I don't know if this has been said before, but I'm goig to make the comment again simply because wading through 20 pages of this topic was making my eyes hurt!
To all you guys who want the upgradeability of a tower, but don't want to buy a new Mac Pro:
Have you considered a refurbished or used model from Apple (or eBay, eww)? You get the last generation processor (which still beats current gen iMacs), with the ability to add twice as much RAM, extra Hard Drives, PCI cards, etc... but without the hefty price tag of a new tower! Apple is currently offering a Quad 2.66GHz Intel Xeon machine for $2200, sure it's much more than the proposed $1500-ish mac. But just wait till Apple upgrades the Mac Pro again then the prices will drop yet again. Look at the MBPs after this recent update their prices dropped $700 in some cases! I for one plan to cross-grade my iMac for an "outdated" Mac Pro somewhere in the Jan-Mar range, I should be able to get that Mac Pro for just a few hundred dollars more than what the iMac will sell for, and I'll have a much better machine.
Most people expect a computer to be some kind of tower today ... It is all that's been available on the Windows side, and what they are familiar with. Also, most people know very little about computers, so they buy what others tell them they need. Does Apple want to sell to these people?
You know, what has always driven Apple's fame and interest is actually the fact that it is more simple in design. It's one of the benefits of owning an Apple. People are impressed by it and other companies copy the aesthetic (except for Sony and IBM/Lenovo, who have their own design languages and guidelines). That's the cool that often entices users to switch even before they learn of the other benefits. Sure, familiarity might be a goal, and certainly many switchers are reluctant, but most people who even consider switching are already looking for a change. And many of the people who would be that uncomfortable might actually be better suited for a mini.
Quote:
Now, that said, you may be surprised how many of us Mac users also want something more like a tower. I've got three Power Macs that I've purchased over the last three years, two G4s and one G5. eBay sells a lot of Power Macs to people like us, and guess what? We have nice monitors that will last us for years. Are we ever going to be in the market for an iMac? Not likely, and the Mac Mini is too wimpy and too small for most of us.
True, and maybe you're right, and perhaps there is a market of people who buy a lot of computers. But I still think that number is too small, even if they buy at a higher rate. I dunno. Still, it won't happen as long as Stevie's there.
Hell even Macbook's have progressed to user customized (upgradable) HD's - iMac... well.. errr. No!
Well, first off, the Macintosh is supposed to be like an appliance, that's the reason for the obsession with simplicity. And the difference between customizable and upgradeable is a small one but an important one, like the difference between "spooning" and "knifing". One involves an overly-complicated selection of choices that really blurs the distinctions between product lines and usually has fairly arbitrary options. A lot of the choices are not valuable to most people.
The other is a real consumer benefit, because it allows consumers to upgrade pieces later, offering real benefits, when they are needed. Better products are out after release, and can extend the life of the chassis or whatever you call the thing the computer lives it.
I think that we will see more upgradeability in the future, considering the recent emphasis on it in the MB and the MP. It's the thing that designers really go for, these little details that make products more useful. Now that Ive & Co. have settled on a design language for while, I think they will work on making the innards more beautiful.
Quote:
Please,calling people idiots because they need a video card or Tv tuner card,or sound card,or wireless card and all the other cards shows you have some missing slots in your brain. The retard is buying a mac with a gma950 in it. Thats a tard if i ever saw one.
1. The GMA950 is not as bad as you seem to think. For people who do no graphics heavy-work and play no games, it actually works quite well. Like if you do nothing but read the internets, check thems emails, an perhaps play media, then you're pretty much set. Better is not really necessary, unless you need it.
2. You just had to go and throw away your point by insulting both other consumers and degrading the mentally impaired. Five stars.
Now, that said, you may be surprised how many of us Mac users also want something more like a tower. I've got three Power Macs that I've purchased over the last three years, two G4s and one G5. eBay sells a lot of Power Macs to people like us, and guess what? We have nice monitors that will last us for years. Are we ever going to be in the market for an iMac? Not likely, and the Mac Mini is too wimpy and too small for most of us.
I'm in the market for a computer to play games with, going to buy in January. The budget's about 900EUR, I already have kb/mouse/display.
This budget is enough for a box with quality components only, good enough graphics (~250EUR) to run current games in high definition and effects, and be very quiet. I'll write a spec, ask for bids from local builders and have one of them build it. Single point of warranty and go-to for technical trouble, so it's fair to compare to something from Apple or Dell, unlike a self-built PC with bargain-hunted parts would be.
Now, I'd gladly pay ~200EUR extra for Apple hardware, so when my gaming box grows old, I could still use it as a snappy productivity machine. This is the only way it makes sense for me to buy a new Mac, since my iBook seems to work well for everything besides entertainment. That should cover Apple's normal margin. Of course logistics and production is easier and cheaper with Apple's volume and integration.
I know for a fact that many of my friends who play games would have seriously considered buying a Mac if they would have gotten decent graphics in a 1kEUR laptop or desktop. These guys aren't overclockers with monster graphics cards, they have the regular 100EUR ones that are enough for normal low-res gaming. Apple simply doesn't offer anything between integrated graphics and 2.5kEUR Pro machines.
Many people use the argument that market share does not matter, as long as the company is very profitable. This logic may be true for a manufacturer of shoes or clothing. For example, the Gap likely does well with a small market share. However, it does not apply to an industry like computers or game consoles that depend on the support of application developers. If market share drops too low, it makes no sense to spend resources on a product that will not sell well.
1M new computers per quarter is more units than many software houses will sell product wise.
Quote:
Six percent of the US market is small. Why do developers write applications for the Mac? A great deal of this support is based on their belief that the Mac market will grow, and they are getting in on the ground floor. If total share stagnates for too long, or starts to drop, we will see application support begin to dry up. It started to happen before. Only continued growth will keep it from happening again. Once market share reaches a reasonable number, then it can stay there without ill effects.
You're kidding right? Apple market share has been low for a decade. Nobody is in the Apple market in the hopes it gains general market share in a big way. Folks are in the Apple market because it has sufficiently large share in the market it competes for...edu, home and content creation.
Quote:
Too many assumptions. You assume Apple cannot be profitable in the sub-$500 price range. You assume Apple must price any popular form-factor desktop the same as its Windows counterpart, and therefore be unprofitable. Both are false assumptions as I see it.
I assume its impossible to maintain Apple margins in a market where HP, Dell and Gateway are engaged in a price war. Which part of "price war" is hard to understand?
Dell and HP make their money on the upper end of the scale...where ALL of Apple's products live. A good example is the Mac Pro...Apple can be competitive in the Workstation market because Dell depends on making good money in workstations as does HP. HP and Dell aren't engaging in a price war in that segment because both companies do need hefty margins SOMEWHERE in their lineup.
That SOMEWHERE isn't in sub-$500 towers. Arguably Apple could compete against the Dell XPS 700 series but the pricing there starts at $2K. So a Conroe based Mac Pro for $1700 with a decent GPU competes well in between the bottom end 700 and the top end 410 if they can get a sweet deal on one speed of Conroes like they did with the Woodcrests depending on what Dell's margins look like at that price level.
And it takes care of the gamers...at least ones with cash.
1M new computers per quarter is more units than many software houses will sell product wise.
It's apparent you are thinking of those who develop some of the more popular applications. If you have an application that sells to 10 percent of all Mac users, Apple market share would have to drop very low before you'd pull out your support for the Mac. Obviously, it's the developers of specialty software, with few customers, that will be the first to go and the last to come back.
Do the math. How many customers would there be for dental software? Not a whole lot, but it is that kind of in depth support that makes people take a computer platform seriously. When all the business specialty developers are supporting the Mac, its market share will be high enough. Today, the Mac is not an option for some businesses because it lacks the necessary applications. No one is developing in that area for the Mac. (I picked on dental software since I notice someone is actually developing it for OS X.)
Quote:
You're kidding right? Apple market share has been low for a decade. Nobody is in the Apple market in the hopes it gains general market share in a big way. Folks are in the Apple market because it has sufficiently large share in the market it competes for...edu, home and content creation.
No I'm not kidding for the very reasons you site. Apple has sufficiently large share in certain markets, where Macs sometimes out number Windows machines. Apple's market share in those segments may run 20 to 60 percent, which I had said is probably high enough.
Quote:
I assume its impossible to maintain Apple margins in a market where HP, Dell and Gateway are engaged in a price war. Which part of "price war" is hard to understand?
I can see which part of "price war" you find hard to understand. It's HP's, Dell's and Gateway's war, not Apple's. They are slugging it out in the sub-$500 category, and evidently there is not much difference between their offerings, so the low price gets the sale. Yet Apple sell the Mini for more than $500 and some folks actually buy it. Is the Mini that much faster and better than the low priced models on the Windows side? I haven't investigated, but my guess would be no. However, the Mac Mini is very unique. I believe Apple could redesign the Mini to make it more practical and cost less, yet not lose much or any of its uniqueness and appeal.
I assume its impossible to maintain Apple margins in a market where HP, Dell and Gateway are engaged in a price war. Which part of "price war" is hard to understand?
Dell and HP make their money on the upper end of the scale...where ALL of Apple's products live. A good example is the Mac Pro...Apple can be competitive in the Workstation market because Dell depends on making good money in workstations as does HP. HP and Dell aren't engaging in a price war in that segment because both companies do need hefty margins SOMEWHERE in their lineup.
The result of the competitors' pricing structure is that the Mac Pro is able to beat the competition also when evaluated as a pure Windows machine. It wouldn't actually need to win on price/power in order to be a successful product. And neither must the other Apple computers. The reason being, they can run OS X, the competitors' products can't.
Like I said in my post: I'll pay ~200-300EUR on top of quality PC hardware to get the same from Apple, just to be able to switch the machine to run OS X later.
Quote:
That SOMEWHERE isn't in sub-$500 towers. Arguably Apple could compete against the Dell XPS 700 series but the pricing there starts at $2K. So a Conroe based Mac Pro for $1700 with a decent GPU competes well in between the bottom end 700 and the top end 410 if they can get a sweet deal on one speed of Conroes like they did with the Woodcrests depending on what Dell's margins look like at that price level.
And it takes care of the gamers...at least ones with cash.
Pretty much all my friends are gamers. One used to be in the second best European Tribes clan, one in the best European DoD clan, two in top 10 Finnish Starcraft players. Et cetera. To my knowledge, not one of them have had a gaming computer worth over $1500. Mostly they are in the 1kEUR price segment and below.
Many people balk at the thought of paying $600 for a PS3, and I can understand that. $2k for a gaming box is ridiculous, or at least Ithink at that point it is no longer just about the gaming, then you also have a "hardware hobby".
You can build or buy a lot of power for under a grand. You can even buy one allready assembled for under $1,000. To say Apple cant do something everyone else is doing is silly. My new Dell will cost $700. Im going to throw in a 7600GT in it for under $150. So thats $850 Retail. X4200 dual core Athlon64,1 GB memory, 160GB drive,7600GT plus Windows XP & Vista. Compare that to a Mini or base iMac,its not even close. Apple could do this only they dont want to because they are playing the Move up game. Silly marketing games. Its like a Chevy dealer tring to move you up to the Cadillac when all you wanted was a Chevette with a sunroof. Consumer is King not Apple.
Its like a Chevy dealer tring to move you up to the Cadillac when all you wanted was a Chevette with a sunroof. Consumer is King not Apple.
I sure hope Apple never sells Chevettes; I'd have to find another maker of Ferrari's. Everyone's yippin' about what Apple should do, but Apple seems to be making quite a bit of profit doing what they are doing. Ferrari is not Ford, and thank God for that. Apple is not eMachine. There's a place for both. Why should Apple be all things to all people? That rarely works as a business model, and Apple's business model is raking in bucks right now. I'm not against the type of machine you're hankerin' for, but is it a good fit for the Apple business model? Me, I'd rather fork over more money if I need to play a game (which I don't) and get a Mac Pro; then I can use it for something else -- like some high-end rendering.
You can build or buy a lot of power for under a grand. You can even buy one allready assembled for under $1,000. To say Apple cant do something everyone else is doing is silly. My new Dell will cost $700. Im going to throw in a 7600GT in it for under $150. So thats $850 Retail. X4200 dual core Athlon64,1 GB memory, 160GB drive,7600GT plus Windows XP & Vista. Compare that to a Mini or base iMac,its not even close. Apple could do this only they dont want to because they are playing the Move up game. Silly marketing games. Its like a Chevy dealer tring to move you up to the Cadillac when all you wanted was a Chevette with a sunroof. Consumer is King not Apple.
The mini is a good machine in its own right. It's ultra small. It just isn't what you or me want right now. Certainly, if there was another machine whose focus was price/performance priced right above the mini, many would-be mini buyers would go with that instead.
With laptops, fine, there is a bit of move up game, but you can't seriously claim Apple is playing that game with a $600 mini and a $2500 Mac Pro. The people who would take that leap are so few that there is no "game". What Apple is doing is totally ignoring that part of the middle segment which has a decent external display and is not about to pay for another. Maybe we really are rare? I don't know.
I sure hope Apple never sells Chevettes; I'd have to find another maker of Ferrari's. Everyone's yippin' about what Apple should do, but Apple seems to be making quite a bit of profit doing what they are doing. Ferrari is not Ford, and thank God for that. Apple is not eMachine. There's a place for both. Why should Apple be all things to all people? That rarely works as a business model, and Apple's business model is raking in bucks right now. I'm not against the type of machine you're hankerin' for, but is it a good fit for the Apple business model? Me, I'd rather fork over more money if I need to play a game (which I don't) and get a Mac Pro; then I can use it for something else -- like some high-end rendering.
You miss the whole point, its not saying Apple and Chevy are alike, Only the old time marketing of you can get that 1 item if you buy this PACKAGE. New Marketing Model is build to Order that car for you and not anyone else. Apple needs a Consumer Tower just like MacPro only half the size and expansion. Its Apple fighting Apple and they have done it through the years more then once. Why be running off any customers when you dont need to? I got a couple of Macs so my argument is about lack of hardware options amd configurations.
You miss the whole point, its not saying Apple and Chevy are alike, Only the old time marketing of you can get that 1 item if you buy this PACKAGE. New Marketing Model is build to Order that car for you and not anyone else. Apple needs a Consumer Tower just like MacPro only half the size and expansion. Its Apple fighting Apple and they have done it through the years more then once. Why be running off any customers when you dont need to? I got a couple of Macs so my argument is about lack of hardware options amd configurations.
I guess it's the word choices that I question. Why does Apple NEED a Consumer Tower? That's very adamant. Would it be cool for you and others if they had one? Yeah, no doubt. But why do they NEED it? How is your prescience better than theirs? Apple seems to be doing quite well. Your opinion is one thing, but that adamant "need" -- that's the part that confuses me.
I don't pretend to know whether it would be a good idea for Apple or not. But, somebody is selling a boat load of Windows boxes at around $1,000 to $1,400 and they are NOT AIW designs. No, they aren't nearly as elegant as an iMac arguably is, and may canibalize some iMac sales, but like it or not, there are a lot of people out there willing to drop $1,000-$1,200 on a decent tower and roll their own monitor or $1,500-$1,800 with an Apple display.
How many? No tellling... possibly lots.
Worth Apple's trouble at a potentially lower margin? Profit is profit, even at 10-15% margin.
While I too think it would be great if Apple added a product at that spot in the line-up you must realize that Apple has people looking at these sorts of things all the time and obviously they've decided there isn't enough to be gained at this time. Maybe we'll see one someday, maybe we won't.
I think that often times people on these sites forget that the average person a) doesn't do a lot of gaming on their computer that requires SLI and 959399939GTX video cards with 2Gigs of GDDR4 VRAM and water cooling and neon lights and b) cares more about the price of the system than expanability - tell them you can give them a good email/internet machine for $599 or a sweet all-in-one with more horsepower for $1300 and Great!
. . . Apple is not eMachine. There's a place for both. Why should Apple be all things to all people? That rarely works as a business model, and Apple's business model is raking in bucks right now.
Apple is already competing in the low priced, entry level market with the Mac Mini. But rather than a $399 or $499 model, Apple's entry is $599. Apple has been in this market for a few years now, so any argument about Apple avoiding such competition is really in vain.
Not only is Apple in this market already, but some of those who say Apple cannot compete there without losing money are the ones praising the Mac Mini. It shows that Apple need not compete by the same rules as the Windows vendors appear to be following. A post above shows that people are willing to pay a little more to get Mac OS X and a higher quality computer. The key words here are "a little more."
Quote:
Everyone's yippin' about what Apple should do, but Apple seems to be making quite a bit of profit doing what they are doing. . .
I'm not against the type of machine you're hankerin' for, but is it a good fit for the Apple business model?
Everyone talks about the market, but seems to overlook the fact that it is made up of a great many market segments. Of those segments, we count on the fingers of one hand those segments Apple does well in, having 20 percent or more market share.
Regarding the Mini, if it does fairly well at $599, think how much better it would do priced lower, with better features, and/or performance. Simply by making it larger and using lower cost, standard parts, Apple can achieve this goal. While Apple is doing this redesign, let's add space for a second hard disk drive, add more RAM slots, and include the power supply inside the case.
When I've posted about changes to the Mini previously, I didn't mention the second HDD. Now, after learning more about iTV, a second, large HDD would appear to be a worthwhile option. Also, after hearing about Sony including the power supply on-board in the PS3, I figured that would be a good idea too. The dimensions I gave before would have to increase, however. Possibly something 15 inches wide, 3 inches tall, and 8 inches deep would do the job.
A couple of posts concerning buying used Apple towers brings us back to statements made previously, that is, used Apple computers are actually competing against new Apple computers. Just look at resale value, Apple computers maintain some of the highest premiums in the market. Why, well it could be that they are better built, but it could also be that there is a large market for the features a tower provides. You pick
Now, if some of the premium prices on used Apple computers is because Apple has no offerings for the mythical xMac market, on which computer does Apple make the most profit, a used tower or ,if they offered it, a new xMac?
Simplistic arguement to be sure, but in my opinion a valid argument.
A couple of posts concerning buying used Apple towers brings us back to statements made previously, that is, used Apple computers are actually competing against new Apple computers. Just look at resale value, Apple computers maintain some of the highest premiums in the market. Why, well it could be that they are better built, but it could also be that there is a large market for the features a tower provides. You pick
Now, if some of the premium prices on used Apple computers is because Apple has no offerings for the mythical xMac market, on which computer does Apple make the most profit, a used tower or ,if they offered it, a new xMac?
Simplistic arguement to be sure, but in my opinion a valid argument.
I'd like to see some kind of study on what type of Macs get the best resale value and how many sales Apple loses to the second hand market or windows PCs because of the lack of reasonably priced tower.
LOL. If Apple made something like that, the videocard nuts would go absolutely crazy. NO PCI SLOT OMG!!!!!
Does it need to be a little bigger? Whatever it takes, a graphics card should be in there, for the higher end model, but the lowest price unit would have integrated graphics to keep cost down.
I only posted changes to my concept for a bigger Mini here. It's strange that no one complained about size when I posted this the first time. It had a graphics card and even smaller dimensions.
I'd like to see some kind of study on what type of Macs get the best resale value and how many sales Apple loses to the second hand market or windows PCs because of the lack of reasonably priced tower.
I'm convinced that Steve Jobs will never abandon the iMac, but Apple definitely needs what you say, a reasonably priced tower, which I believe should also be smaller than the Mac Pro for marketing reasons. Such a tower would compete in the same performance space as the iMac, but would catch all those wayward Mac users who keep buying from eBay, like me.
If we got a mini tower, we would see how much appeal the iMac really has. The Mini, however, should simply be replaced by a larger, more practical Mini.
Does it need to be a little bigger? Whatever it takes, a graphics card should be in there, for the higher end model, but the lowest price unit would have integrated graphics to keep cost down.
I only posted changes to my concept for a bigger Mini here. It's strange that no one complained about size when I posted this the first time. It had a graphics card and even smaller dimensions.
The only real design flaw in the Mini was the decision to use 2.5" notebook hard drives instead of 3.5" desktop hard drives. Apple tried to make the smallest computer they could with either no consideration for the future or an incorrect assumption that 2.5" notebook drive would scale up the way desktop drives have. Would anyone have complained if the machine had been 8x8x3.5? Note really. It still would have been by far the smallest entry level PC on the market.
Comments
To all you guys who want the upgradeability of a tower, but don't want to buy a new Mac Pro:
Have you considered a refurbished or used model from Apple (or eBay, eww)? You get the last generation processor (which still beats current gen iMacs), with the ability to add twice as much RAM, extra Hard Drives, PCI cards, etc... but without the hefty price tag of a new tower! Apple is currently offering a Quad 2.66GHz Intel Xeon machine for $2200, sure it's much more than the proposed $1500-ish mac. But just wait till Apple upgrades the Mac Pro again then the prices will drop yet again. Look at the MBPs after this recent update their prices dropped $700 in some cases! I for one plan to cross-grade my iMac for an "outdated" Mac Pro somewhere in the Jan-Mar range, I should be able to get that Mac Pro for just a few hundred dollars more than what the iMac will sell for, and I'll have a much better machine.
Just throwing that out there.
Most people expect a computer to be some kind of tower today ... It is all that's been available on the Windows side, and what they are familiar with. Also, most people know very little about computers, so they buy what others tell them they need. Does Apple want to sell to these people?
You know, what has always driven Apple's fame and interest is actually the fact that it is more simple in design. It's one of the benefits of owning an Apple. People are impressed by it and other companies copy the aesthetic (except for Sony and IBM/Lenovo, who have their own design languages and guidelines). That's the cool that often entices users to switch even before they learn of the other benefits. Sure, familiarity might be a goal, and certainly many switchers are reluctant, but most people who even consider switching are already looking for a change. And many of the people who would be that uncomfortable might actually be better suited for a mini.
Now, that said, you may be surprised how many of us Mac users also want something more like a tower. I've got three Power Macs that I've purchased over the last three years, two G4s and one G5. eBay sells a lot of Power Macs to people like us, and guess what? We have nice monitors that will last us for years. Are we ever going to be in the market for an iMac? Not likely, and the Mac Mini is too wimpy and too small for most of us.
True, and maybe you're right, and perhaps there is a market of people who buy a lot of computers. But I still think that number is too small, even if they buy at a higher rate. I dunno. Still, it won't happen as long as Stevie's there.
Did you customize your Powerbook?LOL.
Hell even Macbook's have progressed to user customized (upgradable) HD's - iMac... well.. errr. No!
Well, first off, the Macintosh is supposed to be like an appliance, that's the reason for the obsession with simplicity. And the difference between customizable and upgradeable is a small one but an important one, like the difference between "spooning" and "knifing". One involves an overly-complicated selection of choices that really blurs the distinctions between product lines and usually has fairly arbitrary options. A lot of the choices are not valuable to most people.
The other is a real consumer benefit, because it allows consumers to upgrade pieces later, offering real benefits, when they are needed. Better products are out after release, and can extend the life of the chassis or whatever you call the thing the computer lives it.
I think that we will see more upgradeability in the future, considering the recent emphasis on it in the MB and the MP. It's the thing that designers really go for, these little details that make products more useful. Now that Ive & Co. have settled on a design language for while, I think they will work on making the innards more beautiful.
Please,calling people idiots because they need a video card or Tv tuner card,or sound card,or wireless card and all the other cards shows you have some missing slots in your brain. The retard is buying a mac with a gma950 in it. Thats a tard if i ever saw one.
1. The GMA950 is not as bad as you seem to think. For people who do no graphics heavy-work and play no games, it actually works quite well. Like if you do nothing but read the internets, check thems emails, an perhaps play media, then you're pretty much set. Better is not really necessary, unless you need it.
2. You just had to go and throw away your point by insulting both other consumers and degrading the mentally impaired. Five stars.
Now, that said, you may be surprised how many of us Mac users also want something more like a tower. I've got three Power Macs that I've purchased over the last three years, two G4s and one G5. eBay sells a lot of Power Macs to people like us, and guess what? We have nice monitors that will last us for years. Are we ever going to be in the market for an iMac? Not likely, and the Mac Mini is too wimpy and too small for most of us.
I'm in the market for a computer to play games with, going to buy in January. The budget's about 900EUR, I already have kb/mouse/display.
This budget is enough for a box with quality components only, good enough graphics (~250EUR) to run current games in high definition and effects, and be very quiet. I'll write a spec, ask for bids from local builders and have one of them build it. Single point of warranty and go-to for technical trouble, so it's fair to compare to something from Apple or Dell, unlike a self-built PC with bargain-hunted parts would be.
Now, I'd gladly pay ~200EUR extra for Apple hardware, so when my gaming box grows old, I could still use it as a snappy productivity machine. This is the only way it makes sense for me to buy a new Mac, since my iBook seems to work well for everything besides entertainment. That should cover Apple's normal margin. Of course logistics and production is easier and cheaper with Apple's volume and integration.
I know for a fact that many of my friends who play games would have seriously considered buying a Mac if they would have gotten decent graphics in a 1kEUR laptop or desktop. These guys aren't overclockers with monster graphics cards, they have the regular 100EUR ones that are enough for normal low-res gaming. Apple simply doesn't offer anything between integrated graphics and 2.5kEUR Pro machines.
Many people use the argument that market share does not matter, as long as the company is very profitable. This logic may be true for a manufacturer of shoes or clothing. For example, the Gap likely does well with a small market share. However, it does not apply to an industry like computers or game consoles that depend on the support of application developers. If market share drops too low, it makes no sense to spend resources on a product that will not sell well.
1M new computers per quarter is more units than many software houses will sell product wise.
Six percent of the US market is small. Why do developers write applications for the Mac? A great deal of this support is based on their belief that the Mac market will grow, and they are getting in on the ground floor. If total share stagnates for too long, or starts to drop, we will see application support begin to dry up. It started to happen before. Only continued growth will keep it from happening again. Once market share reaches a reasonable number, then it can stay there without ill effects.
You're kidding right? Apple market share has been low for a decade. Nobody is in the Apple market in the hopes it gains general market share in a big way. Folks are in the Apple market because it has sufficiently large share in the market it competes for...edu, home and content creation.
Too many assumptions. You assume Apple cannot be profitable in the sub-$500 price range. You assume Apple must price any popular form-factor desktop the same as its Windows counterpart, and therefore be unprofitable. Both are false assumptions as I see it.
I assume its impossible to maintain Apple margins in a market where HP, Dell and Gateway are engaged in a price war. Which part of "price war" is hard to understand?
Dell and HP make their money on the upper end of the scale...where ALL of Apple's products live. A good example is the Mac Pro...Apple can be competitive in the Workstation market because Dell depends on making good money in workstations as does HP. HP and Dell aren't engaging in a price war in that segment because both companies do need hefty margins SOMEWHERE in their lineup.
That SOMEWHERE isn't in sub-$500 towers. Arguably Apple could compete against the Dell XPS 700 series but the pricing there starts at $2K. So a Conroe based Mac Pro for $1700 with a decent GPU competes well in between the bottom end 700 and the top end 410 if they can get a sweet deal on one speed of Conroes like they did with the Woodcrests depending on what Dell's margins look like at that price level.
And it takes care of the gamers...at least ones with cash.
Vinea
1M new computers per quarter is more units than many software houses will sell product wise.
It's apparent you are thinking of those who develop some of the more popular applications. If you have an application that sells to 10 percent of all Mac users, Apple market share would have to drop very low before you'd pull out your support for the Mac. Obviously, it's the developers of specialty software, with few customers, that will be the first to go and the last to come back.
Do the math. How many customers would there be for dental software? Not a whole lot, but it is that kind of in depth support that makes people take a computer platform seriously. When all the business specialty developers are supporting the Mac, its market share will be high enough. Today, the Mac is not an option for some businesses because it lacks the necessary applications. No one is developing in that area for the Mac. (I picked on dental software since I notice someone is actually developing it for OS X.)
You're kidding right? Apple market share has been low for a decade. Nobody is in the Apple market in the hopes it gains general market share in a big way. Folks are in the Apple market because it has sufficiently large share in the market it competes for...edu, home and content creation.
No I'm not kidding for the very reasons you site. Apple has sufficiently large share in certain markets, where Macs sometimes out number Windows machines. Apple's market share in those segments may run 20 to 60 percent, which I had said is probably high enough.
I assume its impossible to maintain Apple margins in a market where HP, Dell and Gateway are engaged in a price war. Which part of "price war" is hard to understand?
I can see which part of "price war" you find hard to understand.
I assume its impossible to maintain Apple margins in a market where HP, Dell and Gateway are engaged in a price war. Which part of "price war" is hard to understand?
Dell and HP make their money on the upper end of the scale...where ALL of Apple's products live. A good example is the Mac Pro...Apple can be competitive in the Workstation market because Dell depends on making good money in workstations as does HP. HP and Dell aren't engaging in a price war in that segment because both companies do need hefty margins SOMEWHERE in their lineup.
The result of the competitors' pricing structure is that the Mac Pro is able to beat the competition also when evaluated as a pure Windows machine. It wouldn't actually need to win on price/power in order to be a successful product. And neither must the other Apple computers. The reason being, they can run OS X, the competitors' products can't.
Like I said in my post: I'll pay ~200-300EUR on top of quality PC hardware to get the same from Apple, just to be able to switch the machine to run OS X later.
That SOMEWHERE isn't in sub-$500 towers. Arguably Apple could compete against the Dell XPS 700 series but the pricing there starts at $2K. So a Conroe based Mac Pro for $1700 with a decent GPU competes well in between the bottom end 700 and the top end 410 if they can get a sweet deal on one speed of Conroes like they did with the Woodcrests depending on what Dell's margins look like at that price level.
And it takes care of the gamers...at least ones with cash.
Pretty much all my friends are gamers. One used to be in the second best European Tribes clan, one in the best European DoD clan, two in top 10 Finnish Starcraft players. Et cetera. To my knowledge, not one of them have had a gaming computer worth over $1500. Mostly they are in the 1kEUR price segment and below.
Many people balk at the thought of paying $600 for a PS3, and I can understand that. $2k for a gaming box is ridiculous, or at least Ithink at that point it is no longer just about the gaming, then you also have a "hardware hobby".
Its like a Chevy dealer tring to move you up to the Cadillac when all you wanted was a Chevette with a sunroof. Consumer is King not Apple.
I sure hope Apple never sells Chevettes; I'd have to find another maker of Ferrari's. Everyone's yippin' about what Apple should do, but Apple seems to be making quite a bit of profit doing what they are doing. Ferrari is not Ford, and thank God for that. Apple is not eMachine. There's a place for both. Why should Apple be all things to all people? That rarely works as a business model, and Apple's business model is raking in bucks right now. I'm not against the type of machine you're hankerin' for, but is it a good fit for the Apple business model? Me, I'd rather fork over more money if I need to play a game (which I don't) and get a Mac Pro; then I can use it for something else -- like some high-end rendering.
You can build or buy a lot of power for under a grand. You can even buy one allready assembled for under $1,000. To say Apple cant do something everyone else is doing is silly. My new Dell will cost $700. Im going to throw in a 7600GT in it for under $150. So thats $850 Retail. X4200 dual core Athlon64,1 GB memory, 160GB drive,7600GT plus Windows XP & Vista. Compare that to a Mini or base iMac,its not even close. Apple could do this only they dont want to because they are playing the Move up game. Silly marketing games. Its like a Chevy dealer tring to move you up to the Cadillac when all you wanted was a Chevette with a sunroof. Consumer is King not Apple.
The mini is a good machine in its own right. It's ultra small. It just isn't what you or me want right now. Certainly, if there was another machine whose focus was price/performance priced right above the mini, many would-be mini buyers would go with that instead.
With laptops, fine, there is a bit of move up game, but you can't seriously claim Apple is playing that game with a $600 mini and a $2500 Mac Pro. The people who would take that leap are so few that there is no "game". What Apple is doing is totally ignoring that part of the middle segment which has a decent external display and is not about to pay for another. Maybe we really are rare? I don't know.
I sure hope Apple never sells Chevettes; I'd have to find another maker of Ferrari's. Everyone's yippin' about what Apple should do, but Apple seems to be making quite a bit of profit doing what they are doing. Ferrari is not Ford, and thank God for that. Apple is not eMachine. There's a place for both. Why should Apple be all things to all people? That rarely works as a business model, and Apple's business model is raking in bucks right now. I'm not against the type of machine you're hankerin' for, but is it a good fit for the Apple business model? Me, I'd rather fork over more money if I need to play a game (which I don't) and get a Mac Pro; then I can use it for something else -- like some high-end rendering.
You miss the whole point, its not saying Apple and Chevy are alike, Only the old time marketing of you can get that 1 item if you buy this PACKAGE. New Marketing Model is build to Order that car for you and not anyone else. Apple needs a Consumer Tower just like MacPro only half the size and expansion. Its Apple fighting Apple and they have done it through the years more then once. Why be running off any customers when you dont need to? I got a couple of Macs so my argument is about lack of hardware options amd configurations.
You miss the whole point, its not saying Apple and Chevy are alike, Only the old time marketing of you can get that 1 item if you buy this PACKAGE. New Marketing Model is build to Order that car for you and not anyone else. Apple needs a Consumer Tower just like MacPro only half the size and expansion. Its Apple fighting Apple and they have done it through the years more then once. Why be running off any customers when you dont need to? I got a couple of Macs so my argument is about lack of hardware options amd configurations.
I guess it's the word choices that I question. Why does Apple NEED a Consumer Tower? That's very adamant. Would it be cool for you and others if they had one? Yeah, no doubt. But why do they NEED it? How is your prescience better than theirs? Apple seems to be doing quite well. Your opinion is one thing, but that adamant "need" -- that's the part that confuses me.
I don't pretend to know whether it would be a good idea for Apple or not. But, somebody is selling a boat load of Windows boxes at around $1,000 to $1,400 and they are NOT AIW designs. No, they aren't nearly as elegant as an iMac arguably is, and may canibalize some iMac sales, but like it or not, there are a lot of people out there willing to drop $1,000-$1,200 on a decent tower and roll their own monitor or $1,500-$1,800 with an Apple display.
How many? No tellling... possibly lots.
Worth Apple's trouble at a potentially lower margin? Profit is profit, even at 10-15% margin.
While I too think it would be great if Apple added a product at that spot in the line-up you must realize that Apple has people looking at these sorts of things all the time and obviously they've decided there isn't enough to be gained at this time. Maybe we'll see one someday, maybe we won't.
I think that often times people on these sites forget that the average person a) doesn't do a lot of gaming on their computer that requires SLI and 959399939GTX video cards with 2Gigs of GDDR4 VRAM and water cooling and neon lights and b) cares more about the price of the system than expanability - tell them you can give them a good email/internet machine for $599 or a sweet all-in-one with more horsepower for $1300 and Great!
. . . Apple is not eMachine. There's a place for both. Why should Apple be all things to all people? That rarely works as a business model, and Apple's business model is raking in bucks right now.
Apple is already competing in the low priced, entry level market with the Mac Mini. But rather than a $399 or $499 model, Apple's entry is $599. Apple has been in this market for a few years now, so any argument about Apple avoiding such competition is really in vain.
Not only is Apple in this market already, but some of those who say Apple cannot compete there without losing money are the ones praising the Mac Mini. It shows that Apple need not compete by the same rules as the Windows vendors appear to be following. A post above shows that people are willing to pay a little more to get Mac OS X and a higher quality computer. The key words here are "a little more."
Everyone's yippin' about what Apple should do, but Apple seems to be making quite a bit of profit doing what they are doing. . .
I'm not against the type of machine you're hankerin' for, but is it a good fit for the Apple business model?
Everyone talks about the market, but seems to overlook the fact that it is made up of a great many market segments. Of those segments, we count on the fingers of one hand those segments Apple does well in, having 20 percent or more market share.
Regarding the Mini, if it does fairly well at $599, think how much better it would do priced lower, with better features, and/or performance. Simply by making it larger and using lower cost, standard parts, Apple can achieve this goal. While Apple is doing this redesign, let's add space for a second hard disk drive, add more RAM slots, and include the power supply inside the case.
When I've posted about changes to the Mini previously, I didn't mention the second HDD. Now, after learning more about iTV, a second, large HDD would appear to be a worthwhile option. Also, after hearing about Sony including the power supply on-board in the PS3, I figured that would be a good idea too. The dimensions I gave before would have to increase, however. Possibly something 15 inches wide, 3 inches tall, and 8 inches deep would do the job.
Possibly something 15 inches wide, 3 inches tall, and 8 inches deep would do the job.
LOL. If Apple made something like that, the videocard nuts would go absolutely crazy. NO PCI SLOT OMG!!!!!
Now, if some of the premium prices on used Apple computers is because Apple has no offerings for the mythical xMac market, on which computer does Apple make the most profit, a used tower or ,if they offered it, a new xMac?
Simplistic arguement to be sure, but in my opinion a valid argument.
A couple of posts concerning buying used Apple towers brings us back to statements made previously, that is, used Apple computers are actually competing against new Apple computers. Just look at resale value, Apple computers maintain some of the highest premiums in the market. Why, well it could be that they are better built, but it could also be that there is a large market for the features a tower provides. You pick
Now, if some of the premium prices on used Apple computers is because Apple has no offerings for the mythical xMac market, on which computer does Apple make the most profit, a used tower or ,if they offered it, a new xMac?
Simplistic arguement to be sure, but in my opinion a valid argument.
I'd like to see some kind of study on what type of Macs get the best resale value and how many sales Apple loses to the second hand market or windows PCs because of the lack of reasonably priced tower.
LOL. If Apple made something like that, the videocard nuts would go absolutely crazy. NO PCI SLOT OMG!!!!!
Does it need to be a little bigger? Whatever it takes, a graphics card should be in there, for the higher end model, but the lowest price unit would have integrated graphics to keep cost down.
I only posted changes to my concept for a bigger Mini here. It's strange that no one complained about size when I posted this the first time. It had a graphics card and even smaller dimensions.
I'd like to see some kind of study on what type of Macs get the best resale value and how many sales Apple loses to the second hand market or windows PCs because of the lack of reasonably priced tower.
I'm convinced that Steve Jobs will never abandon the iMac, but Apple definitely needs what you say, a reasonably priced tower, which I believe should also be smaller than the Mac Pro for marketing reasons. Such a tower would compete in the same performance space as the iMac, but would catch all those wayward Mac users who keep buying from eBay, like me.
If we got a mini tower, we would see how much appeal the iMac really has. The Mini, however, should simply be replaced by a larger, more practical Mini.
Does it need to be a little bigger? Whatever it takes, a graphics card should be in there, for the higher end model, but the lowest price unit would have integrated graphics to keep cost down.
I only posted changes to my concept for a bigger Mini here. It's strange that no one complained about size when I posted this the first time. It had a graphics card and even smaller dimensions.
The only real design flaw in the Mini was the decision to use 2.5" notebook hard drives instead of 3.5" desktop hard drives. Apple tried to make the smallest computer they could with either no consideration for the future or an incorrect assumption that 2.5" notebook drive would scale up the way desktop drives have. Would anyone have complained if the machine had been 8x8x3.5? Note really. It still would have been by far the smallest entry level PC on the market.