. . . Why not just keep the iMac as it is and replace the Mini with your suggestion (i.e., something slightly larger that can accommodate desktop HDD, RAM, optical drive and up to Conroe CPU)? If you go back to the thread when the Intel Mini was introduced, you will see that I wished that Apple had never come out with the Mini as it is, but had instead come out with an ultra-compact desktop (as opposed to a laptop with no screen) that could scale in price all the way from $399 to $2000.
Yes, the Mini replacement I envisioned is an ultra-compact desktop, more or less a flat design. The one you refer to has an 8 X 8 inch foot print and is 3.5 inches tall. One I mention earlier is 8 inches deep, 11 inches wide and 2.5 inches tall. (I originally said 2 but it needs to be a little taller I think.) The volume of these are 224 and 220 cubic inches respectively. Apple, take your pick.
For comparison, the Mini is just under 85 cubic inches, but the Shuttle is a whopping 915 cubic inches. That is very big compared to what I propose.
I think you are right on price. The Mini is $599, but the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399, with more standard parts and integrated graphics. The Conroe version is clearly far ahead of any imaginable Mini in CPU performance, and can have a choice of graphics cards. This version should satisfy anyone looking for a small, simple, high performance Mac.
The above is what I consider the heart of my proposal. I got the idea of adding a Cinema type display on top of the high performance version, to serve as an iMac. The obvious advantage is cost savings. The iMac would be an option, and share the same Conroe computer module. That is, these Macs would all be one family or model computer. With just one model desktop below the Mac Pro, there is more justification to add a mini tower, which so many people want.
What I do not understand is how the current consumer desktop Mac line can correspond to the future vision of Apple home media use.
e.g:
(1) iTV/iTunes - they will want you to store all your iTunes stuff (tunes and films etc) on your Mac and then 'remote control'/serve it to TV or Stereo/upload to iPod. The storage space requirement is set to spiral up. The consumer iMac/Mini's do not have easily user upgradable hard drives. So this requires extra multiple USB/Firewire storage solutions.
(2) Time Machine requires another hard drive for use AFAI can see...
So they are selling these elegant machines that won't support their home strategy without at least 2 extra hard drive upgrades (considering that upgrade iMac to 500GB is difficult/invalidates warranty) tagged on. Such a set-up is ugly and negates all the elegance of the computers looks.
Clearly iTV is absolutely meaningless for the Mac portables that sell so well.
Where is the home consumer server/storage solution from Apple?
Unless they already gave up. Your server will be a PC box with 4 internal HD's serving iTV etc. That would be a shame.
I really would just love to see a mac mini that wasn't as mini, i.e. that didn't use laptop hard drives. That is really about it. No slots, nothing else, just something you could get some real storage for.
I really would just love to see a mac mini that wasn't as mini, i.e. that didn't use laptop hard drives. That is really about it. No slots, nothing else, just something you could get some real storage for.
If Apple had made the thing around a desktop hard drive with 8x8x2.5 Dimensions, it would have gotten the same acclaim, but it also would have been more practical.
I really would just love to see a mac mini that wasn't as mini, i.e. that didn't use laptop hard drives. That is really about it. No slots, nothing else, just something you could get some real storage for.
A cube maybe? With dedicated graphics, conroe processor, a 250 gb hd and one expansion slot? Starting at say $999?
It would be in mine in days, as things stand at the moment I have been looking at PCs just because Apple has nothing to offer someone with a decent monitor. GM950s are just suck butt to be honest. Both Dell and HP have a nice small form factor machine with a PCI slot and a graphic option over integrated crapo graphics. I dont need a dual sli 1 million watts graphics but I do need something other then $4 GMA950 that cant even play 2 yr old games for christ sakes.
What I do not understand is how the current consumer desktop Mac line can correspond to the future vision of Apple home media use.
e.g:
(1) iTV/iTunes - they will want you to store all your iTunes stuff (tunes and films etc) on your Mac and then 'remote control'/serve it to TV or Stereo/upload to iPod. The storage space requirement is set to spiral up. The consumer iMac/Mini's do not have easily user upgradable hard drives. So this requires extra multiple USB/Firewire storage solutions.
(2) Time Machine requires another hard drive for use AFAI can see...
So they are selling these elegant machines that won't support their home strategy without at least 2 extra hard drive upgrades (considering that upgrade iMac to 500GB is difficult/invalidates warranty) tagged on. Such a set-up is ugly and negates all the elegance of the computers looks.
Clearly iTV is absolutely meaningless for the Mac portables that sell so well.
Where is the home consumer server/storage solution from Apple?
Unless they already gave up. Your server will be a PC box with 4 internal HD's serving iTV etc. That would be a shame.
Clearly, the iTV and TimeMachine are meant for the home market. Yet, I was having the same problem that you are having, how can a single iMac, or MacBook/iBook, or whatever in the home be able to handle such a load, or even be able to handle the new space requirements of TimeMachine. Then it hit me: iHome. We have heard the rumors, now I think it will come to to light.
I see iHome being the consumer's version of the xServe. It has the larger space, and can be expanded upon. It has the ability to come into a person's existing network, and people can backup to it (al 'la TimeMachine). Plus, here's the clincher on it, people can merge their existing iTunes music/movies/shows, their iPhotos, iMovies, and what not to one machine for centralized storage. This makes the iTV a workable solution, and solves the problem for TimeMachine in a home network.
Um...prove what? That Apple share has increased despite the lack of a tower? That should be easy.
Yes, arguably they could have gained even more share with a tower...but what would it have cost them in exchange? You suggest margins but there are other oppourtunity costs.
Umm...Apple does offer a Small Form Factor (SFF) computer.
Perhaps Apple took a close look at the demographics they wish to pursue and laptops were more important to that segment than expandable towers or cubes?
Because improving market share to 6.1% is indicative that they don't care about increasing share and they have been unsuccessful at it? Or maybe they simply disagree with you on how to increase share and the importance of share vis a vis other acknowledged corporate objectives?
Did I miss something or did they declare that their FY07 goal was share at all costs?
Vinea
Apple's market share increase to 6.1% US sales is exclusively due to increased laptop sales. Apple's worldwide sales is still hovering @ 2%. It is painfully obvious that at this time, when Apple offers what consumers perceive meets their expectations they will buy Apple computers. Desktop sales are stagnant and apparently do not meet consumers expectations.
In a recent quarterly report, Apple expressly stated that they wish to increase market share. They reiterated this desire again during a press conference. Yes, Apple has stated they wish to increase market share, no, they did not state that this was a goal at all cost. I can only presume you added this comment - "at all costs" - to obfuscate the argument.
Other manufacturers have and still do offer AIO computers. These do not sell. Consumers reject the AIO. The reasons do not matter. Consumers expect and want separate computers that come with some reasonable amount of upgradability.
It is really pretty simple. It is easier to sell the consumer what they want or expect than to convince them to buy what you think they really need. It really is that simple. No slight of hand, no rationalizations, no defending Apple's product mix and margins.
In this market the Mac mini is a non starter. It is necessarily expensive because of the parts. Its' whole design is predicated on its' small size and low noise. It exemplifies the niche market concept.
There are only a few advantages to AIO. Small footprint, no wire needed to connect a separate monitor and only 1 box to open. It's disadvatages are numerous - no expanability, no upgradablility, no ability to add internal optical drives, when the need arises no ability to replace either the screen or computer independently, no ability to upgrade at the time of purchase.
You may think that consumers don't care about these disadvantages, but at least on the dark side they do and have en masse rejected the AIO computer.
You may think that consumers don't care about these disadvantages, but at least on the dark side they do and have en masse rejected the AIO computer.
These numbers don't necessarily show that. That is how you are interpreting them. To see it this way you conveniently leave out a couple of facts.
Laptops are outselling desktops across the entire computer industry. There also was pent up demand because Apple had not had any real significant laptop updates in three years.
Give us an example of an OEM who makes more money than Apple from selling these desktops consumers want that Apple does not offer.
yeah apple should sell a machine with basically the imac specs but in a box that has enough room for an extra HD and a video card. they'd sell a lot of these.
AIOs suck because the monitor becomes disposable. i don't like to throw stuff out.
These numbers don't necessarily show that. That is how you are interpreting them. To see it this way you conveniently leave out a couple of facts.
Laptops are outselling desktops across the entire computer industry. There also was pent up demand because Apple had not had any real significant laptop updates in three years.
Give us an example of an OEM who makes more money than Apple from selling these desktops consumers want that Apple does not offer.
A laptop is not a desktop, different market completely. The desktop market did increase world wide, albeit not as fast as the laptop market. The desktop market is not dead and will not be for a long time.
Quote:
"Give us an example of an OEM who makes more money than Apple from selling these desktops consumers want that Apple does not offer."
You know I don't have those facts, but when discussing increasing market share the salient point is consumers have rejected the AIO world wide, only Apple requires you buy one to get mid level performance.
Opinion: Other computer manufacturer are making a very good profit on the $800 - $1600+ desktops that have the Core 2 Duo Conroe cpus. These are not stripped down entry level web surfers. These are machines that people buy for home use photo, video, and audio. This is also Apple's strength in software design. No I can't prove other computer manufacturers make a good profit on these computers, I can only infer this from Michael Dell's comments in a quarterly report when he basically explained Dell's relatively poor performance on the low end entry level boxes. At the time I believe they had margins in the 16% neighborhood. This has to mean the margins on the mid to upper end computers were considerably higher than that 16%.
Apple's market share increase to 6.1% US sales is exclusively due to increased laptop sales.
...
In a recent quarterly report, Apple expressly stated that they wish to increase market share. They reiterated this desire again during a press conference. Yes, Apple has stated they wish to increase market share, no, they did not state that this was a goal at all cost. I can only presume you added this comment - "at all costs" - to obfuscate the argument.
Mmm...seems like they successfully KEPT their promise of pursuing more share. The "at all costs" is not an obsfucation as it is pertinent to your assertion that they don't care about share. They said they care and they translated that desire into measureable share gain.
Hard to whine about their commitment to share when its growing as it is.
Quote:
Other manufacturers have and still do offer AIO computers. These do not sell. Consumers reject the AIO. The reasons do not matter. Consumers expect and want separate computers that come with some reasonable amount of upgradability.
Which is why the mobile AIO market (aka laptops) is growing while desktops is shrinking?
Desktop AIO competitors don't seem to have the same quality of design as the iMac.
Quote:
It is really pretty simple. It is easier to sell the consumer what they want or expect than to convince them to buy what you think they really need. It really is that simple. No slight of hand, no rationalizations, no defending Apple's product mix and margins.
Evidently what they want are laptops. Apple provided them with great laptops. They did not concentrate on the desktop market in the segments that you seem to hold in high esteem. So what? That doesn't translate into Apple management lying about desiring more market share.
Quote:
In this market the Mac mini is a non starter. It is necessarily expensive because of the parts. Its' whole design is predicated on its' small size and low noise. It exemplifies the niche market concept.
In your opinion. In my opinion its a transitional product that is intended for the set top.
Quote:
You may think that consumers don't care about these disadvantages, but at least on the dark side they do and have en masse rejected the AIO computer.
iMacs/minis appear to be profitable and Apple appears to be selling a half million+ a quarter. For a niche product with good margins that's a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
Mmm...seems like they successfully KEPT their promise of pursuing more share.
The issue is whether Apple has chosen the right desktop computers to offer those consumers who don't want to go for broke and get a Mac Pro. You seem to feel that the iMac and Mini are okay, but they do not sell on the Windows side. Your response to this observation:
Quote:
Desktop AIO competitors don't seem to have the same quality of design as the iMac.
This is true. The mini and iMac are fine computers, but they are aimed at niche markets. The iMac and Mini sell better than the Window counterparts only because Apple offer no alternative desktop in this price range.
The iMac and Mini should have been desktops that Apple offers only after Apple has something like a conroe mini tower and a practical entry level Mac in their product line. By practical entry level, I mean a low cost Mac using common components, not laptop parts.
Mmm...seems like they successfully KEPT their promise of pursuing more share. The "at all costs" is not an obsfucation as it is pertinent to your assertion that they don't care about share. They said they care and they translated that desire into measureable share gain.
Hard to whine about their commitment to share when its growing as it is.
Which is why the mobile AIO market (aka laptops) is growing while desktops is shrinking?
Desktop AIO competitors don't seem to have the same quality of design as the iMac.
Evidently what they want are laptops. Apple provided them with great laptops. They did not concentrate on the desktop market in the segments that you seem to hold in high esteem. So what? That doesn't translate into Apple management lying about desiring more market share.
In your opinion. In my opinion its a transitional product that is intended for the set top.
iMacs/minis appear to be profitable and Apple appears to be selling a half million+ a quarter. For a niche product with good margins that's a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
Vinea
Desktop sales as a % of the total market decline. Absolute sales increased.
I don't hold this segment of the market in "high esteem", 93.9% of the market holds this segment in high esteem. Yes, Apples total market share increased, due to laptops, but even at 6.1% it is still extremely small.
Desktop sales as a % of the total market decline. Absolute sales increased.
I don't hold this segment of the market in "high esteem", 93.9% of the market holds this segment in high esteem. Yes, Apples total market share increased, due to laptops, but even at 6.1% it is still extremely small.
Also, let's not forget that whilst the U.S. share is doing well, global share is increasing much more slowly and is still below 3%. On top of that, it remains to be seen how much of the recent increases were due to pent-up demand in the Mac user base rather than due to a pick-up in switching rate.
I seriously doubt Apple will have a significant market share boost in its world numbers. Namely because the fastest growing markets such as China and India are mostly buying low cost budget computers. The very unprofitable market that Apple does not work in.
So yes the world wide market for cheap desktop computers will continue to grow. That does not mean Apple should jump into it.
Apple has been very successful in the U.S. and Europe. While the increase in market share is slight, the increase in profit has been huge.
The issue is whether Apple has chosen the right desktop computers to offer those consumers who don't want to go for broke and get a Mac Pro. You seem to feel that the iMac and Mini are okay, but they do not sell on the Windows side. Your response to this observation:
Actually the issue is one of semantics. Folks claim that Apple is lying that share is important despite the fact that they did gain share in their most important market (US).
So share is important to Apple but of less importance than other concerns like branding. Laptops (thin ones anyway), AIOs and SFF computers they consider to enhance their branding. Mid range towers evidently not so much.
Without the cache of branding and form factor Apple has a slightly better OS. Thus I can see a Cube but not a mid-tower except as a low end Mac Pro (and priced accordingly...ie $1600+ rather than $1200-). With the Kentsfields not far off the Quads will soon be the new low end...perhaps hitting that $1700 price point for a lower end Woodcrest...so maybe that's why no Conroe tower.
Average Apple desktop price was for Q4 $1,392. That's pretty nice.
Besides, the Mac pro was a latecomer to the party. Lets see how the desktop goes next quarter.
Comments
. . . Why not just keep the iMac as it is and replace the Mini with your suggestion (i.e., something slightly larger that can accommodate desktop HDD, RAM, optical drive and up to Conroe CPU)? If you go back to the thread when the Intel Mini was introduced, you will see that I wished that Apple had never come out with the Mini as it is, but had instead come out with an ultra-compact desktop (as opposed to a laptop with no screen) that could scale in price all the way from $399 to $2000.
Yes, the Mini replacement I envisioned is an ultra-compact desktop, more or less a flat design. The one you refer to has an 8 X 8 inch foot print and is 3.5 inches tall. One I mention earlier is 8 inches deep, 11 inches wide and 2.5 inches tall. (I originally said 2 but it needs to be a little taller I think.) The volume of these are 224 and 220 cubic inches respectively. Apple, take your pick.
For comparison, the Mini is just under 85 cubic inches, but the Shuttle is a whopping 915 cubic inches. That is very big compared to what I propose.
I think you are right on price. The Mini is $599, but the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399, with more standard parts and integrated graphics. The Conroe version is clearly far ahead of any imaginable Mini in CPU performance, and can have a choice of graphics cards. This version should satisfy anyone looking for a small, simple, high performance Mac.
The above is what I consider the heart of my proposal. I got the idea of adding a Cinema type display on top of the high performance version, to serve as an iMac. The obvious advantage is cost savings. The iMac would be an option, and share the same Conroe computer module. That is, these Macs would all be one family or model computer. With just one model desktop below the Mac Pro, there is more justification to add a mini tower, which so many people want.
e.g:
(1) iTV/iTunes - they will want you to store all your iTunes stuff (tunes and films etc) on your Mac and then 'remote control'/serve it to TV or Stereo/upload to iPod. The storage space requirement is set to spiral up. The consumer iMac/Mini's do not have easily user upgradable hard drives. So this requires extra multiple USB/Firewire storage solutions.
(2) Time Machine requires another hard drive for use AFAI can see...
So they are selling these elegant machines that won't support their home strategy without at least 2 extra hard drive upgrades (considering that upgrade iMac to 500GB is difficult/invalidates warranty) tagged on. Such a set-up is ugly and negates all the elegance of the computers looks.
Clearly iTV is absolutely meaningless for the Mac portables that sell so well.
Where is the home consumer server/storage solution from Apple?
Unless they already gave up. Your server will be a PC box with 4 internal HD's serving iTV etc. That would be a shame.
I really would just love to see a mac mini that wasn't as mini, i.e. that didn't use laptop hard drives. That is really about it. No slots, nothing else, just something you could get some real storage for.
If Apple had made the thing around a desktop hard drive with 8x8x2.5 Dimensions, it would have gotten the same acclaim, but it also would have been more practical.
I really would just love to see a mac mini that wasn't as mini, i.e. that didn't use laptop hard drives. That is really about it. No slots, nothing else, just something you could get some real storage for.
A cube maybe? With dedicated graphics, conroe processor, a 250 gb hd and one expansion slot? Starting at say $999?
Welcome to the debate.
What I do not understand is how the current consumer desktop Mac line can correspond to the future vision of Apple home media use.
e.g:
(1) iTV/iTunes - they will want you to store all your iTunes stuff (tunes and films etc) on your Mac and then 'remote control'/serve it to TV or Stereo/upload to iPod. The storage space requirement is set to spiral up. The consumer iMac/Mini's do not have easily user upgradable hard drives. So this requires extra multiple USB/Firewire storage solutions.
(2) Time Machine requires another hard drive for use AFAI can see...
So they are selling these elegant machines that won't support their home strategy without at least 2 extra hard drive upgrades (considering that upgrade iMac to 500GB is difficult/invalidates warranty) tagged on. Such a set-up is ugly and negates all the elegance of the computers looks.
Clearly iTV is absolutely meaningless for the Mac portables that sell so well.
Where is the home consumer server/storage solution from Apple?
Unless they already gave up. Your server will be a PC box with 4 internal HD's serving iTV etc. That would be a shame.
Clearly, the iTV and TimeMachine are meant for the home market. Yet, I was having the same problem that you are having, how can a single iMac, or MacBook/iBook, or whatever in the home be able to handle such a load, or even be able to handle the new space requirements of TimeMachine. Then it hit me: iHome. We have heard the rumors, now I think it will come to to light.
I see iHome being the consumer's version of the xServe. It has the larger space, and can be expanded upon. It has the ability to come into a person's existing network, and people can backup to it (al 'la TimeMachine). Plus, here's the clincher on it, people can merge their existing iTunes music/movies/shows, their iPhotos, iMovies, and what not to one machine for centralized storage. This makes the iTV a workable solution, and solves the problem for TimeMachine in a home network.
Um...prove what? That Apple share has increased despite the lack of a tower? That should be easy.
Yes, arguably they could have gained even more share with a tower...but what would it have cost them in exchange? You suggest margins but there are other oppourtunity costs.
Umm...Apple does offer a Small Form Factor (SFF) computer.
Perhaps Apple took a close look at the demographics they wish to pursue and laptops were more important to that segment than expandable towers or cubes?
Because improving market share to 6.1% is indicative that they don't care about increasing share and they have been unsuccessful at it? Or maybe they simply disagree with you on how to increase share and the importance of share vis a vis other acknowledged corporate objectives?
Did I miss something or did they declare that their FY07 goal was share at all costs?
Vinea
Apple's market share increase to 6.1% US sales is exclusively due to increased laptop sales. Apple's worldwide sales is still hovering @ 2%. It is painfully obvious that at this time, when Apple offers what consumers perceive meets their expectations they will buy Apple computers. Desktop sales are stagnant and apparently do not meet consumers expectations.
In a recent quarterly report, Apple expressly stated that they wish to increase market share. They reiterated this desire again during a press conference. Yes, Apple has stated they wish to increase market share, no, they did not state that this was a goal at all cost. I can only presume you added this comment - "at all costs" - to obfuscate the argument.
Other manufacturers have and still do offer AIO computers. These do not sell. Consumers reject the AIO. The reasons do not matter. Consumers expect and want separate computers that come with some reasonable amount of upgradability.
It is really pretty simple. It is easier to sell the consumer what they want or expect than to convince them to buy what you think they really need. It really is that simple. No slight of hand, no rationalizations, no defending Apple's product mix and margins.
In this market the Mac mini is a non starter. It is necessarily expensive because of the parts. Its' whole design is predicated on its' small size and low noise. It exemplifies the niche market concept.
There are only a few advantages to AIO. Small footprint, no wire needed to connect a separate monitor and only 1 box to open. It's disadvatages are numerous - no expanability, no upgradablility, no ability to add internal optical drives, when the need arises no ability to replace either the screen or computer independently, no ability to upgrade at the time of purchase.
You may think that consumers don't care about these disadvantages, but at least on the dark side they do and have en masse rejected the AIO computer.
You may think that consumers don't care about these disadvantages, but at least on the dark side they do and have en masse rejected the AIO computer.
These numbers don't necessarily show that. That is how you are interpreting them. To see it this way you conveniently leave out a couple of facts.
Laptops are outselling desktops across the entire computer industry. There also was pent up demand because Apple had not had any real significant laptop updates in three years.
Give us an example of an OEM who makes more money than Apple from selling these desktops consumers want that Apple does not offer.
AIOs suck because the monitor becomes disposable. i don't like to throw stuff out.
These numbers don't necessarily show that. That is how you are interpreting them. To see it this way you conveniently leave out a couple of facts.
Laptops are outselling desktops across the entire computer industry. There also was pent up demand because Apple had not had any real significant laptop updates in three years.
Give us an example of an OEM who makes more money than Apple from selling these desktops consumers want that Apple does not offer.
A laptop is not a desktop, different market completely. The desktop market did increase world wide, albeit not as fast as the laptop market. The desktop market is not dead and will not be for a long time.
"Give us an example of an OEM who makes more money than Apple from selling these desktops consumers want that Apple does not offer."
You know I don't have those facts, but when discussing increasing market share the salient point is consumers have rejected the AIO world wide, only Apple requires you buy one to get mid level performance.
Opinion: Other computer manufacturer are making a very good profit on the $800 - $1600+ desktops that have the Core 2 Duo Conroe cpus. These are not stripped down entry level web surfers. These are machines that people buy for home use photo, video, and audio. This is also Apple's strength in software design. No I can't prove other computer manufacturers make a good profit on these computers, I can only infer this from Michael Dell's comments in a quarterly report when he basically explained Dell's relatively poor performance on the low end entry level boxes. At the time I believe they had margins in the 16% neighborhood. This has to mean the margins on the mid to upper end computers were considerably higher than that 16%.
Apple's market share increase to 6.1% US sales is exclusively due to increased laptop sales.
...
In a recent quarterly report, Apple expressly stated that they wish to increase market share. They reiterated this desire again during a press conference. Yes, Apple has stated they wish to increase market share, no, they did not state that this was a goal at all cost. I can only presume you added this comment - "at all costs" - to obfuscate the argument.
Mmm...seems like they successfully KEPT their promise of pursuing more share. The "at all costs" is not an obsfucation as it is pertinent to your assertion that they don't care about share. They said they care and they translated that desire into measureable share gain.
Hard to whine about their commitment to share when its growing as it is.
Other manufacturers have and still do offer AIO computers. These do not sell. Consumers reject the AIO. The reasons do not matter. Consumers expect and want separate computers that come with some reasonable amount of upgradability.
Which is why the mobile AIO market (aka laptops) is growing while desktops is shrinking?
Desktop AIO competitors don't seem to have the same quality of design as the iMac.
It is really pretty simple. It is easier to sell the consumer what they want or expect than to convince them to buy what you think they really need. It really is that simple. No slight of hand, no rationalizations, no defending Apple's product mix and margins.
Evidently what they want are laptops. Apple provided them with great laptops. They did not concentrate on the desktop market in the segments that you seem to hold in high esteem. So what? That doesn't translate into Apple management lying about desiring more market share.
In this market the Mac mini is a non starter. It is necessarily expensive because of the parts. Its' whole design is predicated on its' small size and low noise. It exemplifies the niche market concept.
In your opinion. In my opinion its a transitional product that is intended for the set top.
You may think that consumers don't care about these disadvantages, but at least on the dark side they do and have en masse rejected the AIO computer.
iMacs/minis appear to be profitable and Apple appears to be selling a half million+ a quarter. For a niche product with good margins that's a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
Vinea
Mmm...seems like they successfully KEPT their promise of pursuing more share.
The issue is whether Apple has chosen the right desktop computers to offer those consumers who don't want to go for broke and get a Mac Pro. You seem to feel that the iMac and Mini are okay, but they do not sell on the Windows side. Your response to this observation:
Desktop AIO competitors don't seem to have the same quality of design as the iMac.
This is true. The mini and iMac are fine computers, but they are aimed at niche markets. The iMac and Mini sell better than the Window counterparts only because Apple offer no alternative desktop in this price range.
The iMac and Mini should have been desktops that Apple offers only after Apple has something like a conroe mini tower and a practical entry level Mac in their product line. By practical entry level, I mean a low cost Mac using common components, not laptop parts.
Mmm...seems like they successfully KEPT their promise of pursuing more share. The "at all costs" is not an obsfucation as it is pertinent to your assertion that they don't care about share. They said they care and they translated that desire into measureable share gain.
Hard to whine about their commitment to share when its growing as it is.
Which is why the mobile AIO market (aka laptops) is growing while desktops is shrinking?
Desktop AIO competitors don't seem to have the same quality of design as the iMac.
Evidently what they want are laptops. Apple provided them with great laptops. They did not concentrate on the desktop market in the segments that you seem to hold in high esteem. So what? That doesn't translate into Apple management lying about desiring more market share.
In your opinion. In my opinion its a transitional product that is intended for the set top.
iMacs/minis appear to be profitable and Apple appears to be selling a half million+ a quarter. For a niche product with good margins that's a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
Vinea
Desktop sales as a % of the total market decline. Absolute sales increased.
I don't hold this segment of the market in "high esteem", 93.9% of the market holds this segment in high esteem. Yes, Apples total market share increased, due to laptops, but even at 6.1% it is still extremely small.
Desktop sales as a % of the total market decline. Absolute sales increased.
I don't hold this segment of the market in "high esteem", 93.9% of the market holds this segment in high esteem. Yes, Apples total market share increased, due to laptops, but even at 6.1% it is still extremely small.
Also, let's not forget that whilst the U.S. share is doing well, global share is increasing much more slowly and is still below 3%. On top of that, it remains to be seen how much of the recent increases were due to pent-up demand in the Mac user base rather than due to a pick-up in switching rate.
So yes the world wide market for cheap desktop computers will continue to grow. That does not mean Apple should jump into it.
Apple has been very successful in the U.S. and Europe. While the increase in market share is slight, the increase in profit has been huge.
The issue is whether Apple has chosen the right desktop computers to offer those consumers who don't want to go for broke and get a Mac Pro. You seem to feel that the iMac and Mini are okay, but they do not sell on the Windows side. Your response to this observation:
Actually the issue is one of semantics. Folks claim that Apple is lying that share is important despite the fact that they did gain share in their most important market (US).
So share is important to Apple but of less importance than other concerns like branding. Laptops (thin ones anyway), AIOs and SFF computers they consider to enhance their branding. Mid range towers evidently not so much.
Without the cache of branding and form factor Apple has a slightly better OS. Thus I can see a Cube but not a mid-tower except as a low end Mac Pro (and priced accordingly...ie $1600+ rather than $1200-). With the Kentsfields not far off the Quads will soon be the new low end...perhaps hitting that $1700 price point for a lower end Woodcrest...so maybe that's why no Conroe tower.
Average Apple desktop price was for Q4 $1,392. That's pretty nice.
Besides, the Mac pro was a latecomer to the party. Lets see how the desktop goes next quarter.
Vinea