Excellent reply! Really. My respect for you just went up several notches.
Thanks, I try to respect all the folks I argue with*. Or it wouldn't be much fun would it? Who wants to argue with idiots? It doesn't say very much positive about you when you do.
Vinea
* there are notable exceptions but not within this thread or even this forum (the AppleInsider segment anyway)
One thing I find interesting in these threads, here and on other websites, is the absence of software being a barrier for switchers. In past threads, the argument that Apple couldn't obtain significant market share may have been due to consumers investments in software.
Back then, one of the arguments I would offer for an xMac, was that Apple had several barriers to overcome to attract switchers. In order to lower barriers Apple should introduce a headless iMac with expansion capability.
Curious that this really hasn't come up. Could be that the software barrier in the past isn't so important to consumers now, with the introduction of iLife apps and Boot Camp/Parallels.
One thing I find interesting in these threads, here and on other websites, is the absence of software being a barrier for switchers. In past threads, the argument that Apple couldn't obtain significant market share may have been due to consumers investments in software.
Back then, one of the arguments I would offer for an xMac, was that Apple had several barriers to overcome to attract switchers. In order to lower barriers Apple should introduce a headless iMac with expansion capability.
Curious that this really hasn't come up. Could be that the software barrier in the past isn't so important to consumers now, with the introduction of iLife apps and Boot Camp/Parallels.
<nod> For anyone with enough savvy to use windows on a daily basis there is no barrier.
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
well, we are certainly not on a 12K income a year...much more than that...and i don't feel guilty at all...my mom paid for the comp...i paid for all software, monitor, keyboard and mouse, so really, i paid for about 40% of it all...thankx CharlS
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.
1. Decent sized hard drive
2. Decent compile time (compiling Universal Binaries takes twice as long as a single-architecture binary, this gets significant if your project is large)
3. The fact that when you add a monitor, a SuperDrive, dual-core, and a keyboard/mouse to the Core Solo mini you end up with something almost as expensive as the MacBook, which is portable where the Mini isn't
Quote:
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.
It's not only rude, but it also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It actually hurts your position to point out that $999 is already expensive. I can't figure out why you keep harping on this.
Quote:
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.
1. Well, for my particular needs, OpenBSD and XP won't cut it
2. Try teaching the average computer user to use OpenBSD (if you had said Linux, that might have made a bit of sense)
3. XP is a lot of fun with the Registry and needing a billion anti-virus and anti-spyware apps.
But...... you once again miss the point, which is that it's not in Apple's best interest to have the desktop line the way it is, because they would want customers to go with their machines instead of OpenBSD or XP machines!!
Congrats, you've obliquely invoked Godwin's law even through arguably he is condemning all forms of war and not just Nazis...however that's the most obvious example of folks marching joyfully to war in lockstep that Einstien might refer to.
Well, when did he say that quote? As I understand, Einstein wasn't too happy about Hiroshima either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been nurturing its AIO lineup. It amazes me that people can not see this.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been keeping its own software, like iTunes, on its own platform. Wait, what? Oh shit.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been refusing to compete in the sub-$1000 market. Wait, what? Oh shit.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been sticking to the PowerPC platform. Wait, what? Oh shit.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been keeping its hardware to itself, and not helping alternative operating systems like Windows to run on it. Wait, what? Oh shit.
Moral: Hell has been freezing over a lot lately.
Second moral:
Introducing a reasonably priced tower does not mean discontinuing the iMac!
And the Pentium D that graces all Dell towers in the requested price range somehow is competitive? Dual G4's can sometimes outdo that, let alone a single G5.
Apple has had reasonably priced towers for years. They didn't sell for shit.
And the $3000 machines must have sold oh so much better....... right?
Quote:
You've missed your window.
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), my next machine will be a laptop. I'm not arguing for what I want - I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple - what would help them solve the problem that even now, after the Intel transition, their desktop machines still don't sell for shit.
This is another thing that no one ever seems to understand. Perhaps in order to make it sink in I will need letters so big that I'll have to make a custom JPEG image in order to get them that size?
And the $3000 machines must have sold oh so much better....... right
MUCH better. As have the AOI and the mini. And the $2000 machines that your hyperbole machine is missing.
Quote:
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), my next machine will be a laptop. I'm not arguing for what I want - I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple - what would help them solve the problem that even now, after the Intel transition, their desktop machines still don't sell for shit.
This is another thing that no one ever seems to understand. Perhaps in order to make it sink in I will need letters so big that I'll have to make a custom JPEG image in order to get them that size?
You don't even want such a computer? Why are you arguing then? For the 20 computer geeks who want them? Apple realized that computer geeks are to small a percentage to make it worth creating a line of computers just for them. So they offer things like iMacs that appeal to average consumers.
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.
See, heres the thing with that. I don't care. I don't work for Apple or own Apple stock. I'm a consumer who wants cheaper things that go faster and have more whistles and bells.
I swear some of you guys probably think you sit at the table when they have board meetings or something... wtf?
MUCH better. As have the AOI and the mini. And the $2000 machines that your hyperbole machine is missing.
The entire tower line didn't sell for shit. That was because they used the G4 processor, which was pathetically weak compared to the competition.
Quote:
You don't even want such a computer? Why are you arguing then?
See, that's why I need to use big letters.
Here it is again:
I'm not arguing for what I want - I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple - what would help them solve the problem that even now, after the Intel transition, their desktop machines still don't sell for shit.
Quote:
For the 20 computer geeks who want them? Apple realized that computer geeks are to small a percentage to make it worth creating a line of computers just for them.
Of the total number of desktops sold, the percentage of machines that are towers is probably at least 95%. Is that a small percentage?
Plus, if the Mac Pro isn't a line of computers intended for computer geeks, then I don't know what is.
Quote:
So they offer things like iMacs that appeal to average computers.
Appeal to average computers? What does that even mean?
The entire tower line didn't sell for shit. That was because they used the G4 processor, which was pathetically weak compared to the competition.
And the G5 line.
Also, the G4 was phenominal when it came out. As was the G5. Just Motorola and IBM were unable to maintain a lead for any time.
You're cutting out facts and large chunks of history.
Also, the higher end Power Macs did mediocre. It's really just the low end that wasn't profitable. You know, the end you're asking for, but don't even want.
Quote:
See, that's why I need to use big letters.
Here it is again:
I'm not arguing for what I want - I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple - what would help them solve the problem that even now, after the Intel transition, their desktop machines still don't sell for shit.
But here's the thing: if the low end G4, when it was competitive, and the low end G5, when it was competitive, hardly sold at all, why would an Apple-branded low end Pentium D?
It won't.
Apple's desktops aren't doing poorly because of a lack of a cheapo tower, they're poor because Apple's sales as a whole are poor, and that the people that do want Macs often want laptops. It's not that the desktops are bad, it's that laptops are currently much more desirable.
Quote:
Of the total number of desktops sold, the percentage of machines that are towers is probably at least 95%. Is that a small percentage?
But these machines still usually aren't expandable. They have integrated graphics; half-height, low channel PCI-E slots, crippled hard drive bays, etc...
In other words, they don't have any benefits over the Mac mini.
To get up to the capability you're asking for, you have to pay at least $2000 for both a Dell and a Mac Pro.
Quote:
Plus, if the Mac Pro isn't a line of computers intended for computer geeks, then I don't know what is.
Um, it's a line intended for professionals. You know, like, designers and video editors.
Quote:
Appeal to average computers? What does that even mean?
2. Decent compile time (compiling Universal Binaries takes twice as long as a single-architecture binary, this gets significant if your project is large)
3. The fact that when you add a monitor, a SuperDrive, dual-core, and a keyboard/mouse to the Core Solo mini you end up with something almost as expensive as the MacBook, which is portable where the Mini isn't
None of those things preclude you from being an open source/shareware developer on a core solo mini and for many tasks it will be more effective than a 2002 Quicksilver tower or for that matter a Dell Latitude D600. I've recompiled TGE on both and its at least a 100K SLOC. Not something you want to do all that often but not something that takes all that long either.
A MacBook is a better buy but that's doesn't mean a Core Solo mini sucks. It means the MB is a really nice laptop.
Quote:
It's not only rude, but it also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It actually hurts your position to point out that $999 is already expensive. I can't figure out why you keep harping on this.
Soooo...its "rude" to point out the reality that if you don't make a lot of money that buying a luxury brand computer is not optimal?
It has to do with the discussion at hand because we're arguing about a relatively small price difference between a iMac 20" and a Mac Pro for anyone that can afford an iMac in the first place AND because that a Mac Pro represents about a summer's work for a high school student flipping burgers at McDonalds.
To which your rejoinder was:
Quote:
'Cause no one is going to need any of that money to pay for other things like, ya know, food, housing, or utility bills. No one has to pay college tuition or support a family or do anything else that requires money, so everyone can just put all of their paycheck towards a frigging computer.
Which brings us to here. Again. Neither $2100 or $999 is overwhelmingly expensive UNLESS you also need to, ya know, pay for food, housing, utility bills, college tuition, support a family, etc. In which case both are sub-optimal choices when there are $279 computers from Dell with monitor or you can use the computer at school, buy from eBay or whatever. Even the $599 core solo is a luxury.
However, pointing out this rather obvious fact is "rude" but using big letters isn't. Mkay.
Quote:
1. Well, for my particular needs, OpenBSD and XP won't cut it
2. Try teaching the average computer user to use OpenBSD (if you had said Linux, that might have made a bit of sense)
3. XP is a lot of fun with the Registry and needing a billion anti-virus and anti-spyware apps.
But...... you once again miss the point, which is that it's not in Apple's best interest to have the desktop line the way it is, because they would want customers to go with their machines instead of OpenBSD or XP machines!!
Substitue any BSD or Linux for OpenBSD...I've used Ubuntu as an example in this thread. I think most folks can make that great leap. XP is just fine for the majority of users. OSX is better. Heh, I actually meant to say FreeBSD not OpenBSD.
We disagree what is in Apple's best interest. A $1000 tower that cannibalizes iMac sales does not seem to be in Apple's best interest from their perspective.
From my perspective, I prefer Apple to stay uniquely different if that helps keep Apple healthy even if I personally might prefer a tower. That isn't just financial health but a corporate vision that works and a stated goal of thinking different. It's hard to get a company to have a certain elan and it appears that Apple has it and the iMac is their image flagship. Elan is a particularly apt word...the Apple folks and the company culture in general seem to embody both meanings of the word (enthusiastic vigor and distintive style or flair).
A $999 tower doesn't quite evoke the same image. It seems too much from the Pepsi Mac era.
Well, when did he say that quote? As I understand, Einstein wasn't too happy about Hiroshima either.
Its a quote attributed to Einstein but there is no documentation that he said it. Doesn't mean that he didn't but its just not documented so there is no date attached.
As far as Hiroshima, no he wasn't happy about it. But Hiroshima evokes images of a single bomber, a bright light and a big mushroom cloud. The image of soldiers goosestepping in a parade, singing patriotic songs marching joyfully off to war often evokes images of Nazi Germany.
Quote:
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been keeping its own software, like iTunes, on its own platform. Wait, what? Oh shit.
...
Moral: Hell has been freezing over a lot lately.
Moral: Its easier to argue when you simply ignore what the other poster writes:
Quote:
Can they depart from this strategy? For certain that they could. Will they? Seems unlikely with this CEO.
Steve is adaptive but the guy has a 22 year fetish with the AIO design.
Quote:
Second moral:
Introducing a reasonably priced tower does not mean discontinuing the iMac!
Second moral: Using a large font size doesn't make your argument any more compelling or hide the fact that if you reduce iMac sales to that of the Cube by introducing a $999 tower you're effectively discontinuing the iMac even if you sell more towers and make more money.
If you make enough more money even Jobs will be swayed I think (if only from a fidiciary duty to stockholders) but its a hard case to make that Apple is not serving their shareholders with their current strategy of emphasis on notebooks. I think most shareholders are happier the way Apple is than attempting to go toe to toe with Dell in the mid-range desktop market.
Lets see if the new eMac and Mac Pro bring their numbers back in line with expectations as they suggest in the conference call.
One machine which failed for a lot of reasons wholly unrelated to the price, most of which have already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and which I don't want to rehash yet again.
Quote:
Also, the G4 was phenominal when it came out.
For a very, very short span of time. Later on, they sucked compared to even low-end PC hardware and could easily be matched or even sometimes surpassed in performance by the laptop line. No one bought them, because no one wanted to drop that kind of serious money on such an inferior machine. The fact that the price was lower is probably the only reason any ever sold at all.
Quote:
As was the G5. Just Motorola and IBM were unable to maintain a lead for any time.
Immaterial - the G5 was freaking expensive.
Quote:
You know, the end you're asking for, but don't even want.
I've already explained this to you twice, and to others countless times previously in the thread. One more time, and you end up on my ignore list.
Quote:
But here's the thing: if the low end G4, when it was competitive, and the low end G5, when it was competitive, hardly sold at all, why would an Apple-branded low end Pentium D?
The only time the G4 was competitive was with the very first one, and it was sabotaged by Moto having supply problems instantly and forcing Apple to cut the clock speed by 50 MHz at the same price, causing a huge PR disaster. The low-end G5 was also a crippled machine. But I'm the one leaving out facts.
Oh, and who said anything about the Pentium D?
Quote:
Apple's desktops aren't doing poorly because of a lack of a cheapo tower, they're poor because Apple's sales as a whole are poor, and that the people that do want Macs often want laptops. It's not that the desktops are bad, it's that laptops are currently much more desirable.
The laptops are much more desirable because the desktops are bad. What's the main reason to get a desktop rather than a laptop? There has to be some advantage since you lose the portability which is a huge advantage for the laptop side. That advantage is expansion. The Mac mini and iMac are basically laptops that aren't portable. The Mac Pro is a real desktop, but it's way too expensive. No wonder the desktops don't sell.
Quote:
But these machines still usually aren't expandable. They have integrated graphics
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how expandable a machine is
Quote:
half-height, low channel PCI-E slots
vs. no PCI-E slots in the mini or iMac
Quote:
crippled hard drive bays
vs. no hard drive bays in the mini or iMac
Quote:
In other words, they don't have any benefits over the Mac mini.
wrong, see above
Quote:
To get up to the capability you're asking for, you have to pay at least $2000 for both a Dell and a Mac Pro.
uh, no
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
A MacBook is a better buy but that's doesn't mean a Core Solo mini sucks. It means the MB is a really nice laptop.
What reason is there to get a mini vs. a MacBook? Other than its narrow, intended purpose, which is to try out a Mac cheaply with your current PC hardware, in order to experiment with it.
Quote:
Soooo...its "rude" to point out the reality that if you don't make a lot of money that buying a luxury brand computer is not optimal?
It has to do with the discussion at hand because we're arguing about a relatively small price difference between a iMac 20" and a Mac Pro for anyone that can afford an iMac in the first place AND because that a Mac Pro represents about a summer's work for a high school student flipping burgers at McDonalds.
To which your rejoinder was:
Which brings us to here. Again. Neither $2100 or $999 is overwhelmingly expensive UNLESS you also need to, ya know, pay for food, housing, utility bills, college tuition, support a family, etc. In which case both are sub-optimal choices when there are $279 computers from Dell with monitor or you can use the computer at school, buy from eBay or whatever. Even the $599 core solo is a luxury.
You should really drop this line of argument, because you know as well as I do that it's ludicrous. Not everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper. There's a middle ground, and there are a lot of people who, due to various expenses, can barely afford something in the $999-$1399 range. Those people can't afford $2200, plain and simple. I'm not going to argue this any longer, since I think I've already made my painfully obvious point more than enough times.
Quote:
Substitue any BSD or Linux for OpenBSD...I've used Ubuntu as an example in this thread. I think most folks can make that great leap. XP is just fine for the majority of users.
Your opinion. Not shared by many on this board, I'd wager.
Quote:
We disagree what is in Apple's best interest. A $1000 tower that cannibalizes iMac sales does not seem to be in Apple's best interest from their perspective.
They want to gain market share. Market share is a good thing. They need to sell computers. I couldn't care less how many iMacs they sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Moral: Its easier to argue when you simply ignore what the other poster writes:
Oh, the irony...
Quote:
Steve is adaptive but the guy has a 22 year fetish with the AIO design.
He's not a complete idiot. In fact, he's proven quite often lately that he's rather brilliant. Therefore, I wouldn't count on his being that hard-headed.
How many AIOs did NeXT sell under Jobs?
Quote:
Second moral: Using a large font size doesn't make your argument any more compelling or hide the fact that if you reduce iMac sales to that of the Cube by introducing a $999 tower you're effectively discontinuing the iMac even if you sell more towers and make more money.
The reason for the large font size was because I'm sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over again. Here is, once more, a summary of my response to this. Make me type it again, and you end up on my ignore list.
1. AIOs exist on the PC side, where there are plenty of towers - they are a niche, but they still sell even though they suck compared to the iMac, and companies still make them
2. The iMac has lots of niceties not found in the proposed consumer tower
3. The iMac appeals to a certain type of user, who will continue to buy the iMac
4. Even if I'm 100% wrong about this and the iMac's sales tank due to the introduction of a new tower, then that's the iMac's fault, not the tower's, and the solution is to fix the iMac, not get rid of its competition. If this can't be done, then the iMac deserves the same fate as the eMac
Quote:
If you make enough more money even Jobs will be swayed I think (if only from a fidiciary duty to stockholders) but its a hard case to make that Apple is not serving their shareholders with their current strategy of emphasis on notebooks. I think most shareholders are happier the way Apple is than attempting to go toe to toe with Dell in the mid-range desktop market.
1. Serving their stockholders: Apple's doing fine with a focus on laptops, but they would do even better with a focus on laptops and desktops - this is obvious
2. Toe to toe with Dell: If you were a customer looking at a $999 Dell, and the equivalent Mac was, let's say $200 more at $1199, you'd be more likely to consider it than if the closest thing was a $2200 machine. This is also obvious
These are also points that have been repeated over and over again. It's getting old. If no one has any new ideas, then maybe this thread should just be closed.
One machine which failed for a lot of reasons wholly unrelated to the price, most of which have already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and which I don't want to rehash yet again.
For a very, very short span of time. Later on, they sucked compared to even low-end PC hardware and could easily be matched or even sometimes surpassed in performance by the laptop line. No one bought them, because no one wanted to drop that kind of serious money on such an inferior machine. The fact that the price was lower is probably the only reason any ever sold at all.
Immaterial - the G5 was freaking expensive.
I've already explained this to you twice, and to others countless times previously in the thread. One more time, and you end up on my ignore list.
The only time the G4 was competitive was with the very first one, and it was sabotaged by Moto having supply problems instantly and forcing Apple to cut the clock speed by 50 MHz at the same price, causing a huge PR disaster. The low-end G5 was also a crippled machine. But I'm the one leaving out facts.
Oh, and who said anything about the Pentium D?
The laptops are much more desirable because the desktops are bad. What's the main reason to get a desktop rather than a laptop? There has to be some advantage since you lose the portability which is a huge advantage for the laptop side. That advantage is expansion. The Mac mini and iMac are basically laptops that aren't portable. The Mac Pro is a real desktop, but it's way too expensive. No wonder the desktops don't sell.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how expandable a machine is
vs. no PCI-E slots in the mini or iMac
vs. no hard drive bays in the mini or iMac
wrong, see above
uh, no
What reason is there to get a mini vs. a MacBook? Other than its narrow, intended purpose, which is to try out a Mac cheaply with your current PC hardware, in order to experiment with it.
You should really drop this line of argument, because you know as well as I do that it's ludicrous. Not everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper. There's a middle ground, and there are a lot of people who, due to various expenses, can barely afford something in the $999-$1399 range. Those people can't afford $2200, plain and simple. I'm not going to argue this any longer, since I think I've already made my painfully obvious point more than enough times.
Your opinion. Not shared by many on this board, I'd wager.
They want to gain market share. Market share is a good thing. They need to sell computers. I couldn't care less how many iMacs they sell.
Oh, the irony...
He's not a complete idiot. In fact, he's proven quite often lately that he's rather brilliant. Therefore, I wouldn't count on this.
The reason for the large font size was because I'm sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over again. Here is, once more, a summary of my response to this. Make me type it again, and you end up on my ignore list.
1. AIOs exist on the PC side, where there are plenty of towers - they are a niche, but they still sell even though they suck compared to the iMac, and companies still make them
2. The iMac has lots of niceties not found in the proposed consumer tower
3. The iMac appeals to a certain type of user, who will continue to buy the iMac
4. Even if I'm 100% wrong about this and the iMac's sales tank due to the introduction of a new tower, then that's the iMac's fault, not the tower's, and the solution is to fix the iMac, not get rid of its competition. If this can't be done, then the iMac deserves the same fate as the eMac
1. Serving their stockholders: Apple's doing fine with a focus on laptops, but they would do even better with a focus on laptops and desktops - this is obvious
2. Toe to toe with Dell: If you were a customer looking at a $999 Dell, and the equivalent Mac was, let's say $200 more at $1199, you'd be more likely to consider it than if the closest thing was a $2200 machine. This is also obvious
These are also points that have been repeated over and over again. It's getting old. If no one has any new ideas, then maybe this thread should just be closed.
Wait, I don't understand... you're saying that you don't even want the computer you're asking for?
Of the total number of desktops sold, the percentage of machines that are towers is probably at least 95%. Is that a small percentage?
Maybe even more.
In the PC desktop-world you can usually choose from a wide variety of towers, towers and gees even more towers.
Another choice isn't available or more expensive.
I don't think we'll see a Mac tower cheaper than an equally equipped iMac.
The Mac towers added features like PCI slots, upgradable GPU etc. is were you'll pay for.
The biggest risk is that a lot of proffesionals will consider this tower good enough for their needs and will opt for this cheaper option instead of the Mac Pro.
Comments
Excellent reply! Really. My respect for you just went up several notches.
Thanks, I try to respect all the folks I argue with*. Or it wouldn't be much fun would it? Who wants to argue with idiots? It doesn't say very much positive about you when you do.
Vinea
* there are notable exceptions but not within this thread or even this forum (the AppleInsider segment anyway)
Back then, one of the arguments I would offer for an xMac, was that Apple had several barriers to overcome to attract switchers. In order to lower barriers Apple should introduce a headless iMac with expansion capability.
Curious that this really hasn't come up. Could be that the software barrier in the past isn't so important to consumers now, with the introduction of iLife apps and Boot Camp/Parallels.
One thing I find interesting in these threads, here and on other websites, is the absence of software being a barrier for switchers. In past threads, the argument that Apple couldn't obtain significant market share may have been due to consumers investments in software.
Back then, one of the arguments I would offer for an xMac, was that Apple had several barriers to overcome to attract switchers. In order to lower barriers Apple should introduce a headless iMac with expansion capability.
Curious that this really hasn't come up. Could be that the software barrier in the past isn't so important to consumers now, with the introduction of iLife apps and Boot Camp/Parallels.
<nod> For anyone with enough savvy to use windows on a daily basis there is no barrier.
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
well, we are certainly not on a 12K income a year...much more than that...and i don't feel guilty at all...my mom paid for the comp...i paid for all software, monitor, keyboard and mouse, so really, i paid for about 40% of it all...thankx CharlS
Heh...I'm not the one that hates people because they point out Macs are expensive luxuries. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Vinea
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.
1. Decent sized hard drive
2. Decent compile time (compiling Universal Binaries takes twice as long as a single-architecture binary, this gets significant if your project is large)
3. The fact that when you add a monitor, a SuperDrive, dual-core, and a keyboard/mouse to the Core Solo mini you end up with something almost as expensive as the MacBook, which is portable where the Mini isn't
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.
It's not only rude, but it also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It actually hurts your position to point out that $999 is already expensive. I can't figure out why you keep harping on this.
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.
1. Well, for my particular needs, OpenBSD and XP won't cut it
2. Try teaching the average computer user to use OpenBSD (if you had said Linux, that might have made a bit of sense)
3. XP is a lot of fun with the Registry and needing a billion anti-virus and anti-spyware apps.
But...... you once again miss the point, which is that it's not in Apple's best interest to have the desktop line the way it is, because they would want customers to go with their machines instead of OpenBSD or XP machines!!
Congrats, you've obliquely invoked Godwin's law even through arguably he is condemning all forms of war and not just Nazis...however that's the most obvious example of folks marching joyfully to war in lockstep that Einstien might refer to.
Well, when did he say that quote? As I understand, Einstein wasn't too happy about Hiroshima either.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been nurturing its AIO lineup. It amazes me that people can not see this.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been keeping its own software, like iTunes, on its own platform. Wait, what? Oh shit.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been refusing to compete in the sub-$1000 market. Wait, what? Oh shit.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been sticking to the PowerPC platform. Wait, what? Oh shit.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been keeping its hardware to itself, and not helping alternative operating systems like Windows to run on it. Wait, what? Oh shit.
Moral: Hell has been freezing over a lot lately.
Second moral:
Introducing a reasonably priced tower does not mean discontinuing the iMac!
Introducing a reasonably priced tower does not mean discontinuing the iMac!
Apple has had reasonably priced towers for years. They didn't sell for shit. You've missed your window. Stop using big letters.
Those had uncompetitive PowerPC processors.
And the Pentium D that graces all Dell towers in the requested price range somehow is competitive? Dual G4's can sometimes outdo that, let alone a single G5.
Apple has had reasonably priced towers for years. They didn't sell for shit.
And the $3000 machines must have sold oh so much better....... right?
You've missed your window.
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), my next machine will be a laptop. I'm not arguing for what I want - I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple - what would help them solve the problem that even now, after the Intel transition, their desktop machines still don't sell for shit.
This is another thing that no one ever seems to understand. Perhaps in order to make it sink in I will need letters so big that I'll have to make a custom JPEG image in order to get them that size?
And the $3000 machines must have sold oh so much better....... right
MUCH better. As have the AOI and the mini. And the $2000 machines that your hyperbole machine is missing.
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), my next machine will be a laptop. I'm not arguing for what I want - I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple - what would help them solve the problem that even now, after the Intel transition, their desktop machines still don't sell for shit.
This is another thing that no one ever seems to understand. Perhaps in order to make it sink in I will need letters so big that I'll have to make a custom JPEG image in order to get them that size?
You don't even want such a computer? Why are you arguing then? For the 20 computer geeks who want them? Apple realized that computer geeks are to small a percentage to make it worth creating a line of computers just for them. So they offer things like iMacs that appeal to average consumers.
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.
See, heres the thing with that. I don't care. I don't work for Apple or own Apple stock. I'm a consumer who wants cheaper things that go faster and have more whistles and bells.
I swear some of you guys probably think you sit at the table when they have board meetings or something... wtf?
MUCH better. As have the AOI and the mini. And the $2000 machines that your hyperbole machine is missing.
The entire tower line didn't sell for shit. That was because they used the G4 processor, which was pathetically weak compared to the competition.
You don't even want such a computer? Why are you arguing then?
See, that's why I need to use big letters.
Here it is again:
I'm not arguing for what I want - I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple - what would help them solve the problem that even now, after the Intel transition, their desktop machines still don't sell for shit.
For the 20 computer geeks who want them? Apple realized that computer geeks are to small a percentage to make it worth creating a line of computers just for them.
Of the total number of desktops sold, the percentage of machines that are towers is probably at least 95%. Is that a small percentage?
Plus, if the Mac Pro isn't a line of computers intended for computer geeks, then I don't know what is.
So they offer things like iMacs that appeal to average computers.
Appeal to average computers? What does that even mean?
The entire tower line didn't sell for shit. That was because they used the G4 processor, which was pathetically weak compared to the competition.
And the G5 line.
Also, the G4 was phenominal when it came out. As was the G5. Just Motorola and IBM were unable to maintain a lead for any time.
You're cutting out facts and large chunks of history.
Also, the higher end Power Macs did mediocre. It's really just the low end that wasn't profitable. You know, the end you're asking for, but don't even want.
See, that's why I need to use big letters.
Here it is again:
I'm not arguing for what I want - I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple - what would help them solve the problem that even now, after the Intel transition, their desktop machines still don't sell for shit.
But here's the thing: if the low end G4, when it was competitive, and the low end G5, when it was competitive, hardly sold at all, why would an Apple-branded low end Pentium D?
It won't.
Apple's desktops aren't doing poorly because of a lack of a cheapo tower, they're poor because Apple's sales as a whole are poor, and that the people that do want Macs often want laptops. It's not that the desktops are bad, it's that laptops are currently much more desirable.
Of the total number of desktops sold, the percentage of machines that are towers is probably at least 95%. Is that a small percentage?
But these machines still usually aren't expandable. They have integrated graphics; half-height, low channel PCI-E slots, crippled hard drive bays, etc...
In other words, they don't have any benefits over the Mac mini.
To get up to the capability you're asking for, you have to pay at least $2000 for both a Dell and a Mac Pro.
Plus, if the Mac Pro isn't a line of computers intended for computer geeks, then I don't know what is.
Um, it's a line intended for professionals. You know, like, designers and video editors.
Appeal to average computers? What does that even mean?
Consumers. Sorry.
1. Decent sized hard drive
2. Decent compile time (compiling Universal Binaries takes twice as long as a single-architecture binary, this gets significant if your project is large)
3. The fact that when you add a monitor, a SuperDrive, dual-core, and a keyboard/mouse to the Core Solo mini you end up with something almost as expensive as the MacBook, which is portable where the Mini isn't
None of those things preclude you from being an open source/shareware developer on a core solo mini and for many tasks it will be more effective than a 2002 Quicksilver tower or for that matter a Dell Latitude D600. I've recompiled TGE on both and its at least a 100K SLOC. Not something you want to do all that often but not something that takes all that long either.
A MacBook is a better buy but that's doesn't mean a Core Solo mini sucks. It means the MB is a really nice laptop.
It's not only rude, but it also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It actually hurts your position to point out that $999 is already expensive. I can't figure out why you keep harping on this.
Soooo...its "rude" to point out the reality that if you don't make a lot of money that buying a luxury brand computer is not optimal?
It has to do with the discussion at hand because we're arguing about a relatively small price difference between a iMac 20" and a Mac Pro for anyone that can afford an iMac in the first place AND because that a Mac Pro represents about a summer's work for a high school student flipping burgers at McDonalds.
To which your rejoinder was:
'Cause no one is going to need any of that money to pay for other things like, ya know, food, housing, or utility bills. No one has to pay college tuition or support a family or do anything else that requires money, so everyone can just put all of their paycheck towards a frigging computer.
Which brings us to here. Again. Neither $2100 or $999 is overwhelmingly expensive UNLESS you also need to, ya know, pay for food, housing, utility bills, college tuition, support a family, etc. In which case both are sub-optimal choices when there are $279 computers from Dell with monitor or you can use the computer at school, buy from eBay or whatever. Even the $599 core solo is a luxury.
However, pointing out this rather obvious fact is "rude" but using big letters isn't. Mkay.
1. Well, for my particular needs, OpenBSD and XP won't cut it
2. Try teaching the average computer user to use OpenBSD (if you had said Linux, that might have made a bit of sense)
3. XP is a lot of fun with the Registry and needing a billion anti-virus and anti-spyware apps.
But...... you once again miss the point, which is that it's not in Apple's best interest to have the desktop line the way it is, because they would want customers to go with their machines instead of OpenBSD or XP machines!!
Substitue any BSD or Linux for OpenBSD...I've used Ubuntu as an example in this thread. I think most folks can make that great leap. XP is just fine for the majority of users. OSX is better. Heh, I actually meant to say FreeBSD not OpenBSD.
We disagree what is in Apple's best interest. A $1000 tower that cannibalizes iMac sales does not seem to be in Apple's best interest from their perspective.
From my perspective, I prefer Apple to stay uniquely different if that helps keep Apple healthy even if I personally might prefer a tower. That isn't just financial health but a corporate vision that works and a stated goal of thinking different. It's hard to get a company to have a certain elan and it appears that Apple has it and the iMac is their image flagship. Elan is a particularly apt word...the Apple folks and the company culture in general seem to embody both meanings of the word (enthusiastic vigor and distintive style or flair).
A $999 tower doesn't quite evoke the same image. It seems too much from the Pepsi Mac era.
Vinea
Well, when did he say that quote? As I understand, Einstein wasn't too happy about Hiroshima either.
Its a quote attributed to Einstein but there is no documentation that he said it. Doesn't mean that he didn't but its just not documented so there is no date attached.
As far as Hiroshima, no he wasn't happy about it. But Hiroshima evokes images of a single bomber, a bright light and a big mushroom cloud. The image of soldiers goosestepping in a parade, singing patriotic songs marching joyfully off to war often evokes images of Nazi Germany.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been keeping its own software, like iTunes, on its own platform. Wait, what? Oh shit.
...
Moral: Hell has been freezing over a lot lately.
Moral: Its easier to argue when you simply ignore what the other poster writes:
Can they depart from this strategy? For certain that they could. Will they? Seems unlikely with this CEO.
Steve is adaptive but the guy has a 22 year fetish with the AIO design.
Second moral:
Introducing a reasonably priced tower does not mean discontinuing the iMac!
Second moral: Using a large font size doesn't make your argument any more compelling or hide the fact that if you reduce iMac sales to that of the Cube by introducing a $999 tower you're effectively discontinuing the iMac even if you sell more towers and make more money.
If you make enough more money even Jobs will be swayed I think (if only from a fidiciary duty to stockholders) but its a hard case to make that Apple is not serving their shareholders with their current strategy of emphasis on notebooks. I think most shareholders are happier the way Apple is than attempting to go toe to toe with Dell in the mid-range desktop market.
Lets see if the new eMac and Mac Pro bring their numbers back in line with expectations as they suggest in the conference call.
Vinea
And the G5 line.
One machine which failed for a lot of reasons wholly unrelated to the price, most of which have already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and which I don't want to rehash yet again.
Also, the G4 was phenominal when it came out.
For a very, very short span of time. Later on, they sucked compared to even low-end PC hardware and could easily be matched or even sometimes surpassed in performance by the laptop line. No one bought them, because no one wanted to drop that kind of serious money on such an inferior machine. The fact that the price was lower is probably the only reason any ever sold at all.
As was the G5. Just Motorola and IBM were unable to maintain a lead for any time.
Immaterial - the G5 was freaking expensive.
You know, the end you're asking for, but don't even want.
I've already explained this to you twice, and to others countless times previously in the thread. One more time, and you end up on my ignore list.
But here's the thing: if the low end G4, when it was competitive, and the low end G5, when it was competitive, hardly sold at all, why would an Apple-branded low end Pentium D?
The only time the G4 was competitive was with the very first one, and it was sabotaged by Moto having supply problems instantly and forcing Apple to cut the clock speed by 50 MHz at the same price, causing a huge PR disaster. The low-end G5 was also a crippled machine. But I'm the one leaving out facts.
Oh, and who said anything about the Pentium D?
Apple's desktops aren't doing poorly because of a lack of a cheapo tower, they're poor because Apple's sales as a whole are poor, and that the people that do want Macs often want laptops. It's not that the desktops are bad, it's that laptops are currently much more desirable.
The laptops are much more desirable because the desktops are bad. What's the main reason to get a desktop rather than a laptop? There has to be some advantage since you lose the portability which is a huge advantage for the laptop side. That advantage is expansion. The Mac mini and iMac are basically laptops that aren't portable. The Mac Pro is a real desktop, but it's way too expensive. No wonder the desktops don't sell.
But these machines still usually aren't expandable. They have integrated graphics
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how expandable a machine is
half-height, low channel PCI-E slots
vs. no PCI-E slots in the mini or iMac
crippled hard drive bays
vs. no hard drive bays in the mini or iMac
In other words, they don't have any benefits over the Mac mini.
wrong, see above
To get up to the capability you're asking for, you have to pay at least $2000 for both a Dell and a Mac Pro.
uh, no
A MacBook is a better buy but that's doesn't mean a Core Solo mini sucks. It means the MB is a really nice laptop.
What reason is there to get a mini vs. a MacBook? Other than its narrow, intended purpose, which is to try out a Mac cheaply with your current PC hardware, in order to experiment with it.
Soooo...its "rude" to point out the reality that if you don't make a lot of money that buying a luxury brand computer is not optimal?
It has to do with the discussion at hand because we're arguing about a relatively small price difference between a iMac 20" and a Mac Pro for anyone that can afford an iMac in the first place AND because that a Mac Pro represents about a summer's work for a high school student flipping burgers at McDonalds.
To which your rejoinder was:
Which brings us to here. Again. Neither $2100 or $999 is overwhelmingly expensive UNLESS you also need to, ya know, pay for food, housing, utility bills, college tuition, support a family, etc. In which case both are sub-optimal choices when there are $279 computers from Dell with monitor or you can use the computer at school, buy from eBay or whatever. Even the $599 core solo is a luxury.
You should really drop this line of argument, because you know as well as I do that it's ludicrous. Not everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper. There's a middle ground, and there are a lot of people who, due to various expenses, can barely afford something in the $999-$1399 range. Those people can't afford $2200, plain and simple. I'm not going to argue this any longer, since I think I've already made my painfully obvious point more than enough times.
Substitue any BSD or Linux for OpenBSD...I've used Ubuntu as an example in this thread. I think most folks can make that great leap. XP is just fine for the majority of users.
Your opinion. Not shared by many on this board, I'd wager.
We disagree what is in Apple's best interest. A $1000 tower that cannibalizes iMac sales does not seem to be in Apple's best interest from their perspective.
They want to gain market share. Market share is a good thing. They need to sell computers. I couldn't care less how many iMacs they sell.
Moral: Its easier to argue when you simply ignore what the other poster writes:
Oh, the irony...
Steve is adaptive but the guy has a 22 year fetish with the AIO design.
He's not a complete idiot. In fact, he's proven quite often lately that he's rather brilliant. Therefore, I wouldn't count on his being that hard-headed.
How many AIOs did NeXT sell under Jobs?
Second moral: Using a large font size doesn't make your argument any more compelling or hide the fact that if you reduce iMac sales to that of the Cube by introducing a $999 tower you're effectively discontinuing the iMac even if you sell more towers and make more money.
The reason for the large font size was because I'm sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over again. Here is, once more, a summary of my response to this. Make me type it again, and you end up on my ignore list.
1. AIOs exist on the PC side, where there are plenty of towers - they are a niche, but they still sell even though they suck compared to the iMac, and companies still make them
2. The iMac has lots of niceties not found in the proposed consumer tower
3. The iMac appeals to a certain type of user, who will continue to buy the iMac
4. Even if I'm 100% wrong about this and the iMac's sales tank due to the introduction of a new tower, then that's the iMac's fault, not the tower's, and the solution is to fix the iMac, not get rid of its competition. If this can't be done, then the iMac deserves the same fate as the eMac
If you make enough more money even Jobs will be swayed I think (if only from a fidiciary duty to stockholders) but its a hard case to make that Apple is not serving their shareholders with their current strategy of emphasis on notebooks. I think most shareholders are happier the way Apple is than attempting to go toe to toe with Dell in the mid-range desktop market.
1. Serving their stockholders: Apple's doing fine with a focus on laptops, but they would do even better with a focus on laptops and desktops - this is obvious
2. Toe to toe with Dell: If you were a customer looking at a $999 Dell, and the equivalent Mac was, let's say $200 more at $1199, you'd be more likely to consider it than if the closest thing was a $2200 machine. This is also obvious
These are also points that have been repeated over and over again. It's getting old. If no one has any new ideas, then maybe this thread should just be closed.
One machine which failed for a lot of reasons wholly unrelated to the price, most of which have already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and which I don't want to rehash yet again.
For a very, very short span of time. Later on, they sucked compared to even low-end PC hardware and could easily be matched or even sometimes surpassed in performance by the laptop line. No one bought them, because no one wanted to drop that kind of serious money on such an inferior machine. The fact that the price was lower is probably the only reason any ever sold at all.
Immaterial - the G5 was freaking expensive.
I've already explained this to you twice, and to others countless times previously in the thread. One more time, and you end up on my ignore list.
The only time the G4 was competitive was with the very first one, and it was sabotaged by Moto having supply problems instantly and forcing Apple to cut the clock speed by 50 MHz at the same price, causing a huge PR disaster. The low-end G5 was also a crippled machine. But I'm the one leaving out facts.
Oh, and who said anything about the Pentium D?
The laptops are much more desirable because the desktops are bad. What's the main reason to get a desktop rather than a laptop? There has to be some advantage since you lose the portability which is a huge advantage for the laptop side. That advantage is expansion. The Mac mini and iMac are basically laptops that aren't portable. The Mac Pro is a real desktop, but it's way too expensive. No wonder the desktops don't sell.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how expandable a machine is
vs. no PCI-E slots in the mini or iMac
vs. no hard drive bays in the mini or iMac
wrong, see above
uh, no
What reason is there to get a mini vs. a MacBook? Other than its narrow, intended purpose, which is to try out a Mac cheaply with your current PC hardware, in order to experiment with it.
You should really drop this line of argument, because you know as well as I do that it's ludicrous. Not everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper. There's a middle ground, and there are a lot of people who, due to various expenses, can barely afford something in the $999-$1399 range. Those people can't afford $2200, plain and simple. I'm not going to argue this any longer, since I think I've already made my painfully obvious point more than enough times.
Your opinion. Not shared by many on this board, I'd wager.
They want to gain market share. Market share is a good thing. They need to sell computers. I couldn't care less how many iMacs they sell.
Oh, the irony...
He's not a complete idiot. In fact, he's proven quite often lately that he's rather brilliant. Therefore, I wouldn't count on this.
The reason for the large font size was because I'm sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over again. Here is, once more, a summary of my response to this. Make me type it again, and you end up on my ignore list.
1. AIOs exist on the PC side, where there are plenty of towers - they are a niche, but they still sell even though they suck compared to the iMac, and companies still make them
2. The iMac has lots of niceties not found in the proposed consumer tower
3. The iMac appeals to a certain type of user, who will continue to buy the iMac
4. Even if I'm 100% wrong about this and the iMac's sales tank due to the introduction of a new tower, then that's the iMac's fault, not the tower's, and the solution is to fix the iMac, not get rid of its competition. If this can't be done, then the iMac deserves the same fate as the eMac
1. Serving their stockholders: Apple's doing fine with a focus on laptops, but they would do even better with a focus on laptops and desktops - this is obvious
2. Toe to toe with Dell: If you were a customer looking at a $999 Dell, and the equivalent Mac was, let's say $200 more at $1199, you'd be more likely to consider it than if the closest thing was a $2200 machine. This is also obvious
These are also points that have been repeated over and over again. It's getting old. If no one has any new ideas, then maybe this thread should just be closed.
Wait, I don't understand... you're saying that you don't even want the computer you're asking for?
Of the total number of desktops sold, the percentage of machines that are towers is probably at least 95%. Is that a small percentage?
Maybe even more.
In the PC desktop-world you can usually choose from a wide variety of towers, towers and gees even more towers.
Another choice isn't available or more expensive.
I don't think we'll see a Mac tower cheaper than an equally equipped iMac.
The Mac towers added features like PCI slots, upgradable GPU etc. is were you'll pay for.
The biggest risk is that a lot of proffesionals will consider this tower good enough for their needs and will opt for this cheaper option instead of the Mac Pro.
We'll see if Apple will take that risk.