Remember the adage, "a rose by any other name is still a rose." So if I were to stuff a Mini or iMac in a 5 inch brief case and turn it on its end, I would get a tower.
Oh man! Is this really so hard to grasp? No, you would not have a tower by taking a Mac Mini or iMac and putting it in a different shaped box. The Mac Mini is a laptop without a display - laptop HDD, laptop optical drive, laptop CPU, laptop GPU, laptop RAM. The iMac is a desktop/laptop hybrid - underclocked GPU, laptop CPU, laptop RAM, laptop optical drive, desktop HDD. Neither machine has room for more than one HDD or have expansion slots.
I asked this question before. At what configuration and price would one propose for your mid range tower that would suffice this great market segment that Apple is missing on. With the proviso, i.e., you can guarantee, that it can be serviced & supported by Al, even though the back door has been removed?just so that you can Tim Allen it to your hearts content.
As discussed in other threads:
A BTO-able design that starts at $999 and has the following core specs:
2 PCIe slots, one of which is used for a graphics card
4 Desktop RAM slots
Conroe CPU
one optical drive bay
two HDD bays
The $999 config would have a 1.8 GHz Conroe, 512 MB RAM, Draw-loading combo (CD-RW/DVD-ROM) drive, 160 GB HDD and ATI X1600 or equivalent NVIDIA graphics card.
Conroe speed, amount of RAM, amount of HDD space, amount of RAM, optical drive type and graphics card would all be configurable.
Building your own PC is easy (1 hour including windows install time, plus 30 minutes of automated updates) and saves about 40% off dell or Apple (except in the case of the mac pro)..He's building an AMD system with about as much power as the 20" iMac and it'll probably cost him 60% less.
That's fine he wants to build his own box. But its flawed at best to say I want expandability but cannot afford a MacPro. Because to gain any real performance from expanding costs money.
Yes building your own box is cheaper but is it really worth it? I have yet to see anyone who built their own box that does not have some stability and performance quirks at best to systems that are regularly having serious problems at worst.
Quote:
Hey, how much does it cost to upgrade the video card in a 20" iMac from the x1600 to the 7600?In a DIY machine, how much would it cost for such an upgrade? $150.
That's the point of my statement. $150 upgrade gets you little to nothing in extra performance.
Quote:
That's a stretch. People upgrade their PC's all the time, especially computer users savvy enough to realize the advantages of a Mac over a PC (Mac users are usually more computer savvy).
Overwhelming most of the people I know with computers know absolutely nothing about how their computer functions. Nor do they have the knowledge or interest in upgrading any internal parts. What pretty much all of them will do is use that computer until it no longer works and buy a new one.
Unless you live in a bubble surrounded by people with above average computer savvy, its the exact same for you.
That's my whole point - Apple only compete in certain market segments (I'd disagree about the "mid-range" bit though, as they don't have a mid-range tower), the market is moving away from the segments that Apple does compete in, which is resulting in a decreasing desktop market share.
If that's your rationalization the majority of the market shifted below $1000 a long time ago. The advantage of playing in that area is market share, the disadvantage is the fact there is no money to be made below $1000.
The mini and 17" iMac are midrange machines by the way.
Most companies who compete below $1000 are hemorrhaging money. The only one who did ok was HP but they did not make as much as Apple. The advantage for Apple's segment is that Apple makes far more money per computer sale than any one else.
The rest of the industry is competing on price and loosing massive amounts of money in the process while Apple is making money hand over fist. Why would Apple shift to their business model just to sell a few more machines.
I think you've completely missed the point. I'm not suggesting another vendor make computers with OSX. Apple can and should meet this need on their own. For specs and prices see MR H's post #123. That should give you an idea of what should be offfered in this area.
Would Mac pro sales be cananbalized? I don't know. If it is moved to dual Quad Xenons then probably not as that should be a powerful machine for pros. Would it cananbalize iMac sales? Again, who knows. If so then the market has spoken and it prefers towers.
If it is moved to dual Quad Xenons then probably not as that should be a powerful machine for pros. Would it cananbalize iMac sales? Again, who knows. If so then the market has spoken and it prefers towers.
It would not cannibalize sales because the market has chosen a tower.
It would cannibalize sales because it has Conroe and MacPro features for $999.
Dell sells five times the number of computer Apple does but makes less profit with this very same business model. What sense does it make for Apple to follow this same path?
Apple would not be able to maintain current profit margins
This post of mine is quite hand-wavy but I still believe $999 to be quite realistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
and kill the MacPro with such a computer.
The Mac Pro would absolutely kick the crap out of that config: it's much more expandable, and vastly more powerful (4 2.66 GHz cores vs 2 1.8 GHz cores).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I cannot see Dell even offering something like this.
One config of the Dell XPS 410 has a 1.83 GHz Conroe, 1 GB RAM, 250 GB HDD, DVD writer drive and 256 MB graphics card and costs $799.
It would not cannibalize sales because the market has chosen a tower.
It would cannibalize sales because it has Conroe and MacPro features for $999.
Dell sells five times the number of computer Apple does but makes less profit with this very same business model. What sense does it make for Apple to follow this same path?
Conroe is cheaper than merom. If they make money on iMacs why wouldn't they make money on this? I'm not suggesting Apple sell towers for $300, like Dell does. That is financial suicide.
This post of mine is quite hand-wavy but I still believe $999 to be quite realistic.
Actually, that post is rather old. Judging by the updated iMac's price and the Dell XPS 410, I would have thought that Apple could deliver the specs I quoted for $799, maybe $849
Maybe...but I doubt even Apple can make a $999 tower feel stylish and trendy. A lot of the value of the branding is this ability.
The industrial look of the Pro (coupled with its high end price and performance) is as studied as the seamless look of the iMac. A small form factor (SFF) cube is more doable from a brand perspective...and I'd be real surprised if it were under a grand.
I have a friend who had one of those $500 Dell set ups. She owned the computer for about 3 years. It has five expansion slots and a dedicated GPU slot. All of which went unused. She doesn't have any need for expansion and doesn't even know what a graphics card is.
She finally got tired of the computer because of viruses. Her life does not revolve around her computer so she doesn't pay much attention to when a serious virus threat is coming or making sure her virus security is updated. She just wants a computer that can work with the absolute minimum effort form her. Because of this lax attitude her computer has been over run with viruses to the point she needed someone to come and completely restore her system. She has been through this process a couple of time and has finally gotten fed up with it.
She has heard about the Mac but feels a little overwhelmed with going through the process of buying another computer and does not really want to spend much money on it. She has a VGA monitor, a USB keyboard, and a USB mouse. The only thing she needs is the computer. So I suggested the Mac mini. We went to the store and she was amazed by the mini's small size.
We took it home and hooked it up. I advised her about downloading strange software or giving anything unfamiliar permission to download itself. After that she has been perfectly happy and virus free.
She will never have need to expand anything. She will never buy a new hard drive. I seriously doubt she will ever add more RAM. As is the same with nearly everyone I know with a Dell that has expansion slots. They don't upgrade anything.
I believe these people represent the majority of the consumer computer market. The functionality of the Mac mini fits their needs perfectly fine. Because mostly the computer will be used to write documents, write e-mails, instant message with friends, check out friends on MySpace, download pictures on Flickr, and watch movies on YouTube.
If this $999 Conroe Mac existed I probably could have convinced her to buy it. She would use it for the same tasks as the Mac mini. She would not need the speed of conroe, she would not use the second hard drive slot, she would not use all four memory slots, nor would she use any of the empty PCI slots. This would be the same with many of the people who bought this machine. Apple would be loosing money on functionality that many people would not even use.
That's the reason why its smart for Apple to have expandability on its professional products, and little to no expandability in its consumer level products. That is one of the reasons why Apple's profit margins are so high and why everyone else's profit margins are so low.
The Mac Pro would absolutely kick the crap out of that config: it's much more expandable, and vastly more powerful (4 2.66 GHz cores vs 2 1.8 GHz cores).
It was a little dramatic to say kill the MacPro. It certainly would eat into Apple's profit margins. Because Apple has expandability divided into pro and consumer.
Quote:
One config of the Dell XPS 410 has a 1.83 GHz Conroe, 1 GB RAM, 250 GB HDD, DVD writer drive and 256 MB graphics card and costs $799.
Ok I saw that computer. I get confused by Dell's website and could not find where they named what processor it was using. I could only find Core 2 Duo.
Still this computer is an example of functionality wasted on people who won't use it. Because of that inefficiency Dell is probably loosing money on this computer.
The industrial look of the Pro (coupled with its high end price and performance) is as studied as the seamless look of the iMac. A small form factor (SFF) cube is more doable from a brand perspective...and I'd be real surprised if it were under a grand.
I agree if Apple did do a midrange tower its design would be something complex and small. Possibly a new Cube design. That type of development costs money.
Still this computer is an example of functionality wasted on people who won't use it. Because of that inefficiency Dell is probably loosing money on this computer.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "losing money". Do you mean you think that they are actually selling this machine at a loss, or that they aren't making as much money on this machine as they could (because they could sell the same core specs but with less expandability and therefore in a smaller case that's cheaper to manufacture and ship)?
In Dell's most recently ended financial quarter, they made a profit of $605 million. Everyone loves to say that Dell loses money on this machine and that machine, but they must be making money on something. I think at the lowest of the low-end, they sell machines at a loss, then in the low-end, at razor-thin margins, but once you're up to the $799 mark, Dell make a profit on the machines. I'm sure that the margins are slimmer than Apple's though.
If this $999 Conroe Mac existed I probably could have convinced her to buy it. She would use it for the same tasks as the Mac mini. She would not need the speed of conroe, she would not use the second hard drive slot, she would not use all four memory slots, nor would she use any of the empty PCI slots. This would be the same with many of the people who bought this machine. Apple would be loosing money on functionality that many people would not even use.
if the $999 Conroe Mac had anything equal to or above 17% margins Apple would make more money by selling it to people in place of the Mini (assuming you were talking about the $599 Mini; compared to the $799 mini the tower would need at least 23% margins).
Dell sells five to six times more computers than Apple while only making $39 million more in profit.
Hey! Look at that! You just totally missed the point again. I was making the point that people always say that Dell lose money on machines, but they don't. I highly doubt that the $799 class machines are being sold at a loss. By the time you get to that price level, the margins must be getting quite respectable in order to make up for the loss/break-even in the low end.
Apple makes much more money selling expandable Macs at $2500.
Nice try at moving the goal posts, but you were talking about Apple losing money if they sold people a $999 tower instead of a Mac Mini, which is not accurate.
I highly doubt anyone who's considering a Mac Mini ends up buying a Mac Pro. I also highly doubt that people who buy $2500 Mac Pros are really after $999 towers. There can't be that many people willing to pay $1500 for the privilege of running OS X.
Comments
Remember the adage, "a rose by any other name is still a rose." So if I were to stuff a Mini or iMac in a 5 inch brief case and turn it on its end, I would get a tower.
Oh man! Is this really so hard to grasp? No, you would not have a tower by taking a Mac Mini or iMac and putting it in a different shaped box. The Mac Mini is a laptop without a display - laptop HDD, laptop optical drive, laptop CPU, laptop GPU, laptop RAM. The iMac is a desktop/laptop hybrid - underclocked GPU, laptop CPU, laptop RAM, laptop optical drive, desktop HDD. Neither machine has room for more than one HDD or have expansion slots.
I asked this question before. At what configuration and price would one propose for your mid range tower that would suffice this great market segment that Apple is missing on. With the proviso, i.e., you can guarantee, that it can be serviced & supported by Al, even though the back door has been removed?just so that you can Tim Allen it to your hearts content.
As discussed in other threads:
A BTO-able design that starts at $999 and has the following core specs:
2 PCIe slots, one of which is used for a graphics card
4 Desktop RAM slots
Conroe CPU
one optical drive bay
two HDD bays
The $999 config would have a 1.8 GHz Conroe, 512 MB RAM, Draw-loading combo (CD-RW/DVD-ROM) drive, 160 GB HDD and ATI X1600 or equivalent NVIDIA graphics card.
Conroe speed, amount of RAM, amount of HDD space, amount of RAM, optical drive type and graphics card would all be configurable.
Building your own PC is easy (1 hour including windows install time, plus 30 minutes of automated updates) and saves about 40% off dell or Apple (except in the case of the mac pro)..He's building an AMD system with about as much power as the 20" iMac and it'll probably cost him 60% less.
That's fine he wants to build his own box. But its flawed at best to say I want expandability but cannot afford a MacPro. Because to gain any real performance from expanding costs money.
Yes building your own box is cheaper but is it really worth it? I have yet to see anyone who built their own box that does not have some stability and performance quirks at best to systems that are regularly having serious problems at worst.
Hey, how much does it cost to upgrade the video card in a 20" iMac from the x1600 to the 7600?In a DIY machine, how much would it cost for such an upgrade? $150.
That's the point of my statement. $150 upgrade gets you little to nothing in extra performance.
That's a stretch. People upgrade their PC's all the time, especially computer users savvy enough to realize the advantages of a Mac over a PC (Mac users are usually more computer savvy).
Overwhelming most of the people I know with computers know absolutely nothing about how their computer functions. Nor do they have the knowledge or interest in upgrading any internal parts. What pretty much all of them will do is use that computer until it no longer works and buy a new one.
Unless you live in a bubble surrounded by people with above average computer savvy, its the exact same for you.
Quick! Start back-peddling now…
That's funny, but I really don't agree.
That's my whole point - Apple only compete in certain market segments (I'd disagree about the "mid-range" bit though, as they don't have a mid-range tower), the market is moving away from the segments that Apple does compete in, which is resulting in a decreasing desktop market share.
If that's your rationalization the majority of the market shifted below $1000 a long time ago. The advantage of playing in that area is market share, the disadvantage is the fact there is no money to be made below $1000.
The mini and 17" iMac are midrange machines by the way.
Most companies who compete below $1000 are hemorrhaging money. The only one who did ok was HP but they did not make as much as Apple. The advantage for Apple's segment is that Apple makes far more money per computer sale than any one else.
The rest of the industry is competing on price and loosing massive amounts of money in the process while Apple is making money hand over fist. Why would Apple shift to their business model just to sell a few more machines.
A BTO-able design that starts at $999 and has the following core specs:
2 PCIe slots, one of which is used for a graphics card
4 Desktop RAM slots
Conroe CPU
one optical drive bay
two HDD bays
Apple would not be able to maintain current profit margins and kill the MacPro with such a computer.
I cannot see Dell even offering something like this.
I think you've completely missed the point. I'm not suggesting another vendor make computers with OSX. Apple can and should meet this need on their own. For specs and prices see MR H's post #123. That should give you an idea of what should be offfered in this area.
Would Mac pro sales be cananbalized? I don't know. If it is moved to dual Quad Xenons then probably not as that should be a powerful machine for pros. Would it cananbalize iMac sales? Again, who knows. If so then the market has spoken and it prefers towers.
If it is moved to dual Quad Xenons then probably not as that should be a powerful machine for pros. Would it cananbalize iMac sales? Again, who knows. If so then the market has spoken and it prefers towers.
It would not cannibalize sales because the market has chosen a tower.
It would cannibalize sales because it has Conroe and MacPro features for $999.
Dell sells five times the number of computer Apple does but makes less profit with this very same business model. What sense does it make for Apple to follow this same path?
Apple would not be able to maintain current profit margins
This post of mine is quite hand-wavy but I still believe $999 to be quite realistic.
and kill the MacPro with such a computer.
The Mac Pro would absolutely kick the crap out of that config: it's much more expandable, and vastly more powerful (4 2.66 GHz cores vs 2 1.8 GHz cores).
I cannot see Dell even offering something like this.
One config of the Dell XPS 410 has a 1.83 GHz Conroe, 1 GB RAM, 250 GB HDD, DVD writer drive and 256 MB graphics card and costs $799.
It would not cannibalize sales because the market has chosen a tower.
It would cannibalize sales because it has Conroe and MacPro features for $999.
Dell sells five times the number of computer Apple does but makes less profit with this very same business model. What sense does it make for Apple to follow this same path?
Conroe is cheaper than merom. If they make money on iMacs why wouldn't they make money on this? I'm not suggesting Apple sell towers for $300, like Dell does. That is financial suicide.
This post of mine is quite hand-wavy but I still believe $999 to be quite realistic.
Actually, that post is rather old. Judging by the updated iMac's price and the Dell XPS 410, I would have thought that Apple could deliver the specs I quoted for $799, maybe $849
The industrial look of the Pro (coupled with its high end price and performance) is as studied as the seamless look of the iMac. A small form factor (SFF) cube is more doable from a brand perspective...and I'd be real surprised if it were under a grand.
Vinea
She finally got tired of the computer because of viruses. Her life does not revolve around her computer so she doesn't pay much attention to when a serious virus threat is coming or making sure her virus security is updated. She just wants a computer that can work with the absolute minimum effort form her. Because of this lax attitude her computer has been over run with viruses to the point she needed someone to come and completely restore her system. She has been through this process a couple of time and has finally gotten fed up with it.
She has heard about the Mac but feels a little overwhelmed with going through the process of buying another computer and does not really want to spend much money on it. She has a VGA monitor, a USB keyboard, and a USB mouse. The only thing she needs is the computer. So I suggested the Mac mini. We went to the store and she was amazed by the mini's small size.
We took it home and hooked it up. I advised her about downloading strange software or giving anything unfamiliar permission to download itself. After that she has been perfectly happy and virus free.
She will never have need to expand anything. She will never buy a new hard drive. I seriously doubt she will ever add more RAM. As is the same with nearly everyone I know with a Dell that has expansion slots. They don't upgrade anything.
I believe these people represent the majority of the consumer computer market. The functionality of the Mac mini fits their needs perfectly fine. Because mostly the computer will be used to write documents, write e-mails, instant message with friends, check out friends on MySpace, download pictures on Flickr, and watch movies on YouTube.
If this $999 Conroe Mac existed I probably could have convinced her to buy it. She would use it for the same tasks as the Mac mini. She would not need the speed of conroe, she would not use the second hard drive slot, she would not use all four memory slots, nor would she use any of the empty PCI slots. This would be the same with many of the people who bought this machine. Apple would be loosing money on functionality that many people would not even use.
That's the reason why its smart for Apple to have expandability on its professional products, and little to no expandability in its consumer level products. That is one of the reasons why Apple's profit margins are so high and why everyone else's profit margins are so low.
The Mac Pro would absolutely kick the crap out of that config: it's much more expandable, and vastly more powerful (4 2.66 GHz cores vs 2 1.8 GHz cores).
It was a little dramatic to say kill the MacPro. It certainly would eat into Apple's profit margins. Because Apple has expandability divided into pro and consumer.
One config of the Dell XPS 410 has a 1.83 GHz Conroe, 1 GB RAM, 250 GB HDD, DVD writer drive and 256 MB graphics card and costs $799.
Ok I saw that computer. I get confused by Dell's website and could not find where they named what processor it was using. I could only find Core 2 Duo.
Still this computer is an example of functionality wasted on people who won't use it. Because of that inefficiency Dell is probably loosing money on this computer.
The industrial look of the Pro (coupled with its high end price and performance) is as studied as the seamless look of the iMac. A small form factor (SFF) cube is more doable from a brand perspective...and I'd be real surprised if it were under a grand.
I agree if Apple did do a midrange tower its design would be something complex and small. Possibly a new Cube design. That type of development costs money.
Still this computer is an example of functionality wasted on people who won't use it. Because of that inefficiency Dell is probably loosing money on this computer.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "losing money". Do you mean you think that they are actually selling this machine at a loss, or that they aren't making as much money on this machine as they could (because they could sell the same core specs but with less expandability and therefore in a smaller case that's cheaper to manufacture and ship)?
In Dell's most recently ended financial quarter, they made a profit of $605 million. Everyone loves to say that Dell loses money on this machine and that machine, but they must be making money on something. I think at the lowest of the low-end, they sell machines at a loss, then in the low-end, at razor-thin margins, but once you're up to the $799 mark, Dell make a profit on the machines. I'm sure that the margins are slimmer than Apple's though.
If this $999 Conroe Mac existed I probably could have convinced her to buy it. She would use it for the same tasks as the Mac mini. She would not need the speed of conroe, she would not use the second hard drive slot, she would not use all four memory slots, nor would she use any of the empty PCI slots. This would be the same with many of the people who bought this machine. Apple would be loosing money on functionality that many people would not even use.
Apple's operating income is $566 million.
Dell sells five to six times more computers than Apple while only making $39 million more in profit.
if the $999 Conroe Mac had anything equal to or above 17% margins Apple would make more money by selling it to people in place of the Mini.
Apple makes much more money selling expandable Macs at $2500.
Dell's operating income is $605 million.
Apple's operating income is $566 million.
Dell sells five to six times more computers than Apple while only making $39 million more in profit.
Hey! Look at that! You just totally missed the point again. I was making the point that people always say that Dell lose money on machines, but they don't. I highly doubt that the $799 class machines are being sold at a loss. By the time you get to that price level, the margins must be getting quite respectable in order to make up for the loss/break-even in the low end.
Apple makes much more money selling expandable Macs at $2500.
Nice try at moving the goal posts, but you were talking about Apple losing money if they sold people a $999 tower instead of a Mac Mini, which is not accurate.
I highly doubt anyone who's considering a Mac Mini ends up buying a Mac Pro. I also highly doubt that people who buy $2500 Mac Pros are really after $999 towers. There can't be that many people willing to pay $1500 for the privilege of running OS X.