I actually think the Mac Mini is a well made machine, and it's amazing how many connectors are on there. However, I'd like to see 6 USB-2 ports on all Macs, personally, and 2 FireWire, but the Mini is Max-ed out. (Couldn't resist the pun.)
Also, an external power supply can be a detractor for a desktop in my view. The Mac Mini has no space inside for it, nor does it have panel space for a line cord connector.
Getting back to the USB ports, I've had to add a 4 port PCI card to every one of my Macs. In-use are items like: keyboard, printer, USB microphone plus one left open to attach an iPod or digital camera. That is four of the USB ports accounted for. Those buying a low cost computer are also likely to need a USB modem. Another use I am considering is a separate label printer. The variety of USB devices available just goes on and on. My music Mac also has USB MIDI.
The only problem I see with that is Apple having to design a whole new motherboard just for that scenerio. It would be hell on BTO. Instead of dropping in 2 different cpus, now they have to drop in a whole mobo. Which, on a normal pc isn't that hard, but can be a real bitch in a Mac Pro case.
Is it that far out of line for a dual 2.0 Mac Pro to be in the 1700 - 1800 price range after price cuts / clovertown shipping? Keep the 90 dollar 7300gt in it and 1 gig of ram. Hell take out bluetooth and other stuff. Just get that sweet spot lowered.
5000x is the only xeon platform available. The Precision 490 is Dell's version of the Mac Pro. They offer in the full xeon with the option of leaving the second socket empty,
Same...other than one person I dunno anyone that would be unhappy with a $$1599/1699 Mac Pro. And with luck Apple would leave in the option to simply add a second processor as some later date.
Vinea
The 90% of the target segment who would rather have a 2.4ghz conroe desktop than a slower 2.0ghz xeon workstation at that point. The one size fits all approach is exactly what gets Apple into trouble on the desktop end.
What would it take for Apple to do that? I'm guessing a new motherboard for a different chip set, no? It would be a quick and easy way to test the market for an xMac, mini tower.
So why would Apple build a mini tower? Lower manufacturing cost, which could lower the selling price and/or yield more profit, however Apple wants to slice it. I'm sure an hardware expert could give examples of how cost would be cut, compared to the Mac Pro version. My starting guesses: smaller power supply, just two HDDs, maybe one optical drive bay if okay with marketing.
For many prosumers, both a smaller case and lower price would make it more attractive than the Mac Pro test-market model.
It would require require replacing the 5000x chipset with either a 975x or a P965. Due to the modular nature of tower chipsets, it wouldn't be that hard, especially with intel's help.
If HD-DVD wants to be competitive at all... they need to release a HD-DVD burner NOW. The more Blu-Ray is burned (even at $25 a disc, jeez), hd-dvd loses that much more ground with consumers.
I think it's important to make their presence known in the world. Also I'm sure HD-DVD media would be much cheaper than blu-ray media.
You guys essentially continue to want to look at Apple in a vacuum and ignore the fortune and failure of the rest of the computer industry. What you are asking is for Apple's priorities to be more like Dell while Dells financial story only continues to get worse and worse.
Dell doesn't have the innovation DNA of an Apple or even an HP, should it want to overhaul its utilitarian products and services. Any effort to crank up R&D would crimp margins.
Dell may now be slipping in its core corporate business, too. According to a Jan. 30 study done by Goldman Sachs, Dell is losing share in business spending for PCs. Hewlett-Packard is also losing share of spending, while Lenovo and Apple are gaining.
Dell's troubles seem to be bleeding into its corporate business, which, up until now, had been a stronghold," the report said. Dell has also lost the top spot in the worldwide PC market-share rankings. In the fourth quarter, Hewlett-Packard's worldwide market share grew to 18.1%, while Dell's share dropped to 14.7%, according to market researcher IDC.
But in recent years, the company has been stung by a market glut of low-cost, low-profit PCs and weaker-than-anticipated sales of its pricier, more lucrative desktops and notebooks.
Essentially Dell is losing the low cost desktop war. At the expense of not selling lucrative desktops and notebooks. Which means Dell desktops that cost the same of Apples desktops are also not selling very well.
It is unsure of what Dell will do to correct its course because its business structure is not set up to be very flexible or change. While Apples business structure is very nimble and able to innovate.
You guys essentially continue to want to look at Apple in a vacuum and ignore the fortune and failure of the rest of the computer industry. What you are asking is for Apple's priorities to be more like Dell while Dells financial story only continues to get worse and worse.
I also notice that the other side beats us on numbers 19 to 1. Apple is currently forcing long time users that they formerly served to buy a machine they don't want or move up scale to a professional workstation.
I also notice that the other side beats us on numbers 19 to 1. Apple is currently forcing long time users that they formerly served to buy a machine they don't want or move up scale to a professional workstation.
The 90% of the target segment who would rather have a 2.4ghz conroe desktop than a slower 2.0ghz xeon workstation at that point. The one size fits all approach is exactly what gets Apple into trouble on the desktop end.
Which part of single 2.66Ghz Woodcrest @ $1699 did you wish to ignore? Oh...the part where you can't sell a single 2.0Ghz Woodcrest for less than $1800 even though Dell sells one for $1,344. "Shipping Today" as Steve likes to say.
Since $1,344 is lower than Apple's ASP I'm going to guess they wont offer a single 2.0Ghz Woodcrest box but a 2.66Ghz one if they do. Given that 2.66 > 2.4 I'm not sure what the objection to a single Woodcrest machine at $1699 would be...other than perhaps some twisted ideals...
Next Up: Whining about SLI/CrossFire...it's not just for Gamers...
I also notice that the other side beats us on numbers 19 to 1. Apple is currently forcing long time users that they formerly served to buy a machine they don't want or move up scale to a professional workstation.
19 to 1...in the total market. Lies, damn lies and of course statistics.
Given that Apple doesn't really compete in most of the total market (sub-$500 entry level computers, business computers, etc) the 19-1 isn't as horrid as it seems.
As far as the second comment...nothing a $1599 single CPU Mac Pro can't solve.
19 to 1...in the total market. Lies, damn lies and of course statistics.
Given that Apple doesn't really compete in most of the total market (sub-$500 entry level computers, business computers, etc) the 19-1 isn't as horrid as it seems.
As far as the second comment...nothing a $1599 single CPU Mac Pro can't solve.
Vinea
I wouldn't mind a single CPU Xeon desktop Mac as long as Apple doesn't charge their current BTO taxe on CPU upgrades/downgrades, like on the Mac Pro.
Let me explain: the current base model has two 2.66GHz Xeon, that list for around $1400 (2x$690), to go down to the dual 2.00GHz Apple gives you $300 back while the list price for the 2 CPUs is around $600 (2x$316) that is $800 less than for two 2.66GHz Xeon. That means you pay Apple around $500 for the BTO of the CPUs. It is the same for the upgrade to two 3.00GHz Xeons: Apple charges $800 for the change and the CPUs cost around $1700 (2x$851) that is just $300 more than the two 2.66GHz Xeon. Again, $500 for the 2 CPUs swap.
Now let's say that Apple fairly prices the single 2.66GHz Mac Pro at $1799 ($2499-$700 for the missing CPU), I would believe they wouldn't charge $250 more if you want to downgrade to 2.0GHz or to upgrade to 3.0GHz (those chips are available, why not sell them?). That would make:
- Mac Pro single 2.00GHz $1499 ($690-$316=$374, $74 for the BTO)
- Mac Pro single 2.66GHz $1799 (I'd settle for a 160GB HD if necessary but no less than 1GB of RAM!)
- Mac Pro single 3.00GHz $1999 ($851-$690=$161, $39 for the BTO)
Given the specs of the Mac Pro, I believe it would be fair.
I still would hate to buy so expensive FB-DIMMs, tho.
On another matter:
As much as I think the Mac mini is a cute computer, I also think Apple should change it (nobody knows how much it really sells, but according to most observers, it doesn't). They change the original iPod Shuffle, and now it's their best seller. They could change the Mac mini and it may sell better. Just making it a little bigger so it can receive low-cost CPUs and real cheap desktop HDDs, it could keep the same look, but just bigger to accomodate 3.5 drives and a hotter CPU, and it's cooling system, maybe 10"x10"x2.5" for a standard micro-ATX board or so. If you take into account a cheaper CPU, HDD, motherboard, I think it would allow for another $100 price cut so the Mac mini could go back to its $499 original price.
Given that Apple doesn't really compete in most of the total market (sub-$500 entry level computers, business computers, etc) the 19-1 isn't as horrid as it seems.
Yeah dude, that's the whole point of this xMac argument: for Apple to compete in more of the market and hopefully thereby increase their market share.
Different how? The overall strategy was the pursuit of share over margins and ASP because once share was achieved the others could follow.
1.) Confusing product line-up that even Apple didn't properly understand
2.) I believe that they sacrificed % margins at the bottom end to achieve the price points. Now that they are on the Intel platform, % margins can be maintained even at $399. In addition, Macintosh R&D is lower (Apple used to design the motherboard chipsets in-house = v. v. expensive) so absolute margins to cover R&D can be lower.
3.) Another bonus of being on Intel is much broader range of chips to help differentiate between product lines/price points, without having to resort to excessive crippling of lower-end hardware.
4.) The advantages of System 6 / System 7 over Windows 3.1/95 were less clear-cut than the advantages of OS X over 2000/XP.
5.) Apple's brand was not as strong then as it is now.
Yeah dude, that's the whole point of this xMac argument: for Apple to compete in more of the market and hopefully thereby increase their market share.
Would anyone object to the following as a final Apple lineup? The way I see it this would fill all of Apple holes (except the most hardcore SLI gamers) with minimum risk. Note: the list uses current, not future CPUs/GPUS
Yeah dude, that's the whole point of this xMac argument: for Apple to compete in more of the market and hopefully thereby increase their market share.
Given that there is slim profits to be made in 51% of the market (the sub-$500 one) AND Apple lacks the software required for business/enterprise market (the other big one) which markets are you looking to gain share while maintaining profitability?
2.) I believe that they sacrificed % margins at the bottom end to achieve the price points. Now that they are on the Intel platform, % margins can be maintained even at $399. In addition, Macintosh R&D is lower (Apple used to design the motherboard chipsets in-house = v. v. expensive) so absolute margins to cover R&D can be lower.
Pary tell which manufacturer maintains 27%+ margins at the $399 price point.
Quote:
4.) The advantages of System 6 / System 7 over Windows 3.1/95 were less clear-cut than the advantages of OS X over 2000/XP.
Completely disagree. Windows was completely outclassed by MacOS back then. 2000/XP is far more stable and usable. Vista we know to have caught up in terms of eyecandy. The trend has been a narrowing of the gap. Leopard may open it up again a little but nothing like it was when you compared MacOS and Windows 3.1 (or 3.1.1).
Would anyone object to the following as a final Apple lineup? The way I see it this would fill all of Apple holes (except the most hardcore SLI gamers) with minimum risk. Note: the list uses current, not future CPUs/GPUS
What? No pony? I don't see a need to have retail only models. Apple's ASPs will be far lower and the iServe box seems overpriced and rather pointless given the Mac Pro.
I'm not a big fan of the Celerons and chasing the lower end market.
The iMac lineup you have doesn't have a 24" anymore nor any big need for a 20" given the lower end ones are 19" (other than the vid card). If you're going to make the low end 19" (for less money to boot than the 17") then the mid level should use the 21-22" WS panels.
And if we're wishing for ponies how about a 13" MacBook Pro? And expresscards for the Macbook line. Or a iServe that makes sense as a 802.11n/NAS/iTunes media server with 1TB (250MB x 4 RAID 5...~.75TB usable) for $999? That positions it a little above the TeraStation pricewise but it would work with Apple products much better and has draft-N.
Leave the lineups as they currently are add an iServe NAS, a 12-13" macbook pro and a $1699 Mac Pro (Conroe or Woodcrest I don't care) and you maintain ASPs and profitability and fill even more holes than your lineup. If you must, add the Celeron M based mini back in for $499 but it still has to have wireless, BT and remote and 27%+ margins.
Pary tell which manufacturer maintains 27%+ margins at the $399 price point.
None of them. But that's because the only thing they can do is compete on price/performance. Apple has the added draw of their brand and OS X. They would offer, at $399, a lesser-specced machine than Dell or HP. However, this is no different than now:
Take the $599 Mini, yes, for the form factor, it's not expensive. So, for people who set out thinking "I want a SFF desktop computer", it's a good deal. But there are far more people who set out thinking "I want a cheap desktop computer", and the Mini fails miserably on this front. It compares very poorly relative to HP/Dell cheap desktops. An xMac starting at $399 would, yes, still be less powerful/have less storage than HP/Dell price-equivalents, but the specs would be closer such that the Brand and OS X can overcome the problem of lower specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Completely disagree. Windows was completely outclassed by MacOS back then. 2000/XP is far more stable and usable. Vista we know to have caught up in terms of eyecandy. The trend has been a narrowing of the gap. Leopard may open it up again a little but nothing like it was when you compared MacOS and Windows 3.1 (or 3.1.1).
Maybe I over-stretched a bit on the System 6 / 3.1 comparison. I've always been a Mac user, but my experience of 95/98 is that it is much, much more stable than System 7, OS 8 or OS 9. It also has pre-emptive multi-tasking. So, whilst the usability of System 7, OS 8 and OS 9 far outstrip 95/98, the underpinnings of 95/98 are superior.
I remembered that I meant to respond to something you wrote earlier. It's a good point that you've made a few times now:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Again, effectively Apple doesn't have a desktop line. Whether that's by plan or accident the fact remains that they get an extra 500K or so laptop component purchase to Intel and other vendors. How much that volume discount is would have to be subtracted from laptop profits if Apple moved to a real Conroe desktop line.
I'm sure this is helping on the margins front, but I don't think trying to maintain 31% margins is anything like a good idea. If we take out all the Mini & iMac sales from last quarter, I'm pretty sure that takes us to the same laptop component volumes in total (i.e. laptops + Mini + iMac) as when the MacBook was first launched. So, whilst it's helping margins, I don't think it's necessary (for the "desktops" to have laptop parts) in order for Apple to maintain the price points on their laptops. Yes, their margins would go down, but mearly from "insanely high for a computer manufacturer" to "very healthy for a computer manufacturer". Added volume should take absolute profits to the around the same value.
Pary tell which manufacturer maintains 27%+ margins at the $399 price point.
This question presents a challenge to Apple: come up with a little marketing creativity. Regarding creativity, Apple is a bit of an enigma -- so creative in some respects, and so seemingly blind in others. Let's see what we can come up with to solve this margin problem, at the low end. Here is my suggestion.
Make a desktop Mac to sell for $399, with a small profit margin. Design this Mac so it can be upgraded in memory, hard drive and optical drive. It should also be expandable to add, say, Wi Fi and Bluetooth, but this is not a factor in this strategy.
Disclaimer: The following is not bate and switch, but it has the same effect.
Each upgrade can be ordered by the customer when he or she buys this Mac. Otherwise, the customer can buy the $399 Mac and install one or more upgrades later. The trick will be to encourage customers to buy upgrades at the time of purchase, and these upgraded Macs will have a higher margin.
Regarding the hard and optical drives, it should be simple. A $399 Mac would have the cheapest desktop drives available. Apple must price each upgraded Mac so the profit margin is higher, but the price differential is a little less by getting it from Apple at the time of original purchase. The price difference is less than buying the drive later from a typical retailer. The customer has the added advantage of convenience, and having the drives covered by Apple's warranty. So, even at same price, the customer has an advantage going with the Apple installed upgrade.
The same method can be applied to memory, but it may mean that the $399 Mac has only one strip, which must be removed to install more memory. I realize some don't like to have just a single RAM socket, but for $399, who is going to complain too loudly? If the base RAM is sufficient for typical home and small office applications, it's good enough. Sure, if someone wishes to install 2 GB or RAM, it may still be cheaper to do it after purchase, but this strategy should bump the margin on most such Macs sold.
Yeah dude, that's the whole point of this xMac argument: for Apple to compete in more of the market and hopefully thereby increase their market share.
The limiting factor is more about OS X than it is about a low cost desktop. Even if Apple offered a low cost desktop it isn't likely to make a significant difference in market share unless that desktop shipped with Windows.
Quote:
Make a desktop Mac to sell for $399, with a small profit margin. Design this Mac so it can be upgraded in memory, hard drive and optical drive. It should also be expandable to add, say, Wi Fi and Bluetooth, but this is not a factor in this strategy.
This is somewhat the same thing Dell and HP do. I don't see the use in Apple playing games like this. This probably would have been better in the booming days of the PC. But not so much now in the waning days. With desktop sales in particular shrinking.
Comments
Pray tell what other connectors does one need?
I actually think the Mac Mini is a well made machine, and it's amazing how many connectors are on there. However, I'd like to see 6 USB-2 ports on all Macs, personally, and 2 FireWire, but the Mini is Max-ed out. (Couldn't resist the pun.)
Also, an external power supply can be a detractor for a desktop in my view. The Mac Mini has no space inside for it, nor does it have panel space for a line cord connector.
Getting back to the USB ports, I've had to add a 4 port PCI card to every one of my Macs. In-use are items like: keyboard, printer, USB microphone plus one left open to attach an iPod or digital camera. That is four of the USB ports accounted for. Those buying a low cost computer are also likely to need a USB modem. Another use I am considering is a separate label printer. The variety of USB devices available just goes on and on. My music Mac also has USB MIDI.
The only problem I see with that is Apple having to design a whole new motherboard just for that scenerio. It would be hell on BTO. Instead of dropping in 2 different cpus, now they have to drop in a whole mobo. Which, on a normal pc isn't that hard, but can be a real bitch in a Mac Pro case.
Is it that far out of line for a dual 2.0 Mac Pro to be in the 1700 - 1800 price range after price cuts / clovertown shipping? Keep the 90 dollar 7300gt in it and 1 gig of ram. Hell take out bluetooth and other stuff. Just get that sweet spot lowered.
5000x is the only xeon platform available. The Precision 490 is Dell's version of the Mac Pro. They offer in the full xeon with the option of leaving the second socket empty,
Same...other than one person I dunno anyone that would be unhappy with a $$1599/1699 Mac Pro. And with luck Apple would leave in the option to simply add a second processor as some later date.
Vinea
The 90% of the target segment who would rather have a 2.4ghz conroe desktop than a slower 2.0ghz xeon workstation at that point. The one size fits all approach is exactly what gets Apple into trouble on the desktop end.
What would it take for Apple to do that? I'm guessing a new motherboard for a different chip set, no? It would be a quick and easy way to test the market for an xMac, mini tower.
So why would Apple build a mini tower? Lower manufacturing cost, which could lower the selling price and/or yield more profit, however Apple wants to slice it. I'm sure an hardware expert could give examples of how cost would be cut, compared to the Mac Pro version. My starting guesses: smaller power supply, just two HDDs, maybe one optical drive bay if okay with marketing.
For many prosumers, both a smaller case and lower price would make it more attractive than the Mac Pro test-market model.
It would require require replacing the 5000x chipset with either a 975x or a P965. Due to the modular nature of tower chipsets, it wouldn't be that hard, especially with intel's help.
If HD-DVD wants to be competitive at all... they need to release a HD-DVD burner NOW. The more Blu-Ray is burned (even at $25 a disc, jeez), hd-dvd loses that much more ground with consumers.
I think it's important to make their presence known in the world. Also I'm sure HD-DVD media would be much cheaper than blu-ray media.
Dell doesn't have the innovation DNA of an Apple or even an HP, should it want to overhaul its utilitarian products and services. Any effort to crank up R&D would crimp margins.
Dell may now be slipping in its core corporate business, too. According to a Jan. 30 study done by Goldman Sachs, Dell is losing share in business spending for PCs. Hewlett-Packard is also losing share of spending, while Lenovo and Apple are gaining.
Dell's troubles seem to be bleeding into its corporate business, which, up until now, had been a stronghold," the report said. Dell has also lost the top spot in the worldwide PC market-share rankings. In the fourth quarter, Hewlett-Packard's worldwide market share grew to 18.1%, while Dell's share dropped to 14.7%, according to market researcher IDC.
But in recent years, the company has been stung by a market glut of low-cost, low-profit PCs and weaker-than-anticipated sales of its pricier, more lucrative desktops and notebooks.
Essentially Dell is losing the low cost desktop war. At the expense of not selling lucrative desktops and notebooks. Which means Dell desktops that cost the same of Apples desktops are also not selling very well.
It is unsure of what Dell will do to correct its course because its business structure is not set up to be very flexible or change. While Apples business structure is very nimble and able to innovate.
New York Times
Business Week
You guys essentially continue to want to look at Apple in a vacuum and ignore the fortune and failure of the rest of the computer industry. What you are asking is for Apple's priorities to be more like Dell while Dells financial story only continues to get worse and worse.
I also notice that the other side beats us on numbers 19 to 1. Apple is currently forcing long time users that they formerly served to buy a machine they don't want or move up scale to a professional workstation.
I also notice that the other side beats us on numbers 19 to 1. Apple is currently forcing long time users that they formerly served to buy a machine they don't want or move up scale to a professional workstation.
That just about says it all. No argument from me.
The 90% of the target segment who would rather have a 2.4ghz conroe desktop than a slower 2.0ghz xeon workstation at that point. The one size fits all approach is exactly what gets Apple into trouble on the desktop end.
Which part of single 2.66Ghz Woodcrest @ $1699 did you wish to ignore? Oh...the part where you can't sell a single 2.0Ghz Woodcrest for less than $1800 even though Dell sells one for $1,344. "Shipping Today" as Steve likes to say.
Since $1,344 is lower than Apple's ASP I'm going to guess they wont offer a single 2.0Ghz Woodcrest box but a 2.66Ghz one if they do. Given that 2.66 > 2.4 I'm not sure what the objection to a single Woodcrest machine at $1699 would be...other than perhaps some twisted ideals...
Next Up: Whining about SLI/CrossFire...it's not just for Gamers...
Vinea
I also notice that the other side beats us on numbers 19 to 1. Apple is currently forcing long time users that they formerly served to buy a machine they don't want or move up scale to a professional workstation.
19 to 1...in the total market. Lies, damn lies and of course statistics.
Given that Apple doesn't really compete in most of the total market (sub-$500 entry level computers, business computers, etc) the 19-1 isn't as horrid as it seems.
As far as the second comment...nothing a $1599 single CPU Mac Pro can't solve.
Vinea
19 to 1...in the total market. Lies, damn lies and of course statistics.
Given that Apple doesn't really compete in most of the total market (sub-$500 entry level computers, business computers, etc) the 19-1 isn't as horrid as it seems.
As far as the second comment...nothing a $1599 single CPU Mac Pro can't solve.
Vinea
I wouldn't mind a single CPU Xeon desktop Mac as long as Apple doesn't charge their current BTO taxe on CPU upgrades/downgrades, like on the Mac Pro.
Let me explain: the current base model has two 2.66GHz Xeon, that list for around $1400 (2x$690), to go down to the dual 2.00GHz Apple gives you $300 back while the list price for the 2 CPUs is around $600 (2x$316) that is $800 less than for two 2.66GHz Xeon. That means you pay Apple around $500 for the BTO of the CPUs. It is the same for the upgrade to two 3.00GHz Xeons: Apple charges $800 for the change and the CPUs cost around $1700 (2x$851) that is just $300 more than the two 2.66GHz Xeon. Again, $500 for the 2 CPUs swap.
Now let's say that Apple fairly prices the single 2.66GHz Mac Pro at $1799 ($2499-$700 for the missing CPU), I would believe they wouldn't charge $250 more if you want to downgrade to 2.0GHz or to upgrade to 3.0GHz (those chips are available, why not sell them?). That would make:
- Mac Pro single 2.00GHz $1499 ($690-$316=$374, $74 for the BTO)
- Mac Pro single 2.66GHz $1799 (I'd settle for a 160GB HD if necessary but no less than 1GB of RAM!)
- Mac Pro single 3.00GHz $1999 ($851-$690=$161, $39 for the BTO)
Given the specs of the Mac Pro, I believe it would be fair.
I still would hate to buy so expensive FB-DIMMs, tho.
On another matter:
As much as I think the Mac mini is a cute computer, I also think Apple should change it (nobody knows how much it really sells, but according to most observers, it doesn't). They change the original iPod Shuffle, and now it's their best seller. They could change the Mac mini and it may sell better. Just making it a little bigger so it can receive low-cost CPUs and real cheap desktop HDDs, it could keep the same look, but just bigger to accomodate 3.5 drives and a hotter CPU, and it's cooling system, maybe 10"x10"x2.5" for a standard micro-ATX board or so. If you take into account a cheaper CPU, HDD, motherboard, I think it would allow for another $100 price cut so the Mac mini could go back to its $499 original price.
Given that Apple doesn't really compete in most of the total market (sub-$500 entry level computers, business computers, etc) the 19-1 isn't as horrid as it seems.
Yeah dude, that's the whole point of this xMac argument: for Apple to compete in more of the market and hopefully thereby increase their market share.
Different how? The overall strategy was the pursuit of share over margins and ASP because once share was achieved the others could follow.
1.) Confusing product line-up that even Apple didn't properly understand
2.) I believe that they sacrificed % margins at the bottom end to achieve the price points. Now that they are on the Intel platform, % margins can be maintained even at $399. In addition, Macintosh R&D is lower (Apple used to design the motherboard chipsets in-house = v. v. expensive) so absolute margins to cover R&D can be lower.
3.) Another bonus of being on Intel is much broader range of chips to help differentiate between product lines/price points, without having to resort to excessive crippling of lower-end hardware.
4.) The advantages of System 6 / System 7 over Windows 3.1/95 were less clear-cut than the advantages of OS X over 2000/XP.
5.) Apple's brand was not as strong then as it is now.
Yeah dude, that's the whole point of this xMac argument: for Apple to compete in more of the market and hopefully thereby increase their market share.
Would anyone object to the following as a final Apple lineup? The way I see it this would fill all of Apple holes (except the most hardcore SLI gamers) with minimum risk. Note: the list uses current, not future CPUs/GPUS
Macbook Line.
13.3 inch
1.6ghz Celeron M (520)
512mb of 533mhz DDR2 memory
60GB Hard drive
24x combo drive
GMA950 Graphics
$799
Retail Only
13.3 inch
1.83ghz Core 2 Duo (T5600)
512mb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
60GB Hard drive
24x combo drive
GMA950 Graphics
$999
15.4 inch (1280x800)
1.6ghz Celeron M (520)
512mb of 533mhz DDR2 memory
60GB Hard drive
24x combo drive
GMA950 Graphics
$999
Retail Only
15.4 inch (1280x800)
2.0ghz Core 2 Duo (T7200)
1gb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
80GB Hard drive
Dual Layer superdrive
GMA950
$1299
Macbook Pro Line
15.4 inch (1440x900)
2.1ghz Core 2 Duo (T7400)
1gb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
120GB Hard drive
6x Dual Layer superdrive
Radeon x1600 with 128mb of memory
$1999
15.4 inch (1440x900)
2.33ghz Core 2 Duo (T7600)
2gb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
120GB Hard drive
6x Dual Layer superdrive
Radeon x1600 with 256mb of memory
$2499
17 inch
2.33ghz Core 2 Duo (T7600)
2gb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
160GB Hard drive
8x Dual Layer superdrive
Radeon x1600 with 256mb of memory
$2799
Mac Mini Line
1.6ghz Celeron M (520)
512mb of 533mhz DDR2 memory
60GB Hard drive
24x combo drive
GMA950 Graphics
$499
Retail Only
1.66ghz Core2 Duo (T5500)
512mb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
60GB Hard drive
24x combo drive
GMA950 Graphics
$599
1.83ghz Core2 Duo (T5600)
512mb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
80GB Hard drive
8x superdrive
GMA950 Graphics
$799
IMac Line
19-Inch (consumer quality)
1.6ghz Celeron M (520)
512mb of 533mhz DDR2 memory
80GB Hard drive
24x combo drive
GMA950 Graphics
$799
Retail Only
19-Inch (1440x900)
1.83ghz Core 2 Duo (T5600)
512mb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
160GB Hard drive
24x combo drive
GMA950 Graphics
$999
19-Inch (1440x900)
2.0ghz Core 2 Duo (T7200)
1gb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
160GB Hard drive
8x DL Super Drive
Radeon x1600 with 128mb of memory
$1199
20-Inch (1680x1050)
2.16ghz Core 2 Duo (T7400)
1gb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
250GB Hard drive
8x DL Super Drive
Radeon x1600 with 128mb of memory
$1499
20-Inch (professional quality)
2.16ghz Core 2 Duo (T7400)
1gb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
250GB Hard drive
8x DL Super Drive
Geforce 7300GT with 128mb of memory
$1499
Mac Pro Line
2.4ghz Core 2 Duo (E6600)
1gb of 667mhz DDR2 memory
250GB Hard drive
16x DL Super Drive
Geforce 7300GT with 128mb of memory
$1699
Dual 2.66ghz Xeon processors (5150)
1gb of 667mhz DDR2 fully buffered ECC memory
250GB Hard drive
16x DL Super Drive
Geforce 7300GT with 128mb of memory
$2499
Additional Mac Pro BTO graphics options:
256mb GeForce 7600GT
640mb GeFrorce 8800GTS
128mb FireGL 3300/ Quadro FX 560
256mb FireGL5200/ Quadro FX 1500
iServe line
1.83ghz Xeon processor (3040)
512mb of 667mhz ECC DDR2 memory
80gb Serial ATA hard drive
24x combo drive
64mb Radeon x1300
single 350w power supply
$1999
xServe line
Dual 2.0ghz Xeon processors (5130)
1gb of 667mhz fully buffered ECC DDR2 memory
80gb Serial ATA hard drive
24x combo drive
64mb Radeon x1300
single 650w power supply
$2999
Studio Displays:
19-inch Apple studio display with iSight
1440x900 resolution
5ms response time
300 cd/m2 brightness
500:1 contrast ratio
iSight camera
Infrared receiver for Apple remote
$349
Cinema Displays:
200-inch Apple cinema display with iSight
1680x1050 resolution
5ms response time
300 cd/m2 brightness
800:1 contrast ratio
iSight camera
Infrared receiver for Apple remote
2-port USB 2.0 and firewire hubs
$599
24-inch Apple studio display with iSight
1920x1200 resolution
6ms response time
500 cd/m2 brightness
1000:1 contrast ration
iSight camera
Infrared receiver for Apple remote
2-port USB 2.0 and firewire hubs
$999
30-inch Apple studio display with iSight
2560x1600 resolution
6ms response time
300 cd/m2 brightness
1000:1 contrast ration
iSight camera
Infrared receiver for Apple remote
2-port USB 2.0 and firewire hubs
$1999
Yeah dude, that's the whole point of this xMac argument: for Apple to compete in more of the market and hopefully thereby increase their market share.
Given that there is slim profits to be made in 51% of the market (the sub-$500 one) AND Apple lacks the software required for business/enterprise market (the other big one) which markets are you looking to gain share while maintaining profitability?
Vinea
2.) I believe that they sacrificed % margins at the bottom end to achieve the price points. Now that they are on the Intel platform, % margins can be maintained even at $399. In addition, Macintosh R&D is lower (Apple used to design the motherboard chipsets in-house = v. v. expensive) so absolute margins to cover R&D can be lower.
Pary tell which manufacturer maintains 27%+ margins at the $399 price point.
4.) The advantages of System 6 / System 7 over Windows 3.1/95 were less clear-cut than the advantages of OS X over 2000/XP.
Completely disagree. Windows was completely outclassed by MacOS back then. 2000/XP is far more stable and usable. Vista we know to have caught up in terms of eyecandy. The trend has been a narrowing of the gap. Leopard may open it up again a little but nothing like it was when you compared MacOS and Windows 3.1 (or 3.1.1).
Vinea
Would anyone object to the following as a final Apple lineup? The way I see it this would fill all of Apple holes (except the most hardcore SLI gamers) with minimum risk. Note: the list uses current, not future CPUs/GPUS
What? No pony? I don't see a need to have retail only models. Apple's ASPs will be far lower and the iServe box seems overpriced and rather pointless given the Mac Pro.
I'm not a big fan of the Celerons and chasing the lower end market.
The iMac lineup you have doesn't have a 24" anymore nor any big need for a 20" given the lower end ones are 19" (other than the vid card). If you're going to make the low end 19" (for less money to boot than the 17") then the mid level should use the 21-22" WS panels.
And if we're wishing for ponies how about a 13" MacBook Pro? And expresscards for the Macbook line. Or a iServe that makes sense as a 802.11n/NAS/iTunes media server with 1TB (250MB x 4 RAID 5...~.75TB usable) for $999? That positions it a little above the TeraStation pricewise but it would work with Apple products much better and has draft-N.
Leave the lineups as they currently are add an iServe NAS, a 12-13" macbook pro and a $1699 Mac Pro (Conroe or Woodcrest I don't care) and you maintain ASPs and profitability and fill even more holes than your lineup. If you must, add the Celeron M based mini back in for $499 but it still has to have wireless, BT and remote and 27%+ margins.
Vinea
Pary tell which manufacturer maintains 27%+ margins at the $399 price point.
None of them. But that's because the only thing they can do is compete on price/performance. Apple has the added draw of their brand and OS X. They would offer, at $399, a lesser-specced machine than Dell or HP. However, this is no different than now:
Take the $599 Mini, yes, for the form factor, it's not expensive. So, for people who set out thinking "I want a SFF desktop computer", it's a good deal. But there are far more people who set out thinking "I want a cheap desktop computer", and the Mini fails miserably on this front. It compares very poorly relative to HP/Dell cheap desktops. An xMac starting at $399 would, yes, still be less powerful/have less storage than HP/Dell price-equivalents, but the specs would be closer such that the Brand and OS X can overcome the problem of lower specs.
Completely disagree. Windows was completely outclassed by MacOS back then. 2000/XP is far more stable and usable. Vista we know to have caught up in terms of eyecandy. The trend has been a narrowing of the gap. Leopard may open it up again a little but nothing like it was when you compared MacOS and Windows 3.1 (or 3.1.1).
Maybe I over-stretched a bit on the System 6 / 3.1 comparison. I've always been a Mac user, but my experience of 95/98 is that it is much, much more stable than System 7, OS 8 or OS 9. It also has pre-emptive multi-tasking. So, whilst the usability of System 7, OS 8 and OS 9 far outstrip 95/98, the underpinnings of 95/98 are superior.
I remembered that I meant to respond to something you wrote earlier. It's a good point that you've made a few times now:
Again, effectively Apple doesn't have a desktop line. Whether that's by plan or accident the fact remains that they get an extra 500K or so laptop component purchase to Intel and other vendors. How much that volume discount is would have to be subtracted from laptop profits if Apple moved to a real Conroe desktop line.
I'm sure this is helping on the margins front, but I don't think trying to maintain 31% margins is anything like a good idea. If we take out all the Mini & iMac sales from last quarter, I'm pretty sure that takes us to the same laptop component volumes in total (i.e. laptops + Mini + iMac) as when the MacBook was first launched. So, whilst it's helping margins, I don't think it's necessary (for the "desktops" to have laptop parts) in order for Apple to maintain the price points on their laptops. Yes, their margins would go down, but mearly from "insanely high for a computer manufacturer" to "very healthy for a computer manufacturer". Added volume should take absolute profits to the around the same value.
Pary tell which manufacturer maintains 27%+ margins at the $399 price point.
This question presents a challenge to Apple: come up with a little marketing creativity. Regarding creativity, Apple is a bit of an enigma -- so creative in some respects, and so seemingly blind in others. Let's see what we can come up with to solve this margin problem, at the low end. Here is my suggestion.
Make a desktop Mac to sell for $399, with a small profit margin. Design this Mac so it can be upgraded in memory, hard drive and optical drive. It should also be expandable to add, say, Wi Fi and Bluetooth, but this is not a factor in this strategy.
Disclaimer: The following is not bate and switch, but it has the same effect.
Each upgrade can be ordered by the customer when he or she buys this Mac. Otherwise, the customer can buy the $399 Mac and install one or more upgrades later. The trick will be to encourage customers to buy upgrades at the time of purchase, and these upgraded Macs will have a higher margin.
Regarding the hard and optical drives, it should be simple. A $399 Mac would have the cheapest desktop drives available. Apple must price each upgraded Mac so the profit margin is higher, but the price differential is a little less by getting it from Apple at the time of original purchase. The price difference is less than buying the drive later from a typical retailer. The customer has the added advantage of convenience, and having the drives covered by Apple's warranty. So, even at same price, the customer has an advantage going with the Apple installed upgrade.
The same method can be applied to memory, but it may mean that the $399 Mac has only one strip, which must be removed to install more memory. I realize some don't like to have just a single RAM socket, but for $399, who is going to complain too loudly? If the base RAM is sufficient for typical home and small office applications, it's good enough. Sure, if someone wishes to install 2 GB or RAM, it may still be cheaper to do it after purchase, but this strategy should bump the margin on most such Macs sold.
Yeah dude, that's the whole point of this xMac argument: for Apple to compete in more of the market and hopefully thereby increase their market share.
The limiting factor is more about OS X than it is about a low cost desktop. Even if Apple offered a low cost desktop it isn't likely to make a significant difference in market share unless that desktop shipped with Windows.
Make a desktop Mac to sell for $399, with a small profit margin. Design this Mac so it can be upgraded in memory, hard drive and optical drive. It should also be expandable to add, say, Wi Fi and Bluetooth, but this is not a factor in this strategy.
This is somewhat the same thing Dell and HP do. I don't see the use in Apple playing games like this. This probably would have been better in the booming days of the PC. But not so much now in the waning days. With desktop sales in particular shrinking.