Not in all cases. When I was a PC user, seeing designs like the iMac, Mac Mini, etc. upon wandering into an Apple Store are what grabbed my attention for the sheer fact that they WERE form factors I was unfamiliar with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.
I'm glad you brought that up. There is no doubt that the iMac and/or Mac Mini are attractive to a lot of people. It's easy to forget this fact when you are in the other half of Mac users, or potential switchers from Windows, who do not want either an iMac or Mini. Apple could afford to start covering all their bases by now.
"Super Mini"; MiniPlus; Mini2; -whatever - with 'room' to grow with an 'Elegant" way to open like the MacPro. Sorry, just daydreaming.
That is what I've been hoping Apple would make, in addition to a prosumer mini tower.
Quote:
What about a larger Mini - with all the goodies that an iMac has or more. It could be 1, 2, or more inches taller, but it could have the same footprint.
I'd suggest a wider and slightly deeper footprint, but not much taller. In this way, I could set my monitor on top of it.
I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that Apple should have a prosumer tower in the price range of $1499-$1699. It is just my opinion is that the easiest way to offer such a tower is to simply have a single Xeon Mac Pro BTO.
Well, I agree that the easiest way to develop a prosumer tower is by using existing Mac Pro hardware. With the sales I'd expect a prosumer tower to have, however, Apple could afford to develop a uniquely different mini tower that has more appeal to this segment of buyers. In addition, manufacturing cost could be lower, allowing more flexibility in establishing price and profit.
Quote:
With a really slooooow xeon you can get down into the $1250 range. If you agree that the xMac must always be more expensive than a comparable iMac then $1250 is at the bottom end of your range anyway given a $1250 xMac + $679 24" Dell WS display is less expensive than the 24" iMac.
I believe $1000 is a good bottom end price, or $999 for those who like to price that way. The bottom end mini tower might have a smaller HDD than the 20 inch iMac, and a combo optical drive. Add $600 for a 20 inch Cinema display and the iMac would be a better deal.
I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.
Quote:
Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon
I wasn't aware that other manufacturers made Macs.
Ouch, I'm sorry, but you asked for that. Nice response iPeon.
Personally I'm not that interested in a computer like the one being discussed on this thread. I tend to go to extremes in my computer buying and keep a small notebook and a powerful desktop.
However, I can see why there is a desire out there for something like this. You are not the only one. Most people have no need for a powerful desktop; a great many people want them, for whatever reason (I.e. games), but only a fraction of those people truly need them. Still, if you're like me and you can have what you really want for $500-$1000 extra, you save up and buy it and probably increase the time until you need to upgrade.
People who don't really want anything more in a laptop than what they need don't have much of an option here except for the Mac Mini. The Mac Mini uses a processor designed for a notebook, and it's small form makes it hard to include many of the perks, like loads of ports, that desktop owners want.
So, is there a market for a Mac Tower, using a Desktop CPU, with lots of ports and all the traditional trimming associated with a desktop? Sure there is, but it's a niche market. Most people can make do with the Mac Mini, iMac, or Mac Pro. There's not a very big demanding market for what you want, that doesn't mean people wouldn't choose it over the other things if it was available, but at this point they are still BUYING the other things.
I could see them possibly expanding the options a little on the current Mac Pro into a lower range. That would allow you to make it into a desktop instead of a server by choosing the Kentsfield and other lower range options. I could also see them doing what someone else said and making a Mac Mini Pro or something similar; they could double the height and add other things. Just don't hold your breath for either of these things to happen, they're pretty unlikely. Even more unlikely is that Apple would decide to make something completely new.
The reason the margins were high is because component costs dropped and Apple didn't reduce price. They like thier prices and I presume the expect that when they do a rev of the hardware for leopard that the costs will go back to expected levels.
Most of the line up could use a refresh...certainly by the time Santa Rosa rolls in.Vinea
Which means they didn't meet their target of 28%, they exceeded it, or they really don't have a set target for 28% on each product they sell, or they target 28% across the complete product lines. Me, I think the last option is the most reasonable allowing them to adjust pricing. I'd venture to say they do the same things with the iPods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Given that the specific numbers are trade secrets that would be difficult. However when there was that spat about Dell, special pricing, monopoly, etc with Intel eventually Intel said they only discount on volume, nothing else.
Vinea
Point is you don't know and I don't know. I'm suggesting that the price breaks when in Apple's volumes for Core Duo cpus don't significantly differ from Dell's, Toshiba's, Compac's, Sony's, Lenovo's, with or wihtout iMacs and Mac minis included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple's margins for the notebooks it sells is on par with others. How many times do I have to repeat that the notebook market hasn't become a commodity market yet?
Note that Apple does not compete in the ultra-cheap notebook market. That market is growing quickly though. Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO.
Vinea
Whether or not the notebook market is a commodity market is irrelevant. Apple's most recent gains in market share(except the current quarter) were exclusively due to laptop sales. This means there are switchers, there are people who are attracted to Mac OS X. They just are not buying Apple's desktops, why? Because Apple does not offer a desktop they would buy.
So, you're saying, Apple has exited the traditional desktop market and no longer desires to increase desktop market share. When laptops become a commodity, you're saying Apple will exit this market too. What does that leave? Exiting the computer market completely?
High priced niche market computers is not sustainable. Apple is currently trying to branch out into the phone market, AppleTV market. Without computer's both these ventures will fail.
Again you present the milk the faithful argument = " Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
That integration, ease of use, etc were not compelling enough to sell towers at the rough prices we would expect Apple to sell towers at and at the margins Apple would expect to seel them.
As far as "acceptable" margins, Apple appears to disagree...along with IBM, Sony and Toshiba.Vinea
Well, without IBM, Sony and Toshiba maybe less competition means more opportunity. Look on the bright side. Other companies are making profits and the mid to upper end sales are the low hanging fruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple has been asked many times these last few quarters of bumper margins whether they would reduce margins to capture more share. Consistently they have said no, they are happy with current growth.
So Apple has stated they want capture more share. ON THEIR TERMS.Vinea
So, I guess they really don't try to target 28% for each product.
Apple notebook market share falls in fourth quarter
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
At no time did Apple have commanding share. Apple vs IBM was a no win for Apple in the business market. The branding of IBM was far too strong in the business arena and their margins were no leaner than Apple's.
The markets that Apple had a shot in, they still are in today (content creation, edu, upper end consumer) with strong share numbers.
Vinea
They are losing edu, especially in the K -12 market. Over the years they have also lost content creation, remember Adobe recommending other manufacturers computers? Apple has gained some in video, only because of Final Cut. Adobe Premier had crippled Apple versions.
Which means they didn't meet their target of 28%, they exceeded it, or they really don't have a set target for 28% on each product they sell, or they target 28% across the complete product lines. Me, I think the last option is the most reasonable allowing them to adjust pricing. I'd venture to say they do the same things with the iPods.
Mmmm...okay to be strictly pendantic then no, 28% is not an absolute target. However, historically, Apple has never shifted pricing downward to pass saving on to consumers and has margins in the 25-28%+ region.
They typically have guidance for that range so you certainly can say they target that for their product lines as a whole. What is certain is that you cannot sell a large volume of low margin items and STILL have 28% gross margins.
But its rather odd for you to be arguing that Apple doesn't strive for high margins when the only examples you have are when they have even HIGHER margins in a quarter. Historically Apple's margins have been quite high and the only way to get that consistent behaviour is for them to actually be targetting high margins.
So arguing that NO! APPLES MARGINS ARE 35% and not 28%! THEREFORE THEY SHOULD OFFER PRODUCTS WITH 5-10% MARGINS! is just...silly.
Quote:
I'm suggesting that the price breaks when in Apple's volumes for Core Duo cpus don't significantly differ from Dell's, Toshiba's, Compac's, Sony's, Lenovo's, with or wihtout iMacs and Mac minis included.
So you're saying that the price is the same for 1.5M vs 1M? Mkay.
Quote:
Whether or not the notebook market is a commodity market is irrelevant.
It's not irrelvant if you're trying to guess how long Apple will stay in the notebook market. Also the fact that it is not yet a commodity market means the margins are still high enough for Apple to remain competitive.
Quote:
So, you're saying, Apple has exited the traditional desktop market and no longer desires to increase desktop market share. When laptops become a commodity, you're saying Apple will exit this market too. What does that leave? Exiting the computer market completely?
Well...they DID drop computer from their name.
But yes, I would say that when laptops become a commodity then Apple will be reduced to the MBP for the high end, an ultraportable and a multi-touch tablet within the notebook segment.
They will then be into...who knows, wearable computers? The iPhone and aTV are certainly indicators of where they intend to put OSX next.
Quote:
High priced niche market computers is not sustainable. Apple is currently trying to branch out into the phone market, AppleTV market. Without computer's both these ventures will fail.
Again you present the milk the faithful argument = " Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO"
You say milk the faithful.
I say provide luxury computing and lifestyle products. At some point notebooks wont be in those categories but something else will. Apple will offer those and not notebooks except for some niche ones just as they do in the desktop market.
Quote:
Well, without IBM, Sony and Toshiba maybe less competition means more opportunity. Look on the bright side. Other companies are making profits and the mid to upper end sales are the low hanging fruit.
Quote:
So, I guess they really don't try to target 28% for each product.
Apple notebook market share falls in fourth quarter
By 7/10s of 1 percent. But they do have growth in total sales and I dunno what point you're trying to make.
You say Apple wants more market share and use that as "proof" that they should reduce margins to capture more share.
I point out that folks have asked Apple just that in their quarterlies and they said "No". So gee, maybe that means that repeating the mantra that "Apple has stated they want more share" doesn't meet with the reality of Apple's actual behavior. Yes, they would like more share, no, not enough to reduce margins even from a lofty 35%.
I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.
I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.
Vinea
To have a fruitful discussion one has to have some basic agreements. There ain't any here.
I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.
Strange that you bring up the word "lucrative" here, when I suspect you are the one not getting the subtile differences in meaning. You seem to use the word as a synonym for profitable, which misses the nuance of lucrative.
If you had a marginally profitable business and went to the bank for a loan, saying your business is lucrative, it might raise a few eyebrows. Most of us use lucrative to convey producing a great deal of profit, which is the meaning shown by the dictionary on my Mac.
It can also be used to mean yielding a profit, large or small, that is easy to come by. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says it is wealth or profit acquired, received, or had without burdensome conditions or giving of consideration.
Okay, here is how you used it in your post.
Quote:
If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting then explain why IBM sold it off to Lenovo, Sony only has AIOs in its remaining desktop lineup and Toshiba bailed entirely?
A rhetorical question that seems to assume we believe the Windows tower market is extremely profitable. You attempt to show we are wrong by pointing out how IBM and Sony got out of the tower market. You imply the market has little or low profit, and is not lucrative.
In my reply, I point out that we never claimed that the market for Windows towers is lucrative. I went on to explain that low profits on the Windows side does not mean that Apple could not make a very good profit on the Mac side, saying:
"On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far. You could argue that Mac users don't want a mini tower, but who will believe you?"
"Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out."
To which you reply:
Quote:
If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...
So, you say Windows towers are not so lucrative. When I say essentially the same thing, you say I don't know what lucrative means. Yes, maybe a sensible discussion is impossible.
I think Vinea's argument comes down to four things.
1. There is not enough difference between Mac OS X and the iapps and their windows counterparts to warrant coming to the Mac for operating system alone.
Having used windows extensively, I can can tell you the difference is that great.
2. If its not the operating system, Mac users must come to Apple soley for the cutting edge designs.
There is some truth to this but, it's the not the whole story. There are many who are just plain sick of windows. Nobody else is allowed to make Mac OS X compatible computers, so Apple is the only game in town.
3. Once again, since the operating system doesn't make all that much difference Apple inherently operates in the same cut throat market as windows PCs.
Not true. The cut throat market is the medium to low end market. It's very crowded and the only way Dell or HP or Gateway can make a sale is give the user or company a little bit better deal than the competition. Apple has two main advantages, number one, like I said earlier, they are the only Mac maker, so 100% of those who want the OS have to come to them.
Number 2, they do not operate in the cutthroat value computer market, they operate in the more affluent upper end. Yes, Mac biases might discount this, but there are actually many upscale PC buys who know what they're talking about. These users are looking for the best PC available at the price. If we're talking about a family PC, the iMac makes a good choice or them. If they are looking for something more, Apple has nothing to sell them. They do not take the Mac religiously, so they much less likely to get duped into a workstation for Apple's betterment. They may be small, at 25% at best, but that's huge by Apple's standards. The AIO and SFF desktop markets that Apple deal in perhaps make up a 3 or 4% at best. Is everything that is not a notebook or the Mac Pro to be abandoned because the market is not there on the PC side?
Apple makes its computer profits by high margins and being the only choice. They would still be present in a consumer tower. In fact, since PC companies tend to make up losses on the low end with insane margins on the high end, Apple might actually be cheaper. We see in in the Mac Pro. Why not make a more desirable machine that can lock more people in?
4. If Apple does something it must inherently be the correct action.
Also not true. Steve jobs is more a visionary, than a businessman. He tries to get ahead of trends and predict what users might want in the future. Nothing he does is every lukewarm, it's almost always a spectacular success or a dismal failure. He tries to push the envelope and some times goes so far that he comes up with a machine that is revolutionary, yet ultimately undesirable to the intended audience (see PMG4 cube). He is also a man of many biases and large ego. The all in one form factor has been a pet project of his since the Apple II. Would he do something that could hurt Apple in an attempt to prove himself right? Absolutely.
Strange that you bring up the word "lucrative" here, when I suspect you are the one not getting the subtile differences in meaning. You seem to use the word as a synonym for profitable, which misses the nuance of lucrative.
If you had a marginally profitable business and went to the bank for a loan, saying your business is lucrative, it might raise a few eyebrows. Most of us use lucrative to convey producing a great deal of profit, which is the meaning shown by the dictionary on my Mac.
No, I understand the nuance just fine. The point is why would a business invest in a domain that is at best described as "marginally profitable" by its proponents?
Quote:
Okay, here is how you used it in your post.
Of course there is profit in the tower business. Or even Dell and HP would have exited as well. The point is that a commodity market is NOT lucrative even though it can be profitable...but you sure have to work pretty hard at it.
Investing in the tower market, windows or mac, doesn't seem like a great use of time or resources by Apple.
Quote:
A rhetorical question that seems to assume we believe the Windows tower market is extremely profitable. You attempt to show we are wrong by pointing out how IBM and Sony got out of the tower market. You imply the market has little or low profit, and is not lucrative.
In my reply, I point out that we never claimed that the market for Windows towers is lucrative. I went on to explain that low profits on the Windows side does not mean that Apple could not make a very good profit on the Mac side, saying:
Proponents for the xMac repeatedly assert that the majority of the market consists of towers and that is sufficient justification that Apple should also have a tower and that such a tower would increase profits and share. Typically the implication is that profits would increase wildly as Apple took over the world...and Jobs is simply being obstinate in not offering an xMac.
Quote:
"Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out."
YOU may WANT such a product but clearly you have not shown that you are willing to PAY for such a product in as much as the majority of complaints is that the Mac Pro is too expensive and you consistently push for $1000 tower. It is clear that no xMac as Apple would build it (and not Dell with a nicer case) would satisfy you. Every time I suggest a $1499-$1799 Mac Pro we end up right back at the $1K price point. Even $1200 you feel is too high as minimum even though that's a good $200 less than I think would be even vaguely considered by Apple.
Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.
But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.
Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.
I certainly wouldn't be lucrative, making a great or obscene profit, but it would be as profitable as say an iMac, and greatly boost Apple's market share.
Quote:
But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.
Like I said: "On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far." Apple can set any profit margin it wishes to for a Mac mini tower.
Well, at least we got the meaning of lucrative settled, I think.
I think Vinea's argument comes down to four things.
1. There is not enough difference between Mac OS X and the iapps and their windows counterparts to warrant coming to the Mac for operating system alone.
Having used windows extensively, I can can tell you the difference is that great.
90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.
Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.
Quote:
2. If its not the operating system, Mac users must come to Apple soley for the cutting edge designs.
There is some truth to this but, it's the not the whole story. There are many who are just plain sick of windows. Nobody else is allowed to make Mac OS X compatible computers, so Apple is the only game in town.
Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.
94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.
OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.
Quote:
3. Once again, since the operating system doesn't make all that much difference Apple inherently operates in the same cut throat market as windows PCs.
Not true. The cut throat market is the medium to low end market. It's very crowded and the only way Dell or HP or Gateway can make a sale is give the user or company a little bit better deal than the competition. Apple has two main advantages, number one, like I said earlier, they are the only Mac maker, so 100% of those who want the OS have to come to them.
The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).
Quote:
Number 2, they do not operate in the cutthroat value computer market, they operate in the more affluent upper end. Yes, Mac biases might discount this, but there are actually many upscale PC buys who know what they're talking about. These users are looking for the best PC available at the price. If we're talking about a family PC, the iMac makes a good choice or them. If they are looking for something more, Apple has nothing to sell them. They do not take the Mac religiously, so they much less likely to get duped into a workstation for Apple's betterment. They may be small, at 25% at best, but that's huge by Apple's standards. The AIO and SFF desktop markets that Apple deal in perhaps make up a 3 or 4% at best. Is everything that is not a notebook or the Mac Pro to be abandoned because the market is not there on the PC side?
And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).
Quote:
4. If Apple does something it must inherently be the correct action.
Also not true. Steve jobs is more a visionary, than a businessman.
Strawman.
My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market. Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.
The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.
xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.
OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.
So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?
90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.
Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.
Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.
94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.
OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.
The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).
And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).
Strawman.
My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market. Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.
The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.
xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.
OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.
So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?
Vinea
Seriously, do you actually listen to what people are writing are jsut stick to your preconceived notion that everyone who currently is not on the Mac is some kind of low end ignorant cheapass? [b]For the last time time we are not talking about the people $1000 and below. We are talking about the $1200-$2000 prosumer market. AKA those between the low end/ family (iMac/ Mini) and high end professional (Mac Pro) markets.
Second, Toshiba, Sony, and IBM were never high end makers. They were too expensive for the value market and didn't hold a candle to the boutique makers.
I certainly wouldn't be lucrative, making a great or obscene profit, but it would be as profitable as say an iMac, and greatly boost Apple's market share.
Then you ARE saying it is lucrative...because if it is as profitable as an iMac (margin wise) AND greatly boosts Apple's market share then you are selling a lot more units at 28% margins that no one else has managed to do. Because "greatly boosting" Apple's market share means selling a huge number of machines over the 1.6M/qtr they do today.
If Apple could move an additional 1.4M $1000 xMacs/qtr @ 25% gross margins that $350M more per quarter and $1.4B over the year. At that point no one cares that you just slashed your ASPs...your maintained > 25% gross margins with hugely increased revenues. I don't care who you are or what definition you choose to use...that's damn lucrative...and 25% IS obscene profits in the commodity PC market.
You just can't show that second step because if you COULD show that second step then Apple's board would have overruled Jobs by now and you'd have your xMac tower.
Quote:
Like I said: "On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far." Apple can set any profit margin it wishes to for a Mac mini tower.
Well, at least we got the meaning of lucrative settled, I think.
It sure as heck isn't lucrative if they make an overpriced tower and fail to sell any. I think the cube proved that Apple can't just shove whatever on the market and make it fly.
And no, you still don't get the meaning of lucrative...which ranges from "attractively profitable" in addition to "obscenely profitable".
Seriously, do you actually listen to what people are writing are jsut stick to your preconceived notion that everyone who currently is not on the Mac is some kind of low end ignorant cheapass? [b]For the last time time we are not talking about the people $1000 and below. We are talking about the $1200-$2000 prosumer market. AKA those between the low end/ family (iMac/ Mini) and high end professional (Mac Pro) markets.
Second, Toshiba, Sony, and IBM were never high end makers. They were too expensive for the value market and didn't hold a candle to the boutique makers.
You aren't the only one in this thread. If you don't like that other folks keep pushing $1000 xMacs into the discussion then instead of staying quiet you could say something to them and NOT me.
Your problem is that you want ONE particular solution...a Conroe based xMac. You have disregarded previous options of Xeon or Merom based towers.
Tough. Most prosumers would be satisfied with either if Apple actually did either a revamped cube (merom based) or a single Xeon BTO.
And saying that IBM was never a high end maker is just silly. They DEFINED the high end market for business. Sony did so for the consumer end with the VAIO line.
And no, you still don't get the meaning of lucrative . . . which ranges from "attractively profitable" in addition to "obscenely profitable".
I don't think there is a defined point where a business goes from being very profitable to lucrative. I take producing a great deal of profit, which is the Mac dictionary definition, to be well above a good, normal profit of 30 or so percent. I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying. This is the first time I've ever had to explain it so precisely.
Quote:
and 25% IS obscene profits in the commodity PC market.
I certainly wouldn't consider 25 percent profit obscene in any market. It's a good profit and realistic in most cases. Just because the Windows consumer and prosumer tower market is cut-throat, and no one is making a reasonable profit, this does not mean a normal, good profit here is lucrative.
Quote:
Then you ARE saying it is lucrative...because if it is as profitable as an iMac (margin wise) AND greatly boosts Apple's market share then you are selling a lot more units at 28% margins that no one else has managed to do. Because "greatly boosting" Apple's market share means selling a huge number of machines over the 1.6M/qtr they do today.
My apology for exaggerating, using the word great. I guess because Apple's market share is so low, any increase seems great to me.
Quote:
It sure as heck isn't lucrative if they make an overpriced tower and fail to sell any. I think the cube proved that Apple can't just shove whatever on the market and make it fly.
I believe this issue has been covered adequately, many times, by others.
I don't think there is a defined point where a business goes from being very profitable to lucrative. I take producing a great deal of profit, which is the Mac dictionary definition, to be well above a good, normal profit of 30 or so percent. I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying. This is the first time I've ever had to explain it so precisely.
Gee, you know there's more than one dictionary...and given I've provided a well known alternative you might say that your insistance that there is but one narrow meaning to the word might be a tad...limited.
So...here's a few more:
Wordnet (princeton) S: (adj) lucrative, moneymaking, remunerative (producing a sizeable profit) "a remunerative business"
FreeDictionary: Producing wealth; profitable: a lucrative income; a lucrative marketing strategy.
YourDictionary: Producing wealth; profitable: a lucrative income; a lucrative marketing strategy.
Dict,die.net: adj : producing a good profit; "a remunerative business" [syn: moneymaking, remunerative]
english-test.net: Definition of lucrative (adjective) profitable; gainful; comprehensible
Merriam-Webster: Function: adjective, Etymology: Middle English lucratif, from Middle French, from Latin lucrativus, from lucratus, past participle of lucrari to gain, from lucrum
: producing wealth : PROFITABLE
(Note: Same definition as in the paperback Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary Office Edition)
So ya think that maybe...just maybe there are folks that use the word without requiring "obscene" or "great deal" of profit for something to be lucrative?
Perhaps your narrow usage isn't the common one?
Quote:
I certainly wouldn't consider 25 percent profit obscene in any market. It's a good profit and realistic in most cases. Just because the Windows consumer and prosumer tower market is cut-throat, and no one is making a reasonable profit, this does not mean a normal, good profit here is lucrative.
Obscene is a subjective assessment. Relative to what Dell makes getting 25%+ margins on a $1000 machines is huge/great/fantastic/tremendous/obscene profits. Highly lucrative.
If you can sell any.
Quote:
My apology for exaggerating, using the word great. I guess because Apple's market share is so low, any increase seems great to me.
Any significant change in share means a lot of profit because current numbers relative to the larger market isn't all that high. Unless you assume that you cannibalize the entire current lineup and produce a meager 600,001 xMacs increasing share by .000000001 percent and trashing your revenue in the process.
The point is you cannot BOTH say that xMacs are not lucrative AND assume any significant increase in share.
Quote:
I believe this issue has been covered adequately, many times, by others.
And I disagree. No one has shown that Apple can move $800 towers for $1000 significantly better than IBM, Sony or Toshiba could. There's some handwaving and claims of the superiority of OSX but no substantive argument.
I can argue the "superiority" of Linux over Windows (with great difficulty in keeping a straight face) but the market certainly hasn't done ANYTHING in terms of adoption of Linux on the desktop (given that Win95 still has a higher installed base than Linux). Even assuming that OSX is twice as good as Ubuntu the rate of adoption on the strength of the OS alone is going to be really really meager.
Of course there is profit in the tower business. Or even Dell and HP would have exited as well. The point is that a commodity market is NOT lucrative even though it can be profitable...but you sure have to work pretty hard at it.
The mid to upper end consumer machines are obviously not commodity market and this is where Dell tries to increase margins to make up for the low end.
No one here has suggested that Apple get into the commondity market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Proponents for the xMac repeatedly assert that the majority of the market consists of towers
We don't assert this, it is fact not ficiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
and that is sufficient justification that Apple should also have a tower and that such a tower would increase profits and share.
NO, we have said that margins might, I stress might be, lower, but the distinct possibility exists that Apple may increase market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Typically the implication is that profits would increase wildly as Apple took over the world...and Jobs is simply being obstinate in not offering an xMac.
Show me just one reference where any one advocating Apple offer an xMac has said anything close to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
YOU may WANT such a product but clearly you have not shown that you are willing to PAY for such a product in as much as the majority of complaints is that the Mac Pro is too expensive and you consistently push for $1000 tower. It is clear that no xMac as Apple would build it (and not Dell with a nicer case) would satisfy you. Every time I suggest a $1499-$1799 Mac Pro we end up right back at the $1K price point. Even $1200 you feel is too high as minimum even though that's a good $200 less than I think would be even vaguely considered by Apple.
Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.
But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.
No, it is not clear to you.
An xMac with a single Conroe, blah, blah blah priced in the $1499 - $1799 market would not sell. If it had a Xeon, it would not sell even more. This is a redux of the infamous Cube.
Dell averages between 16 - 18% margins, therefore their mid to upper end consumer offering HAVE TO BE HIGHER, MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LOW END $499 MACHINES. What they are, who knows, but considering the volume of the mid to upper end is LOWER, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, than the low end offerings the margins on the mid to upper end in order to skew the average up to 16 - 18% it would seem to be in the 22 - 28% area and maybe just maybe higher. This IS THE LUCRATIVE MARKET YOU KEEP REFERING TO.
Gee, you know there's more than one dictionary. . . you might say that your insistance that there is but one narrow meaning to the word might be a tad . . . limited.
I'll simply repeat what I said: "I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying." Does that sound like I insist on one narrow meaning of the word?
Quote:
Perhaps your narrow usage isn't the common one?
Many words have taken on a nuance in usage that go beyond most dictionary definitions. It's okay to use lucrative as a synonym for profitable, and when you do, readers will pick up on your meaning from the context. It's also okay to use lucrative to mean a very great profit, a distinction that most dictionaries miss entirely. If I use lucrative in this way, I expect that my readers will pick up on the meaning from the context. Normally, it is no big deal whether the reader sees the subtile difference or not. However, as I alluded to earlier, this is the first time anyone has challenged the way I use the word lucrative.
Many or the references you cited do show lucrative going beyond just being profitable, and there are more yet. Espindle says highly profitable. WordNet says producing a good profit. Answers.com say well paid, which can be translated to very good profit for a business situation. And or course the Apple dictionary which says producing a great deal of profit. All of these go beyond simply profitable. One even gives the usual "profitable" as the first meaning, but give "greedy gain" as a second meaning, the Brainy Dictionary.
We could take a survey to see how other use the word lucrative, but I found one from Google. It gave "profitable" as the meaning and asked for a rating of that meaning, from 1 to 5. When I checked, profitable was being rated below a 2. So, not everybody is happy with simply profitable.
Quote:
Obscene is a subjective assessment. Relative to what Dell makes getting 25%+ margins on a $1000 machines is huge/great/fantastic/tremendous/obscene profits. Highly lucrative.
What you are really saying is that the adjective use to describe profitability of a company depend on what market it's in. I agree that you can do this if you use a qualifier, as you did above: "Relative to what Dell makes." However, if profitability is discussed without a qualifier, I believe a persons use of adjectives ought to be consistent, to not confuse the reader.
By the way, I'm sorry I used the word obscene. I don't think lucrative would imply an obscene profit. Yet everyone is free to use adjectives this way, if it's consistent.
90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.
US market share, right. Oh, except for those buying laptops, which is higher that 6%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.
Facts, figures or made up numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.
So. Irrelevant to the discussion of something Apple currently doesn't offer, like the xMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.
Actually, if you compare price/feature the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell, the iMac is comparably priced feature for feature, it is only the Mac mini which fits this statement and it may or may not sell very well, which is bizarre since in any other market the least expensive product is normally the highest seller. Truly bizarre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.
So what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).
So why oh why is Apple advertising? Nothing they can do will increase market share. Are these commercials for the shareholders.
Who was it that said,"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves."?
You have got absolutely the most negative things to say about Apple. They "Windows wouldn't still have 90% of the desktop market", "OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined."
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).
See above posts about pricing and margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Strawman.
My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market.
Except you haven't shown why they exited. There could be other reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.
Talk about strawman - virtually no one has advocated adopting Dell's or HP's strategy.
And no, offering an xMac is in no way shape or form as risky as the iPod was or the iPhone is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.
xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.
All of the above quote presumes that Dell's margins for a mid to upper end consumer desktop is in the 16 - 18% range, which can be reasonably rejected. If they are higher then Apple could compete feature for feature in the same price range, JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH THE iMac and Mac Pro and XServe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.
More negative waves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?
IBM left to concentrate on their IT, mainframe and chip business which are core to their existance.
Sony and Toshiba left because they were incompetent in marketing, manufacturing and distribution.
Comments
Not in all cases. When I was a PC user, seeing designs like the iMac, Mac Mini, etc. upon wandering into an Apple Store are what grabbed my attention for the sheer fact that they WERE form factors I was unfamiliar with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.
I'm glad you brought that up. There is no doubt that the iMac and/or Mac Mini are attractive to a lot of people. It's easy to forget this fact when you are in the other half of Mac users, or potential switchers from Windows, who do not want either an iMac or Mini. Apple could afford to start covering all their bases by now.
"Super Mini"; MiniPlus; Mini2; -whatever - with 'room' to grow with an 'Elegant" way to open like the MacPro. Sorry, just daydreaming.
That is what I've been hoping Apple would make, in addition to a prosumer mini tower.
What about a larger Mini - with all the goodies that an iMac has or more. It could be 1, 2, or more inches taller, but it could have the same footprint.
I'd suggest a wider and slightly deeper footprint, but not much taller. In this way, I could set my monitor on top of it.
I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that Apple should have a prosumer tower in the price range of $1499-$1699. It is just my opinion is that the easiest way to offer such a tower is to simply have a single Xeon Mac Pro BTO.
Well, I agree that the easiest way to develop a prosumer tower is by using existing Mac Pro hardware. With the sales I'd expect a prosumer tower to have, however, Apple could afford to develop a uniquely different mini tower that has more appeal to this segment of buyers. In addition, manufacturing cost could be lower, allowing more flexibility in establishing price and profit.
With a really slooooow xeon you can get down into the $1250 range. If you agree that the xMac must always be more expensive than a comparable iMac then $1250 is at the bottom end of your range anyway given a $1250 xMac + $679 24" Dell WS display is less expensive than the 24" iMac.
I believe $1000 is a good bottom end price, or $999 for those who like to price that way. The bottom end mini tower might have a smaller HDD than the 20 inch iMac, and a combo optical drive. Add $600 for a 20 inch Cinema display and the iMac would be a better deal.
I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.
Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.
I wasn't aware that other manufacturers made Macs.
Ouch, I'm sorry, but you asked for that. Nice response iPeon.
Personally I'm not that interested in a computer like the one being discussed on this thread. I tend to go to extremes in my computer buying and keep a small notebook and a powerful desktop.
However, I can see why there is a desire out there for something like this. You are not the only one. Most people have no need for a powerful desktop; a great many people want them, for whatever reason (I.e. games), but only a fraction of those people truly need them. Still, if you're like me and you can have what you really want for $500-$1000 extra, you save up and buy it and probably increase the time until you need to upgrade.
People who don't really want anything more in a laptop than what they need don't have much of an option here except for the Mac Mini. The Mac Mini uses a processor designed for a notebook, and it's small form makes it hard to include many of the perks, like loads of ports, that desktop owners want.
So, is there a market for a Mac Tower, using a Desktop CPU, with lots of ports and all the traditional trimming associated with a desktop? Sure there is, but it's a niche market. Most people can make do with the Mac Mini, iMac, or Mac Pro. There's not a very big demanding market for what you want, that doesn't mean people wouldn't choose it over the other things if it was available, but at this point they are still BUYING the other things.
I could see them possibly expanding the options a little on the current Mac Pro into a lower range. That would allow you to make it into a desktop instead of a server by choosing the Kentsfield and other lower range options. I could also see them doing what someone else said and making a Mac Mini Pro or something similar; they could double the height and add other things. Just don't hold your breath for either of these things to happen, they're pretty unlikely. Even more unlikely is that Apple would decide to make something completely new.
The reason the margins were high is because component costs dropped and Apple didn't reduce price. They like thier prices and I presume the expect that when they do a rev of the hardware for leopard that the costs will go back to expected levels.
Most of the line up could use a refresh...certainly by the time Santa Rosa rolls in.Vinea
Which means they didn't meet their target of 28%, they exceeded it, or they really don't have a set target for 28% on each product they sell, or they target 28% across the complete product lines. Me, I think the last option is the most reasonable allowing them to adjust pricing. I'd venture to say they do the same things with the iPods.
Given that the specific numbers are trade secrets that would be difficult. However when there was that spat about Dell, special pricing, monopoly, etc with Intel eventually Intel said they only discount on volume, nothing else.
Vinea
Point is you don't know and I don't know. I'm suggesting that the price breaks when in Apple's volumes for Core Duo cpus don't significantly differ from Dell's, Toshiba's, Compac's, Sony's, Lenovo's, with or wihtout iMacs and Mac minis included.
Apple's margins for the notebooks it sells is on par with others. How many times do I have to repeat that the notebook market hasn't become a commodity market yet?
Note that Apple does not compete in the ultra-cheap notebook market. That market is growing quickly though. Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO.
Vinea
Whether or not the notebook market is a commodity market is irrelevant. Apple's most recent gains in market share(except the current quarter) were exclusively due to laptop sales. This means there are switchers, there are people who are attracted to Mac OS X. They just are not buying Apple's desktops, why? Because Apple does not offer a desktop they would buy.
So, you're saying, Apple has exited the traditional desktop market and no longer desires to increase desktop market share. When laptops become a commodity, you're saying Apple will exit this market too. What does that leave? Exiting the computer market completely?
High priced niche market computers is not sustainable. Apple is currently trying to branch out into the phone market, AppleTV market. Without computer's both these ventures will fail.
Again you present the milk the faithful argument = " Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO"
That integration, ease of use, etc were not compelling enough to sell towers at the rough prices we would expect Apple to sell towers at and at the margins Apple would expect to seel them.
As far as "acceptable" margins, Apple appears to disagree...along with IBM, Sony and Toshiba.Vinea
Well, without IBM, Sony and Toshiba maybe less competition means more opportunity. Look on the bright side. Other companies are making profits and the mid to upper end sales are the low hanging fruit.
Apple has been asked many times these last few quarters of bumper margins whether they would reduce margins to capture more share. Consistently they have said no, they are happy with current growth.
So Apple has stated they want capture more share. ON THEIR TERMS.Vinea
So, I guess they really don't try to target 28% for each product.
What growth?
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03...php?lsrc=mwrss
Apple notebook market share falls in fourth quarter
At no time did Apple have commanding share. Apple vs IBM was a no win for Apple in the business market. The branding of IBM was far too strong in the business arena and their margins were no leaner than Apple's.
The markets that Apple had a shot in, they still are in today (content creation, edu, upper end consumer) with strong share numbers.
Vinea
They are losing edu, especially in the K -12 market. Over the years they have also lost content creation, remember Adobe recommending other manufacturers computers? Apple has gained some in video, only because of Final Cut. Adobe Premier had crippled Apple versions.
Which means they didn't meet their target of 28%, they exceeded it, or they really don't have a set target for 28% on each product they sell, or they target 28% across the complete product lines. Me, I think the last option is the most reasonable allowing them to adjust pricing. I'd venture to say they do the same things with the iPods.
Mmmm...okay to be strictly pendantic then no, 28% is not an absolute target. However, historically, Apple has never shifted pricing downward to pass saving on to consumers and has margins in the 25-28%+ region.
They typically have guidance for that range so you certainly can say they target that for their product lines as a whole. What is certain is that you cannot sell a large volume of low margin items and STILL have 28% gross margins.
But its rather odd for you to be arguing that Apple doesn't strive for high margins when the only examples you have are when they have even HIGHER margins in a quarter. Historically Apple's margins have been quite high and the only way to get that consistent behaviour is for them to actually be targetting high margins.
So arguing that NO! APPLES MARGINS ARE 35% and not 28%! THEREFORE THEY SHOULD OFFER PRODUCTS WITH 5-10% MARGINS! is just...silly.
I'm suggesting that the price breaks when in Apple's volumes for Core Duo cpus don't significantly differ from Dell's, Toshiba's, Compac's, Sony's, Lenovo's, with or wihtout iMacs and Mac minis included.
So you're saying that the price is the same for 1.5M vs 1M? Mkay.
Whether or not the notebook market is a commodity market is irrelevant.
It's not irrelvant if you're trying to guess how long Apple will stay in the notebook market. Also the fact that it is not yet a commodity market means the margins are still high enough for Apple to remain competitive.
So, you're saying, Apple has exited the traditional desktop market and no longer desires to increase desktop market share. When laptops become a commodity, you're saying Apple will exit this market too. What does that leave? Exiting the computer market completely?
Well...they DID drop computer from their name.
But yes, I would say that when laptops become a commodity then Apple will be reduced to the MBP for the high end, an ultraportable and a multi-touch tablet within the notebook segment.
They will then be into...who knows, wearable computers? The iPhone and aTV are certainly indicators of where they intend to put OSX next.
High priced niche market computers is not sustainable. Apple is currently trying to branch out into the phone market, AppleTV market. Without computer's both these ventures will fail.
Again you present the milk the faithful argument = " Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO"
You say milk the faithful.
I say provide luxury computing and lifestyle products. At some point notebooks wont be in those categories but something else will. Apple will offer those and not notebooks except for some niche ones just as they do in the desktop market.
Well, without IBM, Sony and Toshiba maybe less competition means more opportunity. Look on the bright side. Other companies are making profits and the mid to upper end sales are the low hanging fruit.
So, I guess they really don't try to target 28% for each product.
What growth?
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03...php?lsrc=mwrss
Apple notebook market share falls in fourth quarter
By 7/10s of 1 percent. But they do have growth in total sales and I dunno what point you're trying to make.
You say Apple wants more market share and use that as "proof" that they should reduce margins to capture more share.
I point out that folks have asked Apple just that in their quarterlies and they said "No". So gee, maybe that means that repeating the mantra that "Apple has stated they want more share" doesn't meet with the reality of Apple's actual behavior. Yes, they would like more share, no, not enough to reduce margins even from a lofty 35%.
I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.
Vinea
I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.
Vinea
To have a fruitful discussion one has to have some basic agreements. There ain't any here.
I dunno...but this dicussion is getting really silly even by xMac thread standards. When you have folks not getting the meaning of "lucrative" or unable to agree that for good or bad Apple LIKES margins any kind of vaguely sensible discussion is impossible.
Strange that you bring up the word "lucrative" here, when I suspect you are the one not getting the subtile differences in meaning. You seem to use the word as a synonym for profitable, which misses the nuance of lucrative.
If you had a marginally profitable business and went to the bank for a loan, saying your business is lucrative, it might raise a few eyebrows. Most of us use lucrative to convey producing a great deal of profit, which is the meaning shown by the dictionary on my Mac.
It can also be used to mean yielding a profit, large or small, that is easy to come by. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says it is wealth or profit acquired, received, or had without burdensome conditions or giving of consideration.
Okay, here is how you used it in your post.
If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting then explain why IBM sold it off to Lenovo, Sony only has AIOs in its remaining desktop lineup and Toshiba bailed entirely?
A rhetorical question that seems to assume we believe the Windows tower market is extremely profitable. You attempt to show we are wrong by pointing out how IBM and Sony got out of the tower market. You imply the market has little or low profit, and is not lucrative.
In my reply, I point out that we never claimed that the market for Windows towers is lucrative. I went on to explain that low profits on the Windows side does not mean that Apple could not make a very good profit on the Mac side, saying:
"On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far. You could argue that Mac users don't want a mini tower, but who will believe you?"
"Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out."
To which you reply:
If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...
So, you say Windows towers are not so lucrative. When I say essentially the same thing, you say I don't know what lucrative means. Yes, maybe a sensible discussion is impossible.
1. There is not enough difference between Mac OS X and the iapps and their windows counterparts to warrant coming to the Mac for operating system alone.
Having used windows extensively, I can can tell you the difference is that great.
2. If its not the operating system, Mac users must come to Apple soley for the cutting edge designs.
There is some truth to this but, it's the not the whole story. There are many who are just plain sick of windows. Nobody else is allowed to make Mac OS X compatible computers, so Apple is the only game in town.
3. Once again, since the operating system doesn't make all that much difference Apple inherently operates in the same cut throat market as windows PCs.
Not true. The cut throat market is the medium to low end market. It's very crowded and the only way Dell or HP or Gateway can make a sale is give the user or company a little bit better deal than the competition. Apple has two main advantages, number one, like I said earlier, they are the only Mac maker, so 100% of those who want the OS have to come to them.
Number 2, they do not operate in the cutthroat value computer market, they operate in the more affluent upper end. Yes, Mac biases might discount this, but there are actually many upscale PC buys who know what they're talking about. These users are looking for the best PC available at the price. If we're talking about a family PC, the iMac makes a good choice or them. If they are looking for something more, Apple has nothing to sell them. They do not take the Mac religiously, so they much less likely to get duped into a workstation for Apple's betterment. They may be small, at 25% at best, but that's huge by Apple's standards. The AIO and SFF desktop markets that Apple deal in perhaps make up a 3 or 4% at best. Is everything that is not a notebook or the Mac Pro to be abandoned because the market is not there on the PC side?
Apple makes its computer profits by high margins and being the only choice. They would still be present in a consumer tower. In fact, since PC companies tend to make up losses on the low end with insane margins on the high end, Apple might actually be cheaper. We see in in the Mac Pro. Why not make a more desirable machine that can lock more people in?
4. If Apple does something it must inherently be the correct action.
Also not true. Steve jobs is more a visionary, than a businessman. He tries to get ahead of trends and predict what users might want in the future. Nothing he does is every lukewarm, it's almost always a spectacular success or a dismal failure. He tries to push the envelope and some times goes so far that he comes up with a machine that is revolutionary, yet ultimately undesirable to the intended audience (see PMG4 cube). He is also a man of many biases and large ego. The all in one form factor has been a pet project of his since the Apple II. Would he do something that could hurt Apple in an attempt to prove himself right? Absolutely.
Strange that you bring up the word "lucrative" here, when I suspect you are the one not getting the subtile differences in meaning. You seem to use the word as a synonym for profitable, which misses the nuance of lucrative.
If you had a marginally profitable business and went to the bank for a loan, saying your business is lucrative, it might raise a few eyebrows. Most of us use lucrative to convey producing a great deal of profit, which is the meaning shown by the dictionary on my Mac.
No, I understand the nuance just fine. The point is why would a business invest in a domain that is at best described as "marginally profitable" by its proponents?
Okay, here is how you used it in your post.
Of course there is profit in the tower business. Or even Dell and HP would have exited as well. The point is that a commodity market is NOT lucrative even though it can be profitable...but you sure have to work pretty hard at it.
Investing in the tower market, windows or mac, doesn't seem like a great use of time or resources by Apple.
A rhetorical question that seems to assume we believe the Windows tower market is extremely profitable. You attempt to show we are wrong by pointing out how IBM and Sony got out of the tower market. You imply the market has little or low profit, and is not lucrative.
In my reply, I point out that we never claimed that the market for Windows towers is lucrative. I went on to explain that low profits on the Windows side does not mean that Apple could not make a very good profit on the Mac side, saying:
Proponents for the xMac repeatedly assert that the majority of the market consists of towers and that is sufficient justification that Apple should also have a tower and that such a tower would increase profits and share. Typically the implication is that profits would increase wildly as Apple took over the world...and Jobs is simply being obstinate in not offering an xMac.
"Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out."
YOU may WANT such a product but clearly you have not shown that you are willing to PAY for such a product in as much as the majority of complaints is that the Mac Pro is too expensive and you consistently push for $1000 tower. It is clear that no xMac as Apple would build it (and not Dell with a nicer case) would satisfy you. Every time I suggest a $1499-$1799 Mac Pro we end up right back at the $1K price point. Even $1200 you feel is too high as minimum even though that's a good $200 less than I think would be even vaguely considered by Apple.
Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.
But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.
Vinea
Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.
I certainly wouldn't be lucrative, making a great or obscene profit, but it would be as profitable as say an iMac, and greatly boost Apple's market share.
But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.
Like I said: "On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far." Apple can set any profit margin it wishes to for a Mac mini tower.
Well, at least we got the meaning of lucrative settled, I think.
I think Vinea's argument comes down to four things.
1. There is not enough difference between Mac OS X and the iapps and their windows counterparts to warrant coming to the Mac for operating system alone.
Having used windows extensively, I can can tell you the difference is that great.
90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.
Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.
2. If its not the operating system, Mac users must come to Apple soley for the cutting edge designs.
There is some truth to this but, it's the not the whole story. There are many who are just plain sick of windows. Nobody else is allowed to make Mac OS X compatible computers, so Apple is the only game in town.
Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.
94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.
OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.
3. Once again, since the operating system doesn't make all that much difference Apple inherently operates in the same cut throat market as windows PCs.
Not true. The cut throat market is the medium to low end market. It's very crowded and the only way Dell or HP or Gateway can make a sale is give the user or company a little bit better deal than the competition. Apple has two main advantages, number one, like I said earlier, they are the only Mac maker, so 100% of those who want the OS have to come to them.
The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).
Number 2, they do not operate in the cutthroat value computer market, they operate in the more affluent upper end. Yes, Mac biases might discount this, but there are actually many upscale PC buys who know what they're talking about. These users are looking for the best PC available at the price. If we're talking about a family PC, the iMac makes a good choice or them. If they are looking for something more, Apple has nothing to sell them. They do not take the Mac religiously, so they much less likely to get duped into a workstation for Apple's betterment. They may be small, at 25% at best, but that's huge by Apple's standards. The AIO and SFF desktop markets that Apple deal in perhaps make up a 3 or 4% at best. Is everything that is not a notebook or the Mac Pro to be abandoned because the market is not there on the PC side?
And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).
4. If Apple does something it must inherently be the correct action.
Also not true. Steve jobs is more a visionary, than a businessman.
Strawman.
My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market. Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.
The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.
xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.
OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.
So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?
Vinea
90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.
Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.
Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.
94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.
OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.
The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).
And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).
Strawman.
My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market. Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.
The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.
xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.
OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.
So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?
Vinea
Seriously, do you actually listen to what people are writing are jsut stick to your preconceived notion that everyone who currently is not on the Mac is some kind of low end ignorant cheapass? [b]For the last time time we are not talking about the people $1000 and below. We are talking about the $1200-$2000 prosumer market. AKA those between the low end/ family (iMac/ Mini) and high end professional (Mac Pro) markets.
Second, Toshiba, Sony, and IBM were never high end makers. They were too expensive for the value market and didn't hold a candle to the boutique makers.
I certainly wouldn't be lucrative, making a great or obscene profit, but it would be as profitable as say an iMac, and greatly boost Apple's market share.
Then you ARE saying it is lucrative...because if it is as profitable as an iMac (margin wise) AND greatly boosts Apple's market share then you are selling a lot more units at 28% margins that no one else has managed to do. Because "greatly boosting" Apple's market share means selling a huge number of machines over the 1.6M/qtr they do today.
If Apple could move an additional 1.4M $1000 xMacs/qtr @ 25% gross margins that $350M more per quarter and $1.4B over the year. At that point no one cares that you just slashed your ASPs...your maintained > 25% gross margins with hugely increased revenues. I don't care who you are or what definition you choose to use...that's damn lucrative...and 25% IS obscene profits in the commodity PC market.
You just can't show that second step because if you COULD show that second step then Apple's board would have overruled Jobs by now and you'd have your xMac tower.
Like I said: "On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far." Apple can set any profit margin it wishes to for a Mac mini tower.
Well, at least we got the meaning of lucrative settled, I think.
It sure as heck isn't lucrative if they make an overpriced tower and fail to sell any. I think the cube proved that Apple can't just shove whatever on the market and make it fly.
And no, you still don't get the meaning of lucrative...which ranges from "attractively profitable" in addition to "obscenely profitable".
Vinea
Seriously, do you actually listen to what people are writing are jsut stick to your preconceived notion that everyone who currently is not on the Mac is some kind of low end ignorant cheapass? [b]For the last time time we are not talking about the people $1000 and below. We are talking about the $1200-$2000 prosumer market. AKA those between the low end/ family (iMac/ Mini) and high end professional (Mac Pro) markets.
Second, Toshiba, Sony, and IBM were never high end makers. They were too expensive for the value market and didn't hold a candle to the boutique makers.
You aren't the only one in this thread. If you don't like that other folks keep pushing $1000 xMacs into the discussion then instead of staying quiet you could say something to them and NOT me.
Your problem is that you want ONE particular solution...a Conroe based xMac. You have disregarded previous options of Xeon or Merom based towers.
Tough. Most prosumers would be satisfied with either if Apple actually did either a revamped cube (merom based) or a single Xeon BTO.
And saying that IBM was never a high end maker is just silly. They DEFINED the high end market for business. Sony did so for the consumer end with the VAIO line.
Vinea
And no, you still don't get the meaning of lucrative . . . which ranges from "attractively profitable" in addition to "obscenely profitable".
I don't think there is a defined point where a business goes from being very profitable to lucrative. I take producing a great deal of profit, which is the Mac dictionary definition, to be well above a good, normal profit of 30 or so percent. I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying. This is the first time I've ever had to explain it so precisely.
and 25% IS obscene profits in the commodity PC market.
I certainly wouldn't consider 25 percent profit obscene in any market. It's a good profit and realistic in most cases. Just because the Windows consumer and prosumer tower market is cut-throat, and no one is making a reasonable profit, this does not mean a normal, good profit here is lucrative.
Then you ARE saying it is lucrative...because if it is as profitable as an iMac (margin wise) AND greatly boosts Apple's market share then you are selling a lot more units at 28% margins that no one else has managed to do. Because "greatly boosting" Apple's market share means selling a huge number of machines over the 1.6M/qtr they do today.
My apology for exaggerating, using the word great. I guess because Apple's market share is so low, any increase seems great to me.
It sure as heck isn't lucrative if they make an overpriced tower and fail to sell any. I think the cube proved that Apple can't just shove whatever on the market and make it fly.
I believe this issue has been covered adequately, many times, by others.
I don't think there is a defined point where a business goes from being very profitable to lucrative. I take producing a great deal of profit, which is the Mac dictionary definition, to be well above a good, normal profit of 30 or so percent. I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying. This is the first time I've ever had to explain it so precisely.
Gee, you know there's more than one dictionary...and given I've provided a well known alternative you might say that your insistance that there is but one narrow meaning to the word might be a tad...limited.
So...here's a few more:
Wordnet (princeton) S: (adj) lucrative, moneymaking, remunerative (producing a sizeable profit) "a remunerative business"
FreeDictionary: Producing wealth; profitable: a lucrative income; a lucrative marketing strategy.
YourDictionary: Producing wealth; profitable: a lucrative income; a lucrative marketing strategy.
Dict,die.net: adj : producing a good profit; "a remunerative business" [syn: moneymaking, remunerative]
english-test.net: Definition of lucrative (adjective) profitable; gainful; comprehensible
Merriam-Webster: Function: adjective, Etymology: Middle English lucratif, from Middle French, from Latin lucrativus, from lucratus, past participle of lucrari to gain, from lucrum
: producing wealth : PROFITABLE
(Note: Same definition as in the paperback Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary Office Edition)
So ya think that maybe...just maybe there are folks that use the word without requiring "obscene" or "great deal" of profit for something to be lucrative?
Perhaps your narrow usage isn't the common one?
I certainly wouldn't consider 25 percent profit obscene in any market. It's a good profit and realistic in most cases. Just because the Windows consumer and prosumer tower market is cut-throat, and no one is making a reasonable profit, this does not mean a normal, good profit here is lucrative.
Obscene is a subjective assessment. Relative to what Dell makes getting 25%+ margins on a $1000 machines is huge/great/fantastic/tremendous/obscene profits. Highly lucrative.
If you can sell any.
My apology for exaggerating, using the word great. I guess because Apple's market share is so low, any increase seems great to me.
Any significant change in share means a lot of profit because current numbers relative to the larger market isn't all that high. Unless you assume that you cannibalize the entire current lineup and produce a meager 600,001 xMacs increasing share by .000000001 percent and trashing your revenue in the process.
The point is you cannot BOTH say that xMacs are not lucrative AND assume any significant increase in share.
I believe this issue has been covered adequately, many times, by others.
And I disagree. No one has shown that Apple can move $800 towers for $1000 significantly better than IBM, Sony or Toshiba could. There's some handwaving and claims of the superiority of OSX but no substantive argument.
I can argue the "superiority" of Linux over Windows (with great difficulty in keeping a straight face) but the market certainly hasn't done ANYTHING in terms of adoption of Linux on the desktop (given that Win95 still has a higher installed base than Linux). Even assuming that OSX is twice as good as Ubuntu the rate of adoption on the strength of the OS alone is going to be really really meager.
Ubuntu is free. OSX is not.
Vinea
Of course there is profit in the tower business. Or even Dell and HP would have exited as well. The point is that a commodity market is NOT lucrative even though it can be profitable...but you sure have to work pretty hard at it.
The mid to upper end consumer machines are obviously not commodity market and this is where Dell tries to increase margins to make up for the low end.
No one here has suggested that Apple get into the commondity market.
Proponents for the xMac repeatedly assert that the majority of the market consists of towers
We don't assert this, it is fact not ficiton.
and that is sufficient justification that Apple should also have a tower and that such a tower would increase profits and share.
NO, we have said that margins might, I stress might be, lower, but the distinct possibility exists that Apple may increase market share.
Typically the implication is that profits would increase wildly as Apple took over the world...and Jobs is simply being obstinate in not offering an xMac.
Show me just one reference where any one advocating Apple offer an xMac has said anything close to this.
YOU may WANT such a product but clearly you have not shown that you are willing to PAY for such a product in as much as the majority of complaints is that the Mac Pro is too expensive and you consistently push for $1000 tower. It is clear that no xMac as Apple would build it (and not Dell with a nicer case) would satisfy you. Every time I suggest a $1499-$1799 Mac Pro we end up right back at the $1K price point. Even $1200 you feel is too high as minimum even though that's a good $200 less than I think would be even vaguely considered by Apple.
Therefore you certainly have not made the case that an Apple Tower would be lucrative either.
But whatever...it is STILL laughable that folks want Apple to enter a market that the proponents themselves acknowlege isn't lucrative in the windows world.
No, it is not clear to you.
An xMac with a single Conroe, blah, blah blah priced in the $1499 - $1799 market would not sell. If it had a Xeon, it would not sell even more. This is a redux of the infamous Cube.
Dell averages between 16 - 18% margins, therefore their mid to upper end consumer offering HAVE TO BE HIGHER, MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LOW END $499 MACHINES. What they are, who knows, but considering the volume of the mid to upper end is LOWER, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, than the low end offerings the margins on the mid to upper end in order to skew the average up to 16 - 18% it would seem to be in the 22 - 28% area and maybe just maybe higher. This IS THE LUCRATIVE MARKET YOU KEEP REFERING TO.
Gee, you know there's more than one dictionary. . . you might say that your insistance that there is but one narrow meaning to the word might be a tad . . . limited.
I'll simply repeat what I said: "I'd say lucrative starts at about 40 or 50 percent profit. Everyone is welcome to define his or her own, and normally it is clear from the context what the author is saying." Does that sound like I insist on one narrow meaning of the word?
Perhaps your narrow usage isn't the common one?
Many words have taken on a nuance in usage that go beyond most dictionary definitions. It's okay to use lucrative as a synonym for profitable, and when you do, readers will pick up on your meaning from the context. It's also okay to use lucrative to mean a very great profit, a distinction that most dictionaries miss entirely. If I use lucrative in this way, I expect that my readers will pick up on the meaning from the context. Normally, it is no big deal whether the reader sees the subtile difference or not. However, as I alluded to earlier, this is the first time anyone has challenged the way I use the word lucrative.
Many or the references you cited do show lucrative going beyond just being profitable, and there are more yet. Espindle says highly profitable. WordNet says producing a good profit. Answers.com say well paid, which can be translated to very good profit for a business situation. And or course the Apple dictionary which says producing a great deal of profit. All of these go beyond simply profitable. One even gives the usual "profitable" as the first meaning, but give "greedy gain" as a second meaning, the Brainy Dictionary.
We could take a survey to see how other use the word lucrative, but I found one from Google. It gave "profitable" as the meaning and asked for a rating of that meaning, from 1 to 5. When I checked, profitable was being rated below a 2. So, not everybody is happy with simply profitable.
Obscene is a subjective assessment. Relative to what Dell makes getting 25%+ margins on a $1000 machines is huge/great/fantastic/tremendous/obscene profits. Highly lucrative.
What you are really saying is that the adjective use to describe profitability of a company depend on what market it's in. I agree that you can do this if you use a qualifier, as you did above: "Relative to what Dell makes." However, if profitability is discussed without a qualifier, I believe a persons use of adjectives ought to be consistent, to not confuse the reader.
By the way, I'm sorry I used the word obscene. I don't think lucrative would imply an obscene profit. Yet everyone is free to use adjectives this way, if it's consistent.
90% of the market disagrees. Linux has made no headway on the desktop. Mac does best but is 6% of the installed base.
US market share, right. Oh, except for those buying laptops, which is higher that 6%.
Some folks really really hate microsoft. 90% of the world doesn't care.
Facts, figures or made up numbers.
Apple offers a complete solution, wrapped nicely in an easy to use UI and pleasing hardware design at a premium price.
So. Irrelevant to the discussion of something Apple currently doesn't offer, like the xMac.
94% of the market doesn't care enough to pay the premium price.
Actually, if you compare price/feature the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell, the iMac is comparably priced feature for feature, it is only the Mac mini which fits this statement and it may or may not sell very well, which is bizarre since in any other market the least expensive product is normally the highest seller. Truly bizarre.
OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined.
So what.
The OS is below the notice for the vast majority of the market or Windows wouldn't STILL have 90% of the desktop market. The same hardware runs Linux (Ubuntu isn't all that bad as much as I bang on Linux), FreeBSD and sometimes even Slowaris (which isn't that bad either really).
So why oh why is Apple advertising? Nothing they can do will increase market share. Are these commercials for the shareholders.
Who was it that said,"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves."?
You have got absolutely the most negative things to say about Apple. They "Windows wouldn't still have 90% of the desktop market", "OSX is also not the only game in town if you are sick of Windows. There is Solaris, Linux, and BSD. I hear there are pockets of AmigaOS and GEM still in Europe if you are so inclined."
And a $1000 PC made by Apple would not qualify for "best PC available at the price" since the comparable Dell would be $800. You can argue that OSX is better than Ubuntu (a bit yes) and Windows. The comeback for Windows is that larger amount of software and games (for home users).
See above posts about pricing and margins.
Strawman.
My position has been that Apple is executing well now AND companies that have tried your suggested strategy in the Windows world have exitted the tower market.
Except you haven't shown why they exited. There could be other reasons.
Also, Apple, as a corporation is no Dell or HP. The corporate culture is sufficiently different that adopting a Dell or HP strategy (volume over margin) is a very risky thing to do.
Talk about strawman - virtually no one has advocated adopting Dell's or HP's strategy.
And no, offering an xMac is in no way shape or form as risky as the iPod was or the iPhone is.
The xMac is no more or less niche than the iMac and compares far less well against any windows competition. Which as a solution the Mac platform is compared against. A $1000 Apple tower with the same hw specs as an $800 Dell tower is a loser. A $1400 conroe Apple tower with the same hw specs as a $1200 Dell tower is equally a loser. The only positive aspect of the iMac is that as an AIO it lives in a different weight class.
xMac is certainly going to be much better than an iMac but faces much much more competent competition.
All of the above quote presumes that Dell's margins for a mid to upper end consumer desktop is in the 16 - 18% range, which can be reasonably rejected. If they are higher then Apple could compete feature for feature in the same price range, JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH THE iMac and Mac Pro and XServe.
OSX is IMHO insufficient to change that equation because even though it is much better than XP, XP is "good enough" for most folks.
More negative waves.
So instead of making up strawmen that I don't say why don't you actually show why IBM, Sony and Toshiba left the tower market and who their high end brand (and not some whitebox maker) replacements are?
IBM left to concentrate on their IT, mainframe and chip business which are core to their existance.
Sony and Toshiba left because they were incompetent in marketing, manufacturing and distribution.