How does the 'xMac' not compete against the other Apple models? Firstly, if it costs less than the Mac Pro but has more expandability than the iMac it will directly compete with BOTH of those models on those conditions.
Sorry to pick out this one statement, but it is such a clear example of the way many think about introducing a new Mac in Apple's product lineup. Will it compete with other Macs? Will it steal too many sales from another model? I say these are unimportant considerations, provided every product is priced to make a good profit.
Does GM worry about a Pontiac competing with a Chevrolet and Buick? No! GM worries about having enough models to compete with Ford and Chrysler. That is the way it should be. If Apple prices products for profit, what difference does it make what Mac a customer buys? Look at it as giving customers a choice, so they stay with Apple, and not go looking for what they want in Windows land.
No, YOU'RE asking for one more computer. Someone else is asking for another, and someone else is asking for another.
You all want DIFFERENT computers. Yes, there's a hole. One computer won't fill it.
Yeah, nothing's ever as simple as we'd like it to be. That's what makes new product development so tricky to do right, and generally Apple does a really good job, once they decide to do it. . . . You wouldn't be implying that the job is to tough for Apple, are you? You think they might blow it?
We all have our own preferences, but in the end we make the best compromise we can when choosing to buy. Frankly, I'd be happy with any smaller tower Apple decides to make, or even a big Mini with a fast Conroe, room for two drives and good choice of graphics cards.
I think Apple maybe dropping a hint that what they have available now is it and don't expect anything new or different. Look at the new layout of the Mac Pro configuration page on the Apple store! Select the Compare Specs tab and you will see "Which Mac are you?" with the 24" iMac and then the base config and beside that the suggestions for upgrades.
I'm afraid Apple are sticking to the current line up and telling us dreamers where to stick it in terms of a regular Conroe tower. Also I just read on The Register that some the quad core chips are power hungry beasts.
Otellini suggests that next year there will be 50 — 80 watt quads so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple waits till then to shuffle the MAc Pro line up. MAybe they might put a regular Kentsfield in so we could use regular RAM. They might do a top end dual quad at the top end for the moment for those begging for it but I think their position is clear, if you look at the "Compare" page with iMac 24 at c$2000 and the Mac Pro at c¢2500. I don't think they will drop prices on the Mac Pro with any silent upgrade. They probably factored that into the original price at intro hence cheaper than a Dell.
No, YOU'RE asking for one more computer. Someone else is asking for another, and someone else is asking for another.
You all want DIFFERENT computers. Yes, there's a hole. One computer won't fill it.
jw nailed it on the head.
What i'm requesting is pretty vague. And it fits almost any bill. I don't care about price as long as it's sub $2k. I want a conroe. And I want it to be some sort of tower with BTO graphics. Sounds like a pretty standard pc to me.
Here is a solution that would satisfy SO many people's hunger. Maximum PC seems to be haters on macs. Not because they hate OS X, just because they can't build their own. There are a ton of hobbyists out there (including myself) that would kill to make their OWN mac with their OWN case. What if Apple had a list of certified parts. Maybe Apple branded mobos. Apple certified graphic cards. From there a user could purchase these parts and stick them in any case they so desire. Sell Mac OS X for $399.99 or hell... I'd go as high as $499.99 (almost the price of a mac mini). Now you have EXACTLY what you wanted. Satisfies all the pc building hobbyists. Satisfies the gamers. Satisfies the home users that want something tailored to them. Apple still makes money. Everyone is happy.
No doubt the gamer market is significant for consoles and PCs.
If Dell bought Alienware...it's hardly insignificant.
Plus, there are many people who do just like to build their own.
Or like to have 'pretend' (heh) choice. Even though you're more of less getting the same thing when you look across 100 build your own vendors.
Still, I can't see how hard it would be for Apple to intro' 3 Conroe DUO Towers under the Quad line up. It's obviously differentiated.
In the days of PPC? 450 mhz vs 500? Meh.
But these days? Dual core vs Quad core. The differentiator is there.
A cuboid or Mac Pro slimline tower range is very doable. £795 to just under the Quad Pro starter, say, £1395 leaves room for 3 models. Give some PC users what they're used to and want. ie the builders and gamers. The 'aunty alice' types can 'whooo' at the iMac.
I think it's getting to the point where Apple will open up the line a bit if they get near 2 million quarterly sales.
It's not like they have to seriously alter the Mac Pro case. Just stick some Conroes in there and you a nice range of towers below the Quads.
I think Apple maybe dropping a hint that what they have available now is it and don't expect anything new or different. Look at the new layout of the Mac Pro configuration page on the Apple store! Select the Compare Specs tab and you will see "Which Mac are you?" with the 24" iMac and then the base config and beside that the suggestions for upgrades.
I'm afraid Apple are sticking to the current line up and telling us dreamers where to stick it in terms of a regular Conroe tower. Also I just read on The Register that some the quad core chips are power hungry beasts.
Otellini suggests that next year there will be 50 ? 80 watt quads so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple waits till then to shuffle the MAc Pro line up. MAybe they might put a regular Kentsfield in so we could use regular RAM. They might do a top end dual quad at the top end for the moment for those begging for it but I think their position is clear, if you look at the "Compare" page with iMac 24 at c$2000 and the Mac Pro at c¢2500. I don't think they will drop prices on the Mac Pro with any silent upgrade. They probably factored that into the original price at intro hence cheaper than a Dell.
When the lampshade LCD iMac first came out, it was supposed to replace the CRT iMac in full. When educators flat out told them they would buy a dell before buying a lampshade, Apple caved in and created the eMac. Consumers then forced apple's hand and they released the eMac the public. It was pretty successful for a machine Apple never planned to make. A couple years later Apple was forced into adding a headless value Mac into the fray and more recently they were pressured by their users into making a GM. iMac. Notice a pattern here? They were dead wrong in those cases and they're dead wrong now. Apple makes a lot of mistakes and we as consumers have the power to have them rethink their position.
One thing I can tell you is this, I'm not getting railroaded into spending close to $1000 more for what's basically a grounded laptop with a 24" display or a workstation just to make Apple feel better. After all the problems my with my iBook, they're lucky I'm replacing that with another Mac. If they want to price themselves out of the prosumer market, they better be prepared to loose revenue because of it.
No doubt the gamer market is significant for consoles and PCs.
If Dell bought Alienware...it's hardly insignificant.
Plus, there are many people who do just like to build their own.
Or like to have 'pretend' (heh) choice. Even though you're more of less getting the same thing when you look across 100 build your own vendors.
Still, I can't see how hard it would be for Apple to intro' 3 Conroe DUO Towers under the Quad line up. It's obviously differentiated.
In the days of PPC? 450 mhz vs 500? Meh.
But these days? Dual core vs Quad core. The differentiator is there.
A cuboid or Mac Pro slimline tower range is very doable. £795 to just under the Quad Pro starter, say, £1395 leaves room for 3 models. Give some PC users what they're used to and want. ie the builders and gamers. The 'aunty alice' types can 'whooo' at the iMac.
I think it's getting to the point where Apple will open up the line a bit if they get near 2 million quarterly sales.
It's not like they have to seriously alter the Mac Pro case. Just stick some Conroes in there and you a nice range of towers below the Quads.
Lemon Bon Bon
You don't even need a new slimline case. All they need to do is design a P965 or 975x motherboard for the Mac Pro Form Factor.
What i'm requesting is pretty vague. And it fits almost any bill. I don't care about price as long as it's sub $2k. I want a conroe. And I want it to be some sort of tower with BTO graphics. Sounds like a pretty standard pc to me.
By the way, people buying used Macs doesn't hurt Apple. The people selling those used computers then go and buy a new Mac so the higher the price they can sell for, the better. So, a healthy used computer market is healthy for the company.
By the way, people buying used Macs doesn't hurt Apple. The people selling those used computers then go and buy a new Mac so the higher the price they can sell for, the better. So, a healthy used computer market is healthy for the company.
I don't see ANYTHING Apple releasing pleasing everyone. It will either a) be too expensive, b) not be expandable enough, c) not have enough GPU options or some combination there of. Seriously Apple is a niche computer maker and for now they're happy there it seems.
I agree nothing Apple does will please everyone. And that's fine. But at the same time people like new things. Apple cannot stagnate, just because their current line up works today does not mean it will work tomorrow.
For Apple to keep its success going they will have to continually innovate and offer new computers that people must go out and buy.
Quote:
How does the 'xMac' not compete against the other Apple models? Firstly, if it costs less than the Mac Pro but has more expandability than the iMac it will directly compete with BOTH of those models on those conditions.
The xMac will compete peripherally with the iMac and Mac Pro. The xMac offers somethings they both don't and both iMac/MacPro offer many things that the xMac does not. That is the point of having differentiating line up.
Apple should not continue to force people to buy a Mac Pro as the only choice for an expandable solution. When part of its customer base does not want it.
Apple should not continue to artificially protect iMac sales when there is some part of its customer base that would like something different.
From a strategic business sense I can understand doing both of these for a short time. But eventually they need to move on.
Apple should not continue to force people to buy a Mac Pro as the only choice for an expandable solution. When part of its customer base does not want it.
Apple should not continue to artificially protect iMac sales when there is some part of its customer base that would like something different.
I agree nothing Apple does will please everyone. And that's fine. But at the same time people like new things. Apple cannot stagnate, just because their current line up works today does not mean it will work tomorrow.
For Apple to keep its success going they will have to continually innovate and offer new computers that people must go out and buy.
Not only that, Apple's lineup does not appeal to everyone when OSX was released. Apple has basically dropped the professional desktop segment for the workstation crowd. It might seem semantics to some, but the audiences for the conroe and xeon are about as different as that of the Macbook and Macbook Pro.
Apple has basically dropped the professional desktop segment for the workstation crowd. It might seem semantics to some, but the audiences for the conroe and xeon are about as different as that of the Macbook and Macbook Pro.
Maybe you'd be kind enough to elaborate for those like me, who don't understand the subtile differences. What are some typical disciplines that would fall into each group? Video editing, publishing, graphics and photography, movie production, music synthesis and recording -- these all seem to have about the same computer needs to me.
. . . There are a ton of hobbyists out there (including myself) that would kill to make their OWN mac with their OWN case.
Wow, I haven't noticed anyone bringing up this topic for about five years! I really liked some of the discussions on it back then. The obvious criticism of this idea is easily fixed by the way Apple could market it -- sell it as a kit. The kit would include the motherboard, Mac OS X single user, a manual on how to go about it, and most likely the power supply and some cabling.
The reasons are fairly obvious. If Apple only sold the motherboard, people could have one copy OS X and use it to produce all their Macs. Regarding the power supply, it would ensure that a reliable supply with adequate capacity is used. It's only reasonable that Apple protect their revenue and reliability image in this way.
I think if Apple did this, the motherboard should not be standard, but designed to fit a mini tower of Apple design. Apple could offer several styles of cases for the motherboard and supply, selling them through their on-line store. If the build-your-own-Mac idea took off, I'm sure other vendors would have cases too.
We can all make up numbers that suit our opinions.
We obviously can cut to suit our opinions as well as the first half of that sentence alludes to a $1200 cube.
Quote:
Let's be realistic, though, and have our examples closer to good business practice. To begin with, very few here would suggest Apple sell a $700 Mac tower.
Mr. H speaks of a base $999 xMac with $399/$499 versions.
jwssmiths bounds the xMac between $599 and $999.
Aurora talks about a $850 retail xMac (using his $700 Dell + $150 vidcard as baseline).
YOU state that you believe Apple can be profitable in the sub-$500 tower market and about lowering the price of the Mini further to $399 with a Conroe.
And that's just in the last 4 pages (I aint paging through the entire thread).
People talk about higher priced xMacs but seem to feel that a $1700 Mac pro (or a $1200+ cube) doesn't fit the bill so given the talk of $399 as a price point $699 as the absolute bottom is being generous. If you want to refactor using $999 as the desired price point go for it. Its not rocket science. Even using this number it is still a loss of $280 per 24" cannibilization ($560-$280), $139 per 20" and $55 per 17".
Note that on Amazon the 20" outsells the $1199 17" and the 24" outsells the $999 17".
At best...assuming that the average is $1200 which given the Amazon numbers seems generous...you need to increase sales by 20% just to break even.
Quote:
Most seem to argue for a tower being similar in value and performance to the iMac, so it might start at about the $1000 mark and go up from there, with higher performance and better features.
And yet it needs to stay below the Mac Pro enough not to canniblize its sales or you need to figure in converting $2200 sales into $1500 sales or even $999 sales.
Quote:
Since Apple owns the Mac OS X market, the profit on a tower can be just as high as on an iMac. Apple can make it anything they want to achieve their profit goal. We assume Apple will use good business sense to maximum overall sales and market share.
Well that sure didn't work for the Cube now did it? At $999 you're trashing the iMac market. At $1499 you're in danger of doing the same to the Mac Pro market. At $1699 and a significant downgrade (2 core vs 4 core) you have a prosumer tower with expansion that doesn't imact either as much.
Quote:
One more thing to think about. Several people have stated their displeasure with Apple's decision to use the Meron in the iMac, rather than the Conroe. Apple's choice means higher CPU price and lower clock rates. I understand why they did it, to have a quieter cooling fan. Possibly a redesign of the iMac is coming that will use the Conroe, and run quiet enough. In that case, the iMac could be more competitive against a mini tower and lose fewer sales.
Or perhaps Apple's choice is both stylistic and strategic. Since the iMacs use pretty much mobile parts except for the drive Apple appears to mobile parts suppliers to be 50% more sales volume than they would be with a Conroe desktop lineup. 1.5M unit sales (less Mac Pros and XServes) vs 900K.
Quote:
Some here seem to argue against having two product in the lineup that compete. It is not necessarily bad, however. It means that customers have a choice. Those who want a tower buy a tower. Those who want an AIO buy an iMac. What is wrong with the consumer getting what he or she want, rather than putting up with whatever is available? It is money in Apple's pocket either way.
The sample math shows that it can be significantly LESS money in Apple's pockets. That's ignoring the synergy of using their desktop sales to make their laptop sales more profitable.
Quote:
The best part is that it will pick up more sales overall, because there are those of us who will not buy an AIO, but go to eBay instead for our towers. There are also the potential switches, who just want a tower because that is all they have ever purchased in the past.
The first group keeps the installed mac base higher and there is resell in the PC market as well (not as much on a percentage basis but there are PCs on ebay). No one has anything but ancedotal evidence that there is a significant number of the second to justify the risks to the Apple product line.
And you keep ignoring that a large part of the value of the branding is that Apple is different. Its really danged hard to make that case when you're just another tower builder. A cube fits with the image and provides a bit of expansion. Its pricing that is going to be hard for Apple to get right. Perhaps $1199 is too low and $1499 is the right price.
I'd probably buy a cube for $1499 but I'd have to think a little about it over an iMac. For my dad a $600 GMA X3000 based mini would be just fine I think.
But a Conroe tower ain't likely at any price point IMHO. The $1699 (or perhaps even $1599) Mac Pro will likely be a bottom end Woodcrest with the rest of the Mac Pro lineup going Kentsfield. I doubt Woodcrest pricing will drop enough for Apple to offer a $1499 model.
Not only that, Apple's lineup does not appeal to everyone when OSX was released. Apple has basically dropped the professional desktop segment for the workstation crowd. It might seem semantics to some, but the audiences for the conroe and xeon are about as different as that of the Macbook and Macbook Pro.
Yah...Conroe = gamers and Woodcrest = pro...oh wait. You mean that I'm not using my Mac Pro as a desktop but as a workstation? I better uninstall MS Office and iWork...am I allowed to run photoshop? Is that desktop or workstation?
What can you do with a Conroe machine that you can't do with a Woodcrest machine?
Comments
How does the 'xMac' not compete against the other Apple models? Firstly, if it costs less than the Mac Pro but has more expandability than the iMac it will directly compete with BOTH of those models on those conditions.
Sorry to pick out this one statement, but it is such a clear example of the way many think about introducing a new Mac in Apple's product lineup. Will it compete with other Macs? Will it steal too many sales from another model? I say these are unimportant considerations, provided every product is priced to make a good profit.
Does GM worry about a Pontiac competing with a Chevrolet and Buick? No! GM worries about having enough models to compete with Ford and Chrysler. That is the way it should be. If Apple prices products for profit, what difference does it make what Mac a customer buys? Look at it as giving customers a choice, so they stay with Apple, and not go looking for what they want in Windows land.
No, YOU'RE asking for one more computer. Someone else is asking for another, and someone else is asking for another.
You all want DIFFERENT computers. Yes, there's a hole. One computer won't fill it.
Yeah, nothing's ever as simple as we'd like it to be. That's what makes new product development so tricky to do right, and generally Apple does a really good job, once they decide to do it. . . . You wouldn't be implying that the job is to tough for Apple, are you? You think they might blow it?
We all have our own preferences, but in the end we make the best compromise we can when choosing to buy. Frankly, I'd be happy with any smaller tower Apple decides to make, or even a big Mini with a fast Conroe, room for two drives and good choice of graphics cards.
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObje...A0&nclm=MacPro
I'm afraid Apple are sticking to the current line up and telling us dreamers where to stick it in terms of a regular Conroe tower. Also I just read on The Register that some the quad core chips are power hungry beasts.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11...l_fwives_core/
Otellini suggests that next year there will be 50 — 80 watt quads so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple waits till then to shuffle the MAc Pro line up. MAybe they might put a regular Kentsfield in so we could use regular RAM. They might do a top end dual quad at the top end for the moment for those begging for it but I think their position is clear, if you look at the "Compare" page with iMac 24 at c$2000 and the Mac Pro at c¢2500. I don't think they will drop prices on the Mac Pro with any silent upgrade. They probably factored that into the original price at intro hence cheaper than a Dell.
No, YOU'RE asking for one more computer. Someone else is asking for another, and someone else is asking for another.
You all want DIFFERENT computers. Yes, there's a hole. One computer won't fill it.
jw nailed it on the head.
What i'm requesting is pretty vague. And it fits almost any bill. I don't care about price as long as it's sub $2k. I want a conroe. And I want it to be some sort of tower with BTO graphics. Sounds like a pretty standard pc to me.
If Dell bought Alienware...it's hardly insignificant.
Plus, there are many people who do just like to build their own.
Or like to have 'pretend' (heh) choice. Even though you're more of less getting the same thing when you look across 100 build your own vendors.
Still, I can't see how hard it would be for Apple to intro' 3 Conroe DUO Towers under the Quad line up. It's obviously differentiated.
In the days of PPC? 450 mhz vs 500? Meh.
But these days? Dual core vs Quad core. The differentiator is there.
A cuboid or Mac Pro slimline tower range is very doable. £795 to just under the Quad Pro starter, say, £1395 leaves room for 3 models. Give some PC users what they're used to and want. ie the builders and gamers. The 'aunty alice' types can 'whooo' at the iMac.
I think it's getting to the point where Apple will open up the line a bit if they get near 2 million quarterly sales.
It's not like they have to seriously alter the Mac Pro case. Just stick some Conroes in there and you a nice range of towers below the Quads.
Lemon Bon Bon
Lemon Bon Bon
I think Apple maybe dropping a hint that what they have available now is it and don't expect anything new or different. Look at the new layout of the Mac Pro configuration page on the Apple store! Select the Compare Specs tab and you will see "Which Mac are you?" with the 24" iMac and then the base config and beside that the suggestions for upgrades.
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObje...A0&nclm=MacPro
I'm afraid Apple are sticking to the current line up and telling us dreamers where to stick it in terms of a regular Conroe tower. Also I just read on The Register that some the quad core chips are power hungry beasts.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11...l_fwives_core/
Otellini suggests that next year there will be 50 ? 80 watt quads so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple waits till then to shuffle the MAc Pro line up. MAybe they might put a regular Kentsfield in so we could use regular RAM. They might do a top end dual quad at the top end for the moment for those begging for it but I think their position is clear, if you look at the "Compare" page with iMac 24 at c$2000 and the Mac Pro at c¢2500. I don't think they will drop prices on the Mac Pro with any silent upgrade. They probably factored that into the original price at intro hence cheaper than a Dell.
When the lampshade LCD iMac first came out, it was supposed to replace the CRT iMac in full. When educators flat out told them they would buy a dell before buying a lampshade, Apple caved in and created the eMac. Consumers then forced apple's hand and they released the eMac the public. It was pretty successful for a machine Apple never planned to make. A couple years later Apple was forced into adding a headless value Mac into the fray and more recently they were pressured by their users into making a GM. iMac. Notice a pattern here? They were dead wrong in those cases and they're dead wrong now. Apple makes a lot of mistakes and we as consumers have the power to have them rethink their position.
One thing I can tell you is this, I'm not getting railroaded into spending close to $1000 more for what's basically a grounded laptop with a 24" display or a workstation just to make Apple feel better. After all the problems my with my iBook, they're lucky I'm replacing that with another Mac. If they want to price themselves out of the prosumer market, they better be prepared to loose revenue because of it.
No doubt the gamer market is significant for consoles and PCs.
If Dell bought Alienware...it's hardly insignificant.
Plus, there are many people who do just like to build their own.
Or like to have 'pretend' (heh) choice. Even though you're more of less getting the same thing when you look across 100 build your own vendors.
Still, I can't see how hard it would be for Apple to intro' 3 Conroe DUO Towers under the Quad line up. It's obviously differentiated.
In the days of PPC? 450 mhz vs 500? Meh.
But these days? Dual core vs Quad core. The differentiator is there.
A cuboid or Mac Pro slimline tower range is very doable. £795 to just under the Quad Pro starter, say, £1395 leaves room for 3 models. Give some PC users what they're used to and want. ie the builders and gamers. The 'aunty alice' types can 'whooo' at the iMac.
I think it's getting to the point where Apple will open up the line a bit if they get near 2 million quarterly sales.
It's not like they have to seriously alter the Mac Pro case. Just stick some Conroes in there and you a nice range of towers below the Quads.
Lemon Bon Bon
You don't even need a new slimline case. All they need to do is design a P965 or 975x motherboard for the Mac Pro Form Factor.
What i'm requesting is pretty vague. And it fits almost any bill. I don't care about price as long as it's sub $2k. I want a conroe. And I want it to be some sort of tower with BTO graphics. Sounds like a pretty standard pc to me.
I've got just the machine for you: Search for it here.
By the way, people buying used Macs doesn't hurt Apple. The people selling those used computers then go and buy a new Mac so the higher the price they can sell for, the better. So, a healthy used computer market is healthy for the company.
I've got just the machine for you: Search for it here.
By the way, people buying used Macs doesn't hurt Apple. The people selling those used computers then go and buy a new Mac so the higher the price they can sell for, the better. So, a healthy used computer market is healthy for the company.
Oh yah, it has to run OS X
I don't see ANYTHING Apple releasing pleasing everyone. It will either a) be too expensive, b) not be expandable enough, c) not have enough GPU options or some combination there of. Seriously Apple is a niche computer maker and for now they're happy there it seems.
I agree nothing Apple does will please everyone. And that's fine. But at the same time people like new things. Apple cannot stagnate, just because their current line up works today does not mean it will work tomorrow.
For Apple to keep its success going they will have to continually innovate and offer new computers that people must go out and buy.
How does the 'xMac' not compete against the other Apple models? Firstly, if it costs less than the Mac Pro but has more expandability than the iMac it will directly compete with BOTH of those models on those conditions.
The xMac will compete peripherally with the iMac and Mac Pro. The xMac offers somethings they both don't and both iMac/MacPro offer many things that the xMac does not. That is the point of having differentiating line up.
Apple should not continue to force people to buy a Mac Pro as the only choice for an expandable solution. When part of its customer base does not want it.
Apple should not continue to artificially protect iMac sales when there is some part of its customer base that would like something different.
From a strategic business sense I can understand doing both of these for a short time. But eventually they need to move on.
Apple should not continue to force people to buy a Mac Pro as the only choice for an expandable solution. When part of its customer base does not want it.
Apple should not continue to artificially protect iMac sales when there is some part of its customer base that would like something different.
You state this very well.
I agree nothing Apple does will please everyone. And that's fine. But at the same time people like new things. Apple cannot stagnate, just because their current line up works today does not mean it will work tomorrow.
For Apple to keep its success going they will have to continually innovate and offer new computers that people must go out and buy.
Not only that, Apple's lineup does not appeal to everyone when OSX was released. Apple has basically dropped the professional desktop segment for the workstation crowd. It might seem semantics to some, but the audiences for the conroe and xeon are about as different as that of the Macbook and Macbook Pro.
Apple has basically dropped the professional desktop segment for the workstation crowd. It might seem semantics to some, but the audiences for the conroe and xeon are about as different as that of the Macbook and Macbook Pro.
Maybe you'd be kind enough to elaborate for those like me, who don't understand the subtile differences. What are some typical disciplines that would fall into each group? Video editing, publishing, graphics and photography, movie production, music synthesis and recording -- these all seem to have about the same computer needs to me.
. . . There are a ton of hobbyists out there (including myself) that would kill to make their OWN mac with their OWN case.
Wow, I haven't noticed anyone bringing up this topic for about five years! I really liked some of the discussions on it back then. The obvious criticism of this idea is easily fixed by the way Apple could market it -- sell it as a kit. The kit would include the motherboard, Mac OS X single user, a manual on how to go about it, and most likely the power supply and some cabling.
The reasons are fairly obvious. If Apple only sold the motherboard, people could have one copy OS X and use it to produce all their Macs. Regarding the power supply, it would ensure that a reliable supply with adequate capacity is used. It's only reasonable that Apple protect their revenue and reliability image in this way.
I think if Apple did this, the motherboard should not be standard, but designed to fit a mini tower of Apple design. Apple could offer several styles of cases for the motherboard and supply, selling them through their on-line store. If the build-your-own-Mac idea took off, I'm sure other vendors would have cases too.
We can all make up numbers that suit our opinions.
We obviously can cut to suit our opinions as well as the first half of that sentence alludes to a $1200 cube.
Let's be realistic, though, and have our examples closer to good business practice. To begin with, very few here would suggest Apple sell a $700 Mac tower.
Mr. H speaks of a base $999 xMac with $399/$499 versions.
jwssmiths bounds the xMac between $599 and $999.
Aurora talks about a $850 retail xMac (using his $700 Dell + $150 vidcard as baseline).
YOU state that you believe Apple can be profitable in the sub-$500 tower market and about lowering the price of the Mini further to $399 with a Conroe.
And that's just in the last 4 pages (I aint paging through the entire thread).
People talk about higher priced xMacs but seem to feel that a $1700 Mac pro (or a $1200+ cube) doesn't fit the bill so given the talk of $399 as a price point $699 as the absolute bottom is being generous. If you want to refactor using $999 as the desired price point go for it. Its not rocket science. Even using this number it is still a loss of $280 per 24" cannibilization ($560-$280), $139 per 20" and $55 per 17".
Note that on Amazon the 20" outsells the $1199 17" and the 24" outsells the $999 17".
At best...assuming that the average is $1200 which given the Amazon numbers seems generous...you need to increase sales by 20% just to break even.
Most seem to argue for a tower being similar in value and performance to the iMac, so it might start at about the $1000 mark and go up from there, with higher performance and better features.
And yet it needs to stay below the Mac Pro enough not to canniblize its sales or you need to figure in converting $2200 sales into $1500 sales or even $999 sales.
Since Apple owns the Mac OS X market, the profit on a tower can be just as high as on an iMac. Apple can make it anything they want to achieve their profit goal. We assume Apple will use good business sense to maximum overall sales and market share.
Well that sure didn't work for the Cube now did it? At $999 you're trashing the iMac market. At $1499 you're in danger of doing the same to the Mac Pro market. At $1699 and a significant downgrade (2 core vs 4 core) you have a prosumer tower with expansion that doesn't imact either as much.
One more thing to think about. Several people have stated their displeasure with Apple's decision to use the Meron in the iMac, rather than the Conroe. Apple's choice means higher CPU price and lower clock rates. I understand why they did it, to have a quieter cooling fan. Possibly a redesign of the iMac is coming that will use the Conroe, and run quiet enough. In that case, the iMac could be more competitive against a mini tower and lose fewer sales.
Or perhaps Apple's choice is both stylistic and strategic. Since the iMacs use pretty much mobile parts except for the drive Apple appears to mobile parts suppliers to be 50% more sales volume than they would be with a Conroe desktop lineup. 1.5M unit sales (less Mac Pros and XServes) vs 900K.
Some here seem to argue against having two product in the lineup that compete. It is not necessarily bad, however. It means that customers have a choice. Those who want a tower buy a tower. Those who want an AIO buy an iMac. What is wrong with the consumer getting what he or she want, rather than putting up with whatever is available? It is money in Apple's pocket either way.
The sample math shows that it can be significantly LESS money in Apple's pockets. That's ignoring the synergy of using their desktop sales to make their laptop sales more profitable.
The best part is that it will pick up more sales overall, because there are those of us who will not buy an AIO, but go to eBay instead for our towers. There are also the potential switches, who just want a tower because that is all they have ever purchased in the past.
The first group keeps the installed mac base higher and there is resell in the PC market as well (not as much on a percentage basis but there are PCs on ebay). No one has anything but ancedotal evidence that there is a significant number of the second to justify the risks to the Apple product line.
And you keep ignoring that a large part of the value of the branding is that Apple is different. Its really danged hard to make that case when you're just another tower builder. A cube fits with the image and provides a bit of expansion. Its pricing that is going to be hard for Apple to get right. Perhaps $1199 is too low and $1499 is the right price.
I'd probably buy a cube for $1499 but I'd have to think a little about it over an iMac. For my dad a $600 GMA X3000 based mini would be just fine I think.
But a Conroe tower ain't likely at any price point IMHO. The $1699 (or perhaps even $1599) Mac Pro will likely be a bottom end Woodcrest with the rest of the Mac Pro lineup going Kentsfield. I doubt Woodcrest pricing will drop enough for Apple to offer a $1499 model.
Vinea
Not only that, Apple's lineup does not appeal to everyone when OSX was released. Apple has basically dropped the professional desktop segment for the workstation crowd. It might seem semantics to some, but the audiences for the conroe and xeon are about as different as that of the Macbook and Macbook Pro.
Yah...Conroe = gamers and Woodcrest = pro...oh wait. You mean that I'm not using my Mac Pro as a desktop but as a workstation? I better uninstall MS Office and iWork...am I allowed to run photoshop? Is that desktop or workstation?
What can you do with a Conroe machine that you can't do with a Woodcrest machine?
Vinea