The article says MS claims revenue was down because of the Vista delay. Sales were actually up 6%, but MS feels it would have been higher with Vista over the holidays. Which only logical that MS wants to send the perception that people want Vista.
While I agree there likely will be a temporary surge when Vista is released for the few people who are Windows fans. I don't believe there are many people waiting to buy a computer when Vista is released. I do believe there is pent up demand for Office 2007 however and will add significant revenue for MS.
Exactly. Talking about unit numbers and whether they've gone up or down year-over-year or sequentially is pointless in the context of this discussion. Most "xMac advocates" believe that Apple cannot capture additional desktop market share without one.
Others believe that whilst the xMac would attract more customers, it would probably not be enough to offset cannibalisation within the installed user-base.
Then there is the additional question as to whether capturing more market share of a shrinking market segment is really worth bothering with. If the market is shrinking fast enough, there's no point for Apple.
I dunno that I would say that the market is shrinking so fast as to disappear as much as any market compression makes price competition more fierce among the top 3 AND even greater push into mobile arena by those companies
So the question is should Apple try to push into an already mature market that is slowing that has very strong entrenched competitors with strengths Apple can't equal or should it defend its more profitable mobile share with whatever weapons can be brought to bear while seeking new markets to dominate (iPhone, aTV, etc).
That Apple can make more money by pushing harder in the desktop market is certain. But what are the opportunity costs? I'd much rather see more investment on the home media center front than a desktop for Apple. That happens to include a good NAS solution for media storage which helps the expandability thing for iMacs.
I'd much rather see more investment on the home media center front than a desktop for Apple. That happens to include a good NAS solution for media storage which helps the expandability thing for iMacs.
Yes, I think Apple could do a much, much better job on the media center front. You will note that if you make the xMac a suitable shape, it can kill the two "media center" and "desktop mac" problems with one stone
The electronics company I worked for had several levels of budgets. If I take this scheme and superimpose it on Apple, just for fun, the top level might be just two categories: Mac Computer products and Consumer products. The Mac computer category might consist of four subcategories: Workstations, Servers, Laptops and Desktops. Each of these categories would have its own budget. So, desktop computers does have a budget, no doubt set at the corporate level. The budget for desktop computers is surely less than other budgets. The only question facing Apple is what to spend these engineering dollars on?
Does Apple continue to spend it on iMacs and Mac Minis?
Or is there a better, more productive use of the existing desktop funds?
What new desktop product would attract more customers and make more profit for Apple?
Yes, I think Apple could do a much, much better job on the media center front. You will note that if you make the xMac a suitable shape, it can kill the two "media center" and "desktop mac" problems with one stone
Heh...the suitable shape that Sony made theirs? That's an odd looking duck. Well...actually I think the actual computer part looks TiVOish. Its the 200 DVD stack that looks odd.
The electronics company I worked for had several levels of budgets. If I take this scheme and superimpose it on Apple, just for fun, the top level might be just two categories: Mac Computer products and Consumer products. The Mac computer category might consist of four subcategories: Workstations, Servers, Laptops and Desktops. Each of these categories would have its own budget. So, desktop computers does have a budget, no doubt set at the corporate level. The budget for desktop computers is surely less than other budgets. The only question facing Apple is what to spend these engineering dollars on?
Does Apple continue to spend it on iMacs and Mac Minis?
Or is there a better, more productive use of the existing desktop funds?
What new desktop product would attract more customers and make more profit for Apple?
Obviously Apple believes none fits their corporate strategy as well as the iMac and Mini.
The upper tier of the consumer market is only so large. 50% of the PC market exists below $500.
With their current product line they have an ASP of $1500 and 31% margins. Tell me how well the xMac does against those numbers except when about $1500? In which case we're back to the $1699 Mac Pro with either low end Woodcrest or high end Conroe (but not extreme).
Obviously Apple believes none fits their corporate strategy as well as the iMac and Mini.
And by doing nothing but making changes to the iMac and Mac Mini, Apple will never discover whether alternatives to these desktop models would increase Mac sales, or not. Introducing a new desktop product is the only way Apple can find out for sure. If it flops, like the Cube, it is not the end of the world.
Quote:
The upper tier of the consumer market is only so large. 50% of the PC market exists below $500. . .
I think a good place to start is the below $500 area. The strategic difference between a Mac in this price range and a cheap PC is the target customers. The cheap PC attempts to capture market share, whereas the goal of a Mac priced around $450 would be to attract some curious Windows users. It needs to be a low risk way for PC users to try Mac OS X. The Mini is priced a little too high to be really successful.
Obviously Apple believes none fits their corporate strategy as well as the iMac and Mini
People felt that way about a cheap Mac before Apple created the Mini. There's nothing obvious about what Apple believes, unless you're Steve Jobs of course.
Apple's 'cheap' 'PC' isn't the answer for me.
They need to go back to the drawing board. A nice consumer tower like a shuttle/cube/mini tower/slim line thing. Something in the £399-£1350 price range.
Conroes. Integrated graphics upto GPU options. One 'Tower/shuttle' form to rule them all.
And fer pete's sake. About time for a cheap '17 inch' model that could be bundled with said tower.
I like the iMac. But it's not the answer for my PC owning friend. And the Mac Pro, even with quad power, is very expensive at £1695. And that's just the starting price.
exactly. While I think the mac pro is a great machine. It isn't the end all answer.
Apple is obviously growing so we'll see where they decide to make changes that apply to that growth. I think in the immediate future they are going to concentrate more on new products, and that is probably not our idea of keeping all things equal, but in business your newest product is your gold mine. If Apple is going to introduce any new products expect it about 2 to 3 months after the iPhone release. They wont loose those loyal Mac user dollars that would go to a new iPhone because it got re-directed towards a MId tower Mac IMO. That's business, and marketing hype is something Apple loves to show off in the keynotes.
They need to go back to the drawing board. A nice consumer tower like a shuttle/cube/mini tower/slim line thing. Something in the £399-£1350 price range.
Apple needs both. Each model serves its purpose.
First, a very low cost Mac to tempt PC users into buying their first Mac to play with, at a low risk.
Next, a mid to high range tower, below the Mac Pro however, to give them what they want in a computer, when they are ready to switch.
First, a very low cost Mac to tempt PC users into buying their first Mac to play with, at a low risk.
Since, in the posts above, I rejected a Mac Mini as a suitable low-cost Mac for attracting new users, I should explain why I feel this way. I mentioned its price being too high earlier. A lower price would be less of a barrier for a capricious purchase by a PC user who simply wants to try Mac OS X for a while. The price must make it very tempting.
Apple shouldn't be looking for increasing market share with the low end. Market share would come when these curious PC users switch to the Mac later on.
Yet price is not my only objection. The Mac Mini is a novelty, and likely strikes many as a toy. I think the small form factor turns away more buyers than it attracts. Also, from a practical standpoint, it does not have enough surface area to mount a desirable number of I/O connectors. Making it considerably larger would solve several problems. For those who see it as a toy, it would look like a real computer. It would have space for more connectors. It would have room for lower cost desktop parts, making a lower selling price possible. It would have room for adding another hard drive.
I would not suggest eliminating the Mini, at least not now. If it is selling well enough it could stay in production for a long time. I'm suggesting not doing more redesign of the current Mini. Leave it alone and introduce a new, lower cost model that will sell much better, I am sure. If Mini sale dry up, then Apple can drop it sometime in the future. I could see a new model selling from $450, or maybe even $399, to about $900 or more, depending on configuration.
Next, a mid to high range tower, below the Mac Pro however, to give them what they want in a computer, when they are ready to switch.
I never really supported the notion of a mid range machine - until now !
I really think that with these 8 core beasts looming that Apple will have to do something to appeal to the middle market - not only switchers but for many of us as well.
To continue to offer a middle range that is always crippled for expansion seems out of place now.
Most people are never going to need the heavy lifting processor power of these monsters - but need the expansion capability.
Hopefully Apple willl realise this demand this sooner rather than later.
That could be done by dropping A celeron-M 520 in the mini
Yes, I don't doubt you. Changing to less costly desktop parts would let Apple lower the price even more. I'm not that familiar with the selection of processors. Possibly there is even a cheaper CPU if the case is large enough to handle the heat with a reasonably good fan.
Yet price is not my only objection. The Mac Mini is a novelty, and likely strikes many as a toy. I think the small form factor turns away more buyers than it attracts. Also, from a practical standpoint, it does not have enough surface area to mount a desirable number of I/O connectors. Making it considerably larger would solve several problems. For those who see it as a toy, it would look like a real computer. It would have space for more connectors. It would have room for lower cost desktop parts, making a lower selling price possible. It would have room for adding another hard drive.
I couldn't agree with you more about the toy comment. The mini is so small. It's hard to take it seriously. I'd admit I can see it having it's places. Like monitoring a security system. Or using it in a car. I just don't see it being used as a real computer though. I really think as far as upgrades they should just leave it alone.
I didn't even think about what would happen with a bunch of periphs plugged in. I have a 4 port wireless linksys router and when I plug all 4 ports in +1 uplink.... the ethernet wants to pull the router off of the desk. The mini isn't a ton heavier and could imagine Usb + ethernet + stereo + DVI + w/e else plugged in wanting to do the same to the mini.
Face it, it's time for a better computer than the mini.
And by doing nothing but making changes to the iMac and Mac Mini, Apple will never discover whether alternatives to these desktop models would increase Mac sales, or not. Introducing a new desktop product is the only way Apple can find out for sure. If it flops, like the Cube, it is not the end of the world.
The Cube flopping help give Apple the first unprofitable qtr since Jobs returned if I recalled correctly. A flop is certainly not in Apple interest. In any case, Apple still has the statistics from all the sales leading up to the transition.
Obviously they think from their own figures that low to mid range towers have not been successful enough (with thier costs and desired price points) to bother with or they'd have one. Not even Steve Jobs is immune to reason.
Quote:
I think a good place to start is the below $500 area. The strategic difference between a Mac in this price range and a cheap PC is the target customers. The cheap PC attempts to capture market share, whereas the goal of a Mac priced around $450 would be to attract some curious Windows users. It needs to be a low risk way for PC users to try Mac OS X. The Mini is priced a little too high to be really successful.
Why? The target demographic of Apple is for the more affluent. A $600 vs $400 machine is equally viable for the switchers they wish to entice. Their ASP is $1500! Do you think that is accidental? Oh whoops! We have the highest ASP and gross profit margins in the top 10. Wow, how'd that happen?
This is like saying Porsche needs to add a $10,000 car to get folks to try out the brand. That's the worst thing that Porsche could do for their branding and their business.
Everyone knows Apple and OSX is better. It costs more. It has to cost more and will ALWAYS cost more because Apple has to build the entire ecosystem on far less volume than Dell and Microsoft. Apple made that a virtue rather than simply a liability.
I never really supported the notion of a mid range machine - until now !
I really think that with these 8 core beasts looming that Apple will have to do something to appeal to the middle market - not only switchers but for many of us as well.
To continue to offer a middle range that is always crippled for expansion seems out of place now.
Most people are never going to need the heavy lifting processor power of these monsters - but need the expansion capability.
Hopefully Apple willl realise this demand this sooner rather than later.
I suspect they will drop the lowest Woodcrest into that $1699 price range when Intel pricing permits that. Apple might also choose to cripple it in some other way but hopefully not.
Comments
The article says MS claims revenue was down because of the Vista delay. Sales were actually up 6%, but MS feels it would have been higher with Vista over the holidays. Which only logical that MS wants to send the perception that people want Vista.
While I agree there likely will be a temporary surge when Vista is released for the few people who are Windows fans. I don't believe there are many people waiting to buy a computer when Vista is released. I do believe there is pent up demand for Office 2007 however and will add significant revenue for MS.
Alright I found this article in the
I do believe there is pent up demand for Office 2007 however and will add significant revenue for MS.
And it will be interesting what, if anything, they will do with online integration for Office. Really interesting... muahahahaha
Exactly. Talking about unit numbers and whether they've gone up or down year-over-year or sequentially is pointless in the context of this discussion. Most "xMac advocates" believe that Apple cannot capture additional desktop market share without one.
Others believe that whilst the xMac would attract more customers, it would probably not be enough to offset cannibalisation within the installed user-base.
Then there is the additional question as to whether capturing more market share of a shrinking market segment is really worth bothering with. If the market is shrinking fast enough, there's no point for Apple.
I dunno that I would say that the market is shrinking so fast as to disappear as much as any market compression makes price competition more fierce among the top 3 AND even greater push into mobile arena by those companies
So the question is should Apple try to push into an already mature market that is slowing that has very strong entrenched competitors with strengths Apple can't equal or should it defend its more profitable mobile share with whatever weapons can be brought to bear while seeking new markets to dominate (iPhone, aTV, etc).
That Apple can make more money by pushing harder in the desktop market is certain. But what are the opportunity costs? I'd much rather see more investment on the home media center front than a desktop for Apple. That happens to include a good NAS solution for media storage which helps the expandability thing for iMacs.
There's only so many engineers at Apple.
Vinea
I'd much rather see more investment on the home media center front than a desktop for Apple. That happens to include a good NAS solution for media storage which helps the expandability thing for iMacs.
Yes, I think Apple could do a much, much better job on the media center front. You will note that if you make the xMac a suitable shape, it can kill the two "media center" and "desktop mac" problems with one stone
The electronics company I worked for had several levels of budgets. If I take this scheme and superimpose it on Apple, just for fun, the top level might be just two categories: Mac Computer products and Consumer products. The Mac computer category might consist of four subcategories: Workstations, Servers, Laptops and Desktops. Each of these categories would have its own budget. So, desktop computers does have a budget, no doubt set at the corporate level. The budget for desktop computers is surely less than other budgets. The only question facing Apple is what to spend these engineering dollars on?
Does Apple continue to spend it on iMacs and Mac Minis?
Or is there a better, more productive use of the existing desktop funds?
What new desktop product would attract more customers and make more profit for Apple?
Yes, I think Apple could do a much, much better job on the media center front. You will note that if you make the xMac a suitable shape, it can kill the two "media center" and "desktop mac" problems with one stone
Heh...the suitable shape that Sony made theirs? That's an odd looking duck. Well...actually I think the actual computer part looks TiVOish. Its the 200 DVD stack that looks odd.
Vinea
The electronics company I worked for had several levels of budgets. If I take this scheme and superimpose it on Apple, just for fun, the top level might be just two categories: Mac Computer products and Consumer products. The Mac computer category might consist of four subcategories: Workstations, Servers, Laptops and Desktops. Each of these categories would have its own budget. So, desktop computers does have a budget, no doubt set at the corporate level. The budget for desktop computers is surely less than other budgets. The only question facing Apple is what to spend these engineering dollars on?
Does Apple continue to spend it on iMacs and Mac Minis?
Or is there a better, more productive use of the existing desktop funds?
What new desktop product would attract more customers and make more profit for Apple?
Obviously Apple believes none fits their corporate strategy as well as the iMac and Mini.
The upper tier of the consumer market is only so large. 50% of the PC market exists below $500.
With their current product line they have an ASP of $1500 and 31% margins. Tell me how well the xMac does against those numbers except when about $1500? In which case we're back to the $1699 Mac Pro with either low end Woodcrest or high end Conroe (but not extreme).
Vinea
Obviously Apple believes none fits their corporate strategy as well as the iMac and Mini.
And by doing nothing but making changes to the iMac and Mac Mini, Apple will never discover whether alternatives to these desktop models would increase Mac sales, or not. Introducing a new desktop product is the only way Apple can find out for sure. If it flops, like the Cube, it is not the end of the world.
The upper tier of the consumer market is only so large. 50% of the PC market exists below $500. . .
I think a good place to start is the below $500 area. The strategic difference between a Mac in this price range and a cheap PC is the target customers. The cheap PC attempts to capture market share, whereas the goal of a Mac priced around $450 would be to attract some curious Windows users. It needs to be a low risk way for PC users to try Mac OS X. The Mini is priced a little too high to be really successful.
Obviously Apple believes none fits their corporate strategy as well as the iMac and Mini
People felt that way about a cheap Mac before Apple created the Mini. There's nothing obvious about what Apple believes, unless you're Steve Jobs of course.
Apple's 'cheap' 'PC' isn't the answer for me.
They need to go back to the drawing board. A nice consumer tower like a shuttle/cube/mini tower/slim line thing. Something in the £399-£1350 price range.
Conroes. Integrated graphics upto GPU options. One 'Tower/shuttle' form to rule them all.
And fer pete's sake. About time for a cheap '17 inch' model that could be bundled with said tower.
I like the iMac. But it's not the answer for my PC owning friend. And the Mac Pro, even with quad power, is very expensive at £1695. And that's just the starting price.
Apple need to re-examine their desktop line up.
Lemon Bon Bon
exactly. While I think the mac pro is a great machine. It isn't the end all answer.
Apple is obviously growing so we'll see where they decide to make changes that apply to that growth. I think in the immediate future they are going to concentrate more on new products, and that is probably not our idea of keeping all things equal, but in business your newest product is your gold mine. If Apple is going to introduce any new products expect it about 2 to 3 months after the iPhone release. They wont loose those loyal Mac user dollars that would go to a new iPhone because it got re-directed towards a MId tower Mac IMO. That's business, and marketing hype is something Apple loves to show off in the keynotes.
Apple's 'cheap' 'PC' isn't the answer for me.
They need to go back to the drawing board. A nice consumer tower like a shuttle/cube/mini tower/slim line thing. Something in the £399-£1350 price range.
Apple needs both. Each model serves its purpose.
First, a very low cost Mac to tempt PC users into buying their first Mac to play with, at a low risk.
Next, a mid to high range tower, below the Mac Pro however, to give them what they want in a computer, when they are ready to switch.
Apple needs both. Each model serves its purpose.
First, a very low cost Mac to tempt PC users into buying their first Mac to play with, at a low risk.
That could be done by dropping A celeron-M 520 in the mini
First, a very low cost Mac to tempt PC users into buying their first Mac to play with, at a low risk.
Since, in the posts above, I rejected a Mac Mini as a suitable low-cost Mac for attracting new users, I should explain why I feel this way. I mentioned its price being too high earlier. A lower price would be less of a barrier for a capricious purchase by a PC user who simply wants to try Mac OS X for a while. The price must make it very tempting.
Apple shouldn't be looking for increasing market share with the low end. Market share would come when these curious PC users switch to the Mac later on.
Yet price is not my only objection. The Mac Mini is a novelty, and likely strikes many as a toy. I think the small form factor turns away more buyers than it attracts. Also, from a practical standpoint, it does not have enough surface area to mount a desirable number of I/O connectors. Making it considerably larger would solve several problems. For those who see it as a toy, it would look like a real computer. It would have space for more connectors. It would have room for lower cost desktop parts, making a lower selling price possible. It would have room for adding another hard drive.
I would not suggest eliminating the Mini, at least not now. If it is selling well enough it could stay in production for a long time. I'm suggesting not doing more redesign of the current Mini. Leave it alone and introduce a new, lower cost model that will sell much better, I am sure. If Mini sale dry up, then Apple can drop it sometime in the future. I could see a new model selling from $450, or maybe even $399, to about $900 or more, depending on configuration.
Next, a mid to high range tower, below the Mac Pro however, to give them what they want in a computer, when they are ready to switch.
I never really supported the notion of a mid range machine - until now !
I really think that with these 8 core beasts looming that Apple will have to do something to appeal to the middle market - not only switchers but for many of us as well.
To continue to offer a middle range that is always crippled for expansion seems out of place now.
Most people are never going to need the heavy lifting processor power of these monsters - but need the expansion capability.
Hopefully Apple willl realise this demand this sooner rather than later.
That could be done by dropping A celeron-M 520 in the mini
Yes, I don't doubt you. Changing to less costly desktop parts would let Apple lower the price even more. I'm not that familiar with the selection of processors. Possibly there is even a cheaper CPU if the case is large enough to handle the heat with a reasonably good fan.
Yet price is not my only objection. The Mac Mini is a novelty, and likely strikes many as a toy. I think the small form factor turns away more buyers than it attracts. Also, from a practical standpoint, it does not have enough surface area to mount a desirable number of I/O connectors. Making it considerably larger would solve several problems. For those who see it as a toy, it would look like a real computer. It would have space for more connectors. It would have room for lower cost desktop parts, making a lower selling price possible. It would have room for adding another hard drive.
I couldn't agree with you more about the toy comment. The mini is so small. It's hard to take it seriously. I'd admit I can see it having it's places. Like monitoring a security system. Or using it in a car. I just don't see it being used as a real computer though. I really think as far as upgrades they should just leave it alone.
I didn't even think about what would happen with a bunch of periphs plugged in. I have a 4 port wireless linksys router and when I plug all 4 ports in +1 uplink.... the ethernet wants to pull the router off of the desk. The mini isn't a ton heavier and could imagine Usb + ethernet + stereo + DVI + w/e else plugged in wanting to do the same to the mini.
Face it, it's time for a better computer than the mini.
And by doing nothing but making changes to the iMac and Mac Mini, Apple will never discover whether alternatives to these desktop models would increase Mac sales, or not. Introducing a new desktop product is the only way Apple can find out for sure. If it flops, like the Cube, it is not the end of the world.
The Cube flopping help give Apple the first unprofitable qtr since Jobs returned if I recalled correctly. A flop is certainly not in Apple interest. In any case, Apple still has the statistics from all the sales leading up to the transition.
Obviously they think from their own figures that low to mid range towers have not been successful enough (with thier costs and desired price points) to bother with or they'd have one. Not even Steve Jobs is immune to reason.
I think a good place to start is the below $500 area. The strategic difference between a Mac in this price range and a cheap PC is the target customers. The cheap PC attempts to capture market share, whereas the goal of a Mac priced around $450 would be to attract some curious Windows users. It needs to be a low risk way for PC users to try Mac OS X. The Mini is priced a little too high to be really successful.
Why? The target demographic of Apple is for the more affluent. A $600 vs $400 machine is equally viable for the switchers they wish to entice. Their ASP is $1500! Do you think that is accidental? Oh whoops! We have the highest ASP and gross profit margins in the top 10. Wow, how'd that happen?
This is like saying Porsche needs to add a $10,000 car to get folks to try out the brand. That's the worst thing that Porsche could do for their branding and their business.
Everyone knows Apple and OSX is better. It costs more. It has to cost more and will ALWAYS cost more because Apple has to build the entire ecosystem on far less volume than Dell and Microsoft. Apple made that a virtue rather than simply a liability.
Vinea
I never really supported the notion of a mid range machine - until now !
I really think that with these 8 core beasts looming that Apple will have to do something to appeal to the middle market - not only switchers but for many of us as well.
To continue to offer a middle range that is always crippled for expansion seems out of place now.
Most people are never going to need the heavy lifting processor power of these monsters - but need the expansion capability.
Hopefully Apple willl realise this demand this sooner rather than later.
I suspect they will drop the lowest Woodcrest into that $1699 price range when Intel pricing permits that. Apple might also choose to cripple it in some other way but hopefully not.
For Apple $1699 or $1599 is a mid range machine.
Vinea