While its not a slouch I do understand why gamers would much prefer a C2D Extreme rig.
But heck...its likely cheaper to buy a refurb mini to do iLife/whatever and a solid gaming rig than a $1600 prosumer C2D Extreme Mac Pro.
Vinea
That could be debatable... I can completely see the price being within 100 dollars for a decent gaming machine + a decent mini.
Either way, wouldn't you just rather have a prosumer mac than 2 machines??? Both being pretty crippled... the macmini isn't the fastest puppy in the litter, and the pc can't run os x.
Last week I was shopping around for audio equipment, and found myself faced with issues that come up in this, and other, discussions. To me, it was like a marketing lesson that applies to any product, whether it be audio or computer gear.
One issue was future expandability and flexibility. Do I buy components, or do I buy a system that integrates many common components. The choice was obvious for me -- components. I can swap out or add components as my needs change. Since I will not be doing much of that, it is psychological. I like the ability to do it easily if I want to. It occurred to me that this is precisely the appeal of a tower desktop computer. We may never take advantage of it, but it's nice to have.
The other issue was price. I was thinking I'd have to buy the audio system in parts, a little at a time, because the price was so high. The receiver I wanted costs about $700, and I needed five speakers plus a subwoofer. (I already decided I didn't need seven channel sound.)
It was then that I saw and heard a digital sound projector, which handles all the components I have, DVD, VCR, satellite and cable TV. In addition, I would not need a receiver or speakers, just the subwoofer. I could buy the DSP and woofer for just $900. I had never seen a DSP before, but the price was so low that I bought it on the spot just to try out. If I eventually found that I didn't want to go that route, I could use it in another room, and I'd buy a receiver and speakers. I figured this was the kind of choice a PC user might face -- whether to try something unknown or go with what is familiar. If Apple made a really low priced Mac, many more PC users might just try it.
We can argue all we want about the details of these two potential Mac desktops, and how to keep them from impacting other Mac sales excessively, but I'm convinced Apple needs them if they want to improve market share.
That could be debatable... I can completely see the price being within 100 dollars for a decent gaming machine + a decent mini.
Either way, wouldn't you just rather have a prosumer mac than 2 machines??? Both being pretty crippled... the macmini isn't the fastest puppy in the litter, and the pc can't run os x.
The lack of a lot of EFI graphic cards hurts the price efficiency of an Apple C2D gaming rig. $249 isn't bad for the 1900XT 512MB but there are always cards that are better bang for the buck than the pack.
For $1600 you're looking at a E6700 box and not a X6800 (or QX6700)...so my bad...no C2D Extreme for us. You can get a E6700 box for $1100 (with a crappy vid card). Figuring you get the $249 upgrade on the xMac you're looking $1849. Subtract out $599 for the low end mini and yah, you're cheaper on the xMac since you still have to spring for a $400 vid card and you're only $150 positive.
Of course you DO have nice little machine for that $250...and eventually it will get rev'd to merom and santa rosa (and the GMA X3000).
Mkay. You don't like everyone else's suggested price points to gain share. You number is what? Because your message was terse enough that you don't mention and if you read my message you can see that I used values commonly repeated in this 36 page thread.
Take an iMac, get rid of the display, replace graphics with integrated, and put in expansion card slot.
1000? for the integrated graphics base model, with the "sweet spot" of BTO options falling into 1300-1500? range, but you can go up to Mac Pro prices if you stuff it with graphics, memory and HD's.
Price close to iMac prices, you don't get a display but expandability instead. The build cost of the expandability is negligible, and desktop processor and memory can be used, so this is higher margin than the iMac at same price.
Quote:
Midway between the $599 mini and the $2499 mac pro is $950 assuming all regards includes price. Wouldn't want to fail reading comprehension again.
I was rude for no good reason. Apologies.
Quote:
So...its better than $799 but still less than the iMac in terms of both total price and absolute profit. So replace $233 with $256. But I'm sure I read that wrong and you don't mean all regards because that still doesn't work. Nor does simply cutting the Mac Pro price in half really.
It's still less than half the performance - say E6400 or E6600, two HD slots, might not have a replaceable optical drive, might be limited to 4GB memory... the list goes on. It's not a Mac Pro.
Quote:
First, increased market share from what? You wrote that you don't believe you need switchers to make this work. No switchers = no increased market share.
No need for switchers to turn a profit or get even, but there will be some. There's no contradiction.
Quote:
Second you haven't shown you'll get increased marketshare in any meaningful number.
And you haven't shown the opposite.
Quote:
For which today you are forced to buy an iMac or a Mini.
... or a PC, or a used Powermac, or maybe you won't buy anything if there's nothing good to buy.
I have used OS X and nothing else for four years. All that time, if a decent midrange had come along, I'd have bought one to complement my Mac laptop. In fact, I'd probably have bought one and then another as an upgrade in the four years' timeframe. Now I'm thinking of making a PC purchase - Apple had their chance.
Quote:
If you buy this instead of an iMac you just cannibalized a $999-$2499 iMac sale into a $950 sale.
More like 1000?-2500? iMac into 1100-1600? with slightly higher margins and the possibility of an ACD sale.
Quote:
And even $950 isn't going to cause that explosion in share since you're competing directly against something like the 1.86Ghz C2D Dimension E520 with 1Gb ram, 320GB HDD, GeForce 7300LE and a free 19" monitor (no monitor is $739).
It's not a direct competition. A direct competition is auto-loss. This machine is the answer to the question, "I want a normal computer but running OS X. How much?"
Quote:
You also don't address where destroying iMac sales (even via "upsells") wont hurt the cost of mobility parts which is a) where the market is heading and b) where Apple is doing pretty well.
I thought that was accurate and needed no comment. But how large is that effect? We're not talking about replacing the iMac and mini lines, but baking a slightly larger cake and dividing it again. Instead of 50% mini and 50% iMac (numbers pulled out of hat), we could have 40% mini, 25% this new machine and 40% iMac, with overall 5% increase in units and 20% less laptop parts used on the desktop. Combine that with the actual laptop sales and the drop in Apple's laptop part purchases would not amount to many percent.
The upsells from the minis, plus upsells from low end iMacs, minus top end iMac downsales... the 24" iMac would still sell, somewhat less, but Apple can afford that when they are upselling the lower end desktops, selling larger total amount of computers to existing userbase, and getting a few new switchers. The 24" is a luxury, design item. I have a hard time believing a xMac would destroy its sales even if it is better value.
No they're not. They still sell in the millions upon millions of units. Yet, still Apple's market share in desktops stagnates, while they're laptops increase market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
...Best Buy (BBY ), Circuit City (CC ), and CompUSA. They advertised notebooks for under $400.
...
Analysts don't expect a big sales boost from the pending release of Windows Vista, the operating system from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ). After many delays, Vista's consumer version becomes available on Jan. 30. But most consumers don't even realize that Vista is pending, and some of Microsoft's partners believe it will take well into 2007 for significant sales to register. Worldwide shipments of PCs--desktop and notebooks--are expected to grow only 8% next year, to 230 million units, vs. the 15% annual pace of the past three years, according to researcher IDC (IDC ).
.....
..... Many households in developed countries now own two or three. But even in hot markets such as China and India, notebook growth outpaces that of desktops: In Asia, shipments leaped 38% from the previous year, vs. 9.7% for desktops.
How many of those $400 laptops will run Vista adequately?
Even these analysts(re: I feel dirty using that word because most are incorrect at best and at worst have agendas) concede Vista's release will affect desktop sales positively, "it will take well into 2007 for significant sales to register". Define significant and well into 2007.
How many desktop owning consumers bought laptops and deferred purchasing desktops until it comes loaded with Vista? Of those how many will be consumers that find out their $400 laptop won't run Vista worth spit?
How many of the laptops sold were to students/teachers that need or value portablility?
And even if these analysts are correct, there will still be millions upon millions of desktops sold, which dwarfs Apple's desktops market, which is stagnant.
Second you haven't shown you'll get increased marketshare in any meaningful number.
Vinea
No but Apple's astounding increase in laptop market share seems to indicate that there is a good chance they could repeat the phenomenon with desktops.
No but Apple's astounding increase in laptop market share seems to indicate that there is a good chance they could repeat the phenomenon with desktops.
And that's without an entry level 15" notebook and retail options pretty much limited to metros with 500k+ people. Pretty impressive. Imagine how well they'd be doing if the Macbook came in both 13.3" and 15.4" models and the entire consumer line (aka minus the Xeon based Mac Pro and Xserve) was available at Best Buy.
Apple's portables, with the exception of the lack of a card reader and the somewhat stupid decision not to go with the full 54mm expresscard slot, can do everything a premium PC laptop can and as well. There's a level of parity there. Apple's desktops (and BTW people, the MacPro is technically not in the desktop class) are different from the PC ranks. While the iMac is probably an all around better home computer, there are many tasks that its form factor is not well suited for. Higher end Computer are not idiots, they're going to see the lack of expansion of the iMac, the laptop parts, and the built in screen and they're going to walk away. The most Ironic part of all this is that the only Mac that is able to take full effect of the OS and iLife out of the box is the Mac Pro.
Apple's desktops (and BTW people, the MacPro is technically not in the desktop class) are different from the PC ranks.
True. The PC desktops cover a much wider range of users than the Macs, which seem to be aimed at the typical home market, with the AIO and headless models. On the other hand, PC mini towers also include models for game players and Prosumers, as well as very low priced entry models. The Mac desktop lineup lacks both of these. The Mac Mini is almost an entry level, but priced a little bit too high.
How many of those $400 laptops will run Vista adequately?
I doubt Vista is high on the list for most average consumers.
Quote:
How many desktop owning consumers bought laptops and deferred purchasing desktops until it comes loaded with Vista?
Now you are just making stuff up. Why would anyone buy a laptop now and defer buying a desktop until Vista comes out?
Quote:
And even if these analysts are correct, there will still be millions upon millions of desktops sold, which dwarfs Apple's desktops market, which is stagnant
If Dell sells 2 million desktops in Q1, then sell 2 million desktops in Q2. Dell sold millions of desktops but growth was stagnant.
Which is basically what is happening. Apple's desktop growth was 2%, Dell 4%, HP last quarter was 6%. That's not very much from either company. In addition Apple made more money from its 2% than Dell and HP made from their minimal desktop growth.
I doubt Vista is high on the list for most average consumers.
The publicity blitz by Microsoft hasn't even begun. And new computers will come preloaded with Vista.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Now you are just making stuff up. Why would anyone buy a laptop now and defer buying a desktop until Vista comes out?
No I am not. I am using a quote from the article you cited. And for effect I quote,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
If Dell sells 2 million desktops in Q1, then sell 2 million desktops in Q2. Dell sold millions of desktops but growth was stagnant.
Which is basically what is happening. Apple's desktop growth was 2%, Dell 4%, HP last quarter was 6%. That's not very much from either company. In addition Apple made more money from its 2% than Dell and HP made from their minimal desktop growth.
And here I thought that Apple's desktop sales the last quarter actually went down. My mistake I guess.
Regardless of the fact that Apple has gained market share in laptops, but not desktops.
I'm not saying that offering an xMac will absolutely guarantee Apple increased market share. I am saying, there has not been a better time to accomplish this than in the last couple of years. Apple brand awareness has escalated exponentially since the introduction of the iPod.
I am also not denying that there is risk in lowering profits by introducing an xMac, but again if Apple truly wishes to increase market share, which by the way they have stated on at least two occasions during quarterly reports, they probably need to offer something beyond the current product matrix. And based on the extraordinary sales in their laptop lines, I have to believe the risk right now, or even in the previous couple of years, is limited.
My recommendation to Apple is offer the mythical xMac and use some of that $11.5 billion in a massive media blitz. Possibly in conjunction with the introduction of the iPhone.
The publicity blitz by Microsoft hasn't even begun. And new computers will come preloaded with Vista.
That only still says Vista is not a high priority for the average consumer.
Quote:
No I am not. I am using a quote from the article you cited. And for effect I quote,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three."
oh SNAP
Please explain to me what Asians having two or three computers has to do with people waiting for Vista to buy a desktop. I fail to see the correlation.
Quote:
And here I thought that Apple's desktop sales the last quarter actually went down.
Year over year is down 4%, but 2% up quarter to quarter.
Quote:
Regardless of the fact that Apple has gained market share in laptops, but not desktops.
The reason Dell and HP are even still having slim 5% growth is because they sell millions of $600 POS computers to businesses. If you look at their desktops that sell over $1000 to consumers sales would look more like Apple's, possibly even worse.
Quote:
I am also not denying that there is risk in lowering profits by introducing an xMac, but again if Apple truly wishes to increase market share, which by the way they have stated on at least two occasions during quarterly reports, they probably need to offer something beyond the current product matrix.
I am not saying Apple should not offer the xMac. I've fervently argued in this thread that they should, I still think they should offer more options.
But I think the pro xMac people are not realistically looking at the where the market is going. Sales are clearly moving away from desktops with laptops far more desirable. That is hard fact that cannot be argued away.
It just occurred to me that if all of what has been said is true... IE laptops outselling desktops... Then Apple's matrix is still fubar. They have 2 portable models and 3 desktop models (4 if you count xserve). So why isn't apple releasing more laptop models / configurations? Just a thought. Not saying it's right or wrong.
True. The PC desktops cover a much wider range of users than the Macs, which seem to be aimed at the typical home market, with the AIO and headless models. On the other hand, PC mini towers also include models for game players and Prosumers, as well as very low priced entry models. The Mac desktop lineup lacks both of these. The Mac Mini is almost an entry level, but priced a little bit too high.
Stick a Merom based Celeron-M 520 in there and it'll solve the price concerns.
It just occurred to me that if all of what has been said is true... IE laptops outselling desktops... Then Apple's matrix is still fubar. They have 2 portable models and 3 desktop models (4 if you count xserve). So why isn't apple releasing more laptop models / configurations? Just a thought. Not saying it's right or wrong.
Depending on how you look at it, it's technically three laptops, four desktops, and two professional models: a workstation and a server.
Am I crazy or wouldn't most of these problems just be solved if Apple added more BTO options to the Mac Pro? If they added support for Conroe/Kentsfield based architectures and left a most other things the same, I think a lot of customers would be satisfied. Same case, internal layout, design, etc. If they let you pick and choose the desktop architecture, graphics card, disk and memory, I think it could potentially satisfy everyone's needs. Also, they wouldn't even have to adjust their product line because this modification would be large, but not large enough to warrant a rebranding. If Apple is going to keep holding the Mac OS hostage (i don't think this is a bad thing and it's not a troll), they should at least try to not leave such a big chunk of customers out.
Not to babble but....
I HATE THROWING AWAY DISPLAYS WHEN BUYING NEW COMPUTERS BUT I DON'T HAVE $2500+ TO DROP EACH TIME.
Please explain to me what Asians having two or three computers has to do with people waiting for Vista to buy a desktop. I fail to see the correlation.
I don't know? Where did the Asians get into this? This discussion is becoming quite strange and bordering on the bizarre.
The quote from the article is,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three.", as in computers. I guess some Asians are in developed countries, most likely Japan. but wouldn't that include the US, Canada, Europe and whoever?
Therefore it may be possible, that as laptop prices met certain points, consumers began buying laptops in addition to the desktops they already own. And they may be postponing the purchase of newer desktops until Vista arrives, seeing as how it will come with a new computer purchase. Don't you remember the big stink the OEMs made over the delays in Vista and the possible affect on sales this past Christmas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Year over year is down 4%, but 2% up quarter to quarter.
Show me the numbers from the last quarterly results. I believe Apple desktop sales went down this last quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The reason Dell and HP are even still having slim 5% growth is because they sell millions of $600 POS computers to businesses. If you look at their desktops that sell over $1000 to consumers sales would look more like Apple's, possibly even worse.
Yet Apple captured some of Dell's or HP's or Gateway's laptop sales, hence, Apple's increase in market share. Yet, Apple didn't capture any of Dell's or HP's or Gateway's desktop sales, at all, nada, none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I am not saying Apple should not offer the xMac. I've fervently argued in this thread that they should, I still think they should offer more options.
We most assuredly agree here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
But I think the pro xMac people are not realistically looking at the where the market is going. Sales are clearly moving away from desktops with laptops far more desirable. That is hard fact that cannot be argued away.
Get back to me on this when desktop sales fall below 20% of the market. It's still huge and represents opportunity for Apple to turn a tremendous profit, if executed well.
The quote from the article is,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three.", as in computers. I guess some Asians are in developed countries,
OK you took that line out of its full context so I got confused as to what you were talking about. But it says nothing about people waiting for Vista.
Quote:
Therefore it may be possible, that as laptop prices met certain points, consumers began buying laptops in addition to the desktops they already own. And they may be postponing the purchase of newer desktops until Vista arrives, seeing as how it will come with a new computer purchase. Don't you remember the big stink the OEMs made over the delays in Vista and the possible affect on sales this past Christmas?
According to MS earnings no significant number of people are holding out waiting for Vista.
Microsoft sales unharmed by Vista delays: With holiday PC sales apparently unscathed by the lack of Windows Vista, Microsoft reported quarterly earnings Thursday that topped expectations and its own forecast.
Quote:
Show me the numbers from the last quarterly results. I believe Apple desktop sales went down this last quarter.
From Appleinsider article, the notebooks actually were down 2% quarter to quarter.
Desktop units were down 4 percent year-over-year while revenue rose 5 percent. Sequentially, desktops rose 2 percent in units and 10 percent in revenue.
Quote:
Apple didn't capture any of Dell's or HP's or Gateway's desktop sales, at all, nada, none.
Because Apple does not sell millions of unprofitable $600 POS machines to business.
Quote:
Get back to me on this when desktop sales fall below 20% of the market.
That's way too late. They need to see the industry change and adjust now. Which is what Apple is doing and why Apple is flush with profit.
Take an iMac, get rid of the display, replace graphics with integrated, and put in expansion card slot.
1000? for the integrated graphics base model, with the "sweet spot" of BTO options falling into 1300-1500? range, but you can go up to Mac Pro prices if you stuff it with graphics, memory and HD's.
Price close to iMac prices, you don't get a display but expandability instead. The build cost of the expandability is negligible, and desktop processor and memory can be used, so this is higher margin than the iMac at same price.I was rude for no good reason. Apologies.It's still less than half the performance - say E6400 or E6600, two HD slots, might not have a replaceable optical drive, might be limited to 4GB memory... the list goes on.
Here are my two comments:
1) This machine uttery destroys the iMac. There's simply no saving grace for the iMac. Its slower. Its only marginally less expensive. While more elegant than any tower there are few folks that can't simply hide the tower in their desk.
2) While it obliterates the iMac, assuming we keep the 31% margin it compares very poorly against other tower competitors. By say 16%. The only advantage is that it can run OSX. A great advantage to be sure but the iMac and Mini are insultated from direct comparisons because they are AIOs and SFF machines with notebook parts. They cost more but folks understand that size has a premium.
Neither excuse holds true for the xMac. The 27-31% margin is simply very exposed. I don't think you'll see the switcher numbers you would expect. OSX is simply not enough of an advantage IMHO.
The burden of proof isn't on me to show that there will be no switchers. Apple is doing great with its current strategy and their growth is above the market. Therefore the burden of proof is on those that wish to change the current course and adopt a new strategy of competing in the tower market.
Woosh...did Sony stop making desktops? I went to Sony Style to check out their current desktops and the entire category is gone. All that's there is laptops, AIOs and a spherical living room computer...there's a couple "HD Video Editing Systems" with C2D but where are the RA/RB series?
Googling the net I can only find P4 Vaio desktops. No C2D machines. The main Sony site has a graphic that shows "The full line of Sony VAIO products" with no towers.
Comments
While its not a slouch I do understand why gamers would much prefer a C2D Extreme rig.
But heck...its likely cheaper to buy a refurb mini to do iLife/whatever and a solid gaming rig than a $1600 prosumer C2D Extreme Mac Pro.
Vinea
That could be debatable... I can completely see the price being within 100 dollars for a decent gaming machine + a decent mini.
Either way, wouldn't you just rather have a prosumer mac than 2 machines??? Both being pretty crippled... the macmini isn't the fastest puppy in the litter, and the pc can't run os x.
One issue was future expandability and flexibility. Do I buy components, or do I buy a system that integrates many common components. The choice was obvious for me -- components. I can swap out or add components as my needs change. Since I will not be doing much of that, it is psychological. I like the ability to do it easily if I want to. It occurred to me that this is precisely the appeal of a tower desktop computer. We may never take advantage of it, but it's nice to have.
The other issue was price. I was thinking I'd have to buy the audio system in parts, a little at a time, because the price was so high. The receiver I wanted costs about $700, and I needed five speakers plus a subwoofer. (I already decided I didn't need seven channel sound.)
It was then that I saw and heard a digital sound projector, which handles all the components I have, DVD, VCR, satellite and cable TV. In addition, I would not need a receiver or speakers, just the subwoofer. I could buy the DSP and woofer for just $900. I had never seen a DSP before, but the price was so low that I bought it on the spot just to try out. If I eventually found that I didn't want to go that route, I could use it in another room, and I'd buy a receiver and speakers. I figured this was the kind of choice a PC user might face -- whether to try something unknown or go with what is familiar. If Apple made a really low priced Mac, many more PC users might just try it.
We can argue all we want about the details of these two potential Mac desktops, and how to keep them from impacting other Mac sales excessively, but I'm convinced Apple needs them if they want to improve market share.
That could be debatable... I can completely see the price being within 100 dollars for a decent gaming machine + a decent mini.
Either way, wouldn't you just rather have a prosumer mac than 2 machines??? Both being pretty crippled... the macmini isn't the fastest puppy in the litter, and the pc can't run os x.
The lack of a lot of EFI graphic cards hurts the price efficiency of an Apple C2D gaming rig. $249 isn't bad for the 1900XT 512MB but there are always cards that are better bang for the buck than the pack.
For $1600 you're looking at a E6700 box and not a X6800 (or QX6700)...so my bad...no C2D Extreme for us. You can get a E6700 box for $1100 (with a crappy vid card). Figuring you get the $249 upgrade on the xMac you're looking $1849. Subtract out $599 for the low end mini and yah, you're cheaper on the xMac since you still have to spring for a $400 vid card and you're only $150 positive.
Of course you DO have nice little machine for that $250...and eventually it will get rev'd to merom and santa rosa (and the GMA X3000).
Shame the MB doesn't have an expresscard slot.
Vinea
Mkay. You don't like everyone else's suggested price points to gain share. You number is what? Because your message was terse enough that you don't mention and if you read my message you can see that I used values commonly repeated in this 36 page thread.
Take an iMac, get rid of the display, replace graphics with integrated, and put in expansion card slot.
1000? for the integrated graphics base model, with the "sweet spot" of BTO options falling into 1300-1500? range, but you can go up to Mac Pro prices if you stuff it with graphics, memory and HD's.
Price close to iMac prices, you don't get a display but expandability instead. The build cost of the expandability is negligible, and desktop processor and memory can be used, so this is higher margin than the iMac at same price.
Midway between the $599 mini and the $2499 mac pro is $950 assuming all regards includes price. Wouldn't want to fail reading comprehension again.
I was rude for no good reason. Apologies.
So...its better than $799 but still less than the iMac in terms of both total price and absolute profit. So replace $233 with $256. But I'm sure I read that wrong and you don't mean all regards because that still doesn't work. Nor does simply cutting the Mac Pro price in half really.
It's still less than half the performance - say E6400 or E6600, two HD slots, might not have a replaceable optical drive, might be limited to 4GB memory... the list goes on. It's not a Mac Pro.
First, increased market share from what? You wrote that you don't believe you need switchers to make this work. No switchers = no increased market share.
No need for switchers to turn a profit or get even, but there will be some. There's no contradiction.
Second you haven't shown you'll get increased marketshare in any meaningful number.
And you haven't shown the opposite.
For which today you are forced to buy an iMac or a Mini.
... or a PC, or a used Powermac, or maybe you won't buy anything if there's nothing good to buy.
I have used OS X and nothing else for four years. All that time, if a decent midrange had come along, I'd have bought one to complement my Mac laptop. In fact, I'd probably have bought one and then another as an upgrade in the four years' timeframe. Now I'm thinking of making a PC purchase - Apple had their chance.
If you buy this instead of an iMac you just cannibalized a $999-$2499 iMac sale into a $950 sale.
More like 1000?-2500? iMac into 1100-1600? with slightly higher margins and the possibility of an ACD sale.
And even $950 isn't going to cause that explosion in share since you're competing directly against something like the 1.86Ghz C2D Dimension E520 with 1Gb ram, 320GB HDD, GeForce 7300LE and a free 19" monitor (no monitor is $739).
It's not a direct competition. A direct competition is auto-loss. This machine is the answer to the question, "I want a normal computer but running OS X. How much?"
You also don't address where destroying iMac sales (even via "upsells") wont hurt the cost of mobility parts which is a) where the market is heading and b) where Apple is doing pretty well.
I thought that was accurate and needed no comment. But how large is that effect? We're not talking about replacing the iMac and mini lines, but baking a slightly larger cake and dividing it again. Instead of 50% mini and 50% iMac (numbers pulled out of hat), we could have 40% mini, 25% this new machine and 40% iMac, with overall 5% increase in units and 20% less laptop parts used on the desktop. Combine that with the actual laptop sales and the drop in Apple's laptop part purchases would not amount to many percent.
The upsells from the minis, plus upsells from low end iMacs, minus top end iMac downsales... the 24" iMac would still sell, somewhat less, but Apple can afford that when they are upselling the lower end desktops, selling larger total amount of computers to existing userbase, and getting a few new switchers. The 24" is a luxury, design item. I have a hard time believing a xMac would destroy its sales even if it is better value.
Desktops Are So Twentieth Century
No they're not. They still sell in the millions upon millions of units. Yet, still Apple's market share in desktops stagnates, while they're laptops increase market share.
...Best Buy (BBY ), Circuit City (CC ), and CompUSA. They advertised notebooks for under $400.
...
Analysts don't expect a big sales boost from the pending release of Windows Vista, the operating system from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ). After many delays, Vista's consumer version becomes available on Jan. 30. But most consumers don't even realize that Vista is pending, and some of Microsoft's partners believe it will take well into 2007 for significant sales to register. Worldwide shipments of PCs--desktop and notebooks--are expected to grow only 8% next year, to 230 million units, vs. the 15% annual pace of the past three years, according to researcher IDC (IDC ).
.....
..... Many households in developed countries now own two or three. But even in hot markets such as China and India, notebook growth outpaces that of desktops: In Asia, shipments leaped 38% from the previous year, vs. 9.7% for desktops.
...
http://www.businessweek.com/print/ma...50.htm?chan=gl
How many of those $400 laptops will run Vista adequately?
Even these analysts(re: I feel dirty using that word because most are incorrect at best and at worst have agendas) concede Vista's release will affect desktop sales positively, "it will take well into 2007 for significant sales to register". Define significant and well into 2007.
How many desktop owning consumers bought laptops and deferred purchasing desktops until it comes loaded with Vista? Of those how many will be consumers that find out their $400 laptop won't run Vista worth spit?
How many of the laptops sold were to students/teachers that need or value portablility?
And even if these analysts are correct, there will still be millions upon millions of desktops sold, which dwarfs Apple's desktops market, which is stagnant.
Second you haven't shown you'll get increased marketshare in any meaningful number.
Vinea
No but Apple's astounding increase in laptop market share seems to indicate that there is a good chance they could repeat the phenomenon with desktops.
No but Apple's astounding increase in laptop market share seems to indicate that there is a good chance they could repeat the phenomenon with desktops.
And that's without an entry level 15" notebook and retail options pretty much limited to metros with 500k+ people. Pretty impressive. Imagine how well they'd be doing if the Macbook came in both 13.3" and 15.4" models and the entire consumer line (aka minus the Xeon based Mac Pro and Xserve) was available at Best Buy.
Apple's portables, with the exception of the lack of a card reader and the somewhat stupid decision not to go with the full 54mm expresscard slot, can do everything a premium PC laptop can and as well. There's a level of parity there. Apple's desktops (and BTW people, the MacPro is technically not in the desktop class) are different from the PC ranks. While the iMac is probably an all around better home computer, there are many tasks that its form factor is not well suited for. Higher end Computer are not idiots, they're going to see the lack of expansion of the iMac, the laptop parts, and the built in screen and they're going to walk away. The most Ironic part of all this is that the only Mac that is able to take full effect of the OS and iLife out of the box is the Mac Pro.
Apple's desktops (and BTW people, the MacPro is technically not in the desktop class) are different from the PC ranks.
True. The PC desktops cover a much wider range of users than the Macs, which seem to be aimed at the typical home market, with the AIO and headless models. On the other hand, PC mini towers also include models for game players and Prosumers, as well as very low priced entry models. The Mac desktop lineup lacks both of these. The Mac Mini is almost an entry level, but priced a little bit too high.
How many of those $400 laptops will run Vista adequately?
I doubt Vista is high on the list for most average consumers.
How many desktop owning consumers bought laptops and deferred purchasing desktops until it comes loaded with Vista?
Now you are just making stuff up. Why would anyone buy a laptop now and defer buying a desktop until Vista comes out?
And even if these analysts are correct, there will still be millions upon millions of desktops sold, which dwarfs Apple's desktops market, which is stagnant
If Dell sells 2 million desktops in Q1, then sell 2 million desktops in Q2. Dell sold millions of desktops but growth was stagnant.
Which is basically what is happening. Apple's desktop growth was 2%, Dell 4%, HP last quarter was 6%. That's not very much from either company. In addition Apple made more money from its 2% than Dell and HP made from their minimal desktop growth.
I doubt Vista is high on the list for most average consumers.
The publicity blitz by Microsoft hasn't even begun. And new computers will come preloaded with Vista.
Now you are just making stuff up. Why would anyone buy a laptop now and defer buying a desktop until Vista comes out?
No I am not. I am using a quote from the article you cited. And for effect I quote,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three."
If Dell sells 2 million desktops in Q1, then sell 2 million desktops in Q2. Dell sold millions of desktops but growth was stagnant.
Which is basically what is happening. Apple's desktop growth was 2%, Dell 4%, HP last quarter was 6%. That's not very much from either company. In addition Apple made more money from its 2% than Dell and HP made from their minimal desktop growth.
And here I thought that Apple's desktop sales the last quarter actually went down. My mistake I guess.
Regardless of the fact that Apple has gained market share in laptops, but not desktops.
No I am not. I am using a quote from the article you cited. And for effect I quote,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three."
oh SNAP
I'm not saying that offering an xMac will absolutely guarantee Apple increased market share. I am saying, there has not been a better time to accomplish this than in the last couple of years. Apple brand awareness has escalated exponentially since the introduction of the iPod.
I am also not denying that there is risk in lowering profits by introducing an xMac, but again if Apple truly wishes to increase market share, which by the way they have stated on at least two occasions during quarterly reports, they probably need to offer something beyond the current product matrix. And based on the extraordinary sales in their laptop lines, I have to believe the risk right now, or even in the previous couple of years, is limited.
My recommendation to Apple is offer the mythical xMac and use some of that $11.5 billion in a massive media blitz. Possibly in conjunction with the introduction of the iPhone.
The publicity blitz by Microsoft hasn't even begun. And new computers will come preloaded with Vista.
That only still says Vista is not a high priority for the average consumer.
No I am not. I am using a quote from the article you cited. And for effect I quote,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three."
oh SNAP
Please explain to me what Asians having two or three computers has to do with people waiting for Vista to buy a desktop. I fail to see the correlation.
And here I thought that Apple's desktop sales the last quarter actually went down.
Year over year is down 4%, but 2% up quarter to quarter.
Regardless of the fact that Apple has gained market share in laptops, but not desktops.
The reason Dell and HP are even still having slim 5% growth is because they sell millions of $600 POS computers to businesses. If you look at their desktops that sell over $1000 to consumers sales would look more like Apple's, possibly even worse.
I am also not denying that there is risk in lowering profits by introducing an xMac, but again if Apple truly wishes to increase market share, which by the way they have stated on at least two occasions during quarterly reports, they probably need to offer something beyond the current product matrix.
I am not saying Apple should not offer the xMac. I've fervently argued in this thread that they should, I still think they should offer more options.
But I think the pro xMac people are not realistically looking at the where the market is going. Sales are clearly moving away from desktops with laptops far more desirable. That is hard fact that cannot be argued away.
True. The PC desktops cover a much wider range of users than the Macs, which seem to be aimed at the typical home market, with the AIO and headless models. On the other hand, PC mini towers also include models for game players and Prosumers, as well as very low priced entry models. The Mac desktop lineup lacks both of these. The Mac Mini is almost an entry level, but priced a little bit too high.
Stick a Merom based Celeron-M 520 in there and it'll solve the price concerns.
It just occurred to me that if all of what has been said is true... IE laptops outselling desktops... Then Apple's matrix is still fubar. They have 2 portable models and 3 desktop models (4 if you count xserve). So why isn't apple releasing more laptop models / configurations? Just a thought. Not saying it's right or wrong.
Depending on how you look at it, it's technically three laptops, four desktops, and two professional models: a workstation and a server.
Not to babble but....
I HATE THROWING AWAY DISPLAYS WHEN BUYING NEW COMPUTERS BUT I DON'T HAVE $2500+ TO DROP EACH TIME.
ahem.
Please explain to me what Asians having two or three computers has to do with people waiting for Vista to buy a desktop. I fail to see the correlation.
I don't know? Where did the Asians get into this? This discussion is becoming quite strange and bordering on the bizarre.
The quote from the article is,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three.", as in computers. I guess some Asians are in developed countries, most likely Japan. but wouldn't that include the US, Canada, Europe and whoever?
Therefore it may be possible, that as laptop prices met certain points, consumers began buying laptops in addition to the desktops they already own. And they may be postponing the purchase of newer desktops until Vista arrives, seeing as how it will come with a new computer purchase. Don't you remember the big stink the OEMs made over the delays in Vista and the possible affect on sales this past Christmas?
Year over year is down 4%, but 2% up quarter to quarter.
Show me the numbers from the last quarterly results. I believe Apple desktop sales went down this last quarter.
The reason Dell and HP are even still having slim 5% growth is because they sell millions of $600 POS computers to businesses. If you look at their desktops that sell over $1000 to consumers sales would look more like Apple's, possibly even worse.
Yet Apple captured some of Dell's or HP's or Gateway's laptop sales, hence, Apple's increase in market share. Yet, Apple didn't capture any of Dell's or HP's or Gateway's desktop sales, at all, nada, none.
I am not saying Apple should not offer the xMac. I've fervently argued in this thread that they should, I still think they should offer more options.
We most assuredly agree here.
But I think the pro xMac people are not realistically looking at the where the market is going. Sales are clearly moving away from desktops with laptops far more desirable. That is hard fact that cannot be argued away.
Get back to me on this when desktop sales fall below 20% of the market. It's still huge and represents opportunity for Apple to turn a tremendous profit, if executed well.
The quote from the article is,"Many households in developed countries now own two or three.", as in computers. I guess some Asians are in developed countries,
OK you took that line out of its full context so I got confused as to what you were talking about. But it says nothing about people waiting for Vista.
Therefore it may be possible, that as laptop prices met certain points, consumers began buying laptops in addition to the desktops they already own. And they may be postponing the purchase of newer desktops until Vista arrives, seeing as how it will come with a new computer purchase. Don't you remember the big stink the OEMs made over the delays in Vista and the possible affect on sales this past Christmas?
According to MS earnings no significant number of people are holding out waiting for Vista.
Microsoft sales unharmed by Vista delays: With holiday PC sales apparently unscathed by the lack of Windows Vista, Microsoft reported quarterly earnings Thursday that topped expectations and its own forecast.
Show me the numbers from the last quarterly results. I believe Apple desktop sales went down this last quarter.
From Appleinsider article, the notebooks actually were down 2% quarter to quarter.
Desktop units were down 4 percent year-over-year while revenue rose 5 percent. Sequentially, desktops rose 2 percent in units and 10 percent in revenue.
Apple didn't capture any of Dell's or HP's or Gateway's desktop sales, at all, nada, none.
Because Apple does not sell millions of unprofitable $600 POS machines to business.
Get back to me on this when desktop sales fall below 20% of the market.
That's way too late. They need to see the industry change and adjust now. Which is what Apple is doing and why Apple is flush with profit.
Take an iMac, get rid of the display, replace graphics with integrated, and put in expansion card slot.
1000? for the integrated graphics base model, with the "sweet spot" of BTO options falling into 1300-1500? range, but you can go up to Mac Pro prices if you stuff it with graphics, memory and HD's.
Price close to iMac prices, you don't get a display but expandability instead. The build cost of the expandability is negligible, and desktop processor and memory can be used, so this is higher margin than the iMac at same price.I was rude for no good reason. Apologies.It's still less than half the performance - say E6400 or E6600, two HD slots, might not have a replaceable optical drive, might be limited to 4GB memory... the list goes on.
Here are my two comments:
1) This machine uttery destroys the iMac. There's simply no saving grace for the iMac. Its slower. Its only marginally less expensive. While more elegant than any tower there are few folks that can't simply hide the tower in their desk.
2) While it obliterates the iMac, assuming we keep the 31% margin it compares very poorly against other tower competitors. By say 16%. The only advantage is that it can run OSX. A great advantage to be sure but the iMac and Mini are insultated from direct comparisons because they are AIOs and SFF machines with notebook parts. They cost more but folks understand that size has a premium.
Neither excuse holds true for the xMac. The 27-31% margin is simply very exposed. I don't think you'll see the switcher numbers you would expect. OSX is simply not enough of an advantage IMHO.
The burden of proof isn't on me to show that there will be no switchers. Apple is doing great with its current strategy and their growth is above the market. Therefore the burden of proof is on those that wish to change the current course and adopt a new strategy of competing in the tower market.
Woosh...did Sony stop making desktops? I went to Sony Style to check out their current desktops and the entire category is gone. All that's there is laptops, AIOs and a spherical living room computer...there's a couple "HD Video Editing Systems" with C2D but where are the RA/RB series?
Googling the net I can only find P4 Vaio desktops. No C2D machines. The main Sony site has a graphic that shows "The full line of Sony VAIO products" with no towers.
Vinea