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.
I have explained this, multiple times in this thread! The reason that the majority of computers on that side are not AIO or SFF is because they are more costly and difficult to design, because they require actual "design" rather than "assembly." Dell, et al, are interested in cheap, fast, assembly and the majority of people buying Windows PCs are just looking for the cheapest thing out there without consideration of design-either of the hardware or the software. That's not the way Apple works. This is why Apple huge fan base likes Apple so much. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for them to change.
That basically explains why there is such a difference in type of computers demanded on the different sides of the fence. (If you need another reason, have you *seen* some of the AIO's that have been designed by other than Apple?? Sheeesh...)
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...
I don't know bro', you can get a pretty sweet-A iMac (w/4MB Cache as has already been pointed out) for that money. Maybe you should go with the dual LCD setup?
(I bought the cheap iMac (17" but not the really cheap edu version) recently. I can freakin' run SolidWorks 2006 on Windows in Parallel- and it runs really smooth like on the PC's we've got at school- 'tis sweet, believe me. When I'm done designing something, export an eDrawing to the Mac side and Windows is gone in ten seconds....) And I've only got 1 gig Ram...
This isn't true. The 1.83 GHz version has 2 MB cache, all the others have 4 MB.
You're right, my bad. I didn't realize that Apple was using the Laptop version of the Core 2 Duo for the iMac. Ugh.
Even so, I still don't need the extra cost of the LCD built into the iMac. I'd rather use that cash for a better graphics card, more memory, or a bigger hard drive.
.... The reason that the majority of computers on that side are not AIO or SFF is because they are more costly and difficult to design, because they require actual "design" rather than "assembly." Dell, et al, are interested in cheap, fast, assembly and .....
That basically explains why there is such a difference in type of computers demanded on the different sides of the fence. (If you need another reason, have you *seen* some of the AIO's that have been designed by other than Apple?? Sheeesh...)
Prove it. The numbers of Windows AIO computers sold stand as evidence that they have been rejected by consumers. To counter that point I need evidence of your claim other than you just saying it is so.
You statement,"If you need another reason, have you *seen* some of the AIO's that have been designed by other than Apple?? Sheeesh...)" proves nothing. When the 2nd generation iMac came out, with the swivel arm for the monitor, it was criticized for its' looks(iBoob comes to mind). The current iMacs have the Big Chin. What you consider elegant or pretty is your opinion, not necessarily that of the rest of the consumer market.
And no, Dell isn't interested in cheap, fast, assembly, they seem to have been caught flat footed by the interest in mid to upper end consumer machines so they bought out the competition - Alienware. Dell has always been interested in fast, efficient assembly and personalizing computers to the needs of an individual consumer, they even tout this in there advertising.
Yes, Apple does probably spend more money in designing an AIO than a tower, but incrementally on the sale of millions of computers, I would like to know how much more. But in the end, that is Apple's problem not the consumer, who has rejected the AIO design.
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 . . .
Have you considered the 'other' on-line Apple computer store -- eBay? This is where I buy all my Macs and graphics cards. I haven't checked prices of G5 PowerMacs lately, but I'd bet you can get both it and a great graphics card for well under your price limit.
I think the G5 will have the edge for another year, because it runs applications that have not gone Universal yet. For myself, I will begin to consider a desktop Intel Mac in another year or more.
Personally, I would not buy a Windows PC unless I needed it for a work stuff. We have a Dell in the basement office, but don't own it. Part of the job can be done at home. Oh how I get annoyed using Windows 2000 Professional, and yep, that's what many businesses still use.
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.
I have explained this, multiple times in this thread!
Yes you have.
Quote:
The reason that the majority of computers on that side are not AIO or SFF is because they are more costly and difficult to design, because they require actual "design" rather than "assembly."
Please, I don't mean to insult you here, but simply want to point out what is taught in Marketing 101, if there is such a course. To stay in business, a company must make products that people want and buy. To do well in business, a company must make those products that people want most. Such products sell the best.
Are you saying Dell determines what people buy? There is plenty competition on that side of the fence. If people really wanted an AIO, some company would be making them and capturing the largest market share. The fact that the AIO does exist in a Windows version speaks loudly that people reject the AIO in favor of whatever is left, mostly towers.
Any other argument is based on the assumption that all the PC companies other than Apple are stupid and don't build what people want and therefore buy. If people really wanted an AIO, companies would be competing madly to offer the best design and price, and therefore have the most sales. The fact that the Windows AIO choices are small says that no company wants to put the effort into something that so few people buy, which is the obvious answer. Sales figures confirm what people prefer, provided these people have a choice.
Now on the Apple side, people have almost no choice of desktop beyond the Mini and iMac, for those who do not need a workstation. Apple can well afford to start competing with the 'other' on-line Apple store, eBay. Let the customers decided.
Quote:
. . . the majority of people buying Windows PCs are just looking for the cheapest thing out there without consideration of design-either of the hardware or the software.
Yes, that is why Apple needs to have something for them. It does not have to be a work of art, but can be better looking than most of the Windows side. A lot of those people do care some about looks, quality and reliability, but don't want to pay very much for it. These are the cream of the consumer masses, and Apple should try to lure them over. They will pay a little bit more, but not a lot more.
Quote:
That basically explains why there is such a difference in type of computers demanded on the different sides of the fence.
Have you considered the 'other' on-line Apple computer store -- eBay?
...
I think the G5 will have the edge for another year, because it runs applications that have not gone Universal yet.
You may be right. For me, however, I need the Intel chips. I've got to be able to run Parrallels or Boot Camp to get at Windows. I need it for my business, so the G5 isn't an option.
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.
Exactly a $1249, $1699, $4149 dual core tower really does not directly compete with any of Apple's other machines. Looking strictly at price its not very likely most general computer users would buy the xMac over the iMac. Which is good because that will protect iMac sales.
There are a number of people who want the option for monitor and expansion but I agree that is not a large number. The over all point I agree with is that Apple should offer us the choice.
Quote:
Prove it. The numbers of Windows AIO computers sold stand as evidence that they have been rejected by consumers.
This is difficult to prove or disprove, because no one else makes a machine like the iMac.
The Dell and Gateway AIO machines that I've seen are very awkward and crappy. I think its pretty obvious Apple had to pay some talented designers and engineers to come up with the iMac. The current iMac is over 2 years old and no one else has designed anything nearly like it.
Quote:
The fact that the AIO does exist in a Windows version speaks loudly that people reject the AIO in favor of whatever is left, mostly towers.
To make a statement like this true you have to ignore laptops which are inherently AIO machines. Part if their big appeal is that they are one piece machines.
To make a statement like this true you have to ignore laptops which are inherently AIO machines.
No you don't. Because we're talking about desktops. And what are the primary purposes of choosing a desktop over a laptop?
Desktop performance
lower cost
larger display (although, when used at home, a laptop can be connected to a bigger display)
expandability
The only one of these the iMac offers is lower cost, with a fraction of higher performance thrown in. The Mac Mini doesn't really achieve any, once the price of keyboard, mouse and monitor are accounted for.
Please, I don't mean to insult you here, but simply want to point out what is taught in Marketing 101, if there is such a course. To stay in business, a company must make products that people want and buy. To do well in business, a company must make those products that people want most. Such products sell the best.
So luxury items are inherently bad business because fewer people are willing or able to buy them than commodity items sold in Walmart?
Perhaps this is why it is considered Marketing 101 as opposed to a higher level course...there is no nuance to your arguement.
Quote:
Are you saying Dell determines what people buy? There is plenty competition on that side of the fence. If people really wanted an AIO, some company would be making them and capturing the largest market share. The fact that the AIO does exist in a Windows version speaks loudly that people reject the AIO in favor of whatever is left, mostly towers.
Not everyone wants a niche product. Yes, that's true. It doesn't also imply that a company should have to build commodity items to be successful. It also doesn't imply that a company that can build excellent niche items would be successful in building and competing in an commodity market.
Quote:
Now on the Apple side, people have almost no choice of desktop beyond the Mini and iMac, for those who do not need a workstation. Apple can well afford to start competing with the 'other' on-line Apple store, eBay. Let the customers decided.
Perhaps it is not in Apple strategic interest to compete in the tower market? That's something that tower proponents have steadfastly ignored.
Quote:
Yes, that is why Apple needs to have something for them. It does not have to be a work of art, but can be better looking than most of the Windows side.
No, Apple doesn't NEED to have something for folks that want the cheapest products any more than Porsche, Mercedes, Rolex, Gucci, Bang and Olusfen etc do.
Plus, Apple may disagree that it doesn't need to be a work of art. Certainly they want to preserve the cache of the branding.
No you don't. Because we're talking about desktops. And what are the primary purposes of choosing a desktop over a laptop?
Desktop performance
lower cost
larger display (although, when used at home, a laptop can be connected to a bigger display)
expandability
The only one of these the iMac offers is lower cost, with a fraction of higher performance thrown in. The Mac Mini doesn't really achieve any, once the price of keyboard, mouse and monitor are accounted for.
Perhaps the shift to more laptop sales is an indicator that laptop performance is "good enough" for most folks, that the price has dropped significantly, the displays large enough and there's no real needs for expandability for the average user?
I have a Mac Pro but for many things my MBP is good enough. I could live without the desktop a lot more than I could live without the laptop. And my laptop was my desktop until the pro arrived and drives the 30" ACD.
Granted, that doesn't help the AIO or SFF computer much but neither does it indicate that any form of desktop is where Apple should be placing much emphasis on. The fact that their current line up makes their mobile line up more profitable and competitive is an advantage to their current strategy.
So luxury items are inherently bad business because fewer people are willing or able to buy them than commodity items sold in Walmart? . . . No, Apple doesn't NEED to have something for folks that want the cheapest products any more than Porsche, Mercedes, Rolex, Gucci, Bang and Olusfen etc do.
I didn't say that. Some successful companies do make wonderful and expensive products that appeal to relatively few buyers. You mentions several. Yet none of these companies has aspirations of becoming a giant in these markets. (Some are big because they have other products with higher sales.)
Apple may decide to remain a niche computer maker and be a big player with the iPod and iTunes. Several people have suggested this strategy, but it is a bad idea for a company that is promoting it own OS to run on its computers. Apple must continue to make progress in market share to remain successful. If market share becomes stagnant or begins to fall, there will be hell to pay with the investors.
You may feel complacent about Apple's market share growth now, but this can sink a company, complacency. A company may appear to be doing well, so it does nothing to change. It pays no attention to the grumbling of "some malcontents." Has this never happened before? When Apple runs out of the niche markets for Macs, all that is left is the Walmart crowd, as you refer to them. If Apple does not see the need to serve that market and everything in between, dangerous curves lie ahead I fear.
Quote:
Perhaps it is not in Apple strategic interest to compete in the tower market? That's something that tower proponents have steadfastly ignored.
Maybe it isn't in Apple's current strategic plan, but Apple cannot really break out of it niche player role without producing the most popular computer type being sold today.
Quote:
Plus, Apple may disagree that it doesn't need to be a work of art. Certainly they want to preserve the cache of the branding.
What I said was, "It does not have to be a work of art, but can be better looking than most of the Windows side. A lot of those people do care some about looks, quality and reliability, . . ." Apple can keep it image as a maker of quality and good looking products, and still make something that is economical to build. I understand that the first iMac was economical to build and addressed the needs of the masses, exactly the market you want Apple to avoid now. The iMac got more and more expensive with the G4, but the new one is pretty good. It's a keeper, but isn't what the masses are buying today.
How about looking at it this way. What if Dell switched its business model.
Offering a well designed AIO in its $799 to $399 price points.
Offering expandable towers for $999 and over.
Do you guys think general consumers would pay $999 for expandability and monitor choice?
If an AIO could be sold profitably in this price range and people would buy it, HP, Gateway and eMachines would be making it to capture some of Dell's market share.
Maybe it isn't in Apple's current strategic plan, but Apple cannot really break out of it niche player role without producing the most popular computer type being sold today.
That is the laptop. Apple has sold more of those than it has ever sold before.
Quote:
If an AIO could be sold profitably in this price range and people would buy it, HP, Gateway and eMachines would be making it to capture some of Dell's market share.
That wasn't my question.
To restate: if Dell sold AIO for $799 to $399, expandable towers for $999 and over.
Would most general consumers pay $999 for expandability?
To restate: if Dell sold AIO for $799 to $399, expandable towers for $999 and over.
Would most general consumers pay $999 for expandability?
There are a couple of problems with your exercise:
1.) An AIO for $399 isn't feasible.
2.) If the Tower is $999 and the most expensive AIO is $799, then the $999 tower would almost certainly not only have additional expandability over the AIO, but it would also have much higher performance.
But to answer your question: If Dell did what you are suggesting, most people with $399 to $799 to spend on a desktop computer would go buy a tower from HP.
That is the laptop. Apple has sold more of those than it has ever sold before.
We have been discussing desktops.
Quote:
That wasn't my question.
To restate: if Dell sold AIO for $799 to $399, expandable towers for $999 and over.
Would most general consumers pay $999 for expandability?
It wasn't your question, but points up the fact that nobody on the Windows side is doing it. If such an AIO would sell well and be profitable, Windows computer vendors would be making it. I think it goes without saying that a $399 AIO would sell at least reasonably well, but nobody is building it. Why? Likely, no profit, that is my guess.
Why not be realistic in your examples? Build a tower and AIO with identical performance and features. The AIO would sell for more than the tower without a monitor, but less than the tower with a monitor. We can assume a lower price on the AIO do to the fact it is one product, with related cost savings.
Now you have a realistic comparison. Above, you obviously stacked the deck in favor or the AIO, grossly so.
Comments
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.
I have explained this, multiple times in this thread! The reason that the majority of computers on that side are not AIO or SFF is because they are more costly and difficult to design, because they require actual "design" rather than "assembly." Dell, et al, are interested in cheap, fast, assembly and the majority of people buying Windows PCs are just looking for the cheapest thing out there without consideration of design-either of the hardware or the software. That's not the way Apple works. This is why Apple huge fan base likes Apple so much. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for them to change.
That basically explains why there is such a difference in type of computers demanded on the different sides of the fence. (If you need another reason, have you *seen* some of the AIO's that have been designed by other than Apple?? Sheeesh...)
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...
I don't know bro', you can get a pretty sweet-A iMac (w/4MB Cache as has already been pointed out) for that money. Maybe you should go with the dual LCD setup?
(I bought the cheap iMac (17" but not the really cheap edu version) recently. I can freakin' run SolidWorks 2006 on Windows in Parallel- and it runs really smooth like on the PC's we've got at school- 'tis sweet, believe me. When I'm done designing something, export an eDrawing to the Mac side and Windows is gone in ten seconds....) And I've only got 1 gig Ram...
This isn't true. The 1.83 GHz version has 2 MB cache, all the others have 4 MB.
You're right, my bad. I didn't realize that Apple was using the Laptop version of the Core 2 Duo for the iMac. Ugh.
Even so, I still don't need the extra cost of the LCD built into the iMac. I'd rather use that cash for a better graphics card, more memory, or a bigger hard drive.
.... The reason that the majority of computers on that side are not AIO or SFF is because they are more costly and difficult to design, because they require actual "design" rather than "assembly." Dell, et al, are interested in cheap, fast, assembly and .....
That basically explains why there is such a difference in type of computers demanded on the different sides of the fence. (If you need another reason, have you *seen* some of the AIO's that have been designed by other than Apple?? Sheeesh...)
Prove it. The numbers of Windows AIO computers sold stand as evidence that they have been rejected by consumers. To counter that point I need evidence of your claim other than you just saying it is so.
You statement,"If you need another reason, have you *seen* some of the AIO's that have been designed by other than Apple?? Sheeesh...)" proves nothing. When the 2nd generation iMac came out, with the swivel arm for the monitor, it was criticized for its' looks(iBoob comes to mind). The current iMacs have the Big Chin. What you consider elegant or pretty is your opinion, not necessarily that of the rest of the consumer market.
And no, Dell isn't interested in cheap, fast, assembly, they seem to have been caught flat footed by the interest in mid to upper end consumer machines so they bought out the competition - Alienware. Dell has always been interested in fast, efficient assembly and personalizing computers to the needs of an individual consumer, they even tout this in there advertising.
Yes, Apple does probably spend more money in designing an AIO than a tower, but incrementally on the sale of millions of computers, I would like to know how much more. But in the end, that is Apple's problem not the consumer, who has rejected the AIO design.
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 . . .Have you considered the 'other' on-line Apple computer store -- eBay? This is where I buy all my Macs and graphics cards. I haven't checked prices of G5 PowerMacs lately, but I'd bet you can get both it and a great graphics card for well under your price limit.
I think the G5 will have the edge for another year, because it runs applications that have not gone Universal yet. For myself, I will begin to consider a desktop Intel Mac in another year or more.
Personally, I would not buy a Windows PC unless I needed it for a work stuff. We have a Dell in the basement office, but don't own it. Part of the job can be done at home. Oh how I get annoyed using Windows 2000 Professional, and yep, that's what many businesses still use.
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.
You can get a quad 2.0 Mac Pro for $2121.
I have explained this, multiple times in this thread!
Yes you have.
The reason that the majority of computers on that side are not AIO or SFF is because they are more costly and difficult to design, because they require actual "design" rather than "assembly."
Please, I don't mean to insult you here, but simply want to point out what is taught in Marketing 101, if there is such a course. To stay in business, a company must make products that people want and buy. To do well in business, a company must make those products that people want most. Such products sell the best.
Are you saying Dell determines what people buy? There is plenty competition on that side of the fence. If people really wanted an AIO, some company would be making them and capturing the largest market share. The fact that the AIO does exist in a Windows version speaks loudly that people reject the AIO in favor of whatever is left, mostly towers.
Any other argument is based on the assumption that all the PC companies other than Apple are stupid and don't build what people want and therefore buy. If people really wanted an AIO, companies would be competing madly to offer the best design and price, and therefore have the most sales. The fact that the Windows AIO choices are small says that no company wants to put the effort into something that so few people buy, which is the obvious answer. Sales figures confirm what people prefer, provided these people have a choice.
Now on the Apple side, people have almost no choice of desktop beyond the Mini and iMac, for those who do not need a workstation. Apple can well afford to start competing with the 'other' on-line Apple store, eBay. Let the customers decided.
. . . the majority of people buying Windows PCs are just looking for the cheapest thing out there without consideration of design-either of the hardware or the software.
Yes, that is why Apple needs to have something for them. It does not have to be a work of art, but can be better looking than most of the Windows side. A lot of those people do care some about looks, quality and reliability, but don't want to pay very much for it. These are the cream of the consumer masses, and Apple should try to lure them over. They will pay a little bit more, but not a lot more.
That basically explains why there is such a difference in type of computers demanded on the different sides of the fence.
Not quite!
Have you considered the 'other' on-line Apple computer store -- eBay?
...
I think the G5 will have the edge for another year, because it runs applications that have not gone Universal yet.
You may be right. For me, however, I need the Intel chips. I've got to be able to run Parrallels or Boot Camp to get at Windows. I need it for my business, so the G5 isn't an option.
2.93GHz Conroe Xtreme/ NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 - $4149 Best Configuration
2.67 Ghz Conroe/ ATI X1950 - $1699 Standard Configuration
2.4GHz Conroe/ Nvidia GeForce 7900 - $1249 Low Cost Configuration
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.
Exactly a $1249, $1699, $4149 dual core tower really does not directly compete with any of Apple's other machines. Looking strictly at price its not very likely most general computer users would buy the xMac over the iMac. Which is good because that will protect iMac sales.
There are a number of people who want the option for monitor and expansion but I agree that is not a large number. The over all point I agree with is that Apple should offer us the choice.
Prove it. The numbers of Windows AIO computers sold stand as evidence that they have been rejected by consumers.
This is difficult to prove or disprove, because no one else makes a machine like the iMac.
The Dell and Gateway AIO machines that I've seen are very awkward and crappy. I think its pretty obvious Apple had to pay some talented designers and engineers to come up with the iMac. The current iMac is over 2 years old and no one else has designed anything nearly like it.
The fact that the AIO does exist in a Windows version speaks loudly that people reject the AIO in favor of whatever is left, mostly towers.
To make a statement like this true you have to ignore laptops which are inherently AIO machines. Part if their big appeal is that they are one piece machines.
To make a statement like this true you have to ignore laptops which are inherently AIO machines.
No you don't. Because we're talking about desktops. And what are the primary purposes of choosing a desktop over a laptop?
- Desktop performance
- lower cost
- larger display (although, when used at home, a laptop can be connected to a bigger display)
- expandability
The only one of these the iMac offers is lower cost, with a fraction of higher performance thrown in. The Mac Mini doesn't really achieve any, once the price of keyboard, mouse and monitor are accounted for.Please, I don't mean to insult you here, but simply want to point out what is taught in Marketing 101, if there is such a course. To stay in business, a company must make products that people want and buy. To do well in business, a company must make those products that people want most. Such products sell the best.
So luxury items are inherently bad business because fewer people are willing or able to buy them than commodity items sold in Walmart?
Perhaps this is why it is considered Marketing 101 as opposed to a higher level course...there is no nuance to your arguement.
Are you saying Dell determines what people buy? There is plenty competition on that side of the fence. If people really wanted an AIO, some company would be making them and capturing the largest market share. The fact that the AIO does exist in a Windows version speaks loudly that people reject the AIO in favor of whatever is left, mostly towers.
Not everyone wants a niche product. Yes, that's true. It doesn't also imply that a company should have to build commodity items to be successful. It also doesn't imply that a company that can build excellent niche items would be successful in building and competing in an commodity market.
Now on the Apple side, people have almost no choice of desktop beyond the Mini and iMac, for those who do not need a workstation. Apple can well afford to start competing with the 'other' on-line Apple store, eBay. Let the customers decided.
Perhaps it is not in Apple strategic interest to compete in the tower market? That's something that tower proponents have steadfastly ignored.
Yes, that is why Apple needs to have something for them. It does not have to be a work of art, but can be better looking than most of the Windows side.
No, Apple doesn't NEED to have something for folks that want the cheapest products any more than Porsche, Mercedes, Rolex, Gucci, Bang and Olusfen etc do.
Plus, Apple may disagree that it doesn't need to be a work of art. Certainly they want to preserve the cache of the branding.
Vinea
No you don't. Because we're talking about desktops. And what are the primary purposes of choosing a desktop over a laptop?
- Desktop performance
- lower cost
- larger display (although, when used at home, a laptop can be connected to a bigger display)
- expandability
The only one of these the iMac offers is lower cost, with a fraction of higher performance thrown in. The Mac Mini doesn't really achieve any, once the price of keyboard, mouse and monitor are accounted for.Perhaps the shift to more laptop sales is an indicator that laptop performance is "good enough" for most folks, that the price has dropped significantly, the displays large enough and there's no real needs for expandability for the average user?
I have a Mac Pro but for many things my MBP is good enough. I could live without the desktop a lot more than I could live without the laptop. And my laptop was my desktop until the pro arrived and drives the 30" ACD.
Granted, that doesn't help the AIO or SFF computer much but neither does it indicate that any form of desktop is where Apple should be placing much emphasis on. The fact that their current line up makes their mobile line up more profitable and competitive is an advantage to their current strategy.
Vinea
Offering a well designed AIO in its $799 to $399 price points.
Offering expandable towers for $999 and over.
Do you guys think general consumers would pay $999 for expandability and monitor choice?
So luxury items are inherently bad business because fewer people are willing or able to buy them than commodity items sold in Walmart? . . . No, Apple doesn't NEED to have something for folks that want the cheapest products any more than Porsche, Mercedes, Rolex, Gucci, Bang and Olusfen etc do.
I didn't say that. Some successful companies do make wonderful and expensive products that appeal to relatively few buyers. You mentions several. Yet none of these companies has aspirations of becoming a giant in these markets. (Some are big because they have other products with higher sales.)
Apple may decide to remain a niche computer maker and be a big player with the iPod and iTunes. Several people have suggested this strategy, but it is a bad idea for a company that is promoting it own OS to run on its computers. Apple must continue to make progress in market share to remain successful. If market share becomes stagnant or begins to fall, there will be hell to pay with the investors.
You may feel complacent about Apple's market share growth now, but this can sink a company, complacency. A company may appear to be doing well, so it does nothing to change. It pays no attention to the grumbling of "some malcontents." Has this never happened before? When Apple runs out of the niche markets for Macs, all that is left is the Walmart crowd, as you refer to them. If Apple does not see the need to serve that market and everything in between, dangerous curves lie ahead I fear.
Perhaps it is not in Apple strategic interest to compete in the tower market? That's something that tower proponents have steadfastly ignored.
Maybe it isn't in Apple's current strategic plan, but Apple cannot really break out of it niche player role without producing the most popular computer type being sold today.
Plus, Apple may disagree that it doesn't need to be a work of art. Certainly they want to preserve the cache of the branding.
What I said was, "It does not have to be a work of art, but can be better looking than most of the Windows side. A lot of those people do care some about looks, quality and reliability, . . ." Apple can keep it image as a maker of quality and good looking products, and still make something that is economical to build. I understand that the first iMac was economical to build and addressed the needs of the masses, exactly the market you want Apple to avoid now. The iMac got more and more expensive with the G4, but the new one is pretty good. It's a keeper, but isn't what the masses are buying today.
How about looking at it this way. What if Dell switched its business model.
Offering a well designed AIO in its $799 to $399 price points.
Offering expandable towers for $999 and over.
Do you guys think general consumers would pay $999 for expandability and monitor choice?
If an AIO could be sold profitably in this price range and people would buy it, HP, Gateway and eMachines would be making it to capture some of Dell's market share.
My opinion.
Maybe it isn't in Apple's current strategic plan, but Apple cannot really break out of it niche player role without producing the most popular computer type being sold today.
That is the laptop. Apple has sold more of those than it has ever sold before.
If an AIO could be sold profitably in this price range and people would buy it, HP, Gateway and eMachines would be making it to capture some of Dell's market share.
That wasn't my question.
To restate: if Dell sold AIO for $799 to $399, expandable towers for $999 and over.
Would most general consumers pay $999 for expandability?
To restate: if Dell sold AIO for $799 to $399, expandable towers for $999 and over.
Would most general consumers pay $999 for expandability?
There are a couple of problems with your exercise:
1.) An AIO for $399 isn't feasible.
2.) If the Tower is $999 and the most expensive AIO is $799, then the $999 tower would almost certainly not only have additional expandability over the AIO, but it would also have much higher performance.
But to answer your question: If Dell did what you are suggesting, most people with $399 to $799 to spend on a desktop computer would go buy a tower from HP.
That is the laptop. Apple has sold more of those than it has ever sold before.
We have been discussing desktops.
That wasn't my question.
To restate: if Dell sold AIO for $799 to $399, expandable towers for $999 and over.
Would most general consumers pay $999 for expandability?
It wasn't your question, but points up the fact that nobody on the Windows side is doing it. If such an AIO would sell well and be profitable, Windows computer vendors would be making it. I think it goes without saying that a $399 AIO would sell at least reasonably well, but nobody is building it. Why? Likely, no profit, that is my guess.
Why not be realistic in your examples? Build a tower and AIO with identical performance and features. The AIO would sell for more than the tower without a monitor, but less than the tower with a monitor. We can assume a lower price on the AIO do to the fact it is one product, with related cost savings.
Now you have a realistic comparison. Above, you obviously stacked the deck in favor or the AIO, grossly so.
most people with $399 to $799 to spend on a desktop computer would go buy a tower from HP.
I see no evidence this would happen.