Why not just sell the OS with a Dongle for $300? Everyone gets the computer they want and the margin on the software is huge...
Very true, the software is made and paid for just sell last years version for PC use and if you want the new fancy stuff you must by a new Mac. Apple is hell bent in running off people with its sillyass hardware gimmicks. Mini games,Imac all in one games and of course workstation MacPro that has no games Only not everyone has $2500-$5000 to blow on a computer. Their line up minus Macpro is marketing gimmicks.
I can't remember whose sig used to read "Still waiting to be included in Apple's target market," (Eugene?) but with a nod to them, I've thrown in the towel. After nearly four years of waiting for a mid-range tower (still using my old Sawtooth G4), I just bought the 24" iMac/2.33/7600. Lemon Bon Bon's link to the Barefeats framerate specs pushed me over the edge. Now I just have to figure out what to do with my two 19" LCDs.
That would be me
I will say that I have purchased an iMac, and it is a great machine, but I feel I settled on the hardware, not what I wanted, but I do like the OS.
I think you are making price too important of a factor. Apple ultimately needs to keep introducing sexy and desirable machines. Any object desirable enough people will pay for it.
The marketshare race is running out of steam and profits. Apple is a small computer company. Why not sell to the richest niche.
We've already had long discussion about that. It wouldn't work.
We've already had long discussion about that. It wouldn't work.
Oh yes that settles it right? The fact is that it could work very well and only Jobs desire to remain a niche player keeps it from happening
This is based on the fact that Apple has been struggling to be profitable over the last 10 years of pursuing the current strategy vs the "Golden years" profitability of the previous market share strategy? Yes, it struggled a bit in 2002 (and in 2001 when the cube sucked).
Meh...I dunno...seems to be working over the long term well enough.
Vinea
I have already discussed why Apple's pursuit of more market share didn't work before:
1.) Apple were severely constrained by being the only company on the PPC platform, having to develop their own motherboard chipsets. This coupled with the lack of chip diversity (relative to x86) meant that price/performance was poor relative to the WinTel platform.
2.) The low-end machines that Apple had at the time were also very low margin (by Apple's standards). I am not advocating a reduction in gross margins (although obviously I accept that if there is a large shift to cheaper models, that will lower operating margin).
3.) Apple's product line up then was seriously complicated. I'm talking about adding but one desktop model (and as part of the "market share expansion plan" and ultra-mobile laptop and better screen options on MacBooks (pro and non-pro), but laptops are beyond the scope of this thread) - this would take us no where near to the complexities of the mid-90s Apple line-up.
4.) There wasn't really anything that compelling about the MacOS back then. It had several usability pros against Windows, as long as you could get it not to crash! Now we've got an OS that's much more stable than Windows and with better usability.
5.) The industrial design wasn't that compelling, either. Apple have now built-up an amazing industrial design team.
6.) Apple's brand wasn't as strong then as it is now.
I think you are making price too important of a factor. Apple ultimately needs to keep introducing sexy and desirable machines. Any object desirable enough people will pay for it.
Again:
1.) The "mini tower" isn't just about lowering the cost of entry. If someone has their own monitor with several years of life left in it, and want a real desktop with real desktop performance, and are unwilling to spend more than $2000, Apple currently provide no option for these people. The vast majority of desktops sold on the PC side have desktop components and cost less than $2000. I'm saying that whilst the iMac appeals to a niche of users (and should be kept), a real desktop would be interesting to far, far more potential switchers, because it is what they want and/or expect out of a computer.
2.) I stand firm in my belief that Apple could make my proposed "mini tower" "sexy".
3.) The Cube proved that form-factor alone isn't good enough.
Apple offers OS X to the general public and magically Apple is as large as Microsoft?
How would it work?
No one is saying as big as MS silly. But no one ever lost money giving people what they want at a profitable price point.
There are plenty of people who would pay $300-350 for OS X. What do you think the margins are for a computer after all the costs including shipping are considered?
This is all about Steve wanting to maintain the aura of exclusivity. The only thing special about Apple computers is the OS. Maybe he's afraid that releasing OS X to the world would only prove it to be true. So what. I don't think they net more than $250 from every computer sale. They should just bite the bullet already.
You and I (together with many people I am sure) will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Then there's the issue that dongles are by-passable. And supporting more than just Apple hardware increases OS X development costs.
Apple hardware? What special about it? The cases? Maybe The power supplies? The rest is intel hardware now. intel doesn't make that many chipsets! There would be negligible additional development costs. I'm sure Intel would love to clear out it's warehouse...
1) Do you accept that with the right specifications, Apple can build a $799 "mini tower" with 28% gross margins?
2.) If you think a $799+ "mini tower" so compelling that it will completely destroy iMac sales, why do you think that it won't attract more switchers?
Yes Apple can build a computer for that much at a 28% gross margin. To do so would sacrifice certain amenities that we know as the full Mac experience.
Not necessarily destroy Mac sales but would definitely eat into Apple's current stellar profits. At this point the only way Apple can stay in accord with WallStreet is to continue with more of the same.
Quote:
This is all about Steve wanting to maintain the aura of exclusivity.
Since you make it sound so easy I don't think you fully understand how complex it would be for Apple to shift gears to general purpose. Its not as easy as boxing a disk and shipping it to stores.
The only way selling OS X would work for Apple is if it nearly instantaneously became a widely used and ubiquitous OS. Apple would have to attract hundreds of thousands of developers to OS X. Windows has a dead lock on most industry-centric software (business, medical, point of sale, manufacturing) that buy and use millions of computers.
To not speak of the fact that Apple would have to support the hundreds of thousands of various hardware configurations. Something that Windows does not completely do successfully.
Like I said we had a long discussion on this and I cannot remember all of the issues cited, but there are a lot.
So is all of this worth Apple selling a $300 operating system that most people don't use over selling $1200 -$2000 computers that more people are choosing to use.
Apple hardware? What special about it? The cases? Maybe The power supplies? The rest is intel hardware now. intel doesn't make that many chipsets! There would be negligible additional development costs. I'm sure Intel would love to clear out it's warehouse...
{Personal attack removed - JL} This was discussed in this very thread and in multiple other threads on these forums. You will also find it discussed all over the internet. Do some research before you start spouting off like an expert.
No one is saying as big as MS silly. But no one ever lost money giving people what they want at a profitable price point.
There are plenty of people who would pay $300-350 for OS X. What do you think the margins are for a computer after all the costs including shipping are considered?
This is all about Steve wanting to maintain the aura of exclusivity. The only thing special about Apple computers is the OS. Maybe he's afraid that releasing OS X to the world would only prove it to be true. So what. I don't think they net more than $250 from every computer sale. They should just bite the bullet already.
Mmm...yes, because that strategy really worked well for NeXT...
2.) If you think a $799+ "mini tower" so compelling that it will completely destroy iMac sales, why do you think that it won't attract more switchers?
Because paying $799 for a $399 computer you spec'd isn't compelling to folks that aren't already Mac users? Its hard to hide that fact when you can compare features 1 for 1. Okay, so the "mini tower" would be a slim tower or perhaps a cube. Even so. With 1 optical drive and 2 HDD bays plus room for 1 or 2 cards it isn't going to be all that small.
The mini and iMac are comfortably outside the comparison range. They use mobile parts for the "design" so they will naturally cost more and bench slower. Eh.
Because paying $799 for a $399 computer you spec'd isn't compelling to folks that aren't already Mac users?
Oh, and after you'd done so well and not posted anything troll-like for several pages Those specs were not $399, it had a Conroe and expandability options. You claim it looks like a worse deal than the Mini, but I beg to differ. Compare what I listed against the $799 Mini:
Conroe instead of Yonah
Double the HDD capacity
Faster HDD
Faster optical drive (desktop drive Vs. laptop drive)
Expandability (you can put a second HDD and decent graphics card in if you want)
Yes, it has a Combo drive not a SuperDrive, but a SuperDrive would be a $50 option.
Yes, it doesn't have wireless, but that would be a $50 option.
So, do get "equal ish" specs to the current $799 Mini, you'd be spending $899, but for that extra $100 you are getting a faster CPU, double the HDD capacity, more expandability, and desktop components.
I think it is just odd to pretend that a $799 Mini compares more favourably to a $799 XPS 410 or the like than my "mini tower" $799 config. My "mini tower" config would still be much smaller than the XPS, but would have a specification much closer to it than the $799 Mini.
Comments
Why not just sell the OS with a Dongle for $300? Everyone gets the computer they want and the margin on the software is huge...
Very true, the software is made and paid for just sell last years version for PC use and if you want the new fancy stuff you must by a new Mac. Apple is hell bent in running off people with its sillyass hardware gimmicks. Mini games,Imac all in one games and of course workstation MacPro that has no games Only not everyone has $2500-$5000 to blow on a computer. Their line up minus Macpro is marketing gimmicks.
I can't remember whose sig used to read "Still waiting to be included in Apple's target market," (Eugene?) but with a nod to them, I've thrown in the towel. After nearly four years of waiting for a mid-range tower (still using my old Sawtooth G4), I just bought the 24" iMac/2.33/7600. Lemon Bon Bon's link to the Barefeats framerate specs pushed me over the edge. Now I just have to figure out what to do with my two 19" LCDs.
That would be me
I will say that I have purchased an iMac, and it is a great machine, but I feel I settled on the hardware, not what I wanted, but I do like the OS.
Their line up minus Macpro is marketing gimmicks.
Apple keeping its software and hardware tied to together is the reason why I can load OS X onto my 7 year old iMac.
I think you are making price too important of a factor. Apple ultimately needs to keep introducing sexy and desirable machines. Any object desirable enough people will pay for it.
The marketshare race is running out of steam and profits. Apple is a small computer company. Why not sell to the richest niche.
We've already had long discussion about that. It wouldn't work.
We've already had long discussion about that. It wouldn't work.
Oh yes that settles it right? The fact is that it could work very well and only Jobs desire to remain a niche player keeps it from happening
The fact is that it could work very well and only Jobs desire to remain a niche player keeps it from happening
How would it work?
Apple offers OS X to the general public and magically Apple is as large as Microsoft?
How would it work?
This is based on the fact that Apple has been struggling to be profitable over the last 10 years of pursuing the current strategy vs the "Golden years" profitability of the previous market share strategy? Yes, it struggled a bit in 2002 (and in 2001 when the cube sucked).
Meh...I dunno...seems to be working over the long term well enough.
Vinea
I have already discussed why Apple's pursuit of more market share didn't work before:
1.) Apple were severely constrained by being the only company on the PPC platform, having to develop their own motherboard chipsets. This coupled with the lack of chip diversity (relative to x86) meant that price/performance was poor relative to the WinTel platform.
2.) The low-end machines that Apple had at the time were also very low margin (by Apple's standards). I am not advocating a reduction in gross margins (although obviously I accept that if there is a large shift to cheaper models, that will lower operating margin).
3.) Apple's product line up then was seriously complicated. I'm talking about adding but one desktop model (and as part of the "market share expansion plan" and ultra-mobile laptop and better screen options on MacBooks (pro and non-pro), but laptops are beyond the scope of this thread) - this would take us no where near to the complexities of the mid-90s Apple line-up.
4.) There wasn't really anything that compelling about the MacOS back then. It had several usability pros against Windows, as long as you could get it not to crash! Now we've got an OS that's much more stable than Windows and with better usability.
5.) The industrial design wasn't that compelling, either. Apple have now built-up an amazing industrial design team.
6.) Apple's brand wasn't as strong then as it is now.
I think you are making price too important of a factor. Apple ultimately needs to keep introducing sexy and desirable machines. Any object desirable enough people will pay for it.
Again:
1.) The "mini tower" isn't just about lowering the cost of entry. If someone has their own monitor with several years of life left in it, and want a real desktop with real desktop performance, and are unwilling to spend more than $2000, Apple currently provide no option for these people. The vast majority of desktops sold on the PC side have desktop components and cost less than $2000. I'm saying that whilst the iMac appeals to a niche of users (and should be kept), a real desktop would be interesting to far, far more potential switchers, because it is what they want and/or expect out of a computer.
2.) I stand firm in my belief that Apple could make my proposed "mini tower" "sexy".
3.) The Cube proved that form-factor alone isn't good enough.
I agree Apple needs to have another desktop with expandability. I don't see it benefiting Apple if it costs $999 or lower.
Other than that I totally agree with you.
I agree Apple needs to have another desktop with expandability. I don't see it benefiting Apple if it costs $999 or lower.
You seem to think that a $799+ tower* would severely cannibalise iMac sales.
1.) Do you accept that with the right specifications, Apple can build a $799 "mini tower" with 28% gross margins?
2.) If you think a $799+ "mini tower" so compelling that it will completely destroy iMac sales, why do you think that it won't attract more switchers?
* to recap, my proposed "mini tower" would be Conroe-based for prices of $799 and above, with the $799 version having:
1 GB RAM is standard.
Combo Drive?
I guess $999 or $1099 good with a good graphic card in it.
That way it will be better than Mac Mini and has limited expansion when compared to Mac Pro.
-----------------
Return of Cube
Integrated Graphics???
1 GB RAM is standard.
Combo Drive?
That's for $799. For $1099 you could have more RAM, graphics card and a DVD burner.
How would it work?
Apple offers OS X to the general public and magically Apple is as large as Microsoft?
How would it work?
No one is saying as big as MS silly. But no one ever lost money giving people what they want at a profitable price point.
There are plenty of people who would pay $300-350 for OS X. What do you think the margins are for a computer after all the costs including shipping are considered?
This is all about Steve wanting to maintain the aura of exclusivity. The only thing special about Apple computers is the OS. Maybe he's afraid that releasing OS X to the world would only prove it to be true. So what. I don't think they net more than $250 from every computer sale. They should just bite the bullet already.
The only thing special about Apple computers is the OS.
You and I (together with many people I am sure) will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Then there's the issue that dongles are by-passable. And supporting more than just Apple hardware increases OS X development costs.
You and I (together with many people I am sure) will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Then there's the issue that dongles are by-passable. And supporting more than just Apple hardware increases OS X development costs.
Apple hardware? What special about it? The cases? Maybe The power supplies? The rest is intel hardware now. intel doesn't make that many chipsets! There would be negligible additional development costs. I'm sure Intel would love to clear out it's warehouse...
1) Do you accept that with the right specifications, Apple can build a $799 "mini tower" with 28% gross margins?
2.) If you think a $799+ "mini tower" so compelling that it will completely destroy iMac sales, why do you think that it won't attract more switchers?
Yes Apple can build a computer for that much at a 28% gross margin. To do so would sacrifice certain amenities that we know as the full Mac experience.
Not necessarily destroy Mac sales but would definitely eat into Apple's current stellar profits. At this point the only way Apple can stay in accord with WallStreet is to continue with more of the same.
This is all about Steve wanting to maintain the aura of exclusivity.
Since you make it sound so easy I don't think you fully understand how complex it would be for Apple to shift gears to general purpose. Its not as easy as boxing a disk and shipping it to stores.
The only way selling OS X would work for Apple is if it nearly instantaneously became a widely used and ubiquitous OS. Apple would have to attract hundreds of thousands of developers to OS X. Windows has a dead lock on most industry-centric software (business, medical, point of sale, manufacturing) that buy and use millions of computers.
To not speak of the fact that Apple would have to support the hundreds of thousands of various hardware configurations. Something that Windows does not completely do successfully.
Like I said we had a long discussion on this and I cannot remember all of the issues cited, but there are a lot.
So is all of this worth Apple selling a $300 operating system that most people don't use over selling $1200 -$2000 computers that more people are choosing to use.
Apple hardware? What special about it? The cases? Maybe The power supplies? The rest is intel hardware now. intel doesn't make that many chipsets! There would be negligible additional development costs. I'm sure Intel would love to clear out it's warehouse...
{Personal attack removed - JL} This was discussed in this very thread and in multiple other threads on these forums. You will also find it discussed all over the internet. Do some research before you start spouting off like an expert.
No one is saying as big as MS silly. But no one ever lost money giving people what they want at a profitable price point.
There are plenty of people who would pay $300-350 for OS X. What do you think the margins are for a computer after all the costs including shipping are considered?
This is all about Steve wanting to maintain the aura of exclusivity. The only thing special about Apple computers is the OS. Maybe he's afraid that releasing OS X to the world would only prove it to be true. So what. I don't think they net more than $250 from every computer sale. They should just bite the bullet already.
Mmm...yes, because that strategy really worked well for NeXT...
Vinea
2.) If you think a $799+ "mini tower" so compelling that it will completely destroy iMac sales, why do you think that it won't attract more switchers?
Because paying $799 for a $399 computer you spec'd isn't compelling to folks that aren't already Mac users? Its hard to hide that fact when you can compare features 1 for 1. Okay, so the "mini tower" would be a slim tower or perhaps a cube. Even so. With 1 optical drive and 2 HDD bays plus room for 1 or 2 cards it isn't going to be all that small.
The mini and iMac are comfortably outside the comparison range. They use mobile parts for the "design" so they will naturally cost more and bench slower. Eh.
Vinea
You can connect a second monitor to an iMac...
A) it sucks to work with 2 different size monitors.
Because paying $799 for a $399 computer you spec'd isn't compelling to folks that aren't already Mac users?
Oh, and after you'd done so well and not posted anything troll-like for several pages
Conroe instead of Yonah
Double the HDD capacity
Faster HDD
Faster optical drive (desktop drive Vs. laptop drive)
Expandability (you can put a second HDD and decent graphics card in if you want)
Yes, it has a Combo drive not a SuperDrive, but a SuperDrive would be a $50 option.
Yes, it doesn't have wireless, but that would be a $50 option.
So, do get "equal ish" specs to the current $799 Mini, you'd be spending $899, but for that extra $100 you are getting a faster CPU, double the HDD capacity, more expandability, and desktop components.
I think it is just odd to pretend that a $799 Mini compares more favourably to a $799 XPS 410 or the like than my "mini tower" $799 config. My "mini tower" config would still be much smaller than the XPS, but would have a specification much closer to it than the $799 Mini.