There will be no mass exodus from Windows to the Mac because the vast majority of computer users are either not smart enough to see the benefits or not brave enough to let go of the old and familiar. But the word is out and the game is on. One thing is totally obvious: There is no way in the universe that 95% of the kids today (the iPod generation) are gonna grow up and buy the same old pissy pc that their parents used. No way. Absolutely no way. The war is already over. Just sit back and watch the show.
Sit back and watch the show? For what the next 20 years? It hasn't happened in the last 20years what makes you think its going to happen over the next?
These blanket statements with no logic behind them are foolish.
Why do people continue to make the comparision that in some way Mac users have an extra set of glutamate brain receptors that somehow makes them smarter then the reast of the world.
It's not about being smart or dumb its about what needs are met and what is cost effective in many casest Macs can provide neither.
Many have already stated why their business will not switch to Macs, its clear, and the simple fact is a business wants to make sure it can work well with the rest of the world.
If Apple is so smart while do they still allow MS to control its office product? Why has Apple not come up with its own true office suite?
In 20 years the only thing Apple has been able to grab is the mp3 player market share and the reason they have that is because of Windows users.
If MS made it so iTunes would not load into Windows you would see the ipod market share fall to 5% within a year.
If it wasn't for the fact that the US government would step in if MS stopped making Office for Mac and made is so ipods would not work under Windows they would drop kick Apple back to the stone age.
No, they're stuck in old-school thinking because in a lot of areas they're still working from a strategy of milking a fixed base, instead of working harder to appeal to a wider (and formerly Windows-centric) one. The Mac Mini and $999 iMac are good first steps, but its fair to say there's more they could do. And with their now diversified revenue base, they could do it without endangering the company in any way.
Failing to provide an expandable, reasonably-priced midrange desktop is only a symptom of such thinking, its not the root cause of why they're stuck in the past. \
This is exactly the market Dell have been trying to move out of and for good reason. The profits are slim. Apple don't do cheap computers or slim profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Well, multibillion dollar corporations like mine, for one. Is that what you mean by 'the cubicles'? That's not an inconsiderable market.
No, it isn't but even when Apple sold mid towers, the cubicles didn't buy Macs and they still wont. It's not hardware that is going to get them there, it's software. Frankly, Apple doesn't have it. No Access or a decent Exchange and AD solution rules it out for most offices that are running Microsoft servers. And it's a hard sell getting businesses to switch their servers or rewrite their systems to use Filemaker or getting the accounts guys to use MYOB or MoneyWorks instead of Sage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Oh, and Windows switchers too, who are used to buying minitowers.
They seem to be getting quite used to buying Macs though as is with Apple reporting over 50% of Mac buyers being switchers. That'll continue as more and more people realise they don't actually need a minitower that never gets upgraded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Who really cares? If Apple is to keep expanding its Mac business, it needs to reach beyond 'traditional Mac buyers'.
See above. What's happening now with cheap (relatively) powerful laptops is they've hit a performance level above what people actually need just now, so people are buying them instead of a slightly more powerful desktop. There's no real penalty between a 2+Ghz Core Duo laptop and a 2+Ghz desktop that's important really except to gamers.
Apple knows that. Sony knows that. Toshiba knows that. All of them got out of the mid tower market to concentrate on laptops and workstations with a couple of AIOs along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Oh my. People want midrange desktops, and your solution is to tell 'em to "go buy a laptop instead"??. The customer isn't king, and father knows best?
No, the customer is king and they're choosing laptops in their droves. I wasn't telling them to go buy a laptop - that's what they're already doing if it's their choice. When it's a companies choice, Microsoft Drone IT managers tend to give their cubicle jockeys cheap crappy Dell PCs and there's no way Apple would get in to that market. That leaves gamers and that market is so small as to be statistically insignificant on the Mac.
The desktop is dead outside of specific needs like Pro video work, Games and what we used to use dumb terminals for back in the 80s but we now use web browsers for instead now.
Currently, about half of Apple's Mac business is users who are new to the platform, i.e. switchers or first-time computer buyers. And you would think that Apple would want to grow their business, not just 'maintain' it.
.
If their current results are your idea of just 'maintaining' their business then you seem to be expecting an awful lot of growth out of selling mid-towers - the format that's currently in decline in the industry.
I don't know what i'm talking about? It's pretty hard to have a display on the RIGHT SIDE covering the DVD drive.
There's these things on the end of your hand called fingers. When you want your disk ejected, press your 'finger' on the left side of the screen and the iMac swivels on it's slippy base. Eject the CD. Remove it. You'll find a finger goes through the hole in the middle of the disk coincidentally. Then take your finger again and swivel it back.
Seriously though, how often do you use a CD drive these days? I think I've used mine once in a month and that was only when the new issue of Macworld turned up.
I still don't see what the big deal is though. Stick your main display on the left or is your other display a lower quality display than the iMac display?
I find it somewhat amusing that despite the "halo" effect of the massive sales of the iPod, that the Mac's share still hovers around 2.5%. Which really must be annoying the faithful who have been confidently predicting that the Mac's market share will skyrocket accordingly.
I'm not sure that's true of 'the faithful'.
Sure, we all (mostly) want Apple to sell more and more Macs but ultimately we just want them turning out really good hardware and software, and they've been doing very well lately, although I think AppleTV and the new Airport Express are fundamentally flawed. Unsurprisingly, when they do turn out decent kit, they sell a load more of them.
There's these things on the end of your hand called fingers. When you want your disk ejected, press your 'finger' on the left side of the screen and the iMac swivels on it's slippy base. Eject the CD. Remove it. You'll find a finger goes through the hole in the middle of the disk coincidentally. Then take your finger again and swivel it back.
Seriously though, how often do you use a CD drive these days? I think I've used mine once in a month and that was only when the new issue of Macworld turned up.
I use mine constantly. I've had to change my superdrive on my Powerbook because it burned out. Sure I could always have an external drive, but I have enough on my desk. An external harddrive is already enough. Again, just because it works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone. I find it dumb (on apple's part) that they put the drive on the side bezel of the iMac. If they could put it on the side they could have easily put it on top, but maybe that collects more dust.
Admittingly, I didn't know about being able to drag the menubar from one side to the other in the windows. I was actually looking for an option like in the windows control panel that says make primary display. So that's cool you can make it your primary display. So really the display argument is out. You get that one. And no, my current display smokes the iMac built in display. Which was another argument of mine. But that is irrelevant since you can make another display the primary display.
It still brings up the question of a sub par graphics card, and the rest of the laptop components. The iMac is a great machine for a lot of people. It doesn't and won't fit the bill for everyone. I know you don't want to listen to a bunch of cry babies, but a lot of these so called cry babies are holding back money because they don't feel there is a necessary machine for them.
Personally, I'll be breaking down and buying the next gen Mac Pro. Neither the iMac nor the Mac Pro trully fit my desired use, but the Mac Pro fits more so than the iMac.
Some of us hate them for multiple reasons, including but not limited to:
a) Many years of beta code in production
b) code bload, lots of junk code not optimized
c) many years of blue screens
d) Overcharging for most software
e) smug attitute since they are the main game in town
f) Lots of shitty code that hackers can take advantage of
g) anti-competitive behaviour
Just wondering what it is about "many years of beta code in production" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "code bloat, lots of junk code not optimized" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "many years of blue screens" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "overcharging for most software" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "smug attitude since they are the main game in town" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "lots of shitty code that hackers can take advantage of" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "anti-competitive behaviour" that engenders hatred?
Especially if you're a Mac user and don't have to use Windows on a regular basis. I suppose regular Windows users might feel aggrieved if any of those issues were making their lives miserable, but a lot of your points are rhetoric, some can just as easily be levelled at Apple and others are surely a matter of opinion.
If you're serious that people actually hate a company for those reasons, then there's some pathology issues, as that extreme emotional reaction is really not normal. And it begs the question of why anyone would admit to such irrational thoughts.
Now, if Bill Gates burned down your home, had your kids unjustly expelled from school and shot Steve Jobs then I suppose you might be justified in expressing your loathing, but the 'reasons' supplied certainly don't justify hatred. Maybe scorn? Maybe sadness? Perhaps bewilderment? Irritation even, if you have to use Windows exclusively. But hatred?
You might as well hate the atmosphere because you'd rather it didn't rain.
If their current results are your idea of just 'maintaining' their business then you seem to be expecting an awful lot of growth out of selling mid-towers - the format that's currently in decline in the industry.
The original quote I was responding to was this:
Apple's OS has continuously proven to be a few steps ahead of MS and with it's ease of use, Apple only need to retain it's current users to maintain their business.
Obviously, the gentlemen's comment is behind the times. In the 'bad old days', Apple was all about selling Macs to the same folks over and over again, since they couldn't seem to attract many switchers or folks new to computing. That has obviously changed, with a lot more switchers and folks new to computing buying Macs recently (about half of all new Mac sales are to these folks). Which is great.
The tough part is, you have to continue to appeal to such people, and pull in the fence-sitters who haven't bitten yet. One way is buy offering them good value, and the products they want. Windows switchers are used to buying minitowers (it may be a segment in decline, as are desktops in general, but tons of midrange towers still get sold every year regardless, and Apple currently has zero presence in that space), and they probably don't want to have to pay twice as much for a Mac as they would an equivalent PC product. More, perhaps... but not ridiculously more.
Offering mintowers (at a reasonable price) is just part of a larger strategy in which Apple needs to plug major holes in its product line-up, such as a reasonably-priced 15" notebook, and a subnotebook (those two plus minitowers are the 'Big Three' I always cite). Guess what? At least two of those three gaps are going to be filled, if you've been keeping up with the AI news. I'm batting .667 already.
Is it such a leap to think the minitower hole in the product lineup would not follow suit? Probably not, unless you just plain hate the idea of a Mac minitower. That's okay... its not for you. Its for potential switchers and established Mac users who either need expandability or like the IDEA of expandability.
Either is okay, the goal is not to offer something that the customer is 100% guaranteed to use, the goal is to swing their buying decision Apple's way. After all, whether they use said expandability or not, their money is just as green, capiche?
Similarly, you may not particularly like 15" MBs or subnotebooks, feeling that they are 'unnecessary' and that Apple is trying to be 'all things to all people', but Apple apparently disagrees, and is developing them. I hope the trend holds.
The tough part is, you have to continue to appeal to such people, and pull in the fence-sitters who haven't bitten yet. One way is buy offering them good value, and the products they want. Windows switchers are used to buying minitowers (it may be a segment in decline, as are desktops in general, but tons of midrange towers still get sold every year regardless, and Apple currently has zero presence in that space), and they probably don't want to have to pay twice as much for a Mac as they would an equivalent PC product. More, perhaps... but not ridiculously more.
I have a problem with the above scenario.I don't think it bears any resemblance to reality now.
From my experience of friends, family and acquaintances, NONE of them are buying desktops this year. They all want laptops. Many of them Apple too. Now, that could be because I don't know any gamers but IME it's shifted dramatically away from the desktop in the last year now that you can get laptops for sub-£400 here in the UK.
Sure, lots of desktops get bought but it's mostly business that buys them, and what they're really buying there is Windows, not a desktop, because they've a Windows infrastructure to tie up to or they only need an Office box. Having an Apple desktop won't sell to that market anyway.
And you know full well that Macs aren't 'twice as much' or even 'ridiculously more'. They just don't do cheap computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Offering mintowers (at a reasonable price) is just part of a larger strategy in which Apple needs to plug major holes in its product line-up, such as a reasonably-priced 15" notebook, and a subnotebook (those two plus minitowers are the 'Big Three' I always cite). Guess what? Two of those three gaps are going to be filled, if you've been keeping up with the AI news. I'm batting .667 already.
I think you'll be disappointed with all three.
1) Mini tower - not going to happen at the price level you want if at all. It'll be a Cube2 not a Dell Dimension E520 if anything.
2) 15" Laptop - if it happens (it was a Digitimes rumour afterall) it'll be a 1280x800 res screen with integrated graphics, no different to the 13" MacBook. It'll weigh 6kg and cost more than the 13"
3) Subnotebook - it'll be almost as expensive as the 15" MacbookPro if not more so if the rumours of NAND RAM startup disks are true. Premium model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Is it such a leap to think the minitower hole in the product lineup would not follow suit? Probably not, unless you just plain hate the idea of a Mac minitower. That's okay... its not for you. Its for potential switchers and established Mac users who either need expandability or like the IDEA of expandability.
IMHO a profitable market doesn't exist in significant enough numbers to justify it. Very few people care about expandability when computers are faster than they need these days and cheap enough that replacing the whole thing every couple of years is a no-brainer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Either is okay, the goal is not to offer something that the customer is 100% guaranteed to use, the goal is to swing their buying decision Apple's way. After all, whether they use said expandability or not, their money is just as green, capiche?
Switch 'portability' for 'expandability' in that last sentence and you've got what most consumers are thinking today instead of what they were thinking a decade ago.
IMHO a profitable market doesn't exist in significant enough numbers to justify it. Very few people care about expandability when computers are faster than they need these days and cheap enough that replacing the whole thing every couple of years is a no-brainer.
I don't believe that for a second. It's much easier to turn a profit off of a desktop than a laptop. Desktop parts are cheaper and assembly is cheaper. Tech support and repairing is cheaper. Especially considering how much apple jacks the prices up on their hardware, it would be very easy for apple to turn a profit. You're acting like they would be breaking even? Or coming close to it? There is little risk involved with redesigning the case on the Mac Pro (according to looprumors) and having 2 different motherboards. 1 for Xeon processors (socket 771 and 5000 chipset). 1 for Core2Duo processors (socket 775 and any number of chipsets). Intel already makes the EFI boards for both chipsets, so R&D would be very minimal. Addressing chipset drivers for OS X would cost the most. It's easy to swap a motherboard in a Mac Pro case, more so than the G5.
The big question is how much (if any) would this machine cut into the iMac sales. Which in turn apple would lose discounts on laptop hardware if their numbers significantly dropped. And if they did significantly drop and lost their discount, how would the profits turned off of laptop hardware prices compare to the cheaper desktop hardware prices that were gained.
Quote:
Switch 'portability' for 'expandability' in that last sentence and you've got what most consumers are thinking today instead of what they were thinking a decade ago.
Not everyone wants a tower for expandability. I can see why you think no one wants a tower, since you don't know any gamers. All of my friends are probably in a different demographic than yours. Just about everyone of my friends will take a tower over a laptop / laptop hardware any day... for the fact that you get better graphics card choices, more ram, bigger harddrives / more harddrives, more optical drives, better cooling.
I have a problem with the above scenario.I don't think it bears any resemblance to reality now.
From my experience of friends, family and acquaintances, NONE of them are buying desktops this year. They all want laptops.
That's the funny thing about personal experience... it may or may not reflect the reality of what the market as a whole is doing. Despite your friends, about 40 percent of Mac sales are desktops (roughly 980K notebooks and 625K desktops):
Sure, lots of desktops get bought but it's mostly business that buys them, and what they're really buying there is Windows, not a desktop, because they've a Windows infrastructure to tie up to or they only need an Office box. Having an Apple desktop won't sell to that market anyway.
And yet... despite not selling much to businesses... and despite having a big hole in their desktop lineup... 40% of Mac sales are still desktops. Imagine if they focused on that segment at all.
Quote:
And you know full well that Macs aren't 'twice as much' or even 'ridiculously more'. They just don't do cheap computers.
They are twice as much in some segments, unfortunately. If I want a laptop with a 15" screen, I can get one for ~$1000 on the PC side. But if I want a Mac notebook with a 15" screen.... $2000, please.
"We just don't do cheap computers" doesn't cut it there. 15" laptops are not prime eMachines territory.
Quote:
I think you'll be disappointed with all three.
1) Mini tower - not going to happen at the price level you want if at all. It'll be a Cube2 not a Dell Dimension E520 if anything.
2) 15" Laptop - if it happens (it was a Digitimes rumour afterall) it'll be a 1280x800 res screen with integrated graphics, no different to the 13" MacBook. It'll weigh 6kg and cost more than the 13"
3) Subnotebook - it'll be almost as expensive as the 15" MacbookPro if not more so if the rumours of NAND RAM startup disks are true. Premium model.
We'll see. Right now I'm 2 for 3 (with 3 for 3 a possibility), and you're stuck doing Nostradamus impersonations. 8)
Btw, Cube failed. Why do Cube2? As far as subnotebooks go, its a hole not because of price (IF they get a sub-$1K MB out), its a hole because of form factor. Ask all the Japanese businessmen using them on international flights.
Quote:
IMHO a profitable market doesn't exist in significant enough numbers to justify it. Very few people care about expandability when computers are faster than they need these days and cheap enough that replacing the whole thing every couple of years is a no-brainer.
I dunno... I open up my local Circuit City or Best Buy weekly flyer, and its chock-full of... you guessed-it... EXPANDABLE computers for sale. Somebody's buying these things.
And yeah, a lot of folks may never use said expandability. But it doesn't matter, because a lot of them like the IDEA of being able to expand if they need to, and base their buying decision partly on that. Its like folks who buy SUVs with "great offroad ability", yet never leave the road.
And where in the world did you get the idea that folks are okay with tossing out their computer every couple of years? Most consumers don't like to think they have the word "sucker" tatooed on their foreheads. Sorry, but just because Apple is still engaging in some outdated 'milk the fixed base' thinking here, does NOT make it a "no brainer".
Quote:
Switch 'portability' for 'expandability' in that last sentence and you've got what most consumers are thinking today instead of what they were thinking a decade ago.
Judging from recent Mac sales (running at 40 percent desktop), not to mention continued sales of expandable desktops on the PC side, I'm not a decade behind, you're a decade ahead.
Call me in 2020, when the desktop market really IS dead.
I don't believe that for a second. It's much easier to turn a profit off of a desktop than a laptop. Desktop parts are cheaper and assembly is cheaper.
And they also sell for a lot cheaper than a laptop in the bulk of the mid-tower desktop market which is the lowest end of the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
Tech support and repairing is cheaper. Especially considering how much apple jacks the prices up on their hardware, it would be very easy for apple to turn a profit.
They don't jack the price up on their hardware any more than any other tier1 supplier. They just don't do cheap computers with Celerons or Core Duo 2060s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
You're acting like they would be breaking even? Or coming close to it? There is little risk involved with redesigning the case on the Mac Pro (according to looprumors) and having 2 different motherboards. 1 for Xeon processors (socket 771 and 5000 chipset). 1 for Core2Duo processors (socket 775 and any number of chipsets). Intel already makes the EFI boards for both chipsets, so R&D would be very minimal. Addressing chipset drivers for OS X would cost the most. It's easy to swap a motherboard in a Mac Pro case, more so than the G5.
Regardless, it's not about technical details, it's about profit and a market there to sell to. To an extent it's about brand image and it's about releasing a me-too product doesn't create brand image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
The big question is how much (if any) would this machine cut into the iMac sales. Which in turn apple would lose discounts on laptop hardware if their numbers significantly dropped. And if they did significantly drop and lost their discount, how would the profits turned off of laptop hardware prices compare to the cheaper desktop hardware prices that were gained.
I really don't think that's a worry for them. If they aren't buying laptop CPUs from Intel, they're buying desktop CPUs so no loss to Intel. I'm sure they're above the threshold on either desktop or laptop CPU purchases where they've reached a decent discount level.
And you could say the same about iMac sales too. If Apple are selling mid-towers instead of iMacs, what does it matter to them? A sale is a sale.
If Apple we're only after sales, they'd sell cheap mid towers with Windows installed on them. Clearly they aren't JUST after sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
Not everyone wants a tower for expandability. I can see why you think no one wants a tower, since you don't know any gamers. All of my friends are probably in a different demographic than yours. Just about everyone of my friends will take a tower over a laptop / laptop hardware any day... for the fact that you get better graphics card choices, more ram, bigger harddrives / more harddrives, more optical drives, better cooling.
Probably. Most of my circle are 25+ and have grown out of playing games and have better things to spend their time and money on, especially when games are heading for £50 here. They'll take portability, low noise levels and space saving over having a noisy PC stuck in their house.
The game market is estimated as being no more than about a million serious gamers now. That's about a quarter of Mac creative users which is only about a sixth/seventh of Mac users in total. Or 1/250th of the PCs sold worldwide. The PC games market on the PC is lower now than it was in 1993 (high spot was 1999) and dropping each year as people switch to consoles. The 'gamer' argument as why Apple should come out with a mid tower is the least compelling argument I've ever heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
That's the funny thing about personal experience... it may or may not reflect the reality of what the market as a whole is doing. Despite your friends, about 40 percent of Mac sales are desktops (roughly 980K notebooks and 625K desktops):
And yet... despite not selling much to businesses... and despite having a big hole in their desktop lineup... 40% of Mac sales are still desktops. Imagine if they focused on that segment at all.
That includes iMacs and Mac Minis of course. The very computers you're not happy with and which many people are because of their form factor and convenience. The market as a whole (as in the whole PC industry) saw a decline in desktop sales. Dell dropped 5% and said they were "concentrating on more profitable products".
Apple doesn't even play in the same corporate desktop market Dell does and you want them to jump right in to a market in decline where they have almost zero presence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
They are twice as much in some segments, unfortunately. If I want a laptop with a 15" screen, I can get one for ~$1000 on the PC side. But if I want a Mac notebook with a 15" screen.... $2000, please.
"We just don't do cheap computers" doesn't cut it there. 15" laptops are not prime eMachines territory.
That 15" PC laptop is likely to be a Celeron 430 or Core Duo 2060 1.6 though and have a screen res of 1280x800. ie. powerful than the MacBook and the same res screen.
AFAIK nobody is doing 15" $1000 laptops with 1440x900 screens.
They're also usually huge and heavy plastic lumps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
We'll see. Right now I'm 2 for 3 (with 3 for 3 a possibility), and you're stuck doing Nostradamus impersonations.
But you're believing Digitimes. Nostradamus is more reliable.
And they're just rumours anyway, not fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Btw, Cube failed. Why do Cube2?
EXACTLY. There's no market for a mid tower Apple. Apple aren't going to do anything cheaper 'eMachine' style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
As far as subnotebooks go, its a hole not because of price (IF they get a sub-$1K MB out), its a hole because of form factor. Ask all the Japanese businessmen using them on international flights.
I used to work in Japan. I know. I think they'll do one but not at a price the whingers will like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
I dunno... I open up my local Circuit City or Best Buy weekly flyer, and its chock-full of... you guessed-it... EXPANDABLE computers for sale. Somebody's buying these things.
I'm sure it's also full of laptops too. Somebody's buying those too. And I would wonder what would happen if a sexy brand (ie. not Gateway or Dell) came out with an AIO as sexy as the iMac? You think you've got choice but you've no choice at all. They're all essentially similar grey/beige boxes with the same software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
And yeah, a lot of folks may never use said expandability. But it doesn't matter, because a lot of them like the IDEA of being able to expand if they need to, and base their buying decision partly on that. Its like folks who buy SUVs with "great offroad ability", yet never leave the road.
The same people (not 'folks' please) who are derided for their stupidity in buying highly inappropriate vehicles presumably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
And where in the world did you get the idea that folks are okay with tossing out their computer every couple of years? Most consumers don't like to think they have the word "sucker" tatooed on their foreheads. Sorry, but just because Apple is still engaging in some outdated 'milk the fixed base' thinking here, does NOT make it a "no brainer"
Most people DO actually change their computer every two to three years. That's the industry average. In the UK, as a business I write off IT purchases after two years. The great thing about Macs is the resale value is so good, selling them on then actually makes for quite a profitable business expense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Judging from recent Mac sales (running at 40 percent desktop), not to mention continued sales of expandable desktops on the PC side, I'm not a decade behind, you're a decade ahead.
The last time Mac desktop sales showed any significant increase, was the introduction of the iMac G5 when it jumped 30%. It's hovered at that level since then. The Mac Mini didn't even cause a blip. I would suggest that Apple has reached a plateau where they aren't going to get any more desktop sales. They've saturated their market. Desktop sales throughout the rest of the industry have continued to fall.
At the same time, Apple's laptop sales have more than doubled. Profits have soared.
Apple would have to sell into the Windows Office market to make any further desktop sales gains. That's a tough one to crack. I don't think it's realistic to even attempt it.
That's why they aren't doing a cheap mid tower desktop.
And they also sell for a lot cheaper than a laptop in the bulk of the mid-tower desktop market which is the lowest end of the market.
They don't jack the price up on their hardware any more than any other tier1 supplier. They just don't do cheap computers with Celerons or Core Duo 2060s.
I don't know where you've been with apple's towers, but they have always been 1500+. Most laptops have ranged from 999 -> 2500. Yet the laptops still had an LCD. You're telling me they weren't jacking any prices up with the g4 towers?
Quote:
Regardless, it's not about technical details, it's about profit and a market there to sell to. To an extent it's about brand image and it's about releasing a me-too product doesn't create brand image.
Where is all this hatred towards towers coming from? Towers are hardly me too designs. They are very practical in that they consolidate many parts into 1 area. Apple has made some great compact towers in the past. They can easily think different with a tower design.
Quote:
I really don't think that's a worry for them. If they aren't buying laptop CPUs from Intel, they're buying desktop CPUs so no loss to Intel. I'm sure they're above the threshold on either desktop or laptop CPU purchases where they've reached a decent discount level.
And you could say the same about iMac sales too. If Apple are selling mid-towers instead of iMacs, what does it matter to them? A sale is a sale.
If Apple we're only after sales, they'd sell cheap mid towers with Windows installed on them. Clearly they aren't JUST after sales.
I was saying they are after sales. I was simply bringing up some of the rebuttle points others have brought up in the other thread. No one is saying a sale is a sale. But a sale on a higher profit turnaround per machine is good. No one is saying to kill the iMac here. People are simply asking for an alternative to a workstation. Don't feel threatened, this isn't an iMac vs. xMac here. It's a we don't need a $289349239842389 dollar tower to accomplish things. IMO the Mac Pro appeals to a more niche computer market than any of apple's computers simply because it is a workstation with very expensive work station parts. Someone suggested selling the machine with 1 Xeon, which would significantly drop the price on the machine. That's a good start.
Quote:
Probably. Most of my circle are 25+ and have grown out of playing games and have better things to spend their time and money on, especially when games are heading for £50 here. They'll take portability, low noise levels and space saving over having a noisy PC stuck in their house.
The game market is estimated as being no more than about a million serious gamers now. That's about a quarter of Mac creative users which is only about a sixth/seventh of Mac users in total. Or 1/250th of the PCs sold worldwide. The PC games market on the PC is lower now than it was in 1993 (high spot was 1999) and dropping each year as people switch to consoles. The 'gamer' argument as why Apple should come out with a mid tower is the least compelling argument I've ever heard.
Where do you get your numbers that the game market is estimated at a million serious gamers now? I call FUD on those numbers, Isn't World Of Warcraft over 8 million subscribers alone? Doesn't Battlefield 2 have close to 4.5 million subscribers? That is just 2 games with SERIOUS gamers! What about every other gamer in the world that plays different games seriously or casually? Or were you referring to just Mac gamers? Which of course has rapidly changed since the introduction of intel cpus.
I don't know where you've been with apple's towers, but they have always been 1500+. Most laptops have ranged from 999 -> 2500. Yet the laptops still had an LCD. You're telling me they weren't jacking any prices up with the g4 towers?
It doesn't matter where we've been, it's where we are now and there's not much point in doing a tower today when laptops are cheap and powerful. Apple's are no more expensive than any other tier1 supplier today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
Where is all this hatred towards towers coming from?
Steve? Jonathon Ive? I don't know which. Obviously both of them have a fair aesthetic taste thing going for them. Neither of them seem to like doing something that is just a copy of another product either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
Towers are hardly me too designs. They are very practical in that they consolidate many parts into 1 area. Apple has made some great compact towers in the past. They can easily think different with a tower design.
Take that a bit further and you've an iMac. More consolidation. Less 'me too'. They've thought different with their tower design and have given you the iMac.
Oh, you didn't want them thinking that different and you're not prepared to think that far different either?
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
But a sale on a higher profit turnaround per machine is good.
It's almost certainly LESS profit unless you're talking about Cube prices. Dell stated in their third quarter results that they were getting OUT of selling low to mid priced desktops because they were less profitable than other products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
No one is saying to kill the iMac here. People are simply asking for an alternative to a workstation. Don't feel threatened, this isn't an iMac vs. xMac here.
I'm not. My iMac is a much better solution than a multibox solution for me. I've been more than happy with it. I'd have bought a laptop if they weren't G4s only at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
It's a we don't need a $289349239842389 dollar tower to accomplish things. IMO the Mac Pro appeals to a more niche computer market than any of apple's computers simply because it is a workstation with very expensive work station parts. Someone suggested selling the machine with 1 Xeon, which would significantly drop the price on the machine. That's a good start.
When they did the single CPU G5s, almost nobody bought them as they were still more expensive than an iMac. It was their least popular machine. They would have to go further, lower end and lower margin.
I guess for you, they went TOO FAR, and released the Mini. That's a fair computer too IMHO for the price. I was speccing one up as a server last week instead of an Airport Extreme base station and disk. Obviously the built in laptop drive is the sticky point for a server but there's some nice Mini sized external drives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
Where do you get your numbers that the game market is estimated at a million serious gamers now? I call FUD on those numbers, Isn't World Of Warcraft over 8 million subscribers alone? Doesn't Battlefield 2 have close to 4.5 million subscribers? That is just 2 games with SERIOUS gamers!
The Sims sold 16 million. That's the biggest selling game of all time and it's still not even a fiftieth of the installed base of computers worldwide which was estimated at 870 million by Gartner last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
What about every other gamer in the world that plays different games seriously or casually? Or were you referring to just Mac gamers? Which of course has rapidly changed since the introduction of intel cpus.
I was guessing Mac Gamers and I'm being generous. MacAddict estimated it as 183,000 gamers which seems a little low. The only Mac Games sales figures I found were Marathon2 selling 120,000 as the best selling Mac game of all time but that was old figures before OSX. You're still talking about game sales in the thousands typically with the exception of the big ports. The Mac game scene has not changed since the introduction of Intel CPUs. Not my views - http://www.macworld.com/2006/12/feat...6rev/index.php
I still think the Gamer argument for the reason why Apple needs a Mid tower is the most lame argument going.
There's about 4 million creative Mac users that might go for a cheaper Mac Pro. It's a market Apple actually competes in. Try making an argument there, not gamers or cubicle jockeys.
The game market is estimated as being no more than about a million serious gamers now.
That's silly. There are 8 million subscribers to World of Warcraft alone.
Also, figures discounting the computer gaming market routinely count sales only and forget to take into account subscription fees, which for WoW alone exceed $1 billion a year. The 'serious computer gamer' market is likely larger than Apple's entire current installed base.
Quote:
(re: Desktops being 40% of Mac sales...)That includes iMacs and Mac Minis of course. The very computers you're not happy with and which many people are because of their form factor and convenience.
Where did I say I was 'unhappy' with the iMac or Mac Mini?(hint: the correct answer is "nowhere").
The iMac and Mac Mini are fine products that should not go away, but at the same time they simply do not fill the product line-up hole of Apple having no expandable midrange desktop. And neither could be modified to do so due to their respective form factors. It's not dissing them to point out the patently obvious.
Quote:
The market as a whole (as in the whole PC industry) saw a decline in desktop sales. Dell dropped 5% and said they were "concentrating on more profitable products".
LOL, you're getting way too far ahead of yourself, Aegis. Yes, the desktop market is declining... slowly. It is still 40 percent of Mac sales, as I've pointed out. Do you honestly think Apple is simply going to kiss off 4 billion dollars a year in revenue because notebooks may be the future? Or does it make more sense to compete effectively in what is still a very large market for them?
Quote:
Apple doesn't even play in the same corporate desktop market Dell does and you want them to jump right in to a market in decline where they have almost zero presence?
Actually, you just made a huge argument in FAVOR of Apple getting more into the desktop market. Apple does not sell in any serious numbers to business AND they have a gaping hole in their desktop lineup. Yet STILL, desktops are 40 percent of their Mac sales. Imagine if they did compete a little harder and filled that hole?
I don't see them selling in huge quantities to business even with a nice mintower (though it sure wouldn't hurt- even a modest uptick would be helpful). I do see them attracting more Windows switchers, who are used to buying minitowers and who make up a lot more of Apple's Mac sales than they used to.
Quote:
That 15" PC laptop is likely to be a Celeron 430 or Core Duo 2060 1.6 though and have a screen res of 1280x800. ie. powerful than the MacBook and the same res screen.
Incorrect. The 1680x1050 15" Dell notebook I mention is Pentium Dual-core by default, and you can make into a Core 2 Duo machine for $100.
Quote:
AIK nobody is doing 15" $1000 laptops with 1440x900 screens.
Dell is currently doing 15" $1000 laptops with 1680x1050 screens, as both Chucker and I have pointed out in another thread.
Quote:
But you're believing Digitimes. Nostradamus is more reliable.
And they're just rumours anyway, not fact.
The sources AI quotes have been right more often than not, in my experience. And even you admit elsewhere that you think Apple is going to do a subnotebook, so apparently you agree with them.
Quote:
(re: Cube failed, why do Cube2?)EXACTLY. There's no market for a mid tower Apple. Apple aren't going to do anything cheaper 'eMachine' style.
The Cube failed because 1) it was significantly overpriced, even for Apple 2) had no real expandability. A midrange expandable minitower would address both issues, and without veering into 'eMachines' price territory. We're not talking a sub-$500 minitower here, we're talking more like $1000-1500 (and Apple has had $1500 towers in the past, unfortunately before the 'iPod Halo' effect, otherwise they'd likelly being doing even better among switchers than they already are).
Quote:
(Re: Apple subnotebook) An I used to work in Japan. I know. I think they'll do one but not at a price the whiners will like.
Well, at least we agree on something. At the same time, it certainly isn't 'whining' to acknowledge that Apple needs a sub-$1000 notebook. I personally don't care if said product is a subnotebook or not, but Apple needs to appeal strongly to midrange notebook buyers, and not concentrate solely on the high end. The truly low end I do not care about, nor does Apple, as there are no profits (and little quality) there.
Quote:
I'm sure it's also full of laptops too. Somebody's buying those too. And I would wonder what would happen if a sexy brand (ie. not Gateway or Dell) came out with an AIO as sexy as the iMac? You think you've got choice but you've no choice at all. They're all essentially similar grey/beige boxes with the same software.
Actually the iMac, when it first came out in 'Lifesaver' colors, was imitated on the PC side, to no great effect.
Quote:
(re: Folks preferring expandability even if they don't always use it, and the parallel of folks buying off-road SUVs yet never going off-road) The same people (not 'folks' please) who are derided for their stupidity in buying highly inappropriate vehicles presumably.
I agree, they are a bit silly for buying capability that they'll never use. Guess what? It DOESN'T MATTER. What is the color of a smart customer's money? A: Green. What is the color of a moron's money? A: Just as green.
Folks (sorry, I do like the word) such as these may be confused as to what they really need, but Apple would be even more confused if they turned their nose up at their money. You sell people what they think they need, you do not argue them into buying what YOU think they need. Arrogance has never been a strong selling point. \
Quote:
Most people DO actually change their computer every two to three years. That's the industry average. In the UK, as a business I write off IT purchases after two years. The great thing about Macs is the resale value is so good, selling them on then actually makes for quite a profitable business expense.
That upgrade cycle seems a bit brief. Last year, approximately 230 million PCs were sold worldwide. The latest estimates are that there are 800 to 900 million PC users worldwide (hi, China and India). Given that, the average upgrade cycle seems to be at least three and closer to four years, and that's been my personal experience in the corporate world as well.
Quote:
The last time Mac desktop sales showed any significant increase, was the introduction of the iMac G5 when it jumped 30%. It's hovered at that level since then. The Mac Mini didn't even cause a blip. I would suggest that Apple has reached a plateau where they aren't going to get any more desktop sales. They've saturated their market. Desktop sales throughout the rest of the industry have continued to fall.
At the same time, Apple's laptop sales have more than doubled. Profits have soared.
Aaaaand... it just doesn't matter. Desktops are 40 percent of Mac sales, even now. Apple would be insane to kiss off that huge a chunk of their business. And they get that 40 percent (625,000 desktop Macs sold a quarter) even WITHOUT a midrange expandable desktop. As I told you previously, call me in 2020... when the desktop market really IS dead.
Quote:
Apple would have to sell into the Windows Office market to make any further desktop sales gains. That's a tough one to crack. I don't think it's realistic to even attempt it.
That's why they aren't doing a cheap mid tower desktop.
Nope. The reason they aren't doing a midrange minitower is because they'd prefer folks to buy $2500 Mac Pros instead. They aren't selling a lot of Mac Pros, but the ones they do sell are pretty profitable, and the number of Mac buyers who can use a tower's expandability to slow down the replacement cycle ends up very limited (bad old Apple thinking, i.e. milking a 'fixed base' that isn't really fixed anymore, thanks to the influx of Windows switchers and folks new to computing).
The problem is, this doesn't really help their marketshare, and doesn't really appeal to potential Windows switchers, who may want a tower (because thats what they're used to buying on the PC side) but take one look at the Mac Pro price tag and pass out.
That's silly. There are 8 million subscribers to World of Warcraft alone.
On Macs? No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Where did I say I was 'unhappy' with the iMac or Mac Mini?(hint: the correct answer is "nowhere").
You're not happy enough with them that you'd actually buy one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
LOL, you're getting way too far ahead of yourself, Aegis. Yes, the desktop market is declining... slowly. It is still 40 percent of Mac sales, as I've pointed out. Do you honestly think Apple is simply going to kiss off 4 billion dollars a year in revenue because notebooks may be the future? Or does it make more sense to compete effectively in what is still a very large market for them?
I'm arguing it's not a large market for them. The two holes they have left on the desktop are office PCs and Gamers. Those are not large holes FOR APPLE. They would be if they were Dell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Actually, you just made a huge argument in FAVOR of Apple getting more into the desktop market. Apple does not sell in any serious numbers to business AND they have a gaping hole in their desktop lineup. Yet STILL, desktops are 40 percent of their Mac sales. Imagine if they did compete a little harder and filled that hole?
It'd make almost zero difference since they don't have the software in that market and people who buy office PCs don't care two shits about design or the OS. They aren't Apple's customers. They just want cheap boxes that run Word or Excel and the many, many custom written VB apps that most businesses hang together on that Macs can't run.
Yes it's a big hole in Apple's market but they've absolutely zero chance of filling it. It's like trying to sell blood pudding to vegetarians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
I don't see them selling in huge quantities to business even with a nice mintower (though it sure wouldn't hurt- even a modest uptick would be helpful). I do see them attracting more Windows switchers, who are used to buying minitowers and who make up a lot more of Apple's Mac sales than they used to.
And I think they'd be better off convincing Windows switchers that they really don't need their boxes of plastic and air anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Incorrect. The 1680x1050 15" Dell notebook I mention is Pentium Dual-core by default, and you can make into a Core 2 Duo machine for $100.
The 6400 is T2060 based just as I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Dell is currently doing 15" $1000 laptops with 1680x1050 screens, as both Chucker and I have pointed out in another thread.
And what a beast it is. 1.6ghz T2060 Core Duo with 512MB of RAM, Home Basic and a combo drive with a 1680x1050 screen. I hope you're happy with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
The sources AI quotes have been right more often than not, in my experience. And even you admit elsewhere that you think Apple is going to do a subnotebook, so apparently you agree with them.
Digitimes? You must read a different AI to me. I said I think they SHOULD do a sub notebook, not that they will. It's the most likely IMHO out of the three rumours you're hanging on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
The Cube failed because 1) it was significantly overpriced, even for Apple 2) had no real expandability. A midrange expandable minitower would address both issues, and without veering into 'eMachines' price territory. We're not talking a sub-$500 minitower here, we're talking more like $1000-1500 (and Apple has had $1500 towers in the past, unfortunately before the 'iPod Halo' effect, otherwise they'd likelly being doing even better among switchers than they already are).
The Cube had non-laptop drives, a replaceable graphics card and cost $1799 back in 2001. $800 cheaper than a PowerBook at the time. At today's prices I guess it would be $7-800 since Powerbooks(MacBookPros) are almost half what they were in 2001.
Not enough people bought them then. I had my chequebook at the ready for one back then but they pulled it a couple of months before I was ready. I bought an iBook instead - still got it. It cost nearly £1500 IIRC.
What do you have in mind for an expandable mid tower if not an $7-800 computer that could have all the important parts replaced? Very few people have any need at all for PCI slots anymore when everything is on the motherboard already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Well, at least we agree on something. At the same time, it certainly isn't 'whining' to acknowledge that Apple needs a sub-$1000 notebook.
The MacBook is $99 over. Most people are sensible enough to realise that's neither here nor there in the lifetime of the MacBook. In the UK it makes no difference since ALL MacBooks are under £1000. Here, the main target is the £500 laptop and Apple aren't going to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
I personally don't care if said product is a subnotebook or not, but Apple needs to appeal strongly to midrange notebook buyers, and not concentrate solely on the high end. The truly low end I do not care about, nor does Apple, as there are no profits (and little quality) there.
See your earlier Dell $1000 pile of crap. Surely the MacBook is a perfect example of a good midrange laptop already as opposed to the AMD Laptops and old PentiumM laptops still kicking around or crap like the T2060 Core Duo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Actually the iMac, when it first came out in 'Lifesaver' colors, was imitated on the PC side, to no great effect.
They were all embarrassingly crap, low quality and copycats. Nobody likes a fake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Folks (sorry, I do like the word) such as these may be confused as to what they really need, but Apple would be even more confused if they turned their nose up at their money. You sell people what they think they need, you do not argue them into buying what YOU think they need. Arrogance has never been a strong selling point. \
I'm reminded of the Simpson episode where Homer got to design the car of the future.
I really don't get the accusations of arrogance. Apple sells a product. Part of it is that they design a whole package. If you don't want the whole package and won't listen to advice then Apple isn't for you. That's why you've got the choice of other manufacturers. You shouldn't expect every manufacturer to meet your every whim, no matter how stupid it is. In business I've learnt that the customer who makes stupid demands generally isn't worth doing business with. Support issues are usually massive. Sometimes it's a good idea to sack those customers or give them to your competitors for them to have to deal with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Nope. The reason they aren't doing a midrange minitower is because they'd prefer folks to buy $2500 Mac Pros instead. They aren't selling a lot of Mac Pros, but the ones they do sell are very profitable. The problem is, this doesn't really help their marketshare, and doesn't really appeal to potential Windows switchers, who may want a tower (because thats what they're used to buying on the PC side) but take one look at the Mac Pro price tag and pass out.
Apple aren't bothered about market share. They've said so over and over again. They want to make good products and they want to make a profit doing it. They don't need to cover all the bases in order to do that. So far it's a strategy that's doing significantly better than any other computer company. They're also damned good value for the spec as I've found out in the last few days pricing PCs against Apples.
"Apple's market share is bigger than BMW's or Mercedes's or Porsche's in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes? - Steve Jobs"
That's where I'm leaving this as I've a tonne of Applescript code to write this week and a product release Friday. Eek!
You did not specify that in your original comment. Regardless, the computer gaming market as a whole is likely as large as the entire Mac installed base. I doubt gaming can be made into a reason to buy a Mac, but Apple could make gaming less of a reason NOT to buy one.
Quote:
You're not happy enough with [iMacs or Mac minis] that you'd actually buy one.
Incorrect. Back in 2000, I was the owner of an Indigo iMac. Since then though, my needs have changed.
Quote:
I'm arguing [that the desktop market is] not a large market for [Apple]. The two holes they have left on the desktop are office PCs and Gamers. Those are not large holes FOR APPLE. They would be if they were Dell.
The desktop market is obviously a large market for Apple- its 40 percent of Macs sold. And the hole that you keep missing, again and again, is that Windows switchers are likely to be attracted to minitowers, since they are used to buying them on the PC side. And as I've repeated, again and again, half of Mac sales are to said Windows switchers or folks new to computing.
Therefore, its a 'no brainer', as you've put it, for Apple to fill that particular hole in their product line-up. Its not just about cubicles and gamers, its also about switchers.
Quote:
It'd make almost zero difference [if Apple competed more strongly in desktops] since they don't have the software in that market and people who buy office PCs don't care two shits about design or the OS. They aren't Apple's customers. They just want cheap boxes that run Word or Excel and the many, many custom written VB apps that most businesses hang together on that Macs can't run.
Yes it's a big hole in Apple's market but they've absolutely zero chance of filling it. It's like trying to sell blood pudding to vegetarians.
See above. Again, its not just about cubicles.
Quote:
And I think they'd be better off convincing Windows switchers that they really don't need their boxes of plastic and air anymore.
Good luck with that. Its always much easier to sell the customer what THEY want then try to convince them to buy what YOU tell them to. \
Quote:
The 6400 [Dell laptop] is T2060 based just as I said.
I'm not talking about the 6400... its the Inspiron 1505, actually. Whose specs have been updated... its now T2250 (Core Duo 1.73), upgradeable to Core 2 Duo for a mere $60.
Not bad at all, especially considering it remains a sub-$1000 notebook even with the upgrade to 15" 1680x1050 screen and Core 2 Duo upgrade.
Quote:
And what a beast it is. 1.6ghz T2060 Core Duo with 512MB of RAM, Home Basic and a combo drive with a 1680x1050 screen. I hope you're happy with it.
Actually, the Dell notebook I'm talking about has 1 GB of RAM by default, Home Premium, and a faster processor. I'm still willing to give Apple a chance though, since their notebook lineup is due for a refresh, and they may improve their value-to-cost ratio significantly with said refresh.
Quote:
Digitimes? You must read a different AI to me. I said I think they SHOULD do a sub notebook, not that they will. It's the most likely IMHO out of the three rumours you're hanging on.
No, you said you think they'll do one:
And I used to work in Japan. I know. I think they'll do one but not at a price the whiners will like.
And I agree, they probably will.
Quote:
The Cube had non-laptop drives, a replaceable graphics card and cost $1799 back in 2001. $800 cheaper than a PowerBook at the time. At today's prices I guess it would be $7-800 since Powerbooks(MacBookPros) are almost half what they were in 2001.
You're going in the wrong direction in adjusting prices for time. Adjusting for inflation, the $1799 price of the Cube in 2001 is over $2000 in today's dollars. Not exactly cheap for a non-expandable desktop. In fact, its price very close to that of a downgraded Mac Pro, only without the expandability. Not exactly a winner.
Quote:
What do you have in mind for an expandable mid tower if not an $7-800 computer that could have all the important parts replaced? Very few people have any need at all for PCI slots anymore when everything is on the motherboard already.
Apple is getting hurt on the desktop by the fact that PC buyers know they can get a killer Core 2 Duo expandable desktop for $1000-1500. That would be the price range they need to hit... they can leave the low-end to eMachines and its ilk.
And yes, we know that most people don't NEED expandability, but many people LIKE THE IDEA of expandability, and buy partly because of that. How many times does that need to be repeated to sink in?
Quote:
The MacBook is $99 over. Most people are sensible enough to realise that's neither here nor there in the lifetime of the MacBook.
I guess you haven't been in sales. $1000 is an important psychological price point, and its probably why you see a $999 iMac instead of a 'split the difference' $1099 one that would cover the bases of both low-end iMac models, and be easier on inventory.
A $999 MacBook would be a very good step for Apple.
Quote:
See your earlier Dell $1000 pile of crap.
I wish it was a pile of crap. Unfortunately, its really showing up Apple in terms of value, and I hope Apple responds swiftly. \
Quote:
Surely the MacBook is a perfect example of a good midrange laptop already as opposed to the AMD Laptops and old PentiumM laptops still kicking around or crap like the T2060 Core Duo.
Again, the notebook I refer to is not T2060, and is upgradeable to Core 2 Duo for $60, which ain't much.
Quote:
They [the iMac knockoffs] were all embarrassingly crap, low quality and copycats. Nobody likes a fake.
That's a fair assessment. The iMac copycats were a pathetic lot.
Quote:
I'm reminded of the Simpson episode where Homer got to design the car of the future.
I really don't get the accusations of arrogance. Apple sells a product. Part of it is that they design a whole package. If you don't want the whole package and won't listen to advice then Apple isn't for you. That's why you've got the choice of other manufacturers. You shouldn't expect every manufacturer to meet your every whim, no matter how stupid it is. In business I've learnt that the customer who makes stupid demands generally isn't worth doing business with. Support issues are usually massive. Sometimes it's a good idea to sack those customers or give them to your competitors for them to have to deal with.
We could go into this particular aspect for hours. Let's just say that customers asking Apple to fill obvious product line holes is not 'stupid' by any stretch, and that hopefully Apple responds, as I'd like to see them do well both revenue and marketshare-wise.
Quote:
Apple aren't bothered about market share. They've said so over and over again. They want to make good products and they want to make a profit doing it. They don't need to cover all the bases in order to do that. So far it's a strategy that's doing significantly better than any other computer company. They're also damned good value for the spec as I've found out in the last few days pricing PCs against Apples.
"Apple's market share is bigger than BMW's or Mercedes's or Porsche's in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes? - Steve Jobs
I'm afraid that Apple not caring about marketshare is utter bollocks, as you UKers like to say. Apple has certain fixed costs that must be paid, and below a certain level of marketshare (and thus, revenue), it becomes extremely hard to pay those costs, without grossly inflated margins. Which drives away customers, which further reduces revenues, which requires further margin increases, which drives away still more customers, etc. etc. and so on and so on. The tag 'death spiral' has been used to describe such a process, and Apple was in start of one in the mid 90s, before Jobs came back.
What's one of the first things that Jobs did upon his return? He launched a very popular, MARKET SHARE-BOOSTING product, the iMac. Which brought up revenues, and helped pull Apple out of the death spiral. Anything you've heard since then regarding Apple's disdain of market share is simple posturing, probably used as cover for the fact that Apple's marketshare has been stagnant until recently.
Quote:
That's where I'm leaving this as I've a tonne of Applescript code to write this week and a product release Friday. Eek!
Comments
There will be no mass exodus from Windows to the Mac because the vast majority of computer users are either not smart enough to see the benefits or not brave enough to let go of the old and familiar. But the word is out and the game is on. One thing is totally obvious: There is no way in the universe that 95% of the kids today (the iPod generation) are gonna grow up and buy the same old pissy pc that their parents used. No way. Absolutely no way. The war is already over. Just sit back and watch the show.
Sit back and watch the show? For what the next 20 years? It hasn't happened in the last 20years what makes you think its going to happen over the next?
These blanket statements with no logic behind them are foolish.
Why do people continue to make the comparision that in some way Mac users have an extra set of glutamate brain receptors that somehow makes them smarter then the reast of the world.
It's not about being smart or dumb its about what needs are met and what is cost effective in many casest Macs can provide neither.
Many have already stated why their business will not switch to Macs, its clear, and the simple fact is a business wants to make sure it can work well with the rest of the world.
If Apple is so smart while do they still allow MS to control its office product? Why has Apple not come up with its own true office suite?
In 20 years the only thing Apple has been able to grab is the mp3 player market share and the reason they have that is because of Windows users.
If MS made it so iTunes would not load into Windows you would see the ipod market share fall to 5% within a year.
If it wasn't for the fact that the US government would step in if MS stopped making Office for Mac and made is so ipods would not work under Windows they would drop kick Apple back to the stone age.
No, they're stuck in old-school thinking because in a lot of areas they're still working from a strategy of milking a fixed base, instead of working harder to appeal to a wider (and formerly Windows-centric) one. The Mac Mini and $999 iMac are good first steps, but its fair to say there's more they could do. And with their now diversified revenue base, they could do it without endangering the company in any way.
Failing to provide an expandable, reasonably-priced midrange desktop is only a symptom of such thinking, its not the root cause of why they're stuck in the past.
This is exactly the market Dell have been trying to move out of and for good reason. The profits are slim. Apple don't do cheap computers or slim profits.
Well, multibillion dollar corporations like mine, for one. Is that what you mean by 'the cubicles'? That's not an inconsiderable market.
No, it isn't but even when Apple sold mid towers, the cubicles didn't buy Macs and they still wont. It's not hardware that is going to get them there, it's software. Frankly, Apple doesn't have it. No Access or a decent Exchange and AD solution rules it out for most offices that are running Microsoft servers. And it's a hard sell getting businesses to switch their servers or rewrite their systems to use Filemaker or getting the accounts guys to use MYOB or MoneyWorks instead of Sage.
Oh, and Windows switchers too, who are used to buying minitowers.
They seem to be getting quite used to buying Macs though as is with Apple reporting over 50% of Mac buyers being switchers. That'll continue as more and more people realise they don't actually need a minitower that never gets upgraded.
Who really cares? If Apple is to keep expanding its Mac business, it needs to reach beyond 'traditional Mac buyers'.
See above. What's happening now with cheap (relatively) powerful laptops is they've hit a performance level above what people actually need just now, so people are buying them instead of a slightly more powerful desktop. There's no real penalty between a 2+Ghz Core Duo laptop and a 2+Ghz desktop that's important really except to gamers.
Apple knows that. Sony knows that. Toshiba knows that. All of them got out of the mid tower market to concentrate on laptops and workstations with a couple of AIOs along the way.
Oh my. People want midrange desktops, and your solution is to tell 'em to "go buy a laptop instead"??. The customer isn't king, and father knows best?
No, the customer is king and they're choosing laptops in their droves. I wasn't telling them to go buy a laptop - that's what they're already doing if it's their choice. When it's a companies choice, Microsoft Drone IT managers tend to give their cubicle jockeys cheap crappy Dell PCs and there's no way Apple would get in to that market. That leaves gamers and that market is so small as to be statistically insignificant on the Mac.
The desktop is dead outside of specific needs like Pro video work, Games and what we used to use dumb terminals for back in the 80s but we now use web browsers for instead now.
Currently, about half of Apple's Mac business is users who are new to the platform, i.e. switchers or first-time computer buyers. And you would think that Apple would want to grow their business, not just 'maintain' it.
.
If their current results are your idea of just 'maintaining' their business then you seem to be expecting an awful lot of growth out of selling mid-towers - the format that's currently in decline in the industry.
I don't know what i'm talking about? It's pretty hard to have a display on the RIGHT SIDE covering the DVD drive.
There's these things on the end of your hand called fingers. When you want your disk ejected, press your 'finger' on the left side of the screen and the iMac swivels on it's slippy base. Eject the CD. Remove it. You'll find a finger goes through the hole in the middle of the disk coincidentally. Then take your finger again and swivel it back.
Seriously though, how often do you use a CD drive these days? I think I've used mine once in a month and that was only when the new issue of Macworld turned up.
I still don't see what the big deal is though. Stick your main display on the left or is your other display a lower quality display than the iMac display?
I find it somewhat amusing that despite the "halo" effect of the massive sales of the iPod, that the Mac's share still hovers around 2.5%. Which really must be annoying the faithful who have been confidently predicting that the Mac's market share will skyrocket accordingly.
I'm not sure that's true of 'the faithful'.
Sure, we all (mostly) want Apple to sell more and more Macs but ultimately we just want them turning out really good hardware and software, and they've been doing very well lately, although I think AppleTV and the new Airport Express are fundamentally flawed. Unsurprisingly, when they do turn out decent kit, they sell a load more of them.
There's these things on the end of your hand called fingers. When you want your disk ejected, press your 'finger' on the left side of the screen and the iMac swivels on it's slippy base. Eject the CD. Remove it. You'll find a finger goes through the hole in the middle of the disk coincidentally. Then take your finger again and swivel it back.
Seriously though, how often do you use a CD drive these days? I think I've used mine once in a month and that was only when the new issue of Macworld turned up.
I use mine constantly. I've had to change my superdrive on my Powerbook because it burned out. Sure I could always have an external drive, but I have enough on my desk. An external harddrive is already enough. Again, just because it works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone. I find it dumb (on apple's part) that they put the drive on the side bezel of the iMac. If they could put it on the side they could have easily put it on top, but maybe that collects more dust.
Admittingly, I didn't know about being able to drag the menubar from one side to the other in the windows. I was actually looking for an option like in the windows control panel that says make primary display. So that's cool you can make it your primary display. So really the display argument is out. You get that one. And no, my current display smokes the iMac built in display. Which was another argument of mine. But that is irrelevant since you can make another display the primary display.
It still brings up the question of a sub par graphics card, and the rest of the laptop components. The iMac is a great machine for a lot of people. It doesn't and won't fit the bill for everyone. I know you don't want to listen to a bunch of cry babies, but a lot of these so called cry babies are holding back money because they don't feel there is a necessary machine for them.
Personally, I'll be breaking down and buying the next gen Mac Pro. Neither the iMac nor the Mac Pro trully fit my desired use, but the Mac Pro fits more so than the iMac.
I'm not sure that's true of 'the faithful'.
Ah... you misunderstood my meaning, probably due to the unintentional ambiguity in that comment. Language is a tricky thing to master, eh?
I'll rephrase it slightly.
"Which really must be annoying those faithful who have been confidently predicting that the Mac's market share will skyrocket accordingly."
And I'm sure you'd agree with that comment.
Some of us hate them for multiple reasons, including but not limited to:
a) Many years of beta code in production
b) code bload, lots of junk code not optimized
c) many years of blue screens
d) Overcharging for most software
e) smug attitute since they are the main game in town
f) Lots of shitty code that hackers can take advantage of
g) anti-competitive behaviour
Just wondering what it is about "many years of beta code in production" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "code bloat, lots of junk code not optimized" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "many years of blue screens" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "overcharging for most software" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "smug attitude since they are the main game in town" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "lots of shitty code that hackers can take advantage of" that engenders hatred?
Just wondering what it is about "anti-competitive behaviour" that engenders hatred?
Especially if you're a Mac user and don't have to use Windows on a regular basis. I suppose regular Windows users might feel aggrieved if any of those issues were making their lives miserable, but a lot of your points are rhetoric, some can just as easily be levelled at Apple and others are surely a matter of opinion.
If you're serious that people actually hate a company for those reasons, then there's some pathology issues, as that extreme emotional reaction is really not normal. And it begs the question of why anyone would admit to such irrational thoughts.
Now, if Bill Gates burned down your home, had your kids unjustly expelled from school and shot Steve Jobs then I suppose you might be justified in expressing your loathing, but the 'reasons' supplied certainly don't justify hatred. Maybe scorn? Maybe sadness? Perhaps bewilderment? Irritation even, if you have to use Windows exclusively. But hatred?
You might as well hate the atmosphere because you'd rather it didn't rain.
If their current results are your idea of just 'maintaining' their business then you seem to be expecting an awful lot of growth out of selling mid-towers - the format that's currently in decline in the industry.
The original quote I was responding to was this:
Apple's OS has continuously proven to be a few steps ahead of MS and with it's ease of use, Apple only need to retain it's current users to maintain their business.
Obviously, the gentlemen's comment is behind the times. In the 'bad old days', Apple was all about selling Macs to the same folks over and over again, since they couldn't seem to attract many switchers or folks new to computing. That has obviously changed, with a lot more switchers and folks new to computing buying Macs recently (about half of all new Mac sales are to these folks). Which is great.
The tough part is, you have to continue to appeal to such people, and pull in the fence-sitters who haven't bitten yet. One way is buy offering them good value, and the products they want. Windows switchers are used to buying minitowers (it may be a segment in decline, as are desktops in general, but tons of midrange towers still get sold every year regardless, and Apple currently has zero presence in that space), and they probably don't want to have to pay twice as much for a Mac as they would an equivalent PC product. More, perhaps... but not ridiculously more.
Offering mintowers (at a reasonable price) is just part of a larger strategy in which Apple needs to plug major holes in its product line-up, such as a reasonably-priced 15" notebook, and a subnotebook (those two plus minitowers are the 'Big Three' I always cite). Guess what? At least two of those three gaps are going to be filled, if you've been keeping up with the AI news. I'm batting .667 already.
Is it such a leap to think the minitower hole in the product lineup would not follow suit? Probably not, unless you just plain hate the idea of a Mac minitower. That's okay... its not for you. Its for potential switchers and established Mac users who either need expandability or like the IDEA of expandability.
Either is okay, the goal is not to offer something that the customer is 100% guaranteed to use, the goal is to swing their buying decision Apple's way. After all, whether they use said expandability or not, their money is just as green, capiche?
Similarly, you may not particularly like 15" MBs or subnotebooks, feeling that they are 'unnecessary' and that Apple is trying to be 'all things to all people', but Apple apparently disagrees, and is developing them. I hope the trend holds.
.
The original quote I was responding to was this:
The tough part is, you have to continue to appeal to such people, and pull in the fence-sitters who haven't bitten yet. One way is buy offering them good value, and the products they want. Windows switchers are used to buying minitowers (it may be a segment in decline, as are desktops in general, but tons of midrange towers still get sold every year regardless, and Apple currently has zero presence in that space), and they probably don't want to have to pay twice as much for a Mac as they would an equivalent PC product. More, perhaps... but not ridiculously more.
I have a problem with the above scenario.I don't think it bears any resemblance to reality now.
From my experience of friends, family and acquaintances, NONE of them are buying desktops this year. They all want laptops. Many of them Apple too. Now, that could be because I don't know any gamers but IME it's shifted dramatically away from the desktop in the last year now that you can get laptops for sub-£400 here in the UK.
Sure, lots of desktops get bought but it's mostly business that buys them, and what they're really buying there is Windows, not a desktop, because they've a Windows infrastructure to tie up to or they only need an Office box. Having an Apple desktop won't sell to that market anyway.
And you know full well that Macs aren't 'twice as much' or even 'ridiculously more'. They just don't do cheap computers.
Offering mintowers (at a reasonable price) is just part of a larger strategy in which Apple needs to plug major holes in its product line-up, such as a reasonably-priced 15" notebook, and a subnotebook (those two plus minitowers are the 'Big Three' I always cite). Guess what? Two of those three gaps are going to be filled, if you've been keeping up with the AI news. I'm batting .667 already.
I think you'll be disappointed with all three.
1) Mini tower - not going to happen at the price level you want if at all. It'll be a Cube2 not a Dell Dimension E520 if anything.
2) 15" Laptop - if it happens (it was a Digitimes rumour afterall) it'll be a 1280x800 res screen with integrated graphics, no different to the 13" MacBook. It'll weigh 6kg and cost more than the 13"
3) Subnotebook - it'll be almost as expensive as the 15" MacbookPro if not more so if the rumours of NAND RAM startup disks are true. Premium model.
Is it such a leap to think the minitower hole in the product lineup would not follow suit? Probably not, unless you just plain hate the idea of a Mac minitower. That's okay... its not for you. Its for potential switchers and established Mac users who either need expandability or like the IDEA of expandability.
IMHO a profitable market doesn't exist in significant enough numbers to justify it. Very few people care about expandability when computers are faster than they need these days and cheap enough that replacing the whole thing every couple of years is a no-brainer.
Either is okay, the goal is not to offer something that the customer is 100% guaranteed to use, the goal is to swing their buying decision Apple's way. After all, whether they use said expandability or not, their money is just as green, capiche?
Switch 'portability' for 'expandability' in that last sentence and you've got what most consumers are thinking today instead of what they were thinking a decade ago.
IMHO a profitable market doesn't exist in significant enough numbers to justify it. Very few people care about expandability when computers are faster than they need these days and cheap enough that replacing the whole thing every couple of years is a no-brainer.
I don't believe that for a second. It's much easier to turn a profit off of a desktop than a laptop. Desktop parts are cheaper and assembly is cheaper. Tech support and repairing is cheaper. Especially considering how much apple jacks the prices up on their hardware, it would be very easy for apple to turn a profit. You're acting like they would be breaking even? Or coming close to it? There is little risk involved with redesigning the case on the Mac Pro (according to looprumors) and having 2 different motherboards. 1 for Xeon processors (socket 771 and 5000 chipset). 1 for Core2Duo processors (socket 775 and any number of chipsets). Intel already makes the EFI boards for both chipsets, so R&D would be very minimal. Addressing chipset drivers for OS X would cost the most. It's easy to swap a motherboard in a Mac Pro case, more so than the G5.
The big question is how much (if any) would this machine cut into the iMac sales. Which in turn apple would lose discounts on laptop hardware if their numbers significantly dropped. And if they did significantly drop and lost their discount, how would the profits turned off of laptop hardware prices compare to the cheaper desktop hardware prices that were gained.
Switch 'portability' for 'expandability' in that last sentence and you've got what most consumers are thinking today instead of what they were thinking a decade ago.
Not everyone wants a tower for expandability. I can see why you think no one wants a tower, since you don't know any gamers. All of my friends are probably in a different demographic than yours. Just about everyone of my friends will take a tower over a laptop / laptop hardware any day... for the fact that you get better graphics card choices, more ram, bigger harddrives / more harddrives, more optical drives, better cooling.
I have a problem with the above scenario.I don't think it bears any resemblance to reality now.
From my experience of friends, family and acquaintances, NONE of them are buying desktops this year. They all want laptops.
That's the funny thing about personal experience... it may or may not reflect the reality of what the market as a whole is doing. Despite your friends, about 40 percent of Mac sales are desktops (roughly 980K notebooks and 625K desktops):
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2155
Sure, lots of desktops get bought but it's mostly business that buys them, and what they're really buying there is Windows, not a desktop, because they've a Windows infrastructure to tie up to or they only need an Office box. Having an Apple desktop won't sell to that market anyway.
And yet... despite not selling much to businesses... and despite having a big hole in their desktop lineup... 40% of Mac sales are still desktops. Imagine if they focused on that segment at all.
And you know full well that Macs aren't 'twice as much' or even 'ridiculously more'. They just don't do cheap computers.
They are twice as much in some segments, unfortunately. If I want a laptop with a 15" screen, I can get one for ~$1000 on the PC side. But if I want a Mac notebook with a 15" screen.... $2000, please.
"We just don't do cheap computers" doesn't cut it there. 15" laptops are not prime eMachines territory.
I think you'll be disappointed with all three.
1) Mini tower - not going to happen at the price level you want if at all. It'll be a Cube2 not a Dell Dimension E520 if anything.
2) 15" Laptop - if it happens (it was a Digitimes rumour afterall) it'll be a 1280x800 res screen with integrated graphics, no different to the 13" MacBook. It'll weigh 6kg and cost more than the 13"
3) Subnotebook - it'll be almost as expensive as the 15" MacbookPro if not more so if the rumours of NAND RAM startup disks are true. Premium model.
We'll see. Right now I'm 2 for 3 (with 3 for 3 a possibility), and you're stuck doing Nostradamus impersonations. 8)
Btw, Cube failed. Why do Cube2? As far as subnotebooks go, its a hole not because of price (IF they get a sub-$1K MB out), its a hole because of form factor. Ask all the Japanese businessmen using them on international flights.
IMHO a profitable market doesn't exist in significant enough numbers to justify it. Very few people care about expandability when computers are faster than they need these days and cheap enough that replacing the whole thing every couple of years is a no-brainer.
I dunno... I open up my local Circuit City or Best Buy weekly flyer, and its chock-full of... you guessed-it... EXPANDABLE computers for sale. Somebody's buying these things.
And yeah, a lot of folks may never use said expandability. But it doesn't matter, because a lot of them like the IDEA of being able to expand if they need to, and base their buying decision partly on that. Its like folks who buy SUVs with "great offroad ability", yet never leave the road.
And where in the world did you get the idea that folks are okay with tossing out their computer every couple of years? Most consumers don't like to think they have the word "sucker" tatooed on their foreheads. Sorry, but just because Apple is still engaging in some outdated 'milk the fixed base' thinking here, does NOT make it a "no brainer".
Switch 'portability' for 'expandability' in that last sentence and you've got what most consumers are thinking today instead of what they were thinking a decade ago.
Judging from recent Mac sales (running at 40 percent desktop), not to mention continued sales of expandable desktops on the PC side, I'm not a decade behind, you're a decade ahead.
Call me in 2020, when the desktop market really IS dead.
.
I don't believe that for a second. It's much easier to turn a profit off of a desktop than a laptop. Desktop parts are cheaper and assembly is cheaper.
And they also sell for a lot cheaper than a laptop in the bulk of the mid-tower desktop market which is the lowest end of the market.
Tech support and repairing is cheaper. Especially considering how much apple jacks the prices up on their hardware, it would be very easy for apple to turn a profit.
They don't jack the price up on their hardware any more than any other tier1 supplier. They just don't do cheap computers with Celerons or Core Duo 2060s.
You're acting like they would be breaking even? Or coming close to it? There is little risk involved with redesigning the case on the Mac Pro (according to looprumors) and having 2 different motherboards. 1 for Xeon processors (socket 771 and 5000 chipset). 1 for Core2Duo processors (socket 775 and any number of chipsets). Intel already makes the EFI boards for both chipsets, so R&D would be very minimal. Addressing chipset drivers for OS X would cost the most. It's easy to swap a motherboard in a Mac Pro case, more so than the G5.
Regardless, it's not about technical details, it's about profit and a market there to sell to. To an extent it's about brand image and it's about releasing a me-too product doesn't create brand image.
The big question is how much (if any) would this machine cut into the iMac sales. Which in turn apple would lose discounts on laptop hardware if their numbers significantly dropped. And if they did significantly drop and lost their discount, how would the profits turned off of laptop hardware prices compare to the cheaper desktop hardware prices that were gained.
I really don't think that's a worry for them. If they aren't buying laptop CPUs from Intel, they're buying desktop CPUs so no loss to Intel. I'm sure they're above the threshold on either desktop or laptop CPU purchases where they've reached a decent discount level.
And you could say the same about iMac sales too. If Apple are selling mid-towers instead of iMacs, what does it matter to them? A sale is a sale.
If Apple we're only after sales, they'd sell cheap mid towers with Windows installed on them. Clearly they aren't JUST after sales.
Not everyone wants a tower for expandability. I can see why you think no one wants a tower, since you don't know any gamers. All of my friends are probably in a different demographic than yours. Just about everyone of my friends will take a tower over a laptop / laptop hardware any day... for the fact that you get better graphics card choices, more ram, bigger harddrives / more harddrives, more optical drives, better cooling.
Probably. Most of my circle are 25+ and have grown out of playing games and have better things to spend their time and money on, especially when games are heading for £50 here. They'll take portability, low noise levels and space saving over having a noisy PC stuck in their house.
The game market is estimated as being no more than about a million serious gamers now. That's about a quarter of Mac creative users which is only about a sixth/seventh of Mac users in total. Or 1/250th of the PCs sold worldwide. The PC games market on the PC is lower now than it was in 1993 (high spot was 1999) and dropping each year as people switch to consoles. The 'gamer' argument as why Apple should come out with a mid tower is the least compelling argument I've ever heard.
That's the funny thing about personal experience... it may or may not reflect the reality of what the market as a whole is doing. Despite your friends, about 40 percent of Mac sales are desktops (roughly 980K notebooks and 625K desktops):
And yet... despite not selling much to businesses... and despite having a big hole in their desktop lineup... 40% of Mac sales are still desktops. Imagine if they focused on that segment at all.
That includes iMacs and Mac Minis of course. The very computers you're not happy with and which many people are because of their form factor and convenience. The market as a whole (as in the whole PC industry) saw a decline in desktop sales. Dell dropped 5% and said they were "concentrating on more profitable products".
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...ry-results.htm
Apple doesn't even play in the same corporate desktop market Dell does and you want them to jump right in to a market in decline where they have almost zero presence?
They are twice as much in some segments, unfortunately. If I want a laptop with a 15" screen, I can get one for ~$1000 on the PC side. But if I want a Mac notebook with a 15" screen.... $2000, please.
"We just don't do cheap computers" doesn't cut it there. 15" laptops are not prime eMachines territory.
That 15" PC laptop is likely to be a Celeron 430 or Core Duo 2060 1.6 though and have a screen res of 1280x800. ie. powerful than the MacBook and the same res screen.
AFAIK nobody is doing 15" $1000 laptops with 1440x900 screens.
They're also usually huge and heavy plastic lumps.
We'll see. Right now I'm 2 for 3 (with 3 for 3 a possibility), and you're stuck doing Nostradamus impersonations.
But you're believing Digitimes. Nostradamus is more reliable.
And they're just rumours anyway, not fact.
Btw, Cube failed. Why do Cube2?
EXACTLY. There's no market for a mid tower Apple. Apple aren't going to do anything cheaper 'eMachine' style.
As far as subnotebooks go, its a hole not because of price (IF they get a sub-$1K MB out), its a hole because of form factor. Ask all the Japanese businessmen using them on international flights.
I used to work in Japan. I know. I think they'll do one but not at a price the whingers will like.
I dunno... I open up my local Circuit City or Best Buy weekly flyer, and its chock-full of... you guessed-it... EXPANDABLE computers for sale. Somebody's buying these things.
I'm sure it's also full of laptops too. Somebody's buying those too. And I would wonder what would happen if a sexy brand (ie. not Gateway or Dell) came out with an AIO as sexy as the iMac? You think you've got choice but you've no choice at all. They're all essentially similar grey/beige boxes with the same software.
And yeah, a lot of folks may never use said expandability. But it doesn't matter, because a lot of them like the IDEA of being able to expand if they need to, and base their buying decision partly on that. Its like folks who buy SUVs with "great offroad ability", yet never leave the road.
The same people (not 'folks' please) who are derided for their stupidity in buying highly inappropriate vehicles presumably.
And where in the world did you get the idea that folks are okay with tossing out their computer every couple of years? Most consumers don't like to think they have the word "sucker" tatooed on their foreheads. Sorry, but just because Apple is still engaging in some outdated 'milk the fixed base' thinking here, does NOT make it a "no brainer"
Most people DO actually change their computer every two to three years. That's the industry average. In the UK, as a business I write off IT purchases after two years. The great thing about Macs is the resale value is so good, selling them on then actually makes for quite a profitable business expense.
Judging from recent Mac sales (running at 40 percent desktop), not to mention continued sales of expandable desktops on the PC side, I'm not a decade behind, you're a decade ahead.
The last time Mac desktop sales showed any significant increase, was the introduction of the iMac G5 when it jumped 30%. It's hovered at that level since then. The Mac Mini didn't even cause a blip. I would suggest that Apple has reached a plateau where they aren't going to get any more desktop sales. They've saturated their market. Desktop sales throughout the rest of the industry have continued to fall.
At the same time, Apple's laptop sales have more than doubled. Profits have soared.
Apple would have to sell into the Windows Office market to make any further desktop sales gains. That's a tough one to crack. I don't think it's realistic to even attempt it.
That's why they aren't doing a cheap mid tower desktop.
And they also sell for a lot cheaper than a laptop in the bulk of the mid-tower desktop market which is the lowest end of the market.
They don't jack the price up on their hardware any more than any other tier1 supplier. They just don't do cheap computers with Celerons or Core Duo 2060s.
I don't know where you've been with apple's towers, but they have always been 1500+. Most laptops have ranged from 999 -> 2500. Yet the laptops still had an LCD. You're telling me they weren't jacking any prices up with the g4 towers?
Regardless, it's not about technical details, it's about profit and a market there to sell to. To an extent it's about brand image and it's about releasing a me-too product doesn't create brand image.
Where is all this hatred towards towers coming from? Towers are hardly me too designs. They are very practical in that they consolidate many parts into 1 area. Apple has made some great compact towers in the past. They can easily think different with a tower design.
I really don't think that's a worry for them. If they aren't buying laptop CPUs from Intel, they're buying desktop CPUs so no loss to Intel. I'm sure they're above the threshold on either desktop or laptop CPU purchases where they've reached a decent discount level.
And you could say the same about iMac sales too. If Apple are selling mid-towers instead of iMacs, what does it matter to them? A sale is a sale.
If Apple we're only after sales, they'd sell cheap mid towers with Windows installed on them. Clearly they aren't JUST after sales.
I was saying they are after sales. I was simply bringing up some of the rebuttle points others have brought up in the other thread. No one is saying a sale is a sale. But a sale on a higher profit turnaround per machine is good. No one is saying to kill the iMac here. People are simply asking for an alternative to a workstation. Don't feel threatened, this isn't an iMac vs. xMac here. It's a we don't need a $289349239842389 dollar tower to accomplish things. IMO the Mac Pro appeals to a more niche computer market than any of apple's computers simply because it is a workstation with very expensive work station parts. Someone suggested selling the machine with 1 Xeon, which would significantly drop the price on the machine. That's a good start.
Probably. Most of my circle are 25+ and have grown out of playing games and have better things to spend their time and money on, especially when games are heading for £50 here. They'll take portability, low noise levels and space saving over having a noisy PC stuck in their house.
The game market is estimated as being no more than about a million serious gamers now. That's about a quarter of Mac creative users which is only about a sixth/seventh of Mac users in total. Or 1/250th of the PCs sold worldwide. The PC games market on the PC is lower now than it was in 1993 (high spot was 1999) and dropping each year as people switch to consoles. The 'gamer' argument as why Apple should come out with a mid tower is the least compelling argument I've ever heard.
Where do you get your numbers that the game market is estimated at a million serious gamers now? I call FUD on those numbers, Isn't World Of Warcraft over 8 million subscribers alone?
I don't know where you've been with apple's towers, but they have always been 1500+. Most laptops have ranged from 999 -> 2500. Yet the laptops still had an LCD. You're telling me they weren't jacking any prices up with the g4 towers?
It doesn't matter where we've been, it's where we are now and there's not much point in doing a tower today when laptops are cheap and powerful. Apple's are no more expensive than any other tier1 supplier today.
Where is all this hatred towards towers coming from?
Steve? Jonathon Ive? I don't know which. Obviously both of them have a fair aesthetic taste thing going for them. Neither of them seem to like doing something that is just a copy of another product either.
Towers are hardly me too designs. They are very practical in that they consolidate many parts into 1 area. Apple has made some great compact towers in the past. They can easily think different with a tower design.
Take that a bit further and you've an iMac. More consolidation. Less 'me too'. They've thought different with their tower design and have given you the iMac.
Oh, you didn't want them thinking that different and you're not prepared to think that far different either?
But a sale on a higher profit turnaround per machine is good.
It's almost certainly LESS profit unless you're talking about Cube prices. Dell stated in their third quarter results that they were getting OUT of selling low to mid priced desktops because they were less profitable than other products.
No one is saying to kill the iMac here. People are simply asking for an alternative to a workstation. Don't feel threatened, this isn't an iMac vs. xMac here.
I'm not. My iMac is a much better solution than a multibox solution for me. I've been more than happy with it. I'd have bought a laptop if they weren't G4s only at the time.
It's a we don't need a $289349239842389 dollar tower to accomplish things. IMO the Mac Pro appeals to a more niche computer market than any of apple's computers simply because it is a workstation with very expensive work station parts. Someone suggested selling the machine with 1 Xeon, which would significantly drop the price on the machine. That's a good start.
When they did the single CPU G5s, almost nobody bought them as they were still more expensive than an iMac. It was their least popular machine. They would have to go further, lower end and lower margin.
I guess for you, they went TOO FAR, and released the Mini. That's a fair computer too IMHO for the price. I was speccing one up as a server last week instead of an Airport Extreme base station and disk. Obviously the built in laptop drive is the sticky point for a server but there's some nice Mini sized external drives.
Where do you get your numbers that the game market is estimated at a million serious gamers now? I call FUD on those numbers, Isn't World Of Warcraft over 8 million subscribers alone?
The Sims sold 16 million. That's the biggest selling game of all time and it's still not even a fiftieth of the installed base of computers worldwide which was estimated at 870 million by Gartner last year.
What about every other gamer in the world that plays different games seriously or casually? Or were you referring to just Mac gamers? Which of course has rapidly changed since the introduction of intel cpus.
I was guessing Mac Gamers and I'm being generous. MacAddict estimated it as 183,000 gamers which seems a little low. The only Mac Games sales figures I found were Marathon2 selling 120,000 as the best selling Mac game of all time but that was old figures before OSX. You're still talking about game sales in the thousands typically with the exception of the big ports. The Mac game scene has not changed since the introduction of Intel CPUs. Not my views - http://www.macworld.com/2006/12/feat...6rev/index.php
I still think the Gamer argument for the reason why Apple needs a Mid tower is the most lame argument going.
There's about 4 million creative Mac users that might go for a cheaper Mac Pro. It's a market Apple actually competes in. Try making an argument there, not gamers or cubicle jockeys.
The game market is estimated as being no more than about a million serious gamers now.
That's silly. There are 8 million subscribers to World of Warcraft alone.
Also, figures discounting the computer gaming market routinely count sales only and forget to take into account subscription fees, which for WoW alone exceed $1 billion a year. The 'serious computer gamer' market is likely larger than Apple's entire current installed base.
(re: Desktops being 40% of Mac sales...)That includes iMacs and Mac Minis of course. The very computers you're not happy with and which many people are because of their form factor and convenience.
Where did I say I was 'unhappy' with the iMac or Mac Mini?(hint: the correct answer is "nowhere").
The iMac and Mac Mini are fine products that should not go away, but at the same time they simply do not fill the product line-up hole of Apple having no expandable midrange desktop. And neither could be modified to do so due to their respective form factors. It's not dissing them to point out the patently obvious.
The market as a whole (as in the whole PC industry) saw a decline in desktop sales. Dell dropped 5% and said they were "concentrating on more profitable products".
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...ry-results.htm
LOL, you're getting way too far ahead of yourself, Aegis. Yes, the desktop market is declining... slowly. It is still 40 percent of Mac sales, as I've pointed out. Do you honestly think Apple is simply going to kiss off 4 billion dollars a year in revenue because notebooks may be the future? Or does it make more sense to compete effectively in what is still a very large market for them?
Apple doesn't even play in the same corporate desktop market Dell does and you want them to jump right in to a market in decline where they have almost zero presence?
Actually, you just made a huge argument in FAVOR of Apple getting more into the desktop market. Apple does not sell in any serious numbers to business AND they have a gaping hole in their desktop lineup. Yet STILL, desktops are 40 percent of their Mac sales. Imagine if they did compete a little harder and filled that hole?
I don't see them selling in huge quantities to business even with a nice mintower (though it sure wouldn't hurt- even a modest uptick would be helpful). I do see them attracting more Windows switchers, who are used to buying minitowers and who make up a lot more of Apple's Mac sales than they used to.
That 15" PC laptop is likely to be a Celeron 430 or Core Duo 2060 1.6 though and have a screen res of 1280x800. ie. powerful than the MacBook and the same res screen.
Incorrect. The 1680x1050 15" Dell notebook I mention is Pentium Dual-core by default, and you can make into a Core 2 Duo machine for $100.
AIK nobody is doing 15" $1000 laptops with 1440x900 screens.
Dell is currently doing 15" $1000 laptops with 1680x1050 screens, as both Chucker and I have pointed out in another thread.
But you're believing Digitimes. Nostradamus is more reliable.
And they're just rumours anyway, not fact.
The sources AI quotes have been right more often than not, in my experience. And even you admit elsewhere that you think Apple is going to do a subnotebook, so apparently you agree with them.
(re: Cube failed, why do Cube2?)EXACTLY. There's no market for a mid tower Apple. Apple aren't going to do anything cheaper 'eMachine' style.
The Cube failed because 1) it was significantly overpriced, even for Apple 2) had no real expandability. A midrange expandable minitower would address both issues, and without veering into 'eMachines' price territory. We're not talking a sub-$500 minitower here, we're talking more like $1000-1500 (and Apple has had $1500 towers in the past, unfortunately before the 'iPod Halo' effect, otherwise they'd likelly being doing even better among switchers than they already are).
(Re: Apple subnotebook) An I used to work in Japan. I know. I think they'll do one but not at a price the whiners will like.
Well, at least we agree on something. At the same time, it certainly isn't 'whining' to acknowledge that Apple needs a sub-$1000 notebook. I personally don't care if said product is a subnotebook or not, but Apple needs to appeal strongly to midrange notebook buyers, and not concentrate solely on the high end. The truly low end I do not care about, nor does Apple, as there are no profits (and little quality) there.
I'm sure it's also full of laptops too. Somebody's buying those too. And I would wonder what would happen if a sexy brand (ie. not Gateway or Dell) came out with an AIO as sexy as the iMac? You think you've got choice but you've no choice at all. They're all essentially similar grey/beige boxes with the same software.
Actually the iMac, when it first came out in 'Lifesaver' colors, was imitated on the PC side, to no great effect.
(re: Folks preferring expandability even if they don't always use it, and the parallel of folks buying off-road SUVs yet never going off-road) The same people (not 'folks' please) who are derided for their stupidity in buying highly inappropriate vehicles presumably.
I agree, they are a bit silly for buying capability that they'll never use. Guess what? It DOESN'T MATTER. What is the color of a smart customer's money? A: Green. What is the color of a moron's money? A: Just as green.
Folks (sorry, I do like the word) such as these may be confused as to what they really need, but Apple would be even more confused if they turned their nose up at their money. You sell people what they think they need, you do not argue them into buying what YOU think they need. Arrogance has never been a strong selling point.
Most people DO actually change their computer every two to three years. That's the industry average. In the UK, as a business I write off IT purchases after two years. The great thing about Macs is the resale value is so good, selling them on then actually makes for quite a profitable business expense.
That upgrade cycle seems a bit brief. Last year, approximately 230 million PCs were sold worldwide. The latest estimates are that there are 800 to 900 million PC users worldwide (hi, China and India). Given that, the average upgrade cycle seems to be at least three and closer to four years, and that's been my personal experience in the corporate world as well.
The last time Mac desktop sales showed any significant increase, was the introduction of the iMac G5 when it jumped 30%. It's hovered at that level since then. The Mac Mini didn't even cause a blip. I would suggest that Apple has reached a plateau where they aren't going to get any more desktop sales. They've saturated their market. Desktop sales throughout the rest of the industry have continued to fall.
At the same time, Apple's laptop sales have more than doubled. Profits have soared.
Aaaaand... it just doesn't matter. Desktops are 40 percent of Mac sales, even now. Apple would be insane to kiss off that huge a chunk of their business.
Apple would have to sell into the Windows Office market to make any further desktop sales gains. That's a tough one to crack. I don't think it's realistic to even attempt it.
That's why they aren't doing a cheap mid tower desktop.
Nope. The reason they aren't doing a midrange minitower is because they'd prefer folks to buy $2500 Mac Pros instead. They aren't selling a lot of Mac Pros, but the ones they do sell are pretty profitable, and the number of Mac buyers who can use a tower's expandability to slow down the replacement cycle ends up very limited (bad old Apple thinking, i.e. milking a 'fixed base' that isn't really fixed anymore, thanks to the influx of Windows switchers and folks new to computing).
The problem is, this doesn't really help their marketshare, and doesn't really appeal to potential Windows switchers, who may want a tower (because thats what they're used to buying on the PC side) but take one look at the Mac Pro price tag and pass out.
.
That's silly. There are 8 million subscribers to World of Warcraft alone.
On Macs? No way.
Where did I say I was 'unhappy' with the iMac or Mac Mini?(hint: the correct answer is "nowhere").
You're not happy enough with them that you'd actually buy one.
LOL, you're getting way too far ahead of yourself, Aegis. Yes, the desktop market is declining... slowly. It is still 40 percent of Mac sales, as I've pointed out. Do you honestly think Apple is simply going to kiss off 4 billion dollars a year in revenue because notebooks may be the future? Or does it make more sense to compete effectively in what is still a very large market for them?
I'm arguing it's not a large market for them. The two holes they have left on the desktop are office PCs and Gamers. Those are not large holes FOR APPLE. They would be if they were Dell.
Actually, you just made a huge argument in FAVOR of Apple getting more into the desktop market. Apple does not sell in any serious numbers to business AND they have a gaping hole in their desktop lineup. Yet STILL, desktops are 40 percent of their Mac sales. Imagine if they did compete a little harder and filled that hole?
It'd make almost zero difference since they don't have the software in that market and people who buy office PCs don't care two shits about design or the OS. They aren't Apple's customers. They just want cheap boxes that run Word or Excel and the many, many custom written VB apps that most businesses hang together on that Macs can't run.
Yes it's a big hole in Apple's market but they've absolutely zero chance of filling it. It's like trying to sell blood pudding to vegetarians.
I don't see them selling in huge quantities to business even with a nice mintower (though it sure wouldn't hurt- even a modest uptick would be helpful). I do see them attracting more Windows switchers, who are used to buying minitowers and who make up a lot more of Apple's Mac sales than they used to.
And I think they'd be better off convincing Windows switchers that they really don't need their boxes of plastic and air anymore.
Incorrect. The 1680x1050 15" Dell notebook I mention is Pentium Dual-core by default, and you can make into a Core 2 Duo machine for $100.
The 6400 is T2060 based just as I said.
Dell is currently doing 15" $1000 laptops with 1680x1050 screens, as both Chucker and I have pointed out in another thread.
And what a beast it is. 1.6ghz T2060 Core Duo with 512MB of RAM, Home Basic and a combo drive with a 1680x1050 screen. I hope you're happy with it.
The sources AI quotes have been right more often than not, in my experience. And even you admit elsewhere that you think Apple is going to do a subnotebook, so apparently you agree with them.
Digitimes? You must read a different AI to me. I said I think they SHOULD do a sub notebook, not that they will. It's the most likely IMHO out of the three rumours you're hanging on.
The Cube failed because 1) it was significantly overpriced, even for Apple 2) had no real expandability. A midrange expandable minitower would address both issues, and without veering into 'eMachines' price territory. We're not talking a sub-$500 minitower here, we're talking more like $1000-1500 (and Apple has had $1500 towers in the past, unfortunately before the 'iPod Halo' effect, otherwise they'd likelly being doing even better among switchers than they already are).
The Cube had non-laptop drives, a replaceable graphics card and cost $1799 back in 2001. $800 cheaper than a PowerBook at the time. At today's prices I guess it would be $7-800 since Powerbooks(MacBookPros) are almost half what they were in 2001.
Not enough people bought them then. I had my chequebook at the ready for one back then but they pulled it a couple of months before I was ready. I bought an iBook instead - still got it. It cost nearly £1500 IIRC.
What do you have in mind for an expandable mid tower if not an $7-800 computer that could have all the important parts replaced? Very few people have any need at all for PCI slots anymore when everything is on the motherboard already.
Well, at least we agree on something. At the same time, it certainly isn't 'whining' to acknowledge that Apple needs a sub-$1000 notebook.
The MacBook is $99 over. Most people are sensible enough to realise that's neither here nor there in the lifetime of the MacBook. In the UK it makes no difference since ALL MacBooks are under £1000. Here, the main target is the £500 laptop and Apple aren't going to do that.
I personally don't care if said product is a subnotebook or not, but Apple needs to appeal strongly to midrange notebook buyers, and not concentrate solely on the high end. The truly low end I do not care about, nor does Apple, as there are no profits (and little quality) there.
See your earlier Dell $1000 pile of crap. Surely the MacBook is a perfect example of a good midrange laptop already as opposed to the AMD Laptops and old PentiumM laptops still kicking around or crap like the T2060 Core Duo.
Actually the iMac, when it first came out in 'Lifesaver' colors, was imitated on the PC side, to no great effect.
They were all embarrassingly crap, low quality and copycats. Nobody likes a fake.
Folks (sorry, I do like the word) such as these may be confused as to what they really need, but Apple would be even more confused if they turned their nose up at their money. You sell people what they think they need, you do not argue them into buying what YOU think they need. Arrogance has never been a strong selling point.
I'm reminded of the Simpson episode where Homer got to design the car of the future.
I really don't get the accusations of arrogance. Apple sells a product. Part of it is that they design a whole package. If you don't want the whole package and won't listen to advice then Apple isn't for you. That's why you've got the choice of other manufacturers. You shouldn't expect every manufacturer to meet your every whim, no matter how stupid it is. In business I've learnt that the customer who makes stupid demands generally isn't worth doing business with. Support issues are usually massive. Sometimes it's a good idea to sack those customers or give them to your competitors for them to have to deal with.
Nope. The reason they aren't doing a midrange minitower is because they'd prefer folks to buy $2500 Mac Pros instead. They aren't selling a lot of Mac Pros, but the ones they do sell are very profitable. The problem is, this doesn't really help their marketshare, and doesn't really appeal to potential Windows switchers, who may want a tower (because thats what they're used to buying on the PC side) but take one look at the Mac Pro price tag and pass out.
Apple aren't bothered about market share. They've said so over and over again. They want to make good products and they want to make a profit doing it. They don't need to cover all the bases in order to do that. So far it's a strategy that's doing significantly better than any other computer company. They're also damned good value for the spec as I've found out in the last few days pricing PCs against Apples.
"Apple's market share is bigger than BMW's or Mercedes's or Porsche's in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes? - Steve Jobs"
That's where I'm leaving this as I've a tonne of Applescript code to write this week and a product release Friday. Eek!
[8 million gamers on Wow]On Macs? No way.
You did not specify that in your original comment. Regardless, the computer gaming market as a whole is likely as large as the entire Mac installed base. I doubt gaming can be made into a reason to buy a Mac, but Apple could make gaming less of a reason NOT to buy one.
You're not happy enough with [iMacs or Mac minis] that you'd actually buy one.
Incorrect. Back in 2000, I was the owner of an Indigo iMac. Since then though, my needs have changed.
I'm arguing [that the desktop market is] not a large market for [Apple]. The two holes they have left on the desktop are office PCs and Gamers. Those are not large holes FOR APPLE. They would be if they were Dell.
The desktop market is obviously a large market for Apple- its 40 percent of Macs sold. And the hole that you keep missing, again and again, is that Windows switchers are likely to be attracted to minitowers, since they are used to buying them on the PC side. And as I've repeated, again and again, half of Mac sales are to said Windows switchers or folks new to computing.
Therefore, its a 'no brainer', as you've put it, for Apple to fill that particular hole in their product line-up. Its not just about cubicles and gamers, its also about switchers.
It'd make almost zero difference [if Apple competed more strongly in desktops] since they don't have the software in that market and people who buy office PCs don't care two shits about design or the OS. They aren't Apple's customers. They just want cheap boxes that run Word or Excel and the many, many custom written VB apps that most businesses hang together on that Macs can't run.
Yes it's a big hole in Apple's market but they've absolutely zero chance of filling it. It's like trying to sell blood pudding to vegetarians.
See above. Again, its not just about cubicles.
And I think they'd be better off convincing Windows switchers that they really don't need their boxes of plastic and air anymore.
Good luck with that. Its always much easier to sell the customer what THEY want then try to convince them to buy what YOU tell them to.
The 6400 [Dell laptop] is T2060 based just as I said.
I'm not talking about the 6400... its the Inspiron 1505, actually. Whose specs have been updated... its now T2250 (Core Duo 1.73), upgradeable to Core 2 Duo for a mere $60.
Not bad at all, especially considering it remains a sub-$1000 notebook even with the upgrade to 15" 1680x1050 screen and Core 2 Duo upgrade.
And what a beast it is. 1.6ghz T2060 Core Duo with 512MB of RAM, Home Basic and a combo drive with a 1680x1050 screen. I hope you're happy with it.
Actually, the Dell notebook I'm talking about has 1 GB of RAM by default, Home Premium, and a faster processor. I'm still willing to give Apple a chance though, since their notebook lineup is due for a refresh, and they may improve their value-to-cost ratio significantly with said refresh.
Digitimes? You must read a different AI to me. I said I think they SHOULD do a sub notebook, not that they will. It's the most likely IMHO out of the three rumours you're hanging on.
No, you said you think they'll do one:
And I used to work in Japan. I know. I think they'll do one but not at a price the whiners will like.
And I agree, they probably will.
The Cube had non-laptop drives, a replaceable graphics card and cost $1799 back in 2001. $800 cheaper than a PowerBook at the time. At today's prices I guess it would be $7-800 since Powerbooks(MacBookPros) are almost half what they were in 2001.
You're going in the wrong direction in adjusting prices for time. Adjusting for inflation, the $1799 price of the Cube in 2001 is over $2000 in today's dollars. Not exactly cheap for a non-expandable desktop. In fact, its price very close to that of a downgraded Mac Pro, only without the expandability. Not exactly a winner.
What do you have in mind for an expandable mid tower if not an $7-800 computer that could have all the important parts replaced? Very few people have any need at all for PCI slots anymore when everything is on the motherboard already.
Apple is getting hurt on the desktop by the fact that PC buyers know they can get a killer Core 2 Duo expandable desktop for $1000-1500. That would be the price range they need to hit... they can leave the low-end to eMachines and its ilk.
And yes, we know that most people don't NEED expandability, but many people LIKE THE IDEA of expandability, and buy partly because of that. How many times does that need to be repeated to sink in?
The MacBook is $99 over. Most people are sensible enough to realise that's neither here nor there in the lifetime of the MacBook.
I guess you haven't been in sales. $1000 is an important psychological price point, and its probably why you see a $999 iMac instead of a 'split the difference' $1099 one that would cover the bases of both low-end iMac models, and be easier on inventory.
A $999 MacBook would be a very good step for Apple.
See your earlier Dell $1000 pile of crap.
I wish it was a pile of crap. Unfortunately, its really showing up Apple in terms of value, and I hope Apple responds swiftly.
Surely the MacBook is a perfect example of a good midrange laptop already as opposed to the AMD Laptops and old PentiumM laptops still kicking around or crap like the T2060 Core Duo.
Again, the notebook I refer to is not T2060, and is upgradeable to Core 2 Duo for $60, which ain't much.
They [the iMac knockoffs] were all embarrassingly crap, low quality and copycats. Nobody likes a fake.
That's a fair assessment. The iMac copycats were a pathetic lot.
I'm reminded of the Simpson episode where Homer got to design the car of the future.
I really don't get the accusations of arrogance. Apple sells a product. Part of it is that they design a whole package. If you don't want the whole package and won't listen to advice then Apple isn't for you. That's why you've got the choice of other manufacturers. You shouldn't expect every manufacturer to meet your every whim, no matter how stupid it is. In business I've learnt that the customer who makes stupid demands generally isn't worth doing business with. Support issues are usually massive. Sometimes it's a good idea to sack those customers or give them to your competitors for them to have to deal with.
We could go into this particular aspect for hours. Let's just say that customers asking Apple to fill obvious product line holes is not 'stupid' by any stretch, and that hopefully Apple responds, as I'd like to see them do well both revenue and marketshare-wise.
Apple aren't bothered about market share. They've said so over and over again. They want to make good products and they want to make a profit doing it. They don't need to cover all the bases in order to do that. So far it's a strategy that's doing significantly better than any other computer company. They're also damned good value for the spec as I've found out in the last few days pricing PCs against Apples.
"Apple's market share is bigger than BMW's or Mercedes's or Porsche's in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes? - Steve Jobs
I'm afraid that Apple not caring about marketshare is utter bollocks, as you UKers like to say. Apple has certain fixed costs that must be paid, and below a certain level of marketshare (and thus, revenue), it becomes extremely hard to pay those costs, without grossly inflated margins. Which drives away customers, which further reduces revenues, which requires further margin increases, which drives away still more customers, etc. etc. and so on and so on. The tag 'death spiral' has been used to describe such a process, and Apple was in start of one in the mid 90s, before Jobs came back.
What's one of the first things that Jobs did upon his return? He launched a very popular, MARKET SHARE-BOOSTING product, the iMac. Which brought up revenues, and helped pull Apple out of the death spiral. Anything you've heard since then regarding Apple's disdain of market share is simple posturing, probably used as cover for the fact that Apple's marketshare has been stagnant until recently.
That's where I'm leaving this as I've a tonne of Applescript code to write this week and a product release Friday. Eek!
Nice talking to you, and good scripting, sir. 8)
.