is one thing that you cannot do with a AIO, mini or laptop.
Quote:
Additionally, one thing I didn't mention
4. Ability to add a second hard drive for extra space or backup purposes
External drive, NAS, XRAID, etc.
Quote:
No it's not, because the $999 mini-tower can do more and is more expandable, even four years later.
What if the user ends up needing external SATA ports, but Steve decides the mini isn't worthy of that feature? Currently you'd have to spend $2124.
Odds are your total system performance with a late generation mini will exceed your 4 year old model tower. Would you like to compare an intel mini to a G4 tower?
Quote:
Steve isn't completely inpermeable to reason. Everyone thought the Mac mini was a "no way in hell" sort of thing too.
No one said he was...but you notice the mini doesn't threaten the iMac much.
Quote:
Since the laptops are far outselling the iMac, I doubt that's too much of an issue.
Even as is, the iMac is probably destined to get Conroe next rev anyway.
Probably but little factors do add up.
Quote:
And if the $999 tower is just barely within your grasp, then the $2124 tower is still outside it. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.
That's because you've never worked for minimum wage to pay the bills. A $999 tower is not "barely within your grasp". FOOD is barely within your grasp.
Give it a rest. The only thing the minimum wage comment was for is to show that if you want a Mac Pro its not all that horrendous an undertaking even for a student making minimum wage. Either way, its a luxury.
Questionable numbers huh? Well, actually, no one has questioned the numbers so far.
One person did try to argue that the 20" iMac has a "much cheaper" (they didn't put an actual number on it) LCD panel than the 20" Cinema Display, but this assertion was quickly refuted. I am sure the iMac and Cinema Display share the same panel, but the Cinema Display has a better backlight and probably slightly better panel-driving electronics.
If you think the numbers are questionable, why don't you quote my post and point out, in detail, with numbers, why it doesn't hold water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
What has been demonstrated is $800 white box conroes
Just to demonstrate how futile it is to use other companies' products to try and work out what Apple can do for a certain budget, have you noticed that not only is a Mac Pro cheaper, without any hand-waving, accounting for the "value" of OS X and iLife etc. etc. than the equivalent Dell, it is also cheaper than building a same-spec computer yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, because going from 4.3 percent to 4.6 percent is clearly a decline and not capturing share...
Hello? We are talking about desktops. That 4.6 is Apple's overall market share in the U.S. Apple's desktop market share has declined.
The problem with that is, the nature of the differences between the car and Mac market makes a_greer's argument stronger while it makes yours weaker. If you walked into a dealership and your only options were a Ford Ranger and a semi, and you were locked into the platform that this particular dealership monopolized so that you couldn't buy an appropriate vehicle from another dealership and still drive on the same roads, that would make your situation suck even more.
So? Its not like you're locked into the software road either. If the user wants to run Photoshop its on both XP and OSX.
Quote:
Your analogy depends on the ability to buy a pickup from some company other than Porsche. If you could only buy Porsche vehicles to drive on the roads you need to drive on, then the situation in your analogy would suck very, very much for a consumer who needed a pickup.
Software aren't roads either. Analogies will break down at some point but its fairly clear that simply being niche is not a death knell given that Apple has been niche for quite a while now.
The "poorness" of the analogy depends on the assumption that Apple will fall below critical mass for developers to develop software for it. However, its not a given that a niche manufacturer that still sells a million+ units a year is too small for a healthy software market. There may be segments less well served (say games) but not so much that its certain that Apple is unable to be both profitable and grow if it pursues quality and cachet over market share.
The artificial line in the sand that H uses (I think its 10% market share) ignores that there are plenty of developers willing to service the millions of installed base ESPECIALLY given that Apple targets certain demographics and uses.
Quote:
As for a mini-tower killing off the iMac: I don't believe this would happen, but if the iMac is not capable of competing with a mini-tower, then that is the iMac's fault, not the mini-tower's. If simply adding a mini-tower would immediately kill the iMac, then maybe the iMac deserves to die. If you want to sell machines, you have to make machines that people want to buy. And I have an iMac.
Steve seems to disagree. Perhaps he'll change his mind but the Mac has been a AIO since the beginning. Someone used to selling soft drinks might be more easily convinced to your point of view.
Questionable numbers huh? Well, actually, no one has actually questioned the numbers so far.
I believe I just did.
Quote:
If you think the numbers are questionable, why don't you quote my post and point out, in detail, with numbers, why it doesn't hold water.
They are questionable because you aren't an authoritative source with real part costs. You don't know Apple's discount on Yonahs vs Conroes. Combined they sell a lot of Yonahs. The Conroe volumes will be less than half their Yonah volumes. That's a difference of what? 1.2M/Qtr vs 0.5M/Qtr?
That makes your "-111 for a Conroe" assertion questionable. Kick this savings out and you suddenly don't have a $126 budget but a $15 budget to buy all the stuff you added.
Likewise you don't know what their exact panel costs are and what to deduct there.
Questionable.
Quote:
Just to demonstrate how futile it is to use other companies' products to try and work out what Apple can do for a certain budget, have you noticed that not only is a Mac Pro cheaper, without any hand-waving, accounting for the "value" of OS X and iLife etc. etc. than the equivalent Dell, it is also cheaper than building a same-spec computer yourself.
And Dell likely is carrying higher than 28% margins on the workstation that was compared. If you want to evaluate the cost of a conroe box then looking at other conroe boxes is a good start.
Quote:
Hello? We are talking about desktops. That 4.6 is Apple's overall market share in the U.S. Apple's desktop market share has declined.
There is no divergence in Apple saying they wish to increase market share and concentrating on doing so in the mobile vs desktop market. Both "Apple has gained share" and "Apple has lost desktop share" can be true.
Given the Yonah example you can argue that they are leveraging their 0.5M Yonah buys to decrease their laptop processor and chipset costs to capture larger share in the market they deem more competitive for Apple. If they could continue to sell a half million merom based desktops they might do that.
I dunno that it would hold at those levels though once the Conroes are out in quantity.
#2: You make the claim that Apple spends more on case design than Dell, In the case of the Mac Pro, Apple actually sells these towers at below Dell's price points. So if Apple spends more on case design, and this is a significant expense, then how can Apple beat Dell's pricing. Simply put, I doubt that your insistence on case design has any real significant effect on the selling price.[/QUOTE]
he is talking about different comps. such as the iMac, where the design is more expensive because of the form factor
You complain that a Mac Pro is overkill. So what? If the price is right who cares if its "overkill"...you're just arguing about price at that point.
Uh, the whole point is that the price isn't right!
Quote:
And equally obvious when we're talking about disposable income and expensive toys that when I exclude pro-users I mean everyone that might depend on a mac exclusively to make a living.
Someone who uses their computer for a living is a pro user regardless of whether they use a $999 conroe or a $2000 woodcrest.
Oh goody, it is a semantics argument.
So what was your point again?
Quote:
Possible. They don't have the ability to use two or more of any monitors but one certainly. It may be "annoying" but its doable.
It's not just annoying, it's a major PITA, and you still didn't address the fact that you're paying several hundred bucks for a screen you're not using.
Quote:
That's called "applecare"
AppleCare costs additional money each time that you extend it. Just putting a new USB card would cost less than even one extension of AppleCare.
Plus, if you have to send in your machine to the shop, you lose the use of it for the duration of time it takes you to get it back, and there's always the possibility that something lame will happen like the techs reformatting the hard drive.
Quote:
External drive, NAS, XRAID, etc.
Annoying and expensive. External drives are way more expensive than internal ones.
Quote:
Odds are your total system performance with a late generation mini will exceed your 4 year old model tower. Would you like to compare an intel mini to a G4 tower?
That's not even remotely a fair comparison. Going back to the G4 tower, you have not one, but two major processor switches, Moto to IBM and IBM to Intel. Add to this the fact that the G4 was doing badly even when it was new. I highly doubt there will be any more major transitions in the near future, and the processors will ramp up much more steadily.
Quote:
That's because you've never worked for minimum wage to pay the bills. A $999 tower is not "barely within your grasp". FOOD is barely within your grasp.
Quick question: How much money do you suppose I make as a shareware developer?
Quote:
Give it a rest. The only thing the minimum wage comment was for is to show that if you want a Mac Pro its not all that horrendous an undertaking even for a student making minimum wage. Either way, its a luxury.
A point which you completely undermined by pointing out that even $999 is a lot.
Comments
A $999 Conroe tower will have significant effects on iMac sales. The point is that if you introduce a $999 Conroe tower you might as well abandon AIOs as they simply wont sell in the volumes to make them worthwhile.
I don't get how you can go on and on and on about how great the iMac is and how well it suits people's needs but then also think that that a Conroe tower would destroy its sales. Either the iMac is fulfilling people's needs and wants, or it isn't - so which is it Vinea?
The iMac and a Mini Tower appeal to different people and it seems like you are one of two or three people in this thread that don't get it.
The people to whom an iMac appeals to, on the most part are not interested in a tower. Potential switchers and Apple users who currently purchase exclusively second hand machines (and I'm sure that's a very significant number of people) are much more interested in a Mini Tower.
You haven't explained your justification for believing that the only thing that a Mini Tower would do is cannibalise sales of the iMac rather than:
1.) Bring more people to the platform.
2.) Encourage current Mac users who normally buy second hand Apple towers to buy new instead.
The one where you whined about my using a car example but didn't when a_greer did the same thing and in fact I was responding to his car example at the time.
What, I have to whinge every time someone makes a car analogy? I thought I made it pretty clear that car analogies don't work. No one should use car analogies in the Apple Vs. Everyone Else In The Computer Market debate, because niche car makers are in a very different position to Apple and the car market is very different to the computer market.
Given the fact that there's no way that Apple could build a computer with the Mac Pro's specs for $999, this is really a moot point, isn't it?
Nope, like the classic hooker joke, now we're just arguing about price.
Well, how about a graphic artist? He needs to use apps like Photoshop, 3D rendering software, and other artsy things, so he's going to want more power than the Core Solo in the Mac mini provides, but not necessarily quad-core. He'll also want a dedicated graphics card since his whole business is dealing with graphics. He's got a nice, big monitor already which he wants to use, so the iMac is out. Also, he doesn't have the money to replace the whole computer if the USB ports happen to fail on his machine. So what he needs is a mid-range machine with some basic expansion capabilities, but as an art major, he may not have $2200 just to throw around.
A graphic artist is a pro user is she not? And why are you comparing against a Core Solo Mini anyway and not an iMac that would have a dedicated graphics and currently Core Duo and we expect Conroe. And her big monitor can still be used. A student might be better off with a MB or MBP...which is also usable with her monitor.
What "basic expansion" capability are you really losing with a $1299 iMac for an art major?
Also: If someone uses a computer for their job and is on a tight budget, he may prefer a $999 mini-tower over a $600 mini.
Sure. But a $999 mini-tower destroys the $1299/$1699 AIO iMac. As far as replacement cycles it depends on the details. A $600 mini every two years is likely better than a $999 mini-tower every 4 even if its $200 more expensive.
Furthermore, if his USB ports blow out, or if some hypothetical USB 3.0 or Serial ATA or some other standard becomes necessary for him to use some peripheral he needs for his job, he can add a $100 card instead of buying a new $600 machine. In doing so, he just saved $500.
Or he waits a few months until his replacement cycle is up and gets the new feature in the next mini even further reducing the $200 difference by $100.
The desktop market is declining slightly because the desktop users who don't need expansion have been discovering the laptop market. The desktop market is still huge, and consists of the people who do need expansion. Apple could grow much more market share if they would gain market share in both the laptop and desktop markets. This seems fairly intuitive to me...
Sure, if you ignore the fact that the CEO is idealistic you can make the determination that increasing market share at the expense of vision is a good thing. On the other hand the guy seem to like the AIO and would you rather have ANOTHER guy at the helm despite Steve's quirks?
Huh? When was I talking about the iMac or what processor it uses?
You were saying the situation was "simple" and I was pointing out the synergy effects of the AIO sales with respect to driving down part cost for laptops because they use some of the same components. So nothing is as simple as it might look.
We know that desktop market is in decline for whatever reason so the players have to compete harder for a smaller market but the laptop market is growing.
Do you prefer to have the best price advantage in the desktop or laptop arena? If you could use your desktop sales to reduce your laptop costs is that a win despite smaller desktop sales? That's the only reason I can think of for iMacs to go merom over conroe is to get better unit costs on mobile chips from intel.
WTF? What I said was: "A $1000 tower isn't nearly as extravagant a purchase as a $2200 tower, no matter what your income level is."
IOW, no matter how extravagant a $1000 tower is to you, a $2200 tower is far, far worse.
I'm not sure how you can argue with this fact.
Simple. When both are so extravagent for that market that the difference is meaningless. For example, does it really matter to you the price difference between an $11M Gulfstream G100 and a $19M Gulfstream G200? Or a $10,000 watch and a $20,000 watch? It sure doesn't to me. I can maybe afford a $10,000 watch but I have no business buying one and I don't care how much better the user interface and ergonomics are in comparison to the watches I do own.
Vinea
I don't get how you can go on and on and on about how great the iMac is and how well it suits people's needs but then also think that that a Conroe tower would destroy its sales. Either the iMac is fulfilling people's needs and wants, or it isn't - so which is it Vinea?
Neither. You keep claiming that I have a reading comprehension problem but I keep stating that Apple likes AIOs, likely for idealist reasons. Its Steve driven, not Vinea driven.
I personally don't care for AIOs and I've stated that a few times already.
The iMac and a Mini Tower appeal to different people and it seems like you are one of two or three people in this thread that don't get it.
You only believe I don't get it because you would prefer to put strawman arguments up.
I think most folk buying $1200 17" iMacs would respond favorably to a $999 elegantly designed mini-tower and find a $200 monitor somewhere else. Likewise 20" iMac purchasers and a $699 20" ACD (or bump the price and get a 23" ACD).
The people to whom an iMac appeals to, on the most part are not interested in a tower. Potential switchers and Apple users who currently purchase exclusively second hand machines (and I'm sure that's a very significant number of people) are much more interested in a Mini Tower.
Your allies disagree and point to the fact that the majority of computer users prefer towers and many iMac purchasers lack a choice in the mid range or they'd buy towers as well.
You haven't explained your justification for believing that the only thing that a Mini Tower would do is cannibalise sales of the iMac rather than:
That's because I never said the ONLY thing that a mini-tower would do is cannibalize iMac sales.
1.) Bring more people to the platform.
I only question how many. If you could show 3 for 1 then you could perhaps convince Steve...but I think its hard to guarantee that many. 3 for 2 breaks even and given the loyalty to the AIO design I don't think that will move Apple to do so.
2.) Encourage current Mac users who normally buy second hand Apple towers to buy new instead.
From the perspective of installed base this is kind of a good thing. It means the market for 3rd party products remain higher and this insulates Apple a bit from your contention that Apple would have too little installed base to attract enough developers.
What, I have to whinge every time someone makes a car analogy? I thought I made it pretty clear that car analogies don't work. No one should use car analogies in the Apple Vs. Everyone Else In The Computer Market debate, because niche car makers are in a very different position to Apple and the car market is very different to the computer market.
No, you simply have to NOT whinge when someone responds to a car analogy right after you agree with that analogy without saying boo. Its not as if I brought it up in the first place but merely responded in the same vein. Hardly requires any patience from any reasonable individual.
I also do not agree with your assertion that OSX lack sufficient mass to maintain a healthy developer base even as a niche OS.
Vinea
Apple?s market share in the US has risen to 4.6 percent, from 4.3 percent, in the United States in the last year.
....
No, Apple is not capturing market share and to contend otherwise is ignoring the facts.
Yes, because going from 4.3 percent to 4.6 percent is clearly a decline and not capturing share...
Vinea
What, I have to whinge every time someone makes a car analogy? I thought I made it pretty clear that car analogies don't work. No one should use car analogies in the Apple Vs. Everyone Else In The Computer Market debate, because niche car makers are in a very different position to Apple and the car market is very different to the computer market.
I looked up the infamous "car analogy" post by a_greer, and it was this:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...102#post954102
Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...
A totally different argument from the market-share argument you outlined. When people say car analogies suck, it's the "Apple has a low market share - so what, so does Mercedes" analogy they're talking about. It doesn't mean that any other analogy automatically sucks just because it happens to have a car in it.
Since it's already been demonstrated that Apple can achieve at least 28% margins on an elegant Conroe-based tower starting at $999, I don't know why we even have to talk about DELL.
It hasn't been demonstrated, its been asserted with quesitonable numbers.
What has been demonstrated is $800 white box conroes and $1100 Gateway conroes. Both of which typically do not run with 28% margins.
I reckon DELL could sell a version of the proposed $999 Apple tower for $799. It's just that they've got a lot of Pentium Ds to shift right now. In 3 - 4 months, I reckon we'll see $799 Conroe towers from DELL.
In 3-4 months the situation is different from today and that's a 50% drop from current pricing (since they include a 19" monitor on many of their models).
Vinea
I looked up the infamous "car analogy" post by a_greer, and it was this:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...102#post954102
A totally different argument from the market-share argument you outlined. When people say car analogies suck, it's the "Apple has a low market share - so what, so does Mercedes" analogy they're talking about. It doesn't mean that any other analogy automatically sucks just because it happens to have a car in it.
And why don't you look up what I wrote? Because I was responding using the same exact context in exactly the same way and never brought up market share.
Here, I did it for you:
Ummm...that's like saying that Porsche needs to offer a pickup because you want one. You're lucky they offer you a high end SUV and soon a sedan. Even if they did offer a pickup it certainly wouldn't be cheap.
He's unhappy because not every manufacturer offers every kind of vehicle. If you're hung up on the Porsche label then I suppose Subaru doesn't really offer a full sized pickup either that I remember. Sedans, SUVs, station wagons and the Baja. None of which will tow a travel trailer either. OMG Subaru suxxors. They don't try to meet the needs of their consumers. Feh.
There's nothing wrong with car analogies vis a vis market share anyway but that's a different point. I picked Porsche because I was 99% sure they didn't have a pickup and I actually had to check if Subaru did or not. Oddly, Volvo does go directly from SUV to Semis or pretty close for towing...maybe there is something between XC90 and the VN430 but its not obvious on their site. Volvo suxxors too I guess.
Vinea
Nope, like the classic hooker joke, now we're just arguing about price.
A graphic artist is a pro user is she not?
By "pro user", I have obviously been referring to "the users that require Pro-level machines." Are we going to get into a semantics argument now? Oh joy!
And why are you comparing against a Core Solo Mini anyway and not an iMac that would have a dedicated graphics and currently Core Duo and we expect Conroe. And her big monitor can still be used. A student might be better off with a MB or MBP...which is also usable with her monitor.
Because like I said, this hypothetical user already has a monitor she wants to use. That makes AIOs and laptops out of the question. Yes, I know you can connect an external monitor to those, but it's unwieldy and wastes a lot of desk space, plus you're paying for a monitor you're not using.
What "basic expansion" capability are you really losing with a $1299 iMac for an art major?
Apparently you didn't read the text you quoted. Here it is again:
"Well, how about a graphic artist? He needs to use apps like Photoshop, 3D rendering software, and other artsy things, so he's going to want more power than the Core Solo in the Mac mini provides, but not necessarily quad-core. He'll also want a dedicated graphics card since his whole business is dealing with graphics. He's got a nice, big monitor already which he wants to use, so the iMac is out. Also, he doesn't have the money to replace the whole computer if the USB ports happen to fail on his machine. So what he needs is a mid-range machine with some basic expansion capabilities, but as an art major, he may not have $2200 just to throw around."
Basic expansion capabilities:
1. Ability to use whatever monitor
2. Ability to replace parts that fail without having to chuck the whole machine
3. Ability to upgrade the graphics card
Additionally, one thing I didn't mention
4. Ability to add a second hard drive for extra space or backup purposes
Sure. But a $999 mini-tower destroys the $1299/$1699 AIO iMac. As far as replacement cycles it depends on the details. A $600 mini every two years is likely better than a $999 mini-tower every 4 even if its $200 more expensive.
No it's not, because the $999 mini-tower can do more and is more expandable, even four years later.
Or he waits a few months until his replacement cycle is up and gets the new feature in the next mini even further reducing the $200 difference by $100.
What if the user ends up needing external SATA ports, but Steve decides the mini isn't worthy of that feature? Currently you'd have to spend $2124.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that the CEO is idealistic you can make the determination that increasing market share at the expense of vision is a good thing. On the other hand the guy seem to like the AIO and would you rather have ANOTHER guy at the helm despite Steve's quirks?
Steve isn't completely inpermeable to reason. Everyone thought the Mac mini was a "no way in hell" sort of thing too.
You were saying the situation was "simple" and I was pointing out the synergy effects of the AIO sales with respect to driving down part cost for laptops because they use some of the same components. So nothing is as simple as it might look.
Since the laptops are far outselling the iMac, I doubt that's too much of an issue.
Even as is, the iMac is probably destined to get Conroe next rev anyway.
We know that desktop market is in decline for whatever reason so the players have to compete harder for a smaller market but the laptop market is growing.
40% of the whole market is huge and well worth going for. Right now Apple is less than 5% of the market, as a comparison.
Simple. When both are so extravagent for that market that the difference is meaningless.
And if the $999 tower is just barely within your grasp, then the $2124 tower is still outside it. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.
And why don't you look up what I wrote? Because I was responding using the same exact context in exactly the same way and never brought up market share.
Sure thing, here's your quote:
Ummm...that's like saying that Porsche needs to offer a pickup because you want one. You're lucky they offer you a high end SUV and soon a sedan. Even if they did offer a pickup it certainly wouldn't be cheap.
The problem with that is, the nature of the differences between the car and Mac market makes a_greer's argument stronger while it makes yours weaker. If you walked into a dealership and your only options were a Ford Ranger and a semi, and you were locked into the platform that this particular dealership monopolized so that you couldn't buy an appropriate vehicle from another dealership and still drive on the same roads, that would make your situation suck even more. Your analogy depends on the ability to buy a pickup from some company other than Porsche. If you could only buy Porsche vehicles to drive on the roads you need to drive on, then the situation in your analogy would suck very, very much for a consumer who needed a pickup.
As for a mini-tower killing off the iMac: I don't believe this would happen, but if the iMac is not capable of competing with a mini-tower, then that is the iMac's fault, not the mini-tower's. If simply adding a mini-tower would immediately kill the iMac, then maybe the iMac deserves to die. If you want to sell machines, you have to make machines that people want to buy. And I have an iMac.
right after you agree with that analogy
I did not agree with the analogy. It was clear he was using a car analogy to try and convince me that Apple need a mid-range tower. I pointed out that actually, he didn't need to convince me of that. The fact he used a car analogy to try and convince me is neither here nor there.
One last time: I despise car analogies because the car and computer markets are not analogous.
1. If someone were to list the people who responded to this thread, then put them into one of two groups of favoring or opposing a Mac mini tower, what would be the percentage in favor? It seems to be about 50 percent. If this represents typical Mac users, 50 percent want a mini tower, and 50 percent are divided between, an iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, or resurrecting the Cube. Conclusion? The market for a Mac mini tower is there. If we consider switchers, who are known to prefer a mini tower, the demand is very great.
2. An old argument for why Macs cost more is that Apple has much higher R&D expenses. Now that Apple is using Intel chips, Apple's R&D is lower. Apple no longer needs to develop their own interface chip set. Apple can better compete with Windows computers.
3. Most of those who favor sticking with the Mac Mini and iMac want to have an upgradable graphics card. Once Apple pays for putting PCI-e on the board for a graphics card, the addition of slots for other cards is negligible. Just cost of the connectors, not much more. It make no economic sense not to take advantage of PCI-e unless Apple want to keep the case very small. That's a lot to pay for the ability to change out the graphics card, no?
Okay, these observation are from someone who doesn't know much about building computers, so I'd like to know whether I'm way off base or not.
By "pro user", I have obviously been referring to "the users that require Pro-level machines." Are we going to get into a semantics argument now? Oh joy!
And equally obvious when we're talking about disposable income and expensive toys that when I exclude pro-users I mean everyone that might depend on a mac exclusively to make a living.
Someone who uses their computer for a living is a pro user regardless of whether they use a $999 conroe or a $2000 woodcrest.
Basic expansion capabilities:
1. Ability to use whatever monitor
Possible. They don't have the ability to use two or more of any monitors but one certainly. It may be "annoying" but its doable.
2. Ability to replace parts that fail without having to chuck the whole machine
That's called "applecare"
3. Ability to upgrade the graphics card
Yes, this is one thing that you cannot do with a AIO, mini or laptop.
Additionally, one thing I didn't mention
4. Ability to add a second hard drive for extra space or backup purposes
External drive, NAS, XRAID, etc.
No it's not, because the $999 mini-tower can do more and is more expandable, even four years later.
What if the user ends up needing external SATA ports, but Steve decides the mini isn't worthy of that feature? Currently you'd have to spend $2124.
Odds are your total system performance with a late generation mini will exceed your 4 year old model tower. Would you like to compare an intel mini to a G4 tower?
Steve isn't completely inpermeable to reason. Everyone thought the Mac mini was a "no way in hell" sort of thing too.
No one said he was...but you notice the mini doesn't threaten the iMac much.
Since the laptops are far outselling the iMac, I doubt that's too much of an issue.
Even as is, the iMac is probably destined to get Conroe next rev anyway.
Probably but little factors do add up.
And if the $999 tower is just barely within your grasp, then the $2124 tower is still outside it. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.
That's because you've never worked for minimum wage to pay the bills. A $999 tower is not "barely within your grasp". FOOD is barely within your grasp.
Give it a rest. The only thing the minimum wage comment was for is to show that if you want a Mac Pro its not all that horrendous an undertaking even for a student making minimum wage. Either way, its a luxury.
Vinea
I did not agree with the analogy.
Well you certainly didn't disagree or get pissy. Funny that. Hence the comment about double standards. Its okay when "your" side does it.
Vinea
its been asserted with quesitonable numbers.
Questionable numbers huh? Well, actually, no one has questioned the numbers so far.
One person did try to argue that the 20" iMac has a "much cheaper" (they didn't put an actual number on it) LCD panel than the 20" Cinema Display, but this assertion was quickly refuted. I am sure the iMac and Cinema Display share the same panel, but the Cinema Display has a better backlight and probably slightly better panel-driving electronics.
If you think the numbers are questionable, why don't you quote my post and point out, in detail, with numbers, why it doesn't hold water.
What has been demonstrated is $800 white box conroes
Just to demonstrate how futile it is to use other companies' products to try and work out what Apple can do for a certain budget, have you noticed that not only is a Mac Pro cheaper, without any hand-waving, accounting for the "value" of OS X and iLife etc. etc. than the equivalent Dell, it is also cheaper than building a same-spec computer yourself.
Yes, because going from 4.3 percent to 4.6 percent is clearly a decline and not capturing share...
Hello? We are talking about desktops. That 4.6 is Apple's overall market share in the U.S. Apple's desktop market share has declined.
Hence the comment about double standards. Its okay when "your" side does it.
How many times do you want me to say it? 10? 100? 1000? I'll try it once more:
I despise car analogies and wish everyone would never, ever use them when discussing the computer market.
Now, since you don't seem to realise it, when I say "everyone", I really mean "everyone", including those "on my side".
The problem with that is, the nature of the differences between the car and Mac market makes a_greer's argument stronger while it makes yours weaker. If you walked into a dealership and your only options were a Ford Ranger and a semi, and you were locked into the platform that this particular dealership monopolized so that you couldn't buy an appropriate vehicle from another dealership and still drive on the same roads, that would make your situation suck even more.
So? Its not like you're locked into the software road either. If the user wants to run Photoshop its on both XP and OSX.
Your analogy depends on the ability to buy a pickup from some company other than Porsche. If you could only buy Porsche vehicles to drive on the roads you need to drive on, then the situation in your analogy would suck very, very much for a consumer who needed a pickup.
Software aren't roads either. Analogies will break down at some point but its fairly clear that simply being niche is not a death knell given that Apple has been niche for quite a while now.
The "poorness" of the analogy depends on the assumption that Apple will fall below critical mass for developers to develop software for it. However, its not a given that a niche manufacturer that still sells a million+ units a year is too small for a healthy software market. There may be segments less well served (say games) but not so much that its certain that Apple is unable to be both profitable and grow if it pursues quality and cachet over market share.
The artificial line in the sand that H uses (I think its 10% market share) ignores that there are plenty of developers willing to service the millions of installed base ESPECIALLY given that Apple targets certain demographics and uses.
As for a mini-tower killing off the iMac: I don't believe this would happen, but if the iMac is not capable of competing with a mini-tower, then that is the iMac's fault, not the mini-tower's. If simply adding a mini-tower would immediately kill the iMac, then maybe the iMac deserves to die. If you want to sell machines, you have to make machines that people want to buy. And I have an iMac.
Steve seems to disagree. Perhaps he'll change his mind but the Mac has been a AIO since the beginning. Someone used to selling soft drinks might be more easily convinced to your point of view.
Vinea
Questionable numbers huh? Well, actually, no one has actually questioned the numbers so far.
I believe I just did.
If you think the numbers are questionable, why don't you quote my post and point out, in detail, with numbers, why it doesn't hold water.
They are questionable because you aren't an authoritative source with real part costs. You don't know Apple's discount on Yonahs vs Conroes. Combined they sell a lot of Yonahs. The Conroe volumes will be less than half their Yonah volumes. That's a difference of what? 1.2M/Qtr vs 0.5M/Qtr?
That makes your "-111 for a Conroe" assertion questionable. Kick this savings out and you suddenly don't have a $126 budget but a $15 budget to buy all the stuff you added.
Likewise you don't know what their exact panel costs are and what to deduct there.
Questionable.
Just to demonstrate how futile it is to use other companies' products to try and work out what Apple can do for a certain budget, have you noticed that not only is a Mac Pro cheaper, without any hand-waving, accounting for the "value" of OS X and iLife etc. etc. than the equivalent Dell, it is also cheaper than building a same-spec computer yourself.
And Dell likely is carrying higher than 28% margins on the workstation that was compared. If you want to evaluate the cost of a conroe box then looking at other conroe boxes is a good start.
Hello? We are talking about desktops. That 4.6 is Apple's overall market share in the U.S. Apple's desktop market share has declined.
There is no divergence in Apple saying they wish to increase market share and concentrating on doing so in the mobile vs desktop market. Both "Apple has gained share" and "Apple has lost desktop share" can be true.
Given the Yonah example you can argue that they are leveraging their 0.5M Yonah buys to decrease their laptop processor and chipset costs to capture larger share in the market they deem more competitive for Apple. If they could continue to sell a half million merom based desktops they might do that.
I dunno that it would hold at those levels though once the Conroes are out in quantity.
Vinea
he is talking about different comps. such as the iMac, where the design is more expensive because of the form factor
You complain that a Mac Pro is overkill. So what? If the price is right who cares if its "overkill"...you're just arguing about price at that point.
Uh, the whole point is that the price isn't right!
And equally obvious when we're talking about disposable income and expensive toys that when I exclude pro-users I mean everyone that might depend on a mac exclusively to make a living.
Someone who uses their computer for a living is a pro user regardless of whether they use a $999 conroe or a $2000 woodcrest.
Oh goody, it is a semantics argument.
So what was your point again?
Possible. They don't have the ability to use two or more of any monitors but one certainly. It may be "annoying" but its doable.
It's not just annoying, it's a major PITA, and you still didn't address the fact that you're paying several hundred bucks for a screen you're not using.
That's called "applecare"
AppleCare costs additional money each time that you extend it. Just putting a new USB card would cost less than even one extension of AppleCare.
Plus, if you have to send in your machine to the shop, you lose the use of it for the duration of time it takes you to get it back, and there's always the possibility that something lame will happen like the techs reformatting the hard drive.
External drive, NAS, XRAID, etc.
Annoying and expensive. External drives are way more expensive than internal ones.
Odds are your total system performance with a late generation mini will exceed your 4 year old model tower. Would you like to compare an intel mini to a G4 tower?
That's not even remotely a fair comparison. Going back to the G4 tower, you have not one, but two major processor switches, Moto to IBM and IBM to Intel. Add to this the fact that the G4 was doing badly even when it was new. I highly doubt there will be any more major transitions in the near future, and the processors will ramp up much more steadily.
That's because you've never worked for minimum wage to pay the bills. A $999 tower is not "barely within your grasp". FOOD is barely within your grasp.
Quick question: How much money do you suppose I make as a shareware developer?
Give it a rest. The only thing the minimum wage comment was for is to show that if you want a Mac Pro its not all that horrendous an undertaking even for a student making minimum wage. Either way, its a luxury.
A point which you completely undermined by pointing out that even $999 is a lot.