The additional $100 added to the mini price wasn't only to increase its margin or due to increased cost of goods sold - it was to make the jump to the iMac shorter. That is the purpose of the mini in the first place.
Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.
That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
The additional $100 added to the mini price wasn't only to increase its margin or due to increased cost of goods sold - it was to make the jump to the iMac shorter. That is the purpose of the mini in the first place.
Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.
That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
If that were true, iMacs would be selling like hot cakes. The truth is that while Mac laptops are selling very well, desktop switchers are taking a look at our options and deciding to stick with their PCs most of the time. The iMac doesn't give them what they want and the Mac Pro is way too expensive. What you may consider a deal maker or a small thing you you can live with, someone who has different wants may consider it a deal breaker. Computers aren't one size fits all.
Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
I agree but they should offer it anyway.
Quote:
desktop switchers are taking a look at our options and deciding to stick with their PCs most of the time. The iMac doesn't give them what they want and the Mac Pro is way too expensive.
Can you cite any market research that supports this?
Quote:
"Not surprisingly, the iMac and Macbook were mentioned most often (mentioned by 70 percent and 65 percent, respectively) as the best selling Macs so far this quarter," the analyst wrote.
The additional $100 added to the mini price wasn't only to increase its margin or due to increased cost of goods sold - it was to make the jump to the iMac shorter. That is the purpose of the mini in the first place.
Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.
That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
That depends on what is powering the xMac.
If it's a Merom chip, OK nothing to see here, move on.
But if it is a Conroe/Kentsfield, with a mid-range motherboard/chipset, upgradable graphics card, and everything a mid-range desktop computer could offer... I think it would be more attractive to some user than the current iMacs. I'll take a 2.13GHz Conroe-based xMac with a 7300GT video card and some room for expansion over any 2.16GHz Merom-based iMac.
The more I look at what's possible in the desktop and workstation area, the more I think Apple should really split the Mac Pro line in two, with a desktop line of single CPU models (Conroe/Kentsfield and later next year Wolfdale/Yorkfield) and a workstation line of dual CPUs models (Woodcrest/Clovertown).
- single CPU models, dual or quad core starting at $1499,
- dual CPUs models, dual dual-core or dual quad-core starting at $2499.
About the Mac mini, I don't think Apple choose to make a computer available just so that you'll buy a more expensive one. They choose to make a really small yet powerful and complete computer, the component and size choices make it not that affordable vs. the 17" iMac. I think it has been Apple's mistake, if they had make it just a little bigger and with standard components (mostly the hard drive), it would still be priced at $499 today.
If it's a Merom chip, OK nothing to see here, move on.
But if it is a Conroe/Kentsfield, with a mid-range motherboard/chipset, upgradable graphics card, and everything a mid-range desktop computer could offer... I think it would be more attractive to some user
some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.
Quote:
than the current iMacs. I'll take a 2.13GHz Conroe-based xMac with a 7300GT video card and some room for expansion over any 2.16GHz Merom-based iMac.
Yes, you would and I would (I have always bought Mac towers). Apple's research on the Mac II showed that more than 90% of owners never added a NuBus card. And that is even less likely today with everything on the mobo already.
Quote:
The more I look at what's possible in the desktop and workstation area, the more I think Apple should really split the Mac Pro line in two, with a desktop line of single CPU models (Conroe/Kentsfield and later next year Wolfdale/Yorkfield) and a workstation line of dual CPUs models (Woodcrest/Clovertown).
- single CPU models, dual or quad core starting at $1499,
I'm just sayin', at that price only the geeks will buy it, as the regular consumer will compare the iMac and see the 20" monitor for the same price. Dual-core? check. DVD/ethernet/wireless/bluetooth/FireWIre/USB/? Check. Remote? Hmmm... Same price but with a 20" LCD? Hmmmm....
Quote:
About the Mac mini, I don't think Apple choose to make a computer available just so that you'll buy a more expensive one.
That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.
Quote:
They choose to make a really small yet powerful and complete computer, the component and size choices make it not that affordable vs. the 17" iMac. I think it has been Apple's mistake, if they had make it just a little bigger and with standard components (mostly the hard drive), it would still be priced at $499 today.
Maybe it could be, but that is too far away from the iMac to generate a sell-up. Plus, as discussed, Apple buys so many laptop drives that as far as we know they may be cheaper for them than desktop drives.
Any sales or marketing textbook will tell you that selling price has virtually nothing to do with cost, as long as margins are made. Selling price is designed to generate sell-up and prevent cannibalization of higher margin products.
some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.
Any market research to back that up? And the cost of PCI slots is inconsequential, standard practice on almost all motherboards made. It also gives the manufacturer the ability to sell virtually the same machine at many price points to attract a broad range of consumers..
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
Yes, you would and I would (I have always bought Mac towers). Apple's research on the Mac II showed that more than 90% of owners never added a NuBus card. And that is even less likely today with everything on the mobo already.
NuBus was expensive and not the standard of the industry. There are hundreds of thousands of upgrade cards sold for video, USB 2 upgrades, Firewire upgrades, wireless router upgrades. Anyone who doesn't see this is in denial. When Apple introduces iTV and my G5 iMac is incompatible, what am I to do? Virtually every PC user that bought a $500 Gateway will be able to pop in a new inexpensive wireless card and they will be good to go, me be screwed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
I'm just sayin', at that price only the geeks will buy it, as the regular consumer will compare the iMac and see the 20" monitor for the same price. Dual-core? check. DVD/ethernet/wireless/bluetooth/FireWIre/USB/? Check. Remote? Hmmm... Same price but with a 20" LCD? Hmmmm....
$1499 is way to high a starting price point for the mythical xMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.
Maybe it could be, but that is too far away from the iMac to generate a sell-up. Plus, as discussed, Apple buys so many laptop drives that as far as we know they may be cheaper for them than desktop drives.
Actually, I don't think the mini Mac exists solely to bait and switch. It is a good machine for its' target market. But using your argument then --- Great, every one does it so it makes it a good ethical practice. In the long run, trying to pull the wool over your customers eyes is a bad practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
Any sales or marketing textbook will tell you that selling price has virtually nothing to do with cost, as long as margins are made. Selling price is designed to generate sell-up and prevent cannibalization of higher margin products.
Again, great..... Our centers of higher education are teaching the youth and hope for a better future to be hucksters and flim-flam artists.
Not really considered reprentative market research.
Quote:
some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.
Any market research to back that up?
Yes, the far majority of computer purchases are for sub $1000 machines with integrated graphics.
Quote:
Our centers of higher education are teaching the youth and hope for a better future to be hucksters and flim-flam artists
You actually thought business is an honest profession?
You actually thought business is an honest profession?
Not since Harvard introduced the MBA program during the 40's. And what I think is irrelevant concerning the ethics taught in business schools. Planned obsolescence, bait and switch, hidden costs are still not ethical. In the long term these tactics cost the companies. Perfect example is the American Auto industry with its' planned obsolescence.
I assume Apple does tons of market research - they always have. If that research showed "expandability" at the top of the list of wanted features, you can bet the products would have expandability.
Better to ask: is there any market research to "back up" the claim by "expandability advocates" that it is a highly-desired feature by anyone except computer geeks like us?
I assume Apple does tons of market research - they always have. If that research showed "expandability" at the top of the list of wanted features, you can bet the products would have expandability.
Better to ask: is there any market research to "back up" the claim by "expandability advocates" that it is a highly-desired feature by anyone except computer geeks like us?
Market research is useless without demographics. It makes a big difference depending on who was asked. If Apple just asked the Mac faithful, expandability would probably not be too high on the list. Design and the Apple logo are more important than speed and expandability to that crowd. As the PC crowd and you'll get different answers. Apple's desktops are fine if they want to hold on to what they have. However, unlike laptops, the Mac desktop userbase isn't getting any bigger.
An illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product.
lundy
Maybe I misused the term bait and switch. But
here is your statement I was responding to:
Quote:
That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.
and here is my response:
Quote:
Actually, I don't think the mini Mac exists solely to bait and switch. It is a good machine for its' target market. But using your argument then --- Great, every one does it so it makes it a good ethical practice. In the long run, trying to pull the wool over your customers eyes is a bad practice.
I actually don't buy into the argument that the mini Mac exists soley or even primarily to [strike]bait and switch[/strike] entice consumers into the store only to be sold into buying a higher priced iMac. And yes your statement implies unethical behavior by Apple.
Market research is useless without demographics. It makes a big difference depending on who was asked. If Apple just asked the Mac faithful, expandability would probably not be too high on the list. Design and the Apple logo are more important than speed and expandability to that crowd. As the PC crowd and you'll get different answers. Apple's desktops are fine if they want to hold on to what they have. However, unlike laptops, the Mac desktop userbase isn't getting any bigger.
You sincerely believe that Apple spends millions on incompetent research?
Of course they get an even sample of all potential customers.
Does anyone actually have any example of this "market research," any links, or any evidence at all, or is this just an argument that Apple's a really big company, so they must be doing this really excellent market research?
Does anyone actually have any example of this "market research," any links, or any evidence at all, or is this just an argument that Apple's a really big company, so they must be doing this really excellent market research?
However, earlier I did say, "I don't have evidence, but in more than one of these threads here and at other websites it has been postulated that Apple does not do significant amounts of market research. I could be wrong here, no real evidence."
is this just an argument that Apple's a really big company, so they must be doing this really excellent market research?
That's actually a very good argument. The problems with really big companies coming out with crap products is never do to a lack of market research, it's due to the unwillingness of execs to act on what the research shows.
Citing preliminary data from market research firm IDC, an analyst for PiperJaffray said Thursday that Apple's share of the personal computer market fell to 2.4 percent during the three-month period ending December, down from a 2.8 percent share two quarters earlier.
"While Apple gained share year-over-year (from 2.1 percent to 2.4 percent), it lost share sequentially," analyst Gene Munster wrote in a note to clients. "Mac market share is generally higher in September quarters, due to strong education-related sales."
Is it time to dust off this old thread? APPL stock is down, evidently due to low sales of Macs. Record profits and outstanding iPod sales didn't keep the stock from sliding. Evidently people want something other than a laptop, Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro. Got any suggestions?
Comments
Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.
That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
The additional $100 added to the mini price wasn't only to increase its margin or due to increased cost of goods sold - it was to make the jump to the iMac shorter. That is the purpose of the mini in the first place.
Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.
That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
If that were true, iMacs would be selling like hot cakes. The truth is that while Mac laptops are selling very well, desktop switchers are taking a look at our options and deciding to stick with their PCs most of the time. The iMac doesn't give them what they want and the Mac Pro is way too expensive. What you may consider a deal maker or a small thing you you can live with, someone who has different wants may consider it a deal breaker. Computers aren't one size fits all.
Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
I agree but they should offer it anyway.
desktop switchers are taking a look at our options and deciding to stick with their PCs most of the time. The iMac doesn't give them what they want and the Mac Pro is way too expensive.
Can you cite any market research that supports this?
"Not surprisingly, the iMac and Macbook were mentioned most often (mentioned by 70 percent and 65 percent, respectively) as the best selling Macs so far this quarter," the analyst wrote.
This is the report from Apple retail channels.
The additional $100 added to the mini price wasn't only to increase its margin or due to increased cost of goods sold - it was to make the jump to the iMac shorter. That is the purpose of the mini in the first place.
Apple doesn't want to sell you a mini. They want you to look at the mini and then figure out that for just a little more you can get an iMac with a 17 inch monitor and other improvements.
That's the reason that the mythical "$1899 xMac" wouldn't sell. For $400 less you get a 20" monitor in the iMac, and for $100 more you get a 24" monitor. Only those who absolutely required "expandability" and were willing to pay for it, would buy it, and that is a very small portion of the market.
That depends on what is powering the xMac.
If it's a Merom chip, OK nothing to see here, move on.
But if it is a Conroe/Kentsfield, with a mid-range motherboard/chipset, upgradable graphics card, and everything a mid-range desktop computer could offer... I think it would be more attractive to some user than the current iMacs. I'll take a 2.13GHz Conroe-based xMac with a 7300GT video card and some room for expansion over any 2.16GHz Merom-based iMac.
The more I look at what's possible in the desktop and workstation area, the more I think Apple should really split the Mac Pro line in two, with a desktop line of single CPU models (Conroe/Kentsfield and later next year Wolfdale/Yorkfield) and a workstation line of dual CPUs models (Woodcrest/Clovertown).
- single CPU models, dual or quad core starting at $1499,
- dual CPUs models, dual dual-core or dual quad-core starting at $2499.
About the Mac mini, I don't think Apple choose to make a computer available just so that you'll buy a more expensive one. They choose to make a really small yet powerful and complete computer, the component and size choices make it not that affordable vs. the 17" iMac. I think it has been Apple's mistake, if they had make it just a little bigger and with standard components (mostly the hard drive), it would still be priced at $499 today.
That depends on what is powering the xMac.
If it's a Merom chip, OK nothing to see here, move on.
But if it is a Conroe/Kentsfield, with a mid-range motherboard/chipset, upgradable graphics card, and everything a mid-range desktop computer could offer... I think it would be more attractive to some user
some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.
than the current iMacs. I'll take a 2.13GHz Conroe-based xMac with a 7300GT video card and some room for expansion over any 2.16GHz Merom-based iMac.
Yes, you would and I would (I have always bought Mac towers). Apple's research on the Mac II showed that more than 90% of owners never added a NuBus card. And that is even less likely today with everything on the mobo already.
The more I look at what's possible in the desktop and workstation area, the more I think Apple should really split the Mac Pro line in two, with a desktop line of single CPU models (Conroe/Kentsfield and later next year Wolfdale/Yorkfield) and a workstation line of dual CPUs models (Woodcrest/Clovertown).
- single CPU models, dual or quad core starting at $1499,
I'm just sayin', at that price only the geeks will buy it, as the regular consumer will compare the iMac and see the 20" monitor for the same price. Dual-core? check. DVD/ethernet/wireless/bluetooth/FireWIre/USB/? Check. Remote? Hmmm... Same price but with a 20" LCD? Hmmmm....
About the Mac mini, I don't think Apple choose to make a computer available just so that you'll buy a more expensive one.
That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.
They choose to make a really small yet powerful and complete computer, the component and size choices make it not that affordable vs. the 17" iMac. I think it has been Apple's mistake, if they had make it just a little bigger and with standard components (mostly the hard drive), it would still be priced at $499 today.
Maybe it could be, but that is too far away from the iMac to generate a sell-up. Plus, as discussed, Apple buys so many laptop drives that as far as we know they may be cheaper for them than desktop drives.
Any sales or marketing textbook will tell you that selling price has virtually nothing to do with cost, as long as margins are made. Selling price is designed to generate sell-up and prevent cannibalization of higher margin products.
Can you cite any market research that supports this?
Almost every potential switcher I talk to.
some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.
Any market research to back that up? And the cost of PCI slots is inconsequential, standard practice on almost all motherboards made. It also gives the manufacturer the ability to sell virtually the same machine at many price points to attract a broad range of consumers..
Yes, you would and I would (I have always bought Mac towers). Apple's research on the Mac II showed that more than 90% of owners never added a NuBus card. And that is even less likely today with everything on the mobo already.
NuBus was expensive and not the standard of the industry. There are hundreds of thousands of upgrade cards sold for video, USB 2 upgrades, Firewire upgrades, wireless router upgrades. Anyone who doesn't see this is in denial. When Apple introduces iTV and my G5 iMac is incompatible, what am I to do? Virtually every PC user that bought a $500 Gateway will be able to pop in a new inexpensive wireless card and they will be good to go, me be screwed.
I'm just sayin', at that price only the geeks will buy it, as the regular consumer will compare the iMac and see the 20" monitor for the same price. Dual-core? check. DVD/ethernet/wireless/bluetooth/FireWIre/USB/? Check. Remote? Hmmm... Same price but with a 20" LCD? Hmmmm....
$1499 is way to high a starting price point for the mythical xMac.
That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.
Maybe it could be, but that is too far away from the iMac to generate a sell-up. Plus, as discussed, Apple buys so many laptop drives that as far as we know they may be cheaper for them than desktop drives.
Actually, I don't think the mini Mac exists solely to bait and switch. It is a good machine for its' target market. But using your argument then --- Great, every one does it so it makes it a good ethical practice. In the long run, trying to pull the wool over your customers eyes is a bad practice.
Any sales or marketing textbook will tell you that selling price has virtually nothing to do with cost, as long as margins are made. Selling price is designed to generate sell-up and prevent cannibalization of higher margin products.
Again, great..... Our centers of higher education are teaching the youth and hope for a better future to be hucksters and flim-flam artists.
Almost every potential switcher I talk to.
Not really considered reprentative market research.
some users. Look at all the specs you rattled off - we are geeks and know that stuff, but the consumer user does not understand it, and they don't care.
Any market research to back that up?
Yes, the far majority of computer purchases are for sub $1000 machines with integrated graphics.
Our centers of higher education are teaching the youth and hope for a better future to be hucksters and flim-flam artists
You actually thought business is an honest profession?
..
You actually thought business is an honest profession?
Not since Harvard introduced the MBA program during the 40's. And what I think is irrelevant concerning the ethics taught in business schools. Planned obsolescence, bait and switch, hidden costs are still not ethical. In the long term these tactics cost the companies. Perfect example is the American Auto industry with its' planned obsolescence.
edit spelling
Any market research to back that up?
I assume Apple does tons of market research - they always have. If that research showed "expandability" at the top of the list of wanted features, you can bet the products would have expandability.
Better to ask: is there any market research to "back up" the claim by "expandability advocates" that it is a highly-desired feature by anyone except computer geeks like us?
This is not "bait and switch" - that phrase refers to advertising a product that does not exist, and then switching the customer to the real product.
The Mac mini exists and customers may purchase it if they wish. There is no deception going on here - just simple marketing strategy.
I assume Apple does tons of market research - they always have. If that research showed "expandability" at the top of the list of wanted features, you can bet the products would have expandability.
Better to ask: is there any market research to "back up" the claim by "expandability advocates" that it is a highly-desired feature by anyone except computer geeks like us?
Market research is useless without demographics. It makes a big difference depending on who was asked. If Apple just asked the Mac faithful, expandability would probably not be too high on the list. Design and the Apple logo are more important than speed and expandability to that crowd. As the PC crowd and you'll get different answers. Apple's desktops are fine if they want to hold on to what they have. However, unlike laptops, the Mac desktop userbase isn't getting any bigger.
I see nothing unethical about offering a low-priced product and a better product for a few hundred more.
This is not "bait and switch" - that phrase refers to advertising a product that does not exist, and then switching the customer to the real product.
The Mac mini exists and customers may purchase it if they wish. There is no deception going on here - just simple marketing strategy.
http://www.investorwords.com/389/bait_and_switch.html
Definition
Bait and Switch
An illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product.
lundy
Maybe I misused the term bait and switch. But
here is your statement I was responding to:
That is exactly what all companies do. They put out a cheap one to get you in the store and make the next model JUST a little more expensive to sell you up to it.
and here is my response:
Actually, I don't think the mini Mac exists solely to bait and switch. It is a good machine for its' target market. But using your argument then --- Great, every one does it so it makes it a good ethical practice. In the long run, trying to pull the wool over your customers eyes is a bad practice.
I actually don't buy into the argument that the mini Mac exists soley or even primarily to [strike]bait and switch[/strike] entice consumers into the store only to be sold into buying a higher priced iMac. And yes your statement implies unethical behavior by Apple.
Market research is useless without demographics. It makes a big difference depending on who was asked. If Apple just asked the Mac faithful, expandability would probably not be too high on the list. Design and the Apple logo are more important than speed and expandability to that crowd. As the PC crowd and you'll get different answers. Apple's desktops are fine if they want to hold on to what they have. However, unlike laptops, the Mac desktop userbase isn't getting any bigger.
You sincerely believe that Apple spends millions on incompetent research?
Of course they get an even sample of all potential customers.
You sincerely believe that Apple spends millions on incompetent research?
Of course they get an even sample of all potential customers.
I believe Apple has a tendency to see everything how it thinks it should be rather than it is.
Does anyone actually have any example of this "market research," any links, or any evidence at all, or is this just an argument that Apple's a really big company, so they must be doing this really excellent market research?
Most recently I saw this article @ itwire.
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7425/52/
However, earlier I did say, "I don't have evidence, but in more than one of these threads here and at other websites it has been postulated that Apple does not do significant amounts of market research. I could be wrong here, no real evidence."
here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=491
is this just an argument that Apple's a really big company, so they must be doing this really excellent market research?
That's actually a very good argument. The problems with really big companies coming out with crap products is never do to a lack of market research, it's due to the unwillingness of execs to act on what the research shows.
Citing preliminary data from market research firm IDC, an analyst for PiperJaffray said Thursday that Apple's share of the personal computer market fell to 2.4 percent during the three-month period ending December, down from a 2.8 percent share two quarters earlier.
"While Apple gained share year-over-year (from 2.1 percent to 2.4 percent), it lost share sequentially," analyst Gene Munster wrote in a note to clients. "Mac market share is generally higher in September quarters, due to strong education-related sales."
Is it time to dust off this old thread? APPL stock is down, evidently due to low sales of Macs. Record profits and outstanding iPod sales didn't keep the stock from sliding. Evidently people want something other than a laptop, Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro. Got any suggestions?