I don't know about the rest of them, but I'm hoping that if we make this thread long enough, Apple might get a clue that there is something between family computers and ultra high end workstations.
Why on earth do people keep saying the iMac is "based on laptop parts"? Any idiot who was following this stuff before January 2006 knows the current iMac was originally designed for, and had, a G5 processor, with all that entails, and that the only reason it currently uses Yonah is that that was the only "Core" chip available before this summer. It's called a STOPGAP. iMac will get Conroe just as surely as it got the G5. You people. Seriously.
I wouldn't be so sure its a stop gap. Compare the noise level between the iMac Core Duo and the G5.
And we will be back at this argument after virtually every Mac revision or until after Apple decides to build the mythical xMac.8)
OR - what would be also a cool way to get more people to MacOS X ist to sell an Intel Motherboard with their TP-Chip on it, so everyone could build an "apple" by himself.
What is your obsession with adding troll-like elements to your posts? Ben does not want a $499 computer and has stated over and over and over that he's after a $1499 desktop from Apple. What's your problem?
Because of the 95% nonsense. If you want to push for what 95% of the market is doing then you're down to the lowest common denominator regardless of what else you claim.
I have continually asked if the only difference in our position is $200 (ie $1499 vs $1699) and he has steadfastly evaded that distinction and repeatedly gone back to the old 95% of the market mantra.
That leads me to believe that while we agree on the general specs he really doesn't want it at $1499 where we'd have relatively little disagreement but at the $999 price.
So $499 is a bit trollish but a lot more in line with his arguments. Note in his post that he didn't say what price. Again. 1.86 Conroe, 4 DIMM, 3 PCIe slots, $1699 likely, $1499 possible but less likely, $999 what he wants, $499 what he argues about.
And its real flipping unlikely that Steve will ever give him what he wants because a $1499 Mac Pro based on the Conroe isn't what he wants. Heck, when it comes down to it $1699 isn't a sure thing either but I'd still say it's likely we see a "prosumer" conroe mac.
Because of the 95% nonsense. If you want to push for what 95% of the market is doing then you're down to the lowest common denominator regardless of what else you claim.
I have continually asked if the only difference in our position is $200 (ie $1499 vs $1699) and he has steadfastly evaded that distinction and repeatedly gone back to the old 95% of the market mantra.
That leads me to believe that while we agree on the general specs he really doesn't want it at $1499 where we'd have relatively little disagreement but at the $999 price.
So $499 is a bit trollish but a lot more in line with his arguments. Note in his post that he didn't say what price. Again. 1.86 Conroe, 4 DIMM, 3 PCIe slots, $1699 likely, $1499 possible but less likely, $999 what he wants, $499 what he argues about.
And its real flipping unlikely that Steve will ever give him what he wants because a $1499 Mac Pro based on the Conroe isn't what he wants. Heck, when it comes down to it $1699 isn't a sure thing either but I'd still say it's likely we see a "prosumer" conroe mac.
Vinea
Vinea
And for the most part people here have post a range of about $999 to $1599 give or take a hundred or two.
And I don't think anyone here has expressed a belief that an xMac in this range would increase Apple's market share above 10%. There are other barriers, most notably software. Why would Apple artificially create another hardware barrier if they wish to increase market share. If Apple could just increase US market share 2 to 5 % the effect on the bottom line could be significant.
Most all your arguments are valid, except for the sticky issue that Apple executives have stated on occasions that they wish to increase market share. It isn't happening to a significant degree despite the fact that the Intel Mac mini and iMac have been out for 8 months. In fact sales of desktops is down.
Most all your arguments are valid, except for the sticky issue that Apple executives have stated on occasions that they wish to increase market share. It isn't happening to a significant degree despite the fact that the Intel Mac mini and iMac have been out for 8 months. In fact sales of desktops is down.
You know, the cynical side of me sort of has to wonder if part of that big increase in laptop market share has just been due to iMac users switching over to the laptop side now that the latter isn't stuck with the G4 anymore.
I know that was the main reason I got an iMac G5 instead of an iBook or PowerBook - I wanted a processor that at least sort of didn't suck.
I guess Apple should kill off the laptop line, or make all laptop prices start at $2200. After all, they're stealing sales from the iMac.
Because of the 95% nonsense. If you want to push for what 95% of the market is doing then you're down to the lowest common denominator regardless of what else you claim. . .
A misconception about the market seems persistent in some posts to this topic. Where is the wisdom in implying that Apple should be above what the market is doing? This is a good way to go nowhere. If people are buying mini towers in droves, then Apple need get into this market. Doing so would not reduce Apple to the "lowest common denominator." Apple has always made products that make a difference, and Apple can do the same with the mini tower, just as they have with the professional tower.
I know I have addressed only your introductory statement, not the main point of your posting. This is intentional. I don't care to comment on your main point, at least for now.
A misconception about the market seems persistent in some posts to this topic. Where is the wisdom in implying that Apple should be above what the market is doing? This is a good way to go nowhere. If people are buying mini towers in droves, then Apple need get into this market. Doing so would not reduce Apple to the "lowest common denominator." Apple has always made products that make a difference, and Apple can do the same with the mini tower, just as they have with the professional tower.
I know I have addressed only your introductory statement, not the main point of your posting. This is intentional. I don't care to comment on your main point, at least for now.
where Apple needs to rise above the market is if these companies are selling tons of mini towers but at next to no profit. it doesn't matter how much something sells; if the price point is bad and it's not profitable, stay the hell away from it.
where Apple needs to rise above the market is if these companies are selling tons of mini towers but at next to no profit. it doesn't matter how much something sells; if the price point is bad and it's not profitable, stay the hell away from it.
If Apple can compete with the Mini, iMac, Mac Book Pro, Mac Book, and Mac Pro they should be able to compete in the Mini-Tower market. There is nothing saying that they need to stick with a 5% profit margin, they don't have that low of a profit margin on any product they sell with possible exception of songs on iTMS.
where Apple needs to rise above the market is if these companies are selling tons of mini towers but at next to no profit. it doesn't matter how much something sells; if the price point is bad and it's not profitable, stay the hell away from it.
Who's talking about selling mini towers at "at next to no profit?" Not me. Apple can sell with their usual profit margin and do fine. An Apple mini tower wouldn't be competing with all the Windows mini towers out there. (I am sounding like a broken 33 RPM LP on this point.) Windows mini towers DO NOT RUN Mac OS X. Period.
Comments
Desktop 3.5" drive. Desktop Graphics card (x1600). Desktop RAM. If it waddles and quacks, it's probably a fracking duck, people.
Or a Balmer.
And they have. Which is why despite a vastly superior operating system, 95% choose to go elsewhere.
The reason for this is far more complex and beyond the iMac alone.
a $1000 desk top with gma 950 is not going to cut it.
Its more likely to have the GMA X3000.
Desktop RAM.
Actually, ever since the iSight G5 re-design, the iMac has used laptop RAM.
How can you guys not get bored writing and reading the same things over and over for 18 freakin' pages???
We're trying to set a record. Over at Ars that thread has only reached 10 pages, not including the pages it was spawned from.
Or, it could be that there really is a hole in Apple's line-up that a lot of people would really really like filled.
I don't know about the rest of them, but I'm hoping that if we make this thread long enough, Apple might get a clue that there is something between family computers and ultra high end workstations.
I totally agree.
Actually, ever since the iSight G5 re-design, the iMac has used laptop RAM.
The iMac also uses a laptop optical drive.
Why on earth do people keep saying the iMac is "based on laptop parts"? Any idiot who was following this stuff before January 2006 knows the current iMac was originally designed for, and had, a G5 processor, with all that entails, and that the only reason it currently uses Yonah is that that was the only "Core" chip available before this summer. It's called a STOPGAP. iMac will get Conroe just as surely as it got the G5. You people. Seriously.
I wouldn't be so sure its a stop gap. Compare the noise level between the iMac Core Duo and the G5.
The iMac also uses a laptop optical drive.
And CPU
And Motherboard
And GPU.
The only real desktop part is the 3.5" hard drive.
We're trying to set a record. Over at Ars that thread has only reached 10 pages, not including the pages it was spawned from.
Or, it could be that there really is a hole in Apple's line-up that a lot of people would really really like filled.
And, by extension, a lot of other people would really, really, NOT like it filled.
Hence, 18 pages of back and forth...
And, by extension, a lot of other people would really, really, NOT like it filled.
...
And we will be back at this argument after virtually every Mac revision or until after Apple decides to build the mythical xMac.8)
And we will be back at this argument after virtually every Mac revision or until after Apple decides to build the mythical xMac.8)
OR - what would be also a cool way to get more people to MacOS X ist to sell an Intel Motherboard with their TP-Chip on it, so everyone could build an "apple" by himself.
And we will be back at this argument after virtually every Mac revision or until after Apple decides to build the mythical xMac.8)
<salespitch> hMac. Remember, H is for Headless! </salespitch>
What is your obsession with adding troll-like elements to your posts? Ben does not want a $499 computer and has stated over and over and over that he's after a $1499 desktop from Apple. What's your problem?
Because of the 95% nonsense. If you want to push for what 95% of the market is doing then you're down to the lowest common denominator regardless of what else you claim.
I have continually asked if the only difference in our position is $200 (ie $1499 vs $1699) and he has steadfastly evaded that distinction and repeatedly gone back to the old 95% of the market mantra.
That leads me to believe that while we agree on the general specs he really doesn't want it at $1499 where we'd have relatively little disagreement but at the $999 price.
So $499 is a bit trollish but a lot more in line with his arguments. Note in his post that he didn't say what price. Again. 1.86 Conroe, 4 DIMM, 3 PCIe slots, $1699 likely, $1499 possible but less likely, $999 what he wants, $499 what he argues about.
And its real flipping unlikely that Steve will ever give him what he wants because a $1499 Mac Pro based on the Conroe isn't what he wants. Heck, when it comes down to it $1699 isn't a sure thing either but I'd still say it's likely we see a "prosumer" conroe mac.
Vinea
Because of the 95% nonsense. If you want to push for what 95% of the market is doing then you're down to the lowest common denominator regardless of what else you claim.
I have continually asked if the only difference in our position is $200 (ie $1499 vs $1699) and he has steadfastly evaded that distinction and repeatedly gone back to the old 95% of the market mantra.
That leads me to believe that while we agree on the general specs he really doesn't want it at $1499 where we'd have relatively little disagreement but at the $999 price.
So $499 is a bit trollish but a lot more in line with his arguments. Note in his post that he didn't say what price. Again. 1.86 Conroe, 4 DIMM, 3 PCIe slots, $1699 likely, $1499 possible but less likely, $999 what he wants, $499 what he argues about.
And its real flipping unlikely that Steve will ever give him what he wants because a $1499 Mac Pro based on the Conroe isn't what he wants. Heck, when it comes down to it $1699 isn't a sure thing either but I'd still say it's likely we see a "prosumer" conroe mac.
Vinea
Vinea
And for the most part people here have post a range of about $999 to $1599 give or take a hundred or two.
And I don't think anyone here has expressed a belief that an xMac in this range would increase Apple's market share above 10%. There are other barriers, most notably software. Why would Apple artificially create another hardware barrier if they wish to increase market share. If Apple could just increase US market share 2 to 5 % the effect on the bottom line could be significant.
Most all your arguments are valid, except for the sticky issue that Apple executives have stated on occasions that they wish to increase market share. It isn't happening to a significant degree despite the fact that the Intel Mac mini and iMac have been out for 8 months. In fact sales of desktops is down.
Most all your arguments are valid, except for the sticky issue that Apple executives have stated on occasions that they wish to increase market share. It isn't happening to a significant degree despite the fact that the Intel Mac mini and iMac have been out for 8 months. In fact sales of desktops is down.
You know, the cynical side of me sort of has to wonder if part of that big increase in laptop market share has just been due to iMac users switching over to the laptop side now that the latter isn't stuck with the G4 anymore.
I know that was the main reason I got an iMac G5 instead of an iBook or PowerBook - I wanted a processor that at least sort of didn't suck.
I guess Apple should kill off the laptop line, or make all laptop prices start at $2200. After all, they're stealing sales from the iMac.
Because of the 95% nonsense. If you want to push for what 95% of the market is doing then you're down to the lowest common denominator regardless of what else you claim. . .
A misconception about the market seems persistent in some posts to this topic. Where is the wisdom in implying that Apple should be above what the market is doing? This is a good way to go nowhere. If people are buying mini towers in droves, then Apple need get into this market. Doing so would not reduce Apple to the "lowest common denominator." Apple has always made products that make a difference, and Apple can do the same with the mini tower, just as they have with the professional tower.
I know I have addressed only your introductory statement, not the main point of your posting. This is intentional. I don't care to comment on your main point, at least for now.
A misconception about the market seems persistent in some posts to this topic. Where is the wisdom in implying that Apple should be above what the market is doing? This is a good way to go nowhere. If people are buying mini towers in droves, then Apple need get into this market. Doing so would not reduce Apple to the "lowest common denominator." Apple has always made products that make a difference, and Apple can do the same with the mini tower, just as they have with the professional tower.
I know I have addressed only your introductory statement, not the main point of your posting. This is intentional. I don't care to comment on your main point, at least for now.
where Apple needs to rise above the market is if these companies are selling tons of mini towers but at next to no profit. it doesn't matter how much something sells; if the price point is bad and it's not profitable, stay the hell away from it.
where Apple needs to rise above the market is if these companies are selling tons of mini towers but at next to no profit. it doesn't matter how much something sells; if the price point is bad and it's not profitable, stay the hell away from it.
If Apple can compete with the Mini, iMac, Mac Book Pro, Mac Book, and Mac Pro they should be able to compete in the Mini-Tower market. There is nothing saying that they need to stick with a 5% profit margin, they don't have that low of a profit margin on any product they sell with possible exception of songs on iTMS.
where Apple needs to rise above the market is if these companies are selling tons of mini towers but at next to no profit. it doesn't matter how much something sells; if the price point is bad and it's not profitable, stay the hell away from it.
Who's talking about selling mini towers at "at next to no profit?" Not me. Apple can sell with their usual profit margin and do fine. An Apple mini tower wouldn't be competing with all the Windows mini towers out there. (I am sounding like a broken 33 RPM LP on this point.) Windows mini towers DO NOT RUN Mac OS X. Period.