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.
But not ColorSync.
And there are others of us who do need the Mac OS for some reason or other. My reason should be somewhat obvious.
Quote:
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.
However, Apple wants to gain market share.
Quote:
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.
Go read the "Mac Marginalization" reader report over at Macintouch for examples of software companies dropping the Mac.
Apple especially needs market share now more than ever, since software developers now have the option of simply being lazy and letting Mac users run their software with Boot Camp or Parallels.
Quote:
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.
And the iMac can remain an AIO machine. It just won't be the only choice for someone wanting something cheaper than the Mac Pro that's not a bottom-of-the-line mini.
As has been pointed out over and over and over, AIOs exist in the PC world. They're a small niche, but they still seem to sell enough that the manufacturers keep making them. And those PC AIOs are pretty crap next to the iMac. The iMac is a great machine for a home entertainment system what with Front Row and all, and it's also attractive looking, it has fun extras, such as the iSight camera, and it's simple to set up, with a minimum of wires. The iMac has its place, and people will still buy it - it just isn't sufficiently well-suited to fit the needs of the entire mid-range desktop market.
The point is that for the consumer market, which is what you were originally talking about, a Mac is a luxury.
Quote:
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.
A screen that she might choose not to use but not can't use.
Quote:
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.
4 years ago is G4 towers and they sure weren't $999. By 2010 Intel is expecting a 32 core Keifer.
5 years ago Intel expected to be at 20Ghz. Whatever is certain, there is likely significant changes in the next 4 years and your 4 year old computer isn't going to look very good against the current generation.
Quote:
Quick question: How much money do you suppose I make as a shareware developer?
No clue. If you are only making $12K a year gross and don't have any other family income I suggest a $1000 tower is not in your best interests.
Quote:
A point which you completely undermined by pointing out that even $999 is a lot.
Different context...a student has Mom and Dad paying the bills. If you are even contemplating Apple you have disposable income. This is different than the objection that someone making minium wage needs to spend money on food, housing, etc.
Like it or not, giving people too much choice can be bad for the bottom line. Again, does anyone complaining actually believe Apple hasn't researched the idea exhaustively? They know better than every one of you, and myself, what's best for Apple as a business.
If and when they feel the time is right, they'll roll out a consumer tower.
Different context...a student has Mom and Dad paying the bills. If you are even contemplating Apple you have disposable income. This is different than the objection that someone making minium wage needs to spend money on food, housing, etc.
They are earning extra money for a toy they want.
Vinea
i know my parents cerainly don't have a disposable income...my mom and i saved up for my mac, and my dad lost his job recently, so don't even say that...it's not a toy...god, i hate people like you
A screen that she might choose not to use but not can't use.
GMAFB.
Quote:
4 years ago is G4 towers and they sure weren't $999. By 2010 Intel is expecting a 32 core Keifer.
I'll believe the 32-core thing when I see it. Regardless, a dual-core Conroe will still be usable at that time (heck, some people are still using 7-year-old G4s from the first rev and getting by).
A Mac mini sure won't have that 32-core chip in 2010, either.
Quote:
No clue. If you are only making $12K a year gross and don't have any other family income I suggest a $1000 tower is not in your best interests.
Except when you consider that I need a decent Mac to create the shareware programs.
Anyway, I'll probably be getting a laptop next upgrade so it's a moot point. But I wish you would stop accusing me of not understanding what it's like to make a low income.
Quote:
Different context...a student has Mom and Dad paying the bills. If you are even contemplating Apple you have disposable income. This is different than the objection that someone making minium wage needs to spend money on food, housing, etc.
They are earning extra money for a toy they want.
I agree with luv2playtennis. That's just incredibly rude and presumptuous.
I'll admit that reaching $999 with precisely 28% margin is very hand-wavy, but the numbers get us in to the right ball-park. People were talking about the $1700 ball park and I came along to point out that talking about the $999 ball park was totally realistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
You are seriously telling me that you think Apple can get 2.0 GHz Yonahs for the same price than it can get 1.83 GHz Conroes? It's possible that the saving a smaller than $111, but no savings at all? I don't think so. And then there's the fact that I didn't account for the fact that the chipset would be cheaper and forgot that the iMac uses more expensive laptop RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Likewise you don't know what their exact panel costs are and what to deduct there.
I do know approximately what the panel costs are, by looking at the Cinema Display.
Even if you think I've been too generous, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the specs I outlined couldn't be achieved for an absolute maximum retail price of $1299 (although I do truly believe my original $999 target is a realistic one), which is still much lower than both $2124 and $1700
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
If you want to evaluate the cost of a conroe box then looking at other conroe boxes is a good start.
I point out that there is irrefutable evidence that evaluating the likely cost of an Apple Xeon box by judging competitors' Xeon boxes is bound to give you an inaccurate estimate of said cost, and you quote that precise part of my post and then follow it with "looking at other Conroe boxes it a good start"? How odd. Why do you think looking at competitors' Conroe boxes is a "good start" when looking at competitors' Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro equivalents doesn't work out like you think it might?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
Yes, both can be true, demonstrably so. But for Apple to declare a real desire to increase market share and then ignore over half the market seems a little odd.
Desktop sales may be declining in market share vs. laptop, but they still account for significantly more than 50% or the market and will continue to be a large portion of the market for quite a few years.
Again, does anyone complaining actually believe Apple hasn't researched the idea exhaustively? They know better than every one of you, and myself, what's best for Apple as a business.
No one doubts that Apple has researched the desktop market, IMHO. The question is how much their data influences their product strategy? How long is Apple going to wait before deciding consumers are not going change their preference for mini towers? We don't know.
Possibly it is in the works right now. It makes sense that Apple would complete the transition to Intel before introducing a new model to the product line. If it doesn't appear by MWSF, however, we know it wasn't in the works today.
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?
This statement doesn't make sense at all. Apple will have the same kind of discount in buying 100,000 1.83 Yonahs or 100,000 1.86 Conroes. The discount is not in family of products, but in quantities of EACH model of chip.
The economy of scale is in using the same chipset in all the models that don't depend on the speed of the cpu, but the chipset is a small fraction of the motherboard+cpu price, and each Mac model as its own motherboard (even if with the same components or so).
There is also no reason for the next iMac and a possible mid-range headless Mac not to use the same chipset. They just won't use the same components as the notebooks/Mac mini anymore.
BTW, for those who believe Apple knows best and who go along with Apple's strategy without questioning it, Albert Einstein made an appropriate remark.
Quote:
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
BTW, for those who believe Apple knows best and who go along with Apple's strategy without questioning it, Albert Einstein made an appropriate remark.
Quote:
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
Sorry, I couldn't resist. 8)
So anyone who disagrees with you and agrees with someone else is automatically an idiot?
Way to miss the point of Einstein's quote entirely.
So please tell us all, what do you think Einstein meant by this? You appear to believe I missed his point. \
There's a difference between being and independent thinker and disagreeing with the status quo.
While Einstein advocates independent thinking, he doesn't advocate blindly going against the majority. There's no thought process going on there either.
There's a difference between being and independent thinker and disagreeing with the status quo.
While Einstein advocates independent thinking, he doesn't advocate blindly going against the majority. There's no thought process going on there either.
Who's doing that?
Remember that in the desktop market, expandable mini-towers are the majority. By far.
There's a difference between being and independent thinker and disagreeing with the status quo.
While Einstein advocates independent thinking, he doesn't advocate blindly going against the majority. There's no thought process going on there either.
Now that I agree with. People can blindly follow or blindly oppose the status quo or the power structure or the whatever. You are speaking differently now than in your first post.
My point all along has been that some too easily believe that Apple always knows best. Often there is no evidence or solid reason to back it up such confidence. But as you point out there is the other side too. Some could believe that Apple does nothing right, but these are generally not Mac users.
I'll believe the 32-core thing when I see it. Regardless, a dual-core Conroe will still be usable at that time (heck, some people are still using 7-year-old G4s from the first rev and getting by).
A Mac mini sure won't have that 32-core chip in 2010, either.
Usable but not as good. This is a different argument between which is a better pruchasing strategy.
Quote:
Except when you consider that I need a decent Mac to create the shareware programs.
Oh please. Unless you are a shareware game or graphics program designer what can't the mini do? Even there, I've run Torque Game Engine on a mini and while I haven't tried TSE (the shader engine) its much faster a dev box than my quicksilver G4.
Quote:
Anyway, I'll probably be getting a laptop next upgrade so it's a moot point. But I wish you would stop accusing me of not understanding what it's like to make a low income.
I agree with luv2playtennis. That's just incredibly rude and presumptuous.
It's incredibly rude to suggest that spending a month gross salary on a computer is probably not in your best interest if you only make $12k a year? luv2playtennis can project whatever he likes on that statement but its not my fault if perhaps he's feeling a little guilty for having bought a mac when things are tight. Parents always sacrifice for their kids whether its an expensive Mac or expensive shoes or simply food. The good ones anyway. So he has good parents.
Get over it. There's very little you can't do with a much cheaper computer if your circumstances are tight. Its not like OpenBSD or XP is soooo much inferior to OSX that they are unsuable.
You are seriously telling me that you think Apple can get 2.0 GHz Yonahs for the same price than it can get 1.83 GHz Conroes? It's possible that the saving a smaller than $111, but no savings at all? I don't think so. And then there's the fact that I didn't account for the fact that the chipset would be cheaper and forgot that the iMac uses more expensive laptop RAM.
I'm seriously telling you that the savings could be $0, $111 or -$50 and we simply don't know. Hence the point that the numbers are questionable.
Quote:
I do know approximately what the panel costs are, by looking at the Cinema Display.
Even if you think I've been too generous, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the specs I outlined couldn't be achieved for an absolute maximum retail price of $1299 (although I do truly believe my original $999 target is a realistic one), which is still much lower than both $2124 and $1700
That's not the point is it? Given that Gateway has a $1200 Conroe and there are $800 whiteboxes then $1299 seems reasonable. That doesn't make your $999 @ 28% margin numbers more concrete.
$1299 is on the borderline of possible given its a headless 17" iMac conroe. $999 allows you to get a cheap 20" WS for $300 at the same time if you buy from Amazon.
Quote:
I point out that there is irrefutable evidence that evaluating the likely cost of an Apple Xeon box by judging competitors' Xeon boxes is bound to give you an inaccurate estimate of said cost, and you quote that precise part of my post and then follow it with "looking at other Conroe boxes it a good start"? How odd. Why do you think looking at competitors' Conroe boxes is a "good start" when looking at competitors' Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro equivalents doesn't work out like you think it might?
There are few iMac and mini equivalents and this is to Apple's advantage when trying to compare value. A conroe tower is much more easily comparable when its in the middle of the market (ie at $1K, tower, etc). Sure the numbers for the Mac pro would have been inaccurate but at the top of the food chain we know that the margins are typically higher and Apple more competitive if they adhere to their 28% margins. Plus they seem to have gotten a real good deal on the 5150s.
There are few examples of low end whitebox Woodcrest servers at the moment. Probably due to availability to those vendors...if they only have a few they might as well make $5K machines as opposed $2.5K machines. I'm moderately surprised someone is pushing $800 Conroes at the moment.
Comments
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.
But not ColorSync.
And there are others of us who do need the Mac OS for some reason or other. My reason should be somewhat obvious.
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.
However, Apple wants to gain market share.
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.
Go read the "Mac Marginalization" reader report over at Macintouch for examples of software companies dropping the Mac.
Apple especially needs market share now more than ever, since software developers now have the option of simply being lazy and letting Mac users run their software with Boot Camp or Parallels.
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.
And the iMac can remain an AIO machine. It just won't be the only choice for someone wanting something cheaper than the Mac Pro that's not a bottom-of-the-line mini.
As has been pointed out over and over and over, AIOs exist in the PC world. They're a small niche, but they still seem to sell enough that the manufacturers keep making them. And those PC AIOs are pretty crap next to the iMac. The iMac is a great machine for a home entertainment system what with Front Row and all, and it's also attractive looking, it has fun extras, such as the iSight camera, and it's simple to set up, with a minimum of wires. The iMac has its place, and people will still buy it - it just isn't sufficiently well-suited to fit the needs of the entire mid-range desktop market.
Oh goody, it is a semantics argument.
So what was your point again?
The point is that for the consumer market, which is what you were originally talking about, a Mac is a luxury.
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.
A screen that she might choose not to use but not can't use.
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.
4 years ago is G4 towers and they sure weren't $999. By 2010 Intel is expecting a 32 core Keifer.
5 years ago Intel expected to be at 20Ghz. Whatever is certain, there is likely significant changes in the next 4 years and your 4 year old computer isn't going to look very good against the current generation.
Quick question: How much money do you suppose I make as a shareware developer?
No clue. If you are only making $12K a year gross and don't have any other family income I suggest a $1000 tower is not in your best interests.
A point which you completely undermined by pointing out that even $999 is a lot.
Different context...a student has Mom and Dad paying the bills. If you are even contemplating Apple you have disposable income. This is different than the objection that someone making minium wage needs to spend money on food, housing, etc.
They are earning extra money for a toy they want.
Vinea
If and when they feel the time is right, they'll roll out a consumer tower.
Different context...a student has Mom and Dad paying the bills. If you are even contemplating Apple you have disposable income. This is different than the objection that someone making minium wage needs to spend money on food, housing, etc.
They are earning extra money for a toy they want.
Vinea
i know my parents cerainly don't have a disposable income...my mom and i saved up for my mac, and my dad lost his job recently, so don't even say that...it's not a toy...god, i hate people like you
A screen that she might choose not to use but not can't use.
GMAFB.
4 years ago is G4 towers and they sure weren't $999. By 2010 Intel is expecting a 32 core Keifer.
I'll believe the 32-core thing when I see it. Regardless, a dual-core Conroe will still be usable at that time (heck, some people are still using 7-year-old G4s from the first rev and getting by).
A Mac mini sure won't have that 32-core chip in 2010, either.
No clue. If you are only making $12K a year gross and don't have any other family income I suggest a $1000 tower is not in your best interests.
Except when you consider that I need a decent Mac to create the shareware programs.
Anyway, I'll probably be getting a laptop next upgrade so it's a moot point. But I wish you would stop accusing me of not understanding what it's like to make a low income.
Different context...a student has Mom and Dad paying the bills. If you are even contemplating Apple you have disposable income. This is different than the objection that someone making minium wage needs to spend money on food, housing, etc.
They are earning extra money for a toy they want.
I agree with luv2playtennis. That's just incredibly rude and presumptuous.
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.
You are seriously telling me that you think Apple can get 2.0 GHz Yonahs for the same price than it can get 1.83 GHz Conroes? It's possible that the saving a smaller than $111, but no savings at all? I don't think so. And then there's the fact that I didn't account for the fact that the chipset would be cheaper and forgot that the iMac uses more expensive laptop RAM.
Likewise you don't know what their exact panel costs are and what to deduct there.
I do know approximately what the panel costs are, by looking at the Cinema Display.
Even if you think I've been too generous, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the specs I outlined couldn't be achieved for an absolute maximum retail price of $1299 (although I do truly believe my original $999 target is a realistic one), which is still much lower than both $2124 and $1700
If you want to evaluate the cost of a conroe box then looking at other conroe boxes is a good start.
I point out that there is irrefutable evidence that evaluating the likely cost of an Apple Xeon box by judging competitors' Xeon boxes is bound to give you an inaccurate estimate of said cost, and you quote that precise part of my post and then follow it with "looking at other Conroe boxes it a good start"? How odd. Why do you think looking at competitors' Conroe boxes is a "good start" when looking at competitors' Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro equivalents doesn't work out like you think it might?
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.
Yes, both can be true, demonstrably so. But for Apple to declare a real desire to increase market share and then ignore over half the market seems a little odd.
Desktop sales may be declining in market share vs. laptop, but they still account for significantly more than 50% or the market and will continue to be a large portion of the market for quite a few years.
Again, does anyone complaining actually believe Apple hasn't researched the idea exhaustively? They know better than every one of you, and myself, what's best for Apple as a business.
No one doubts that Apple has researched the desktop market, IMHO. The question is how much their data influences their product strategy? How long is Apple going to wait before deciding consumers are not going change their preference for mini towers? We don't know.
Possibly it is in the works right now. It makes sense that Apple would complete the transition to Intel before introducing a new model to the product line. If it doesn't appear by MWSF, however, we know it wasn't in the works today.
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?
This statement doesn't make sense at all. Apple will have the same kind of discount in buying 100,000 1.83 Yonahs or 100,000 1.86 Conroes. The discount is not in family of products, but in quantities of EACH model of chip.
The economy of scale is in using the same chipset in all the models that don't depend on the speed of the cpu, but the chipset is a small fraction of the motherboard+cpu price, and each Mac model as its own motherboard (even if with the same components or so).
There is also no reason for the next iMac and a possible mid-range headless Mac not to use the same chipset. They just won't use the same components as the notebooks/Mac mini anymore.
Quote:
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
Sorry, I couldn't resist. 8)
BTW, for those who believe Apple knows best and who go along with Apple's strategy without questioning it, Albert Einstein made an appropriate remark.
Quote:
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
Sorry, I couldn't resist. 8)
So anyone who disagrees with you and agrees with someone else is automatically an idiot?
Way to miss the point of Einstein's quote entirely.
So anyone who disagrees with you and agrees with someone else is automatically an idiot?
Way to miss the point of Einstein's quote entirely.
So please tell us all, what do you think Einstein meant by this? You appear to believe I missed his point.
So please tell us all, what do you think Einstein meant by this? You appear to believe I missed his point.
There's a difference between being and independent thinker and disagreeing with the status quo.
While Einstein advocates independent thinking, he doesn't advocate blindly going against the majority. There's no thought process going on there either.
There's a difference between being and independent thinker and disagreeing with the status quo.
While Einstein advocates independent thinking, he doesn't advocate blindly going against the majority. There's no thought process going on there either.
Who's doing that?
Remember that in the desktop market, expandable mini-towers are the majority. By far.
Who's doing that?
Remember that in the desktop market, expandable mini-towers are the majority. By far.
don't most people just have normal towers, not mini-towers?
There's a difference between being and independent thinker and disagreeing with the status quo.
While Einstein advocates independent thinking, he doesn't advocate blindly going against the majority. There's no thought process going on there either.
Now that I agree with. People can blindly follow or blindly oppose the status quo or the power structure or the whatever. You are speaking differently now than in your first post.
My point all along has been that some too easily believe that Apple always knows best. Often there is no evidence or solid reason to back it up such confidence. But as you point out there is the other side too. Some could believe that Apple does nothing right, but these are generally not Mac users.
Who's doing that?
Remember that in the desktop market, expandable mini-towers are the majority. By far.
Haha, sorry, I was talking about something off topic
don't most people just have normal towers, not mini-towers?
I'd say over 85% are of the MATX mini-tower variety. Full ATX users usually go to enthusiasts or budget professionals.
I'll believe the 32-core thing when I see it. Regardless, a dual-core Conroe will still be usable at that time (heck, some people are still using 7-year-old G4s from the first rev and getting by).
A Mac mini sure won't have that 32-core chip in 2010, either.
Usable but not as good. This is a different argument between which is a better pruchasing strategy.
Except when you consider that I need a decent Mac to create the shareware programs.
Oh please. Unless you are a shareware game or graphics program designer what can't the mini do? Even there, I've run Torque Game Engine on a mini and while I haven't tried TSE (the shader engine) its much faster a dev box than my quicksilver G4.
Anyway, I'll probably be getting a laptop next upgrade so it's a moot point. But I wish you would stop accusing me of not understanding what it's like to make a low income.
I agree with luv2playtennis. That's just incredibly rude and presumptuous.
It's incredibly rude to suggest that spending a month gross salary on a computer is probably not in your best interest if you only make $12k a year? luv2playtennis can project whatever he likes on that statement but its not my fault if perhaps he's feeling a little guilty for having bought a mac when things are tight. Parents always sacrifice for their kids whether its an expensive Mac or expensive shoes or simply food. The good ones anyway. So he has good parents.
Get over it. There's very little you can't do with a much cheaper computer if your circumstances are tight. Its not like OpenBSD or XP is soooo much inferior to OSX that they are unsuable.
Vinea
You are seriously telling me that you think Apple can get 2.0 GHz Yonahs for the same price than it can get 1.83 GHz Conroes? It's possible that the saving a smaller than $111, but no savings at all? I don't think so. And then there's the fact that I didn't account for the fact that the chipset would be cheaper and forgot that the iMac uses more expensive laptop RAM.
I'm seriously telling you that the savings could be $0, $111 or -$50 and we simply don't know. Hence the point that the numbers are questionable.
I do know approximately what the panel costs are, by looking at the Cinema Display.
Even if you think I've been too generous, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the specs I outlined couldn't be achieved for an absolute maximum retail price of $1299 (although I do truly believe my original $999 target is a realistic one), which is still much lower than both $2124 and $1700
That's not the point is it? Given that Gateway has a $1200 Conroe and there are $800 whiteboxes then $1299 seems reasonable. That doesn't make your $999 @ 28% margin numbers more concrete.
$1299 is on the borderline of possible given its a headless 17" iMac conroe. $999 allows you to get a cheap 20" WS for $300 at the same time if you buy from Amazon.
I point out that there is irrefutable evidence that evaluating the likely cost of an Apple Xeon box by judging competitors' Xeon boxes is bound to give you an inaccurate estimate of said cost, and you quote that precise part of my post and then follow it with "looking at other Conroe boxes it a good start"? How odd. Why do you think looking at competitors' Conroe boxes is a "good start" when looking at competitors' Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro equivalents doesn't work out like you think it might?
There are few iMac and mini equivalents and this is to Apple's advantage when trying to compare value. A conroe tower is much more easily comparable when its in the middle of the market (ie at $1K, tower, etc). Sure the numbers for the Mac pro would have been inaccurate but at the top of the food chain we know that the margins are typically higher and Apple more competitive if they adhere to their 28% margins. Plus they seem to have gotten a real good deal on the 5150s.
There are few examples of low end whitebox Woodcrest servers at the moment. Probably due to availability to those vendors...if they only have a few they might as well make $5K machines as opposed $2.5K machines. I'm moderately surprised someone is pushing $800 Conroes at the moment.
Vinea