its a worse deal than those from HP and Gateway by $200.
I know that. My point is that the current Mini is even worse.
I pointed out in an earlier post that you could have the same specs of a $799 HP/Dell/Gateway for $1099 and that I'm confident that many potential switchers would find the extra $300 for something that is smaller, more attractive, runs OS X and is made by Apple worth it. Alternatively, if they can't go above $799, they may consider the hit in hardware specs (which is a much lower hit than they'd currently face by choosing a Mini) worth it for the smaller more attractive machine that runs OS X and is made by Apple.
Faster optical drive (desktop drive Vs. laptop drive)
Expandability (you can put a second HDD and decent graphics card in if you want)
This stuff doesn't matter to the far majority of people who would buy a $799 computer.
The couple of people I know with mini's don't care about any of that. The same as the many people I know with Dell desktops who never use the graphics card slot or use any of the PCI slots.
I like that 'Black Mini'. I think that is the ticket. 8x8 or slightly larger.
Conroe. Int Graphics upto GPU of choice as one scales price bracket. A nice 'standard' 'tower' to configure. Couple of Hard drives. GPU of choice. Conroe of choice. Fast ram. Nice gaming/business/whatever PC switcher wants it to be rig.
I'd like to see something like this replace the mini. Which though ok, is not Apple's finest aesthetic creation. I liked the Cube more. (Save its excesses...eg plastic skirt...) The 8x8-ish size would give a little more room to grow. There are quite a few slim line towers entering the market. I'd like to see Apple squeeze something between the 'mini' and 'Pro'.
This stuff doesn't matter to the far majority of people who would buy a $799 computer.
The couple of people I know with mini's don't care about any of that. The same as the many people I know with Dell desktops who never use the graphics card slot or use any of the PCI slots.
Right. We might get there in the end. The point is that the proposed "mini tower" appeals to both those who don't care about the specs or PCI slots etc. and those who do care about a bit of expandability.
The Mini is just far too compromised IMHO. Why deliberately limit its appeal?
This stuff doesn't matter to the far majority of people who would buy a $799 computer.
The couple of people I know with mini's don't care about any of that. The same as the many people I know with Dell desktops who never use the graphics card slot or use any of the PCI slots.
Right. The whole "expandability" thing only matters to people posting on forums, not to the person who walks into an Apple store.
Right. The whole "expandability" thing only matters to people posting on forums
That is a very, very odd thing to say. You are seriously saying that people don't care about having real desktop performance from a desktop computer? That no-one cares about expandability or that little bit extra future-proofing?
Again, no-one on your side of the argument has managed to explain why, if AIOs and SFFs are the right choice for 95% of people, those form factors haven't come to dominate the PC side of the fence.
Simplistically, marketing is identifying which markets are significant to your business, and then designing products that appeal to those markets and meet their needs. Apple does a fair job of appealing to the digital lifestyle folks, those who do digital movies, photography and music. Apple also dose well to meet the needs of professionals in those fields, as well as graphic arts and publishing markets.
Yet to many people, digital lifestyle means no more than the internet, email and word processing. There are also those who purchase computers to do simple office tasks, or purchase for school class room use, and there are even a few first time buyers are out there. If these buyers want a laptop, Apple does okay. But for those who want a desktop computer, I believe Apple flops.
What do these markets have in common? I think low price is first on the list. The performance needs of these folks is very modest, so almost any computer will do. Yet, within the low price crowd, there are a fair number who will spend more for reliability, quality and style. These are the cream of these markets that Apple should go after, in my opinion. What does not interest these people is paying more for features and/or performance they neither need nor want. This is the way I happen to see the situation.
The Mac Mini is a flop in these markets because nobody wants to spend more just because it's small. Some may pay more for classy style, but I believe few are interested in a tiny, cute computer. Make it bigger and make it cheaper, with fewer features. Make them options. People are obviously buying the tiny Mac, but how many are buying because it is the cheapest Mac available? I think more people settle for it, rather than want it. Build a cheaper competing Mac and see what happens. I think the current Mini would soon become a collector's item.
This is not the only markets where Apple flops in their desktop offerings. The others are those markets where people want a fairly high performance tower, but not something as big nor as expensive as the Mac Pro. Workstations are not for everybody, and a much smaller tower should sell well to many professionals, gamers and those who fall into a category called prosumer in these discussions.
That is a very, very odd thing to say. You are seriously saying that people don't care about having real desktop performance from a desktop computer?[/bquote]
The iMac has "desktop performance".
[bquote] That no-one cares about expandability or that little bit extra future-proofing?
[/bquote]
Not enough people to make any difference, no.
[bquote]
Again, no-one on your side of the argument has managed to explain why, if AIOs and SFFs are the right choice for 95% of people, those form factors haven't come to dominate the PC side of the fence.
The point that you are missing is that it isn't that people are particularly attracted by the AIO, although I think that is true for some --- it is that adding a non-AIO wouldn't make any difference.
If someone has a monitor/KBD, then -> Mac mini
If not, -> iMac.
Tower offers only expandability - which as pointed out the vast vast majority will not need.
It is inertia and Windows that keeps people on the Dell side. Also the market share is hugely skewed by all the generic business computers that are bought by the tens of thousands on IT recommendation. Windows IT will never consider Mac no matter how many slots it has.
The point that you are missing is that it isn't that people are particularly attracted by the AIO, although I think that is true for some --- it is that adding a non-AIO wouldn't make any difference.
And the point that you are missing is a majority of the users out there are USED to the non-AIO enclosures. Ugh I don't want to type this out already because I have fiber glass all over my hands...
Ask any computer sales man out there (I've been there). One of the first questions people as is about expandability. Most don't use it, but it's still something people want to feel cozy with. These joe users that ask this question feel they are getting jipped with an AIO. Mac Mini, imo.... is a POS machine. Slow ram, slow harddrive, slow bus, slow cpu, horrible graphics. I'm actually surprised apple sells any of these machines. Mac Mini is not the solution. And there is a HUGE gap between mac pro and mac mini that cuts out a majority of the users out there. And the iMac is supposed to fill this, and it doesn't do it well.
There is nothing anyone can say that apple couldn't release a machine in the 1400-1800 dollar price bracket that was a simple tower, that would kill sales. Not gonna happen don't even try. If you're going to reply to my post and argue, don't bother cause I'll come back with a vengeance. =P.
I was thinking..... Mac Pro doesn't really offer much expandability either. Only has pci-express slots, and there really aren't any pci-express expansion cards.... especially for mac. With pci-express 2.0 coming out soon, it makes me nervous there won't ever be any pci-express 1.0 cards.
Oh. My. God. The fact that the Mini is a laptop without a screen, rather than a desktop with real desktop performance, regardless of whether it is expandable or not, still seems to be escaping you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
Tower offers only expandability
No, they don't. They also offer real desktop performance by using desktop CPUs, desktop HDDs, desktop optical drives and desktop RAM, and the possibility of lower cost due to cheaper components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
It is inertia and Windows that keeps people on the Dell side. Also the market share is hugely skewed by all the generic business computers that are bought by the tens of thousands on IT recommendation. Windows IT will never consider Mac no matter how many slots it has.
That still didn't answer my question. Why aren't Dell and HP falling over themselves to deliver AIOs and Mac Mini equivalents if they are perfect for 95% of people?
The point that you are missing is that it isn't that people are particularly attracted by the AIO, although I think that is true for some --- it is that adding a non-AIO wouldn't make any difference.
If someone has a monitor/KBD, then -> Mac mini
If not, -> iMac.
Tower offers only expandability - which as pointed out the vast vast majority will not need.
It is inertia and Windows that keeps people on the Dell side. Also the market share is hugely skewed by all the generic business computers that are bought by the tens of thousands on IT recommendation. Windows IT will never consider Mac no matter how many slots it has.
No offense Lundy, but I think you're taking a fairly narrow view of the computer world based on your own biases. You're assuming that
a) the number one thing people want is out of the box and go simplicity.
b) everyone in the consumer does the exact same things in about the same way.
and
c) Users are willing to buy an iMac or Xeon Mac Pro instead of a second hand Mac or Tower PC.
No, I am simply saying that people walking into a store are going to compare an $1699 tower with no monitor to a cheaper iMac that does have a monitor and they will choose the iMac. There is a contingent of buyers who would trade the iMac's LCD for slots and bays, and pay more, but that is not a very large contingent.
I don't have any philosophical objection to the xMac - if Apple determines that they would make more money by adding it to the lineup, great.
I'm just offering my reasoning as to why they don't.
I'm just offering my reasoning as to why they don't.
No, now you have been more specific, you are offering reasoning as to why people wouldn't buy a $1699 tower over an iMac. But most people in here aren't talking about a $1699 tower. Many are talking about a "mini tower" starting at $999, I'm talking about one starting at $399 (scaling to $1999).
In my proposal, the models below $799 would be based on Merom/Celeron M CPU and $799+ would be based on Conroe.
No, now you have been more specific, you are offering reasoning as to why people wouldn't buy a $1699 tower over an iMac. But most people in here aren't talking about a $1699 tower. Many are talking about a "mini tower" starting at $999, I'm talking about one starting at $399 (scaling to $1999).
In my proposal, the models below $799 would be based on Merom/Celeron M CPU and $799+ would be based on Conroe.
I'm talking about a $1299 to $1699 Conroe Mac Pro.
Doesn't it seem like there's an empty space in there somewhere for a "Mac"? Something with a bit of expandability, tower enclosure, something mid-range... something similar to this maybe:
I realize that I'm coming in to this conversation a bit late, but...
Exactly!
I'm ready to get a new computer, and if I had my preference, I'd get a Mac. Unfortunately, I can't. Apple doesn't sell the computer I want.
I have a nice LCD, I don't need an iMac. Also, you can't get an iMac with a Core 2 Duo that has the 4Mb Cache.
I need a more powerful computer than what the Mac Mini will provide.
I don't need a 4 core, Xeon, $3500 Mac Pro. That's over-kill, and more money than I want to spend.
I have $2,000 to drop on a new computer, and it's going to end up going to Dell or Alienware for no other reason than that Apple just doesn't sell a PC in that price range that doesn't come attached to a monitor. That just seems ridiculous to me. There must be millions of people looking for this same level of computer.
Can't they just offer a Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo chip instead of Dual Xeons?
Apple did deliberately limit the mini's appeal. Thus you have to overcome the expected objections to move the desktop line up from niche form factors to commodity form factors.
There are a few general scenarios:
1) Apple did research and has determined that the current line up meets their strategic goals of profitability, branding and even market share the best. Right, wrong or indifferent without really knowing what this analysis is its rather hard to refute out of hand. It is also important to know the weighting of profitability and branding vs market share and Apple's long term strategic goals (beyond the obvious of making money). From a company that's a tad more secretive than most.
2) Steve Jobs is a tyrant and will not allow a commodity tower to sully his lineup. Well, yes he is a tyrant. The question then becomes...is it worth jettisoning Jobs if he's unwilling to change his position? Given Apple's recent performance...I think not.
3) some combination of 1 & 2 (there, that covers most of the bases).
So pretty much, under current conditions a $399-$999 tower is DOA. And its also somewhat hard to argue that the tack that Apple is taking is incorrect for their corporate goals even if total market share suffers.
Even a $1,200-$1,400 Cube questionable. A $1,499-$1999 low end Mac Pro possible even likely.
Conroe/Kentsfield vs Woodcrest/Cloverton? Questionable. I can see that debate going either way but I see the price closer to $2K vs $1.5K.
Comments
Its not a "worse" deal than the Mini...its a worse deal than those from HP and Gateway by $200.
its a worse deal than those from HP and Gateway by $200.
I know that. My point is that the current Mini is even worse.
I pointed out in an earlier post that you could have the same specs of a $799 HP/Dell/Gateway for $1099 and that I'm confident that many potential switchers would find the extra $300 for something that is smaller, more attractive, runs OS X and is made by Apple worth it. Alternatively, if they can't go above $799, they may consider the hit in hardware specs (which is a much lower hit than they'd currently face by choosing a Mini) worth it for the smaller more attractive machine that runs OS X and is made by Apple.
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)
This stuff doesn't matter to the far majority of people who would buy a $799 computer.
The couple of people I know with mini's don't care about any of that. The same as the many people I know with Dell desktops who never use the graphics card slot or use any of the PCI slots.
Conroe. Int Graphics upto GPU of choice as one scales price bracket. A nice 'standard' 'tower' to configure. Couple of Hard drives. GPU of choice. Conroe of choice. Fast ram. Nice gaming/business/whatever PC switcher wants it to be rig.
I'd like to see something like this replace the mini. Which though ok, is not Apple's finest aesthetic creation. I liked the Cube more. (Save its excesses...eg plastic skirt...) The 8x8-ish size would give a little more room to grow. There are quite a few slim line towers entering the market. I'd like to see Apple squeeze something between the 'mini' and 'Pro'.
The mini isn't quite 'it' for me.
Lemon Bon Bon
This stuff doesn't matter to the far majority of people who would buy a $799 computer.
The couple of people I know with mini's don't care about any of that. The same as the many people I know with Dell desktops who never use the graphics card slot or use any of the PCI slots.
Right. We might get there in the end. The point is that the proposed "mini tower" appeals to both those who don't care about the specs or PCI slots etc. and those who do care about a bit of expandability.
The Mini is just far too compromised IMHO. Why deliberately limit its appeal?
This stuff doesn't matter to the far majority of people who would buy a $799 computer.
The couple of people I know with mini's don't care about any of that. The same as the many people I know with Dell desktops who never use the graphics card slot or use any of the PCI slots.
Right. The whole "expandability" thing only matters to people posting on forums, not to the person who walks into an Apple store.
I'll allow a few more special postings or after post editing... but I want it all wrapped up b4 I forward it all to Steve Jobs at the end of the week.
good night.
------------ STOP ------------!
Right. The whole "expandability" thing only matters to people posting on forums
That is a very, very odd thing to say. You are seriously saying that people don't care about having real desktop performance from a desktop computer? That no-one cares about expandability or that little bit extra future-proofing?
Again, no-one on your side of the argument has managed to explain why, if AIOs and SFFs are the right choice for 95% of people, those form factors haven't come to dominate the PC side of the fence.
Yet to many people, digital lifestyle means no more than the internet, email and word processing. There are also those who purchase computers to do simple office tasks, or purchase for school class room use, and there are even a few first time buyers are out there. If these buyers want a laptop, Apple does okay. But for those who want a desktop computer, I believe Apple flops.
What do these markets have in common? I think low price is first on the list. The performance needs of these folks is very modest, so almost any computer will do. Yet, within the low price crowd, there are a fair number who will spend more for reliability, quality and style. These are the cream of these markets that Apple should go after, in my opinion. What does not interest these people is paying more for features and/or performance they neither need nor want. This is the way I happen to see the situation.
The Mac Mini is a flop in these markets because nobody wants to spend more just because it's small. Some may pay more for classy style, but I believe few are interested in a tiny, cute computer. Make it bigger and make it cheaper, with fewer features. Make them options. People are obviously buying the tiny Mac, but how many are buying because it is the cheapest Mac available? I think more people settle for it, rather than want it. Build a cheaper competing Mac and see what happens. I think the current Mini would soon become a collector's item.
This is not the only markets where Apple flops in their desktop offerings. The others are those markets where people want a fairly high performance tower, but not something as big nor as expensive as the Mac Pro. Workstations are not for everybody, and a much smaller tower should sell well to many professionals, gamers and those who fall into a category called prosumer in these discussions.
That is a very, very odd thing to say. You are seriously saying that people don't care about having real desktop performance from a desktop computer?[/bquote]
The iMac has "desktop performance".
[bquote] That no-one cares about expandability or that little bit extra future-proofing?
[/bquote]
Not enough people to make any difference, no.
[bquote]
Again, no-one on your side of the argument has managed to explain why, if AIOs and SFFs are the right choice for 95% of people, those form factors haven't come to dominate the PC side of the fence.
The point that you are missing is that it isn't that people are particularly attracted by the AIO, although I think that is true for some --- it is that adding a non-AIO wouldn't make any difference.
If someone has a monitor/KBD, then -> Mac mini
If not, -> iMac.
Tower offers only expandability - which as pointed out the vast vast majority will not need.
It is inertia and Windows that keeps people on the Dell side. Also the market share is hugely skewed by all the generic business computers that are bought by the tens of thousands on IT recommendation. Windows IT will never consider Mac no matter how many slots it has.
The point that you are missing is that it isn't that people are particularly attracted by the AIO, although I think that is true for some --- it is that adding a non-AIO wouldn't make any difference.
And the point that you are missing is a majority of the users out there are USED to the non-AIO enclosures. Ugh I don't want to type this out already because I have fiber glass all over my hands...
Ask any computer sales man out there (I've been there). One of the first questions people as is about expandability. Most don't use it, but it's still something people want to feel cozy with. These joe users that ask this question feel they are getting jipped with an AIO. Mac Mini, imo.... is a POS machine. Slow ram, slow harddrive, slow bus, slow cpu, horrible graphics. I'm actually surprised apple sells any of these machines. Mac Mini is not the solution. And there is a HUGE gap between mac pro and mac mini that cuts out a majority of the users out there. And the iMac is supposed to fill this, and it doesn't do it well.
There is nothing anyone can say that apple couldn't release a machine in the 1400-1800 dollar price bracket that was a simple tower, that would kill sales. Not gonna happen don't even try. If you're going to reply to my post and argue, don't bother cause I'll come back with a vengeance. =P.
I was thinking..... Mac Pro doesn't really offer much expandability either. Only has pci-express slots, and there really aren't any pci-express expansion cards.... especially for mac. With pci-express 2.0 coming out soon, it makes me nervous there won't ever be any pci-express 1.0 cards.
If someone has a monitor/KBD, then -> Mac mini
Oh. My. God. The fact that the Mini is a laptop without a screen, rather than a desktop with real desktop performance, regardless of whether it is expandable or not, still seems to be escaping you.
Tower offers only expandability
No, they don't. They also offer real desktop performance by using desktop CPUs, desktop HDDs, desktop optical drives and desktop RAM, and the possibility of lower cost due to cheaper components.
It is inertia and Windows that keeps people on the Dell side. Also the market share is hugely skewed by all the generic business computers that are bought by the tens of thousands on IT recommendation. Windows IT will never consider Mac no matter how many slots it has.
That still didn't answer my question. Why aren't Dell and HP falling over themselves to deliver AIOs and Mac Mini equivalents if they are perfect for 95% of people?
The point that you are missing is that it isn't that people are particularly attracted by the AIO, although I think that is true for some --- it is that adding a non-AIO wouldn't make any difference.
If someone has a monitor/KBD, then -> Mac mini
If not, -> iMac.
Tower offers only expandability - which as pointed out the vast vast majority will not need.
It is inertia and Windows that keeps people on the Dell side. Also the market share is hugely skewed by all the generic business computers that are bought by the tens of thousands on IT recommendation. Windows IT will never consider Mac no matter how many slots it has.
No offense Lundy, but I think you're taking a fairly narrow view of the computer world based on your own biases. You're assuming that
a) the number one thing people want is out of the box and go simplicity.
b) everyone in the consumer does the exact same things in about the same way.
and
c) Users are willing to buy an iMac or Xeon Mac Pro instead of a second hand Mac or Tower PC.
I don't have any philosophical objection to the xMac - if Apple determines that they would make more money by adding it to the lineup, great.
I'm just offering my reasoning as to why they don't.
I'm just offering my reasoning as to why they don't.
No, now you have been more specific, you are offering reasoning as to why people wouldn't buy a $1699 tower over an iMac. But most people in here aren't talking about a $1699 tower. Many are talking about a "mini tower" starting at $999, I'm talking about one starting at $399 (scaling to $1999).
In my proposal, the models below $799 would be based on Merom/Celeron M CPU and $799+ would be based on Conroe.
No, now you have been more specific, you are offering reasoning as to why people wouldn't buy a $1699 tower over an iMac. But most people in here aren't talking about a $1699 tower. Many are talking about a "mini tower" starting at $999, I'm talking about one starting at $399 (scaling to $1999).
In my proposal, the models below $799 would be based on Merom/Celeron M CPU and $799+ would be based on Conroe.
I'm talking about a $1299 to $1699 Conroe Mac Pro.
Doesn't it seem like there's an empty space in there somewhere for a "Mac"? Something with a bit of expandability, tower enclosure, something mid-range... something similar to this maybe:
I realize that I'm coming in to this conversation a bit late, but...
Exactly!
I'm ready to get a new computer, and if I had my preference, I'd get a Mac. Unfortunately, I can't. Apple doesn't sell the computer I want.
- I have a nice LCD, I don't need an iMac. Also, you can't get an iMac with a Core 2 Duo that has the 4Mb Cache.
- I need a more powerful computer than what the Mac Mini will provide.
- I don't need a 4 core, Xeon, $3500 Mac Pro. That's over-kill, and more money than I want to spend.
I have $2,000 to drop on a new computer, and it's going to end up going to Dell or Alienware for no other reason than that Apple just doesn't sell a PC in that price range that doesn't come attached to a monitor. That just seems ridiculous to me. There must be millions of people looking for this same level of computer.Can't they just offer a Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo chip instead of Dual Xeons?
Very frustrating...
Also, you can't get an iMac with a Core 2 Duo that has the 4Mb Cache.
This isn't true. The 1.83 GHz version has 2 MB cache, all the others have 4 MB.
Why deliberately limit its appeal?
Apple did deliberately limit the mini's appeal. Thus you have to overcome the expected objections to move the desktop line up from niche form factors to commodity form factors.
There are a few general scenarios:
1) Apple did research and has determined that the current line up meets their strategic goals of profitability, branding and even market share the best. Right, wrong or indifferent without really knowing what this analysis is its rather hard to refute out of hand. It is also important to know the weighting of profitability and branding vs market share and Apple's long term strategic goals (beyond the obvious of making money). From a company that's a tad more secretive than most.
2) Steve Jobs is a tyrant and will not allow a commodity tower to sully his lineup. Well, yes he is a tyrant. The question then becomes...is it worth jettisoning Jobs if he's unwilling to change his position? Given Apple's recent performance...I think not.
3) some combination of 1 & 2 (there, that covers most of the bases).
So pretty much, under current conditions a $399-$999 tower is DOA. And its also somewhat hard to argue that the tack that Apple is taking is incorrect for their corporate goals even if total market share suffers.
Even a $1,200-$1,400 Cube questionable. A $1,499-$1999 low end Mac Pro possible even likely.
Conroe/Kentsfield vs Woodcrest/Cloverton? Questionable. I can see that debate going either way but I see the price closer to $2K vs $1.5K.
Vinea