I think that there is a market for a smaller non-AOI in the mac pantheon. . .
Selling price $1300-1400 Base . . .
I believe this price is too high, and Apple could sell the machine you describe starting at $999, even $899, with a low cost but fast consumer chip and a reasonably good graphics card. Offer maybe three choices of CPU and several graphics cards, with at least one good for gaming.
Quote:
2 PCI slots (one for the video card and one extra) . . .
Empty slots don't cost much. I'd say provide 3 empty slots. Otherwise you are describing just what I have been asking for in a mini tower, something noticeably smaller and cheaper than a Mac Pro.
A big argument that is raised against such a mini tower is that it would cannibalize sales of the iMac and Mac Pro. This is true, but I'd guess that iMac and Mac Pro sales would drop only 20 percent due to a mini tower. The reason this effect would be relatively small is price. Feature for feature, a Mac mini tower would not be cheaper.
What a mini tower does, however, is give Mac customers a choice, and those who prefer a headless, expandable prosumer tower could actually buy one from Apple.
Also, a mini tower would undoubtedly increase Mac desktop sales greatly. I'd say that 60 to 80 percent of a Mac mini tower sales would be to customers who would not buy a new Mac desktop today. This would include myself, who has been purchasing older Power Macs on eBay. If such a mini tower is not forthcoming from Apple, my next purchase will likely be a Mac Pro on eBay.
Regarding your post concerning costs, the Mac Pro actually costs less than an equivalently configured Dell, splain that, since their components obviously don't effect Apple's overall component laptop costs.
I did. Dell makes its margins in the workstation and server markets. Not the lower end tower markets. The 18% is the average of its gross profits across all product lines.
We know that they aren't making 18% in the entry market where their volume is largest. Therefore the margins in the workstation and server markets are far higher than 18%. This is also why IBM is still competitive in the medium server markets.
Quote:
I've have yet to find a single customer that went into a store and thought gee, I guess I'll buy an Apple computer because their margins are 35% and Dell's is only 18%.
No, but I bet there are plenty of examples where folks have stated "I guess I'll buy this cheaper HP tower rather than this more expensive VAIO tower with the same specs".
The tower market completely ignored Sony's out of box advantage in DVD recording/authoring, digital media hub and integration with Sony lifestyle products (video cameras, digital camera, etc). Does that sound like the Windows version of iLife and Apple's own ecostructure (only iPod vs cameras)?
If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.
Instead Apple appears prescient in its AIO and SFF strategy for staying in the desktop market with good margins where Sony's VAIO tower strategy failed.
You can argue that Sony didn't do as good a job as Apple can and I would agree. But enough that the outcome is significantly different?
Quote:
But DVD recording isn't the only area in which Sony is bringing together computing and consumer electronics. Only Apple bundles as many company-branded digital media applications--for music, photos and movies--with its consumer PCs. But many of Sony's applications are tightly tied to unique hardware features. For example, Sony's SonicStage software for managing and listening to MP3s also can record music from FM radio stations on models that come with a built-in FM receiver.
Sony's GigaPocket Personal Video Recorder software offers TiVo-like features for models packing TV tuners. Consumers can use the software for scheduling programs that can be recorded to the PC's hard drive. Sony also provides software that can be used for, among other things, editing out commercials. The consumer could then convert the show to MPEG2 and burn it to a DVD.
"One of the things Sony is going to do, being it's Sony, is to add extra value to its products to set them apart from the commodity PC market," Baker said. "Emphasizing specialized software or style gets them out of the speeds-and-feeds area and focuses the market on what Sony does best."
If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.
I could have sworn I saw a Vaio tower at a Sony store last week, but it's not online.
For whatever Sony offers, usually the Apple counterpart is better and cheaper.
I could have sworn I saw a Vaio tower at a Sony store last week, but it's not online.
For whatever Sony offers, usually the Apple counterpart is better and cheaper.
Do they still have the RC Digital Studio? I know there was a new rev in 2006 but it disappeared from the online SonyStyle store and I didn't see it at the Tysons Corner SonyStyle store. Wasn't looking for it either. I did play with their UMPC...rather cool.
There are still a nice number of VAIO notebooks. I like their ultra-portable TX line and wish Apple had a model in the same product space.
I do agree on that. Even though I expect such an Apple model to go for $2k, I think Apple could still sell a lot of ultralights just because of the size and being half the weight of their more powerful models.
I know that the computer market in Japan is depressed, but even so, I think Apple's sales there are disproportionately low there because they don't offer such a model. From what I hear from people in Japan is that the ultralight is pretty much the only type of computer that's in demand.
I think it's also possible that Apple may just be leapfrogging the ultraportable and trying to sell the iPhone to that market instead, because cell phones are where the Asian market does most of its electronic communication. iTunes' uptake is low because more people in Asia are using their phones to play music. They are also doing their text communications using their phones rather than buying computers to do the job.
Another niche market item that apple would have high margins and ASPs and compete with a company like Shuttle and not a company like Dell.
The SFF market is said to be growing. A larger SFF computer (with more drives) used to feed the apple TV fits within the product strategy better than the current Mini.
Vinea
Hello Vinea, nice to see you're back
I don't think Apple should or want to compete with Dell, I think they are happy seeing Dell, HP and others fight themselves for .x% of the market.
But I like your comparaison with Shuttle, and I would like Apple to bring some models in that category as, like you said, the Mac mini doesn't cut it. In fact, nobody outside Apple knows how many minis are sold each quarter and how much it does for the current margin profits.
I really don't care which platform Apple should use for this kind of computer (Xeon or Conroe), but I really believe that a Conroe-based computer will cost Apple less to manufacture than a single CPU Xeon one, because of the cost of the chipset and RAM.
Taken in account Intel's last price cuts on desktop chips and that the Xeons have never seen their prices cut since the 5100 series launch, and that most of the components are already in Apple's inventory (HD, OD, Video cards, etc.), I really think Apple could make a "shuttle" for $999-$1999 depending on the CPU used. If Apple can manufacture a $2500 workstation with $1400 worth of CPUs inside, I really believe they can make a smaller computer for $1000 with a $200 CPU.
For what market, should you ask? I'll tell you that I am no gamer, but I really believe that it would increse sales in the small and not so small office/enterprise market. While Apple growth may be 3x the overall PC growth, it didn't change their market share a lot this quarter.
And while I think that the Mac Pro is an exceptionnally great and priced computer, it is still too expensive for most. Just think about all those creative offices, small and medium, that use (or could use) Adobe CS, FCP, Logic Pro and other solutions, that currently have no choice but the Mac Pro for real "desktop performance" and other features like easy access to internal components, maintenance, upgradability, the ability to have 2 identical displays of any size they want (try this with a 17", 24" or even a 20" iMac or any notebook), etc.
I've just visited the Shuttle web site an found a G2-3200H with a 2.40GHz Conroe, 1066FSB, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, basic ATI PCIe video card, wireless for $1300, with room for another HD and another PCI card, and there are more models with less or more features... This is basically a more powerful computer than the currently faster iMac (2.33GHz/667FSB).
But I like your comparaison with Shuttle, and I would like Apple to bring some models in that category as, like you said, the Mac mini doesn't cut it. In fact, nobody outside Apple knows how many minis are sold each quarter and how much it does for the current margin profits.
Probably wouldn't exite too many companies...besides Shuttle.
Quote:
I really don't care which platform Apple should use for this kind of computer (Xeon or Conroe), but I really believe that a Conroe-based computer will cost Apple less to manufacture than a single CPU Xeon one, because of the cost of the chipset and RAM.
I would guess Merom if I had to for a Shuttle sized Mini. Not saying they couldn't go Conroe or Xeon but I would think they'd try to stay the same as the iMac.
Quote:
I really think Apple could make a "shuttle" for $999-$1999 depending on the CPU used. If Apple can manufacture a $2500 workstation with $1400 worth of CPUs inside, I really believe they can make a smaller computer for $1000 with a $200 CPU.
If they had 1 16x PCIe slot I think most folks would be estatic...Merom, Conroe or Xeon...
Quote:
And while I think that the Mac Pro is an exceptionnally great and priced computer, it is still too expensive for most.
No disagreement. A single Xeon priced like the comparable Dell Precision 490 ($1,749 for a single 2.66Ghz Xeon) would go a long way to fix this without doing anything more than adding a single BTO option to the Mac Pro line. A single 1.6 Ghz Xeon only costs $1,229from Dell...but I doubt Apple would want to go there.
Quote:
I've just visited the Shuttle web site an found a G2-3200H with a 2.40GHz Conroe, 1066FSB, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, basic ATI PCIe video card, wireless for $1300, with room for another HD and another PCI card, and there are more models with less or more features... This is basically a more powerful computer than the currently faster iMac (2.33GHz/667FSB).
...
Yah...but I doubt Apple would offer something like that for less than $1499 and use a 2.16Ghz Merom vs 2.4Ghz Conroe. Just from what it might do to the iMac and PowerMac lines.
That Shuttle should destroy the 20" iMac in a head to head comparison (and benchmarks) even given you need to tack on a $200 20" widescreen flat panel from somewhere for the Shuttle. The expandability alone is to me worth $200....much less the faster Conroe.
The iMacs just aren't very good values when comparing specs.
The SFF market is said to be growing. A larger SFF computer (with more drives) used to feed the apple TV fits within the product strategy better than the current Mini.
Here is something I think we agree upon. Yet, Apple seems to have painted itself into a corner. The Mac Mini is too small to house a very large HDD. I'd say Apple should redesign it and make it big enough to house a standard 500 GB drive. In addition, it should have room for a good cooling system, capable of handling a higher performance CPU. On-board graphics would be adequate for this market IMHO. The HDD capacity and CPU performance should be an option for the customer. Since this redesign would be larger, Apple should go ahead and include a full size optical drive as well.
The problem with this approach as I see it, is that many customers may have locked in the current Mac Mini dimensions. So, Apple may not be able to discontinue the current Mac Mini anytime soon. As demand for it decreased, Apple could eventually discontinue it, offering a last time buy for those who need something that small.
Here is something I think we agree upon. Yet, Apple seems to have painted itself into a corner. The Mac Mini is too small to house a very large HDD. I'd say Apple should redesign it and make it big enough to house a standard 500 GB drive. In addition, it should have room for a good cooling system, capable of handling a higher performance CPU. On-board graphics would be adequate for this market IMHO. The HDD capacity and CPU performance should be an option for the customer. Since this redesign would be larger, Apple should go ahead and include a full size optical drive as well.
Sure. Or you can take the aTV board, remove video related hardware and stick 4 drives with it, use ZFS and sell it as the iNAS.
I dunno which way is better.
Quote:
The problem with this approach as I see it, is that many customers may have locked in the current Mac Mini dimensions. So, Apple may not be able to discontinue the current Mac Mini anytime soon. As demand for it decreased, Apple could eventually discontinue it, offering a last time buy for those who need something that small.
Yah...there are a lot of 3rd party products designed for the mini dimensions. But they could do a lot of what you want with just height.
I agree, with all of what everyone said aside from the several manufacturers one. To be honest, IMAC is perfect for just about everyone. Do you really need 4 processors? NO!!!! It's a BSD based system and unless you have VERY specific needs, IMAC or MacBook is all you need. Why is it that we always need better? We don't if we are doing the same tasks like web browsing, and basic programming. 3gb on my 2.16 GHz intel duo is all I will need for a very long time. Sit back, and enjoy technology because it will never end until the very earth stops breathing. Wait till forever my friend, it will never stop.
I agree, with all of what everyone said aside from the several manufacturers one. To be honest, IMAC is perfect for just about everyone. Do you really need 4 processors? NO!!!! It's a BSD based system and unless you have VERY specific needs, IMAC or MacBook is all you need. Why is it that we always need better? We don't if we are doing the same tasks like web browsing, and basic programming. 3gb on my 2.16 GHz intel duo is all I will need for a very long time. Sit back, and enjoy technology because it will never end until the very earth stops breathing. Wait till forever my friend, it will never stop.
It's perfect if you can afford to replace a $2500 system after every refresh.
Do you want to see the perfect specs for a prosumer system than go here:
High build quality (this is a high end boutique brand, not Dell), stylish brushed metal case, the newest technology, capable video card, large 320GB hard drive, 2GB of memory with the option to add an additional 2GB later, fast 20x desktop optical drive, not shortage of USB2 and firewire ports, 5.1 audio, and lot of of room for expansion so you don't need a large surge protector and an army of external devices/ The only thing its missing is OSX and an Apple logo. I'd be willing to spend an additional $200 to get this system in a Mac Pro case. What I'm not willing to do is spend $1000 more on a laptop with a 24" display that I'll have to replace in a much quicker time frame.
Arguably, notebooks are an area where Apple can be price competitive and is a high growth area where gains can be made without trying to take share away from an incumbent.
600,000 people per quarter disagree with this assessment.
What it says to me that Apple has optimized its entire product line to support the pc growth area where it is price competitive and this has paid handsome dividends.Vinea
No, what it says is that when offering what people want Apple gains market share. When they offer what is considered odd and unacceptable they maintain what meager market they have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Intel has stated it offers no pricing discounts except on the basis of volume. Apple has a strategy that by accident or plan maximizes its mobile parts volume by leveraging an additional 600K desktop sales as much as feasible to reduce its notebook component costs.
The notebook market is not as price sensitive as the desktop market. Yet.
Dell, HP and other commodity makers have not engaged in the pricing war to make the notebook market a commodity one. Yet. Premium brand notebook makers still exist. Don't expect this condition to last more than a few years. In time we will be having the same discussion about traditional notebooks and how Apple only offers UMPCs, ultrathin notebooks and phones. I suppose some folks already gripe that Apple has no desktop replacement notebook offering so this has already started.
Rather than conceed the desktop market entirely as Sony has effectively done, Apple offers SFF and AIO products that are sufficiently competitive that they have significant sales. It then uses these sales to optimize its ability to compete in the notebook market.
Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market.
Vinea
Absolutely nothing you posted in your list explains Apple's desktop offerings other than milk the faithful. Not my problem, not the consumers problem.
I did. Dell makes its margins in the workstation and server markets. Not the lower end tower markets. The 18% is the average of its gross profits across all product lines.
We know that they aren't making 18% in the entry market where their volume is largest. Therefore the margins in the workstation and server markets are far higher than 18%. This is also why IBM is still competitive in the medium server markets.Vinea
So, we know that Dell sells one heck of a lot more towers than Apple and according to your hypothesis, Apples margins on the tower are lower than Dell's because they obtain lower pricing on the cpus.
Then it follows that for Apple's premium low volume brand, the Mac Pro, Apple is willing to sacrifice margins for sales, BUT for the largest volume desktop market Apple is going to extraordinary effort to use HIGHER PRICED cpus, hard-drives and ram in desktops to maintain margins on laptops(milk the faithful).
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
No, but I bet there are plenty of examples where folks have stated "I guess I'll buy this cheaper HP tower rather than this more expensive VAIO tower with the same specs".
The tower market completely ignored Sony's out of box advantage in DVD recording/authoring, digital media hub and integration with Sony lifestyle products (video cameras, digital camera, etc). Does that sound like the Windows version of iLife and Apple's own ecostructure (only iPod vs cameras)?
If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.
Instead Apple appears prescient in its AIO and SFF strategy for staying in the desktop market with good margins where Sony's VAIO tower strategy failed.
You can argue that Sony didn't do as good a job as Apple can and I would agree. But enough that the outcome is significantly different?
And their desktop market share is stagnant. Bet the current market on their prognostications, that's not prescient that's a gamble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Quote:
But DVD recording isn't the only area in which Sony is bringing together computing and consumer electronics. Only Apple bundles as many company-branded digital media applications--for music, photos and movies--with its consumer PCs. But many of Sony's applications are tightly tied to unique hardware features. For example, Sony's SonicStage software for managing and listening to MP3s also can record music from FM radio stations on models that come with a built-in FM receiver.
Sony's GigaPocket Personal Video Recorder software offers TiVo-like features for models packing TV tuners. Consumers can use the software for scheduling programs that can be recorded to the PC's hard drive. Sony also provides software that can be used for, among other things, editing out commercials. The consumer could then convert the show to MPEG2 and burn it to a DVD.
"One of the things Sony is going to do, being it's Sony, is to add extra value to its products to set them apart from the commodity PC market," Baker said. "Emphasizing specialized software or style gets them out of the speeds-and-feeds area and focuses the market on what Sony does best."
So now there is possibly a huge corporation that is going to try and go head to head against Apple's target market AND IS WILLING TO DO SO AT LOWER MARGINS. Not a good thing.
# Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market
But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.
Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable. Apple are often viewed in that of category. So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.
I do think there is a reasonable market out there for a mid sized desktop. I dont think i'm alone. The MacPro is too much but i love the style of it, the Mini too little capacity but again i like the style, and the iMac to stylised for my personal liking and i dont want the all in one.
If apple could release a product that could take 3.5" HDD for large capacity, and a bit of a beefier graphics card then i'd be all for it. Heck . . . i'd even take a MacPro cut down.
Throw the iMac internals into a MacPro case ( not hard ) offer it for a little less than the equivalent iMac ( so that its a small jump to get the all in one with a display ), possibly limit the number of drive slots ( not hard ) and your sorted.
To me, that would sit just right to fill the hole. Something powerful enough to do decent basic video work and photo work, but also allow my own choices of external hardware. ( monitors )
It is painfully obvious that posters trying to defend Apple's desktop strategy have to go to extraordinary, often irrational lengths to explain this oddity.
I fear it is Steve Jobs obsession with the concept that for the consumer a computer should be like an appliance. Regrettably, it is not and in the foreseeable future will not be.
I can almost accept the rationalizations of protecting margins for certain products, but when Apple announces 35% margins, then I can only remember reading stories of Apple past, chuckling to themselves at their high margins of long ago which resulted in losing the computer and OS wars.
5% market share won't cut it in the long run. Maybe that's why Apple is so bent on the iPod and iPhone projects.
But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.
Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable. Apple are often viewed in that of category. So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.
I do think there is a reasonable market out there for a mid sized desktop. I dont think i'm alone. The MacPro is too much but i love the style of it, the Mini too little capacity but again i like the style, and the iMac to stylised for my personal liking and i dont want the all in one.
If apple could release a product that could take 3.5" HDD for large capacity, and a bit of a beefier graphics card then i'd be all for it. Heck . . . i'd even take a MacPro cut down.
Throw the iMac internals into a MacPro case ( not hard ) offer it for a little less than the equivalent iMac ( so that its a small jump to get the all in one with a display ), possibly limit the number of drive slots ( not hard ) and your sorted.
To me, that would sit just right to fill the hole. Something powerful enough to do decent basic video work and photo work, but also allow my own choices of external hardware. ( monitors )
agreed.
I highlighted your statement concerning premium placed on certain brands. Just the fact that Apple has sold ~600,000 computers this last quarter proves it. The logical extension of that is how many more computers could Apple sell if they offered what people either want or PERCEIVE what they want.
And, what is the WORST CASE SENARIO? Apple's profits tumble, the iMac and Mac mini sales drop. Apple's reaction, and it could be very swift, could be to discontinue the mythical xMac. Apple is taking a much larger risk with the iPhone.
I highlighted your statement concerning premium placed on certain brands. Just the fact that Apple has sold ~600,000 computers this last quarter proves it. The logical extension of that is how many more computers could Apple sell if they offered what people either want or PERCEIVE what they want.
And, what is the WORST CASE SENARIO? Apple's profits tumble, the iMac and Mac mini sales drop. Apple's reaction, and it could be very swift, could be to discontinue the mythical xMac. Apple is taking a much larger risk with the iPhone.
Yes we are looking for a premium product at a premium price. Companies like Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell, etc. also offer premium products at a premium price. what to do not do is force the user to buy a type of computer the buyer is not interested in.
So, we know that Dell sells one heck of a lot more towers than Apple and according to your hypothesis, Apples margins on the tower are lower than Dell's because they obtain lower pricing on the cpus.
Then it follows that for Apple's premium low volume brand, the Mac Pro, Apple is willing to sacrifice margins for sales, BUT for the largest volume desktop market Apple is going to extraordinary effort to use HIGHER PRICED cpus, hard-drives and ram in desktops to maintain margins on laptops(milk the faithful).
No. Dell's margins are comparable to Apples in the workstation market. Dell's volume sales in Conroe based machines and motherboards are much higher than their volumes in servers and workstations that are Xeon based. This is pretty well accepted. THIS is why the Mac Pro is competitive. Mac Pro volumes are not so much lower that Dell can have a huge cost advantage.
Apple is NOT sacrificing margins for sales in the workstation market. Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.
That Apple is using Merom vs Conroe in the iMacs are I think a combination of heat and the ability to maximize Merom buys. It makes them appear much larger to Intel when ordering mobile parts.
Quote:
So now there is possibly a huge corporation that is going to try and go head to head against Apple's target market AND IS WILLING TO DO SO AT LOWER MARGINS. Not a good thing.
Of course. Dell and HP aren't stupid...they know the notebooks are the next battleground and they will use their corporate strengths to their advantage. When you see folks like Toshiba, NEC, etc drop from the plain jane notebook market expect Apple to follow not too distantly.
Folks wonder what Apple is going to do with that huge warchest. I think they know that they need to get multi-touch tablets or something that will diffentiate them from Dell and HP within one or two generations. Notebooks are approaching commodity items but moving into the commodity tower market is not helpful.
Edit: No I misread your comment. Sony DROPPED OUT OF THE TOWER MARKET. How is that hard to miss? They TRIED THE STRATEGY YOU WANT WITH MANY OF THE SAME ADVANTAGES THAT APPLE HAS AND FAILED MISERABLY.
Sorry for yelling but I've made this point several times and somehow you keep not reading it.
Yes we are looking for a premium product at a premium price. Companies like Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell, etc. also offer premium products at a premium price. what to do not do is force the user to buy a type of computer the buyer is not interested in.
In all fairness, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything, but I do agree that Apple's product line is a tad limited, leaving not many good options to a home power user that might consider an Apple. How big that market is kind of hard to guage though. Apple used to have a $1500 UP tower, but then, performance wise, it wasn't allowed to be much better than an iMac of the same price.
But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.
Really? Because the market spoke definitively on IBM's desktop and Sony's VAIO desktops. Notice the complete lack of any IBM PCs at all? And Sony is just doing AIOs and notebooks?
Quote:
Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable.
Evidently not the demographic that buys tower PCs. The demographic that buys AIOs and SFF computers seem to agree a premium is acceptable.
Quote:
Apple are often viewed in that of category.
So is Sony.
Quote:
So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.
They might not be surprised or bothered but other than current Mac owners they aren't going to be that inclined to buy either. If that's the case then all it means is lower ASPs, lower revenue, lower mobile part volume and higher costs for Apple notebooks.
The truth is somewhere in between but the downsides appear to be real enough that Apple isn't going to change its mind anytime soon. IF they DO change their mind dump your Apple stock...because Jobs wont be at the helm when it happens.
Comments
I think that there is a market for a smaller non-AOI in the mac pantheon. . .
Selling price $1300-1400 Base . . .
I believe this price is too high, and Apple could sell the machine you describe starting at $999, even $899, with a low cost but fast consumer chip and a reasonably good graphics card. Offer maybe three choices of CPU and several graphics cards, with at least one good for gaming.
2 PCI slots (one for the video card and one extra) . . .
Empty slots don't cost much. I'd say provide 3 empty slots. Otherwise you are describing just what I have been asking for in a mini tower, something noticeably smaller and cheaper than a Mac Pro.
A big argument that is raised against such a mini tower is that it would cannibalize sales of the iMac and Mac Pro. This is true, but I'd guess that iMac and Mac Pro sales would drop only 20 percent due to a mini tower. The reason this effect would be relatively small is price. Feature for feature, a Mac mini tower would not be cheaper.
What a mini tower does, however, is give Mac customers a choice, and those who prefer a headless, expandable prosumer tower could actually buy one from Apple.
Also, a mini tower would undoubtedly increase Mac desktop sales greatly. I'd say that 60 to 80 percent of a Mac mini tower sales would be to customers who would not buy a new Mac desktop today. This would include myself, who has been purchasing older Power Macs on eBay. If such a mini tower is not forthcoming from Apple, my next purchase will likely be a Mac Pro on eBay.
Regarding your post concerning costs, the Mac Pro actually costs less than an equivalently configured Dell, splain that, since their components obviously don't effect Apple's overall component laptop costs.
I did. Dell makes its margins in the workstation and server markets. Not the lower end tower markets. The 18% is the average of its gross profits across all product lines.
We know that they aren't making 18% in the entry market where their volume is largest. Therefore the margins in the workstation and server markets are far higher than 18%. This is also why IBM is still competitive in the medium server markets.
I've have yet to find a single customer that went into a store and thought gee, I guess I'll buy an Apple computer because their margins are 35% and Dell's is only 18%.
No, but I bet there are plenty of examples where folks have stated "I guess I'll buy this cheaper HP tower rather than this more expensive VAIO tower with the same specs".
The tower market completely ignored Sony's out of box advantage in DVD recording/authoring, digital media hub and integration with Sony lifestyle products (video cameras, digital camera, etc). Does that sound like the Windows version of iLife and Apple's own ecostructure (only iPod vs cameras)?
If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.
Instead Apple appears prescient in its AIO and SFF strategy for staying in the desktop market with good margins where Sony's VAIO tower strategy failed.
You can argue that Sony didn't do as good a job as Apple can and I would agree. But enough that the outcome is significantly different?
But DVD recording isn't the only area in which Sony is bringing together computing and consumer electronics. Only Apple bundles as many company-branded digital media applications--for music, photos and movies--with its consumer PCs. But many of Sony's applications are tightly tied to unique hardware features. For example, Sony's SonicStage software for managing and listening to MP3s also can record music from FM radio stations on models that come with a built-in FM receiver.
Sony's GigaPocket Personal Video Recorder software offers TiVo-like features for models packing TV tuners. Consumers can use the software for scheduling programs that can be recorded to the PC's hard drive. Sony also provides software that can be used for, among other things, editing out commercials. The consumer could then convert the show to MPEG2 and burn it to a DVD.
"One of the things Sony is going to do, being it's Sony, is to add extra value to its products to set them apart from the commodity PC market," Baker said. "Emphasizing specialized software or style gets them out of the speeds-and-feeds area and focuses the market on what Sony does best."
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-930802.html
Vinea
If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.
I could have sworn I saw a Vaio tower at a Sony store last week, but it's not online.
For whatever Sony offers, usually the Apple counterpart is better and cheaper.
I could have sworn I saw a Vaio tower at a Sony store last week, but it's not online.
For whatever Sony offers, usually the Apple counterpart is better and cheaper.
Do they still have the RC Digital Studio? I know there was a new rev in 2006 but it disappeared from the online SonyStyle store and I didn't see it at the Tysons Corner SonyStyle store. Wasn't looking for it either. I did play with their UMPC...rather cool.
http://b2b.sony.com/Solutions/category/desktops
No more RC link although the page for it still exists on the server:
http://b2b.sony.com/Solutions/subcat...tops/rc-series
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...Dept=computers
Heh, forgot all about their $1600 round mini...
There are still a nice number of VAIO notebooks. I like their ultra-portable TX line and wish Apple had a model in the same product space.
Vinea
There are still a nice number of VAIO notebooks. I like their ultra-portable TX line and wish Apple had a model in the same product space.
I do agree on that. Even though I expect such an Apple model to go for $2k, I think Apple could still sell a lot of ultralights just because of the size and being half the weight of their more powerful models.
I know that the computer market in Japan is depressed, but even so, I think Apple's sales there are disproportionately low there because they don't offer such a model. From what I hear from people in Japan is that the ultralight is pretty much the only type of computer that's in demand.
I think it's also possible that Apple may just be leapfrogging the ultraportable and trying to sell the iPhone to that market instead, because cell phones are where the Asian market does most of its electronic communication. iTunes' uptake is low because more people in Asia are using their phones to play music. They are also doing their text communications using their phones rather than buying computers to do the job.
Another niche market item that apple would have high margins and ASPs and compete with a company like Shuttle and not a company like Dell.
The SFF market is said to be growing. A larger SFF computer (with more drives) used to feed the apple TV fits within the product strategy better than the current Mini.
Vinea
Hello Vinea, nice to see you're back
I don't think Apple should or want to compete with Dell, I think they are happy seeing Dell, HP and others fight themselves for .x% of the market.
But I like your comparaison with Shuttle, and I would like Apple to bring some models in that category as, like you said, the Mac mini doesn't cut it. In fact, nobody outside Apple knows how many minis are sold each quarter and how much it does for the current margin profits.
I really don't care which platform Apple should use for this kind of computer (Xeon or Conroe), but I really believe that a Conroe-based computer will cost Apple less to manufacture than a single CPU Xeon one, because of the cost of the chipset and RAM.
Taken in account Intel's last price cuts on desktop chips and that the Xeons have never seen their prices cut since the 5100 series launch, and that most of the components are already in Apple's inventory (HD, OD, Video cards, etc.), I really think Apple could make a "shuttle" for $999-$1999 depending on the CPU used. If Apple can manufacture a $2500 workstation with $1400 worth of CPUs inside, I really believe they can make a smaller computer for $1000 with a $200 CPU.
For what market, should you ask? I'll tell you that I am no gamer, but I really believe that it would increse sales in the small and not so small office/enterprise market. While Apple growth may be 3x the overall PC growth, it didn't change their market share a lot this quarter.
And while I think that the Mac Pro is an exceptionnally great and priced computer, it is still too expensive for most. Just think about all those creative offices, small and medium, that use (or could use) Adobe CS, FCP, Logic Pro and other solutions, that currently have no choice but the Mac Pro for real "desktop performance" and other features like easy access to internal components, maintenance, upgradability, the ability to have 2 identical displays of any size they want (try this with a 17", 24" or even a 20" iMac or any notebook), etc.
I've just visited the Shuttle web site an found a G2-3200H with a 2.40GHz Conroe, 1066FSB, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, basic ATI PCIe video card, wireless for $1300, with room for another HD and another PCI card, and there are more models with less or more features... This is basically a more powerful computer than the currently faster iMac (2.33GHz/667FSB).
...
Hello Vinea, nice to see you're back
Thanks.
But I like your comparaison with Shuttle, and I would like Apple to bring some models in that category as, like you said, the Mac mini doesn't cut it. In fact, nobody outside Apple knows how many minis are sold each quarter and how much it does for the current margin profits.
Probably wouldn't exite too many companies...besides Shuttle.
I really don't care which platform Apple should use for this kind of computer (Xeon or Conroe), but I really believe that a Conroe-based computer will cost Apple less to manufacture than a single CPU Xeon one, because of the cost of the chipset and RAM.
I would guess Merom if I had to for a Shuttle sized Mini. Not saying they couldn't go Conroe or Xeon but I would think they'd try to stay the same as the iMac.
I really think Apple could make a "shuttle" for $999-$1999 depending on the CPU used. If Apple can manufacture a $2500 workstation with $1400 worth of CPUs inside, I really believe they can make a smaller computer for $1000 with a $200 CPU.
If they had 1 16x PCIe slot I think most folks would be estatic...Merom, Conroe or Xeon...
And while I think that the Mac Pro is an exceptionnally great and priced computer, it is still too expensive for most.
No disagreement. A single Xeon priced like the comparable Dell Precision 490 ($1,749 for a single 2.66Ghz Xeon) would go a long way to fix this without doing anything more than adding a single BTO option to the Mac Pro line. A single 1.6 Ghz Xeon only costs $1,229from Dell...but I doubt Apple would want to go there.
I've just visited the Shuttle web site an found a G2-3200H with a 2.40GHz Conroe, 1066FSB, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, basic ATI PCIe video card, wireless for $1300, with room for another HD and another PCI card, and there are more models with less or more features... This is basically a more powerful computer than the currently faster iMac (2.33GHz/667FSB).
...
Yah...but I doubt Apple would offer something like that for less than $1499 and use a 2.16Ghz Merom vs 2.4Ghz Conroe. Just from what it might do to the iMac and PowerMac lines.
That Shuttle should destroy the 20" iMac in a head to head comparison (and benchmarks) even given you need to tack on a $200 20" widescreen flat panel from somewhere for the Shuttle. The expandability alone is to me worth $200....much less the faster Conroe.
The iMacs just aren't very good values when comparing specs.
Vinea
The SFF market is said to be growing. A larger SFF computer (with more drives) used to feed the apple TV fits within the product strategy better than the current Mini.
Here is something I think we agree upon. Yet, Apple seems to have painted itself into a corner. The Mac Mini is too small to house a very large HDD. I'd say Apple should redesign it and make it big enough to house a standard 500 GB drive. In addition, it should have room for a good cooling system, capable of handling a higher performance CPU. On-board graphics would be adequate for this market IMHO. The HDD capacity and CPU performance should be an option for the customer. Since this redesign would be larger, Apple should go ahead and include a full size optical drive as well.
The problem with this approach as I see it, is that many customers may have locked in the current Mac Mini dimensions. So, Apple may not be able to discontinue the current Mac Mini anytime soon. As demand for it decreased, Apple could eventually discontinue it, offering a last time buy for those who need something that small.
Here is something I think we agree upon. Yet, Apple seems to have painted itself into a corner. The Mac Mini is too small to house a very large HDD. I'd say Apple should redesign it and make it big enough to house a standard 500 GB drive. In addition, it should have room for a good cooling system, capable of handling a higher performance CPU. On-board graphics would be adequate for this market IMHO. The HDD capacity and CPU performance should be an option for the customer. Since this redesign would be larger, Apple should go ahead and include a full size optical drive as well.
Sure. Or you can take the aTV board, remove video related hardware and stick 4 drives with it, use ZFS and sell it as the iNAS.
I dunno which way is better.
The problem with this approach as I see it, is that many customers may have locked in the current Mac Mini dimensions. So, Apple may not be able to discontinue the current Mac Mini anytime soon. As demand for it decreased, Apple could eventually discontinue it, offering a last time buy for those who need something that small.
Yah...there are a lot of 3rd party products designed for the mini dimensions. But they could do a lot of what you want with just height.
Vinea
I agree, with all of what everyone said aside from the several manufacturers one. To be honest, IMAC is perfect for just about everyone. Do you really need 4 processors? NO!!!! It's a BSD based system and unless you have VERY specific needs, IMAC or MacBook is all you need. Why is it that we always need better? We don't if we are doing the same tasks like web browsing, and basic programming. 3gb on my 2.16 GHz intel duo is all I will need for a very long time. Sit back, and enjoy technology because it will never end until the very earth stops breathing. Wait till forever my friend, it will never stop.
It's perfect if you can afford to replace a $2500 system after every refresh.
Do you want to see the perfect specs for a prosumer system than go here:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1173577735222
High build quality (this is a high end boutique brand, not Dell), stylish brushed metal case, the newest technology, capable video card, large 320GB hard drive, 2GB of memory with the option to add an additional 2GB later, fast 20x desktop optical drive, not shortage of USB2 and firewire ports, 5.1 audio, and lot of of room for expansion so you don't need a large surge protector and an army of external devices/ The only thing its missing is OSX and an Apple logo. I'd be willing to spend an additional $200 to get this system in a Mac Pro case. What I'm not willing to do is spend $1000 more on a laptop with a 24" display that I'll have to replace in a much quicker time frame.
Arguably, notebooks are an area where Apple can be price competitive and is a high growth area where gains can be made without trying to take share away from an incumbent.
600,000 people per quarter disagree with this assessment.
What it says to me that Apple has optimized its entire product line to support the pc growth area where it is price competitive and this has paid handsome dividends.Vinea
No, what it says is that when offering what people want Apple gains market share. When they offer what is considered odd and unacceptable they maintain what meager market they have.
- Intel has stated it offers no pricing discounts except on the basis of volume. Apple has a strategy that by accident or plan maximizes its mobile parts volume by leveraging an additional 600K desktop sales as much as feasible to reduce its notebook component costs.
- The notebook market is not as price sensitive as the desktop market. Yet.
- Dell, HP and other commodity makers have not engaged in the pricing war to make the notebook market a commodity one. Yet. Premium brand notebook makers still exist. Don't expect this condition to last more than a few years. In time we will be having the same discussion about traditional notebooks and how Apple only offers UMPCs, ultrathin notebooks and phones. I suppose some folks already gripe that Apple has no desktop replacement notebook offering so this has already started.
- Rather than conceed the desktop market entirely as Sony has effectively done, Apple offers SFF and AIO products that are sufficiently competitive that they have significant sales. It then uses these sales to optimize its ability to compete in the notebook market.
- Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market.
VineaAbsolutely nothing you posted in your list explains Apple's desktop offerings other than milk the faithful. Not my problem, not the consumers problem.
I did. Dell makes its margins in the workstation and server markets. Not the lower end tower markets. The 18% is the average of its gross profits across all product lines.
We know that they aren't making 18% in the entry market where their volume is largest. Therefore the margins in the workstation and server markets are far higher than 18%. This is also why IBM is still competitive in the medium server markets.Vinea
So, we know that Dell sells one heck of a lot more towers than Apple and according to your hypothesis, Apples margins on the tower are lower than Dell's because they obtain lower pricing on the cpus.
Then it follows that for Apple's premium low volume brand, the Mac Pro, Apple is willing to sacrifice margins for sales, BUT for the largest volume desktop market Apple is going to extraordinary effort to use HIGHER PRICED cpus, hard-drives and ram in desktops to maintain margins on laptops(milk the faithful).
No, but I bet there are plenty of examples where folks have stated "I guess I'll buy this cheaper HP tower rather than this more expensive VAIO tower with the same specs".
The tower market completely ignored Sony's out of box advantage in DVD recording/authoring, digital media hub and integration with Sony lifestyle products (video cameras, digital camera, etc). Does that sound like the Windows version of iLife and Apple's own ecostructure (only iPod vs cameras)?
If those advantages mattered Sony would still be in the tower market and I would agree with you that a premium tower market exists and Apple should have an offering since Sony is succcessful there.
Instead Apple appears prescient in its AIO and SFF strategy for staying in the desktop market with good margins where Sony's VAIO tower strategy failed.
You can argue that Sony didn't do as good a job as Apple can and I would agree. But enough that the outcome is significantly different?
And their desktop market share is stagnant. Bet the current market on their prognostications, that's not prescient that's a gamble.
But DVD recording isn't the only area in which Sony is bringing together computing and consumer electronics. Only Apple bundles as many company-branded digital media applications--for music, photos and movies--with its consumer PCs. But many of Sony's applications are tightly tied to unique hardware features. For example, Sony's SonicStage software for managing and listening to MP3s also can record music from FM radio stations on models that come with a built-in FM receiver.
Sony's GigaPocket Personal Video Recorder software offers TiVo-like features for models packing TV tuners. Consumers can use the software for scheduling programs that can be recorded to the PC's hard drive. Sony also provides software that can be used for, among other things, editing out commercials. The consumer could then convert the show to MPEG2 and burn it to a DVD.
"One of the things Sony is going to do, being it's Sony, is to add extra value to its products to set them apart from the commodity PC market," Baker said. "Emphasizing specialized software or style gets them out of the speeds-and-feeds area and focuses the market on what Sony does best."
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-930802.html
Vinea
So now there is possibly a huge corporation that is going to try and go head to head against Apple's target market AND IS WILLING TO DO SO AT LOWER MARGINS. Not a good thing.
# Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market
But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.
Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable. Apple are often viewed in that of category. So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.
I do think there is a reasonable market out there for a mid sized desktop. I dont think i'm alone. The MacPro is too much but i love the style of it, the Mini too little capacity but again i like the style, and the iMac to stylised for my personal liking and i dont want the all in one.
If apple could release a product that could take 3.5" HDD for large capacity, and a bit of a beefier graphics card then i'd be all for it. Heck . . . i'd even take a MacPro cut down.
Throw the iMac internals into a MacPro case ( not hard ) offer it for a little less than the equivalent iMac ( so that its a small jump to get the all in one with a display ), possibly limit the number of drive slots ( not hard ) and your sorted.
To me, that would sit just right to fill the hole. Something powerful enough to do decent basic video work and photo work, but also allow my own choices of external hardware. ( monitors )
I fear it is Steve Jobs obsession with the concept that for the consumer a computer should be like an appliance. Regrettably, it is not and in the foreseeable future will not be.
I can almost accept the rationalizations of protecting margins for certain products, but when Apple announces 35% margins, then I can only remember reading stories of Apple past, chuckling to themselves at their high margins of long ago which resulted in losing the computer and OS wars.
5% market share won't cut it in the long run. Maybe that's why Apple is so bent on the iPod and iPhone projects.
But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.
Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable. Apple are often viewed in that of category. So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.
I do think there is a reasonable market out there for a mid sized desktop. I dont think i'm alone. The MacPro is too much but i love the style of it, the Mini too little capacity but again i like the style, and the iMac to stylised for my personal liking and i dont want the all in one.
If apple could release a product that could take 3.5" HDD for large capacity, and a bit of a beefier graphics card then i'd be all for it. Heck . . . i'd even take a MacPro cut down.
Throw the iMac internals into a MacPro case ( not hard ) offer it for a little less than the equivalent iMac ( so that its a small jump to get the all in one with a display ), possibly limit the number of drive slots ( not hard ) and your sorted.
To me, that would sit just right to fill the hole. Something powerful enough to do decent basic video work and photo work, but also allow my own choices of external hardware. ( monitors )
agreed.
I highlighted your statement concerning premium placed on certain brands. Just the fact that Apple has sold ~600,000 computers this last quarter proves it. The logical extension of that is how many more computers could Apple sell if they offered what people either want or PERCEIVE what they want.
And, what is the WORST CASE SENARIO? Apple's profits tumble, the iMac and Mac mini sales drop. Apple's reaction, and it could be very swift, could be to discontinue the mythical xMac. Apple is taking a much larger risk with the iPhone.
agreed.
I highlighted your statement concerning premium placed on certain brands. Just the fact that Apple has sold ~600,000 computers this last quarter proves it. The logical extension of that is how many more computers could Apple sell if they offered what people either want or PERCEIVE what they want.
And, what is the WORST CASE SENARIO? Apple's profits tumble, the iMac and Mac mini sales drop. Apple's reaction, and it could be very swift, could be to discontinue the mythical xMac. Apple is taking a much larger risk with the iPhone.
Yes we are looking for a premium product at a premium price. Companies like Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell, etc. also offer premium products at a premium price. what to do not do is force the user to buy a type of computer the buyer is not interested in.
So, we know that Dell sells one heck of a lot more towers than Apple and according to your hypothesis, Apples margins on the tower are lower than Dell's because they obtain lower pricing on the cpus.
Then it follows that for Apple's premium low volume brand, the Mac Pro, Apple is willing to sacrifice margins for sales, BUT for the largest volume desktop market Apple is going to extraordinary effort to use HIGHER PRICED cpus, hard-drives and ram in desktops to maintain margins on laptops(milk the faithful).
No. Dell's margins are comparable to Apples in the workstation market. Dell's volume sales in Conroe based machines and motherboards are much higher than their volumes in servers and workstations that are Xeon based. This is pretty well accepted. THIS is why the Mac Pro is competitive. Mac Pro volumes are not so much lower that Dell can have a huge cost advantage.
Apple is NOT sacrificing margins for sales in the workstation market. Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.
That Apple is using Merom vs Conroe in the iMacs are I think a combination of heat and the ability to maximize Merom buys. It makes them appear much larger to Intel when ordering mobile parts.
So now there is possibly a huge corporation that is going to try and go head to head against Apple's target market AND IS WILLING TO DO SO AT LOWER MARGINS. Not a good thing.
Of course. Dell and HP aren't stupid...they know the notebooks are the next battleground and they will use their corporate strengths to their advantage. When you see folks like Toshiba, NEC, etc drop from the plain jane notebook market expect Apple to follow not too distantly.
Folks wonder what Apple is going to do with that huge warchest. I think they know that they need to get multi-touch tablets or something that will diffentiate them from Dell and HP within one or two generations. Notebooks are approaching commodity items but moving into the commodity tower market is not helpful.
Edit: No I misread your comment. Sony DROPPED OUT OF THE TOWER MARKET. How is that hard to miss? They TRIED THE STRATEGY YOU WANT WITH MANY OF THE SAME ADVANTAGES THAT APPLE HAS AND FAILED MISERABLY.
Sorry for yelling but I've made this point several times and somehow you keep not reading it.
Vinea
Yes we are looking for a premium product at a premium price. Companies like Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell, etc. also offer premium products at a premium price. what to do not do is force the user to buy a type of computer the buyer is not interested in.
In all fairness, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything, but I do agree that Apple's product line is a tad limited, leaving not many good options to a home power user that might consider an Apple. How big that market is kind of hard to guage though. Apple used to have a $1500 UP tower, but then, performance wise, it wasn't allowed to be much better than an iMac of the same price.
But that is making an assumption that anyone wanting a medium tower style machine is looking for it to be the absolutely cheapest option on the market . . . which isn't the case.
Really? Because the market spoke definitively on IBM's desktop and Sony's VAIO desktops. Notice the complete lack of any IBM PCs at all? And Sony is just doing AIOs and notebooks?
Most folk acknowledge that in some cases, a premium on a product is acceptable.
Evidently not the demographic that buys tower PCs. The demographic that buys AIOs and SFF computers seem to agree a premium is acceptable.
Apple are often viewed in that of category.
So is Sony.
So if they were to release a mid-sized desktop that placed itself inbetween the mini and the macpro, then if it were more expensive than the equivalent from the commodity manufacturers, then i dont think that many folk would be surprised or even bothered provided that the premium was reasonable.
They might not be surprised or bothered but other than current Mac owners they aren't going to be that inclined to buy either. If that's the case then all it means is lower ASPs, lower revenue, lower mobile part volume and higher costs for Apple notebooks.
The truth is somewhere in between but the downsides appear to be real enough that Apple isn't going to change its mind anytime soon. IF they DO change their mind dump your Apple stock...because Jobs wont be at the helm when it happens.
Vinea