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.
This "oddity" is the same decision that every non-commodity PC maker made in the past. Not one still makes towers.
Explain that. No IBM, Sony, Toshiba, NEC, Fujitsu, etc...
Apple has bucked the trend in finding a premium desktop strategy that actually sells 600K units/qtr in the face of $300 towers. Yeah, that's a little odd...but in a good way.
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.
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
That's all good for Apple's profits (then again, they would be making more profits at 10%) and people who use Macs as some kind of religious crusade, but it doesn't quite do for those of us who are looking a superior computer, it doesn't quite cut it. You're trying to use value companies like Dell and extremely overpriced value companies like Sony as an example that nobody wants a tower.
Look at the end of the day fanatics aren't going to change the minds of reasonable people or vice versa, so there isn't much point of arguing.
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.
Alienware...purchased by Dell.
Velocity Micro, Polywell...premium brand? Hardly.
Folks have heard of Sony, Apple, Toshiba, IBM, Porsche, BMW, Lexus, Rolex, Cartier, Pellegrino, Prada, Perry Ellis, Hilfiger, Versace, Lear, Gulfstream, H&K, Beretta, Nordstroms, etc
Who the heck is Velocity Micro? Whitebox maker with pretensions. At least folks had heard of Alienware.
Again, find me a premium brand maker that still sells a tower.
That's all good for Apple's profits (then again, they would be making more profits at 10%) and people who use Macs as some kind of religious crusade, but it doesn't quite do for those of us who are looking a superior computer, it doesn't quite cut it.
Almost every Apple computer is best in class (or danged close). They don't offer many or the one you want but almost the entire product line is a "superior computer".
Quote:
You're trying to use value companies like Dell and extremely overpriced value companies like Sony as an example that nobody wants a tower.
Lots of folks want a tower. Never disputed. They buy them from Dell and HP and very few from a non-commodity maker. Apple, and other premium brands, are by definition "overpriced".
Quote:
Look at the end of the day fanatics aren't going to change the minds of reasonable people or vice versa, so there isn't much point of arguing.
Nope. But if you don't want the discussion don't ask WHY Apple doesn't have a mid-tower as people have repeatedly. Don't get all surprised when folks answer.
If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.
The position of most folks that don't see the xMac in the cards don't mind if it appeared but just don't think its likely AND there are good reasons why. Its not just a whim of Jobs and Apple. Its the same decision every other major player in the market made after the price wars started in the desktop market. Consumers are conditioned to pay very little for quite a lot of capability in that form factor.
I missed this statement until fisha highlighted it. Normally I dislike car analogies, but:
Following this logic, since BMW is not a commodity manufacturer, BMW wisely avoids the commodity sedan market!
It does avoid the commodity sedan market. It's in the sports and luxury sedan market. Notice this is a different market than the Civic or even Accord? Even the Mini Cooper is marketed as a "premium" brand in the US.
It does. It's in the sports and luxury sedan market. Notice this is a different market than the Civic or even Accord? Even the Mini Cooper is marketed as a "premium" brand in the US.
Vinea
We're not debating the premiumness
A Sedan with a better interior is still a sedan. What Apple is trying to do is make us choose between a 3-door hatch and the X5.
Almost every Apple computer is best in class (or danged close). They don't offer many or the one you want but almost the entire product line is a "superior computer".
Lots of folks want a tower. Never disputed. They buy them from Dell and HP and very few from a non-commodity maker. Apple, and other premium brands, are by definition "overpriced".
Nope. But if you don't want the discussion don't ask WHY Apple doesn't have a mid-tower as people have repeatedly. Don't get all surprised when folks answer.
If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.
The position of most folks that don't see the xMac in the cards don't mind if it appeared but just don't think its likely AND there are good reasons why. Its not just a whim of Jobs and Apple. Its the same decision every other major player in the market made after the price wars started in the desktop market. Consumers are conditioned to pay very little for quite a lot of capability in that form factor.
Vinea
Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again? Better yet, where are these cutting edge designs that they're replacing them with? You say Apple is not a commodity maker, then when countered with boutique companies you dismiss them as irrelevant and counter with companies like IBM, Toshiba, and Sony who were never premium computer makers and in the case of Toshiba never to my knowledge ever made a desktop. Look, if AIOs were really want prosumers wanted, they'd be all over the place and if everyone who wanted a premium tower needed a workstation the premium boutique makers wouldn't sell conroe machines. This is justify another attempt to justify a belief that Apple is perfect and cannot make mistakes. If they can't make mistakes, therefore everyone who doesn't agree with Apple must be in the wrong.
So, what your saying here is Apple is the only premium maker in your mind.
What I'm saying NOW is that you aren't even reading my posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again?
It's in the post you quoted. IBM, Sony, Toshiba...none sell into the mid-range tower market. IBM might have a workstation buried in their line somwhere but they sold their PC business to Lenovo including their valuable ThinkPad brand. Sony's last VAIO tower is no longer linked on their site or sold in their SonyStyle (online) store. Toshiba stopped making desktops in 2001.
These aren't "major" players. The major players are Dell and HP. These are "premium" players that have high margins and good branding.
Fujitsu-Siemens and NEC surprisingly still have towers. Where the heck you would buy them in the US beats me. Evidently the Fujitsu is still available for enterprise customers and NEC has some presence in Europe. Both tout the greeness of their computers. I guess that's a selling point in Europe.
The Mac Pro is a tower. Just one you don't like the price or the "sport/luxury" aspect with the Xeon engine and FB-DIMM suspension.
Vinea
Analogies break down, which is why I don't like them generally. Most of us make a distinction between a Workstation and a Tower, which may be closer to comparing an SUV and Sedan, and you can buy a luxury or cheap model in either case.
The point is simply that Apple could offer a better tower at a higher price, and people would buy it.
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.
Apple's Workstation, the Mac Pro, is less expensive than Dell's, in some price comparisons done online it is as much as $1000 less expensive in certain configurations. That's huge. Apple can accomplish this in one of two ways. Either their manufacturing efficiency is that much greater or they are sacrificing margins. Your argument is wrong.
You said it and I quote," Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.. So Apple lowers their margins in order to sell workstations, yes or no? And I completely dispute your statement that Dell's dont have a huge cost advantage, heck, the aluminum tower alone gives them a huge cost advantage.
Makes them appear much larger to Intel, what you think Intel can't add? I don't presume to know the price breaks that Intel offers, as you do, but there are computer manufactures out there smaller than Apple that compete very well. Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell were mentioned by BenRoethig. You think Dell bought Alienware because their margins were low? Did Alienware sell more computers than Apple? I don't know but I'll bet their volume discounts were closer to what Apple may be getting than what Dell does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
I didn't miss anything and I read it. It makes no sense, unless you subscribe the "milk the faithful reasoning."
It is the IMPLICATION that YOU BROUGHT UP that Sony has decided to target the upscale AIO market, that Apple currently only offers in higher end consumer computers, that is relevant to my statement,"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.".
Sony's AIO may survive. But their RM series will be still born. $3500 for a Intel Core 2 Duo processor and no FireWire 800 port. This product is priced for the professional but is configured for the hobbyist. The only thing I can gather is that Sony is so screwed up now as to be useless for discussion.
If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.
Vinea
This is so totally wrong. No, people that have Macs do so for the OS and many settle on the hardware. Milk the faithful strategy that you are so good at pointing to, but in obtuse wording as to hide it.
Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again? Better yet, where are these cutting edge designs that they're replacing them with? You say Apple is not a commodity maker, then when countered with boutique companies you dismiss them as irrelevant and counter with companies like IBM, Toshiba, and Sony who were never premium computer makers and in the case of Toshiba never to my knowledge ever made a desktop. Look, if AIOs were really want prosumers wanted, they'd be all over the place and if everyone who wanted a premium tower needed a workstation the premium boutique makers wouldn't sell conroe machines. This is justify another attempt to justify a belief that Apple is perfect and cannot make mistakes. If they can't make mistakes, therefore everyone who doesn't agree with Apple must be in the wrong.
Really true, and the anti xMac posters continue to dance around the Apple must protect margin argument yet never just come out and say it for what it is - milk the faithful.
Analogies break down, which is why I don't like them generally. Most of us make a distinction between a Workstation and a Tower, which may be closer to comparing an SUV and Sedan, and you can buy a luxury or cheap model in either case.
The point is simply that Apple could offer a better tower at a higher price, and people would buy it.
I'm not the one that trying to show that BMW competes directly with Honda because they both make sedans.
Your analogy...too bad it doesn't support your thesis very well.
The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.
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?
Are IBM, Sony, Toshiba and Apple all idiots for missing such a golden market? Or maybe those guys have put a little more analysis into it than you guys?
The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.
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?
Are IBM, Sony, Toshiba and Apple all idiots for missing such a golden market? Or maybe those guys have put a little more analysis into it than you guys?
Vinea
If Alienware was in such dire straits, please please explain to me why Dell bought them.
You keep bringing up IBM, yet it doesn't fit. Lenovo bought IBM's desktop computer line and is doing quite well thank you very much.
And yes Sony is a bunch of idiots and seems to be run by the content side of the business right now, to the extreme detriment of the manufacturing side of the business.
Apple's Workstation, the Mac Pro, is less expensive than Dell's, in some price comparisons done online it is as much as $1000 less expensive in certain configurations. That's huge. Apple can accomplish this in one of two ways. Either their manufacturing efficiency is that much greater or they are sacrificing margins. Your argument is wrong.
You said it and I quote," Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.. So Apple lowers their margins in order to sell workstations, yes or no? And I completely dispute your statement that Dell's dont have a huge cost advantage, heck, the aluminum tower alone gives them a huge cost advantage.
Apple does not "sacrifice" its margins on the Mac Pro. Dell simply cannot be profitable without having some high margin items in its lineup. It has high margin items in its workstation and servers. Apple competes with Dell only in these areas. Not where the margins are thin. Why? Because it fits their corporate strategy and strenghts.
How is this hard to understand? Apple targets 28% margins across the entire lineup, higher ASPs and smaller volume. Dell shoots for higher volume, low ASPs and margins that range from razor thin in the $300 PC market all the way beyond Apple levels at the high end.
It is highly unlikely that Apple (or anyone) can get 28% margins in the $1000 tower market and it sure as hell is true that Dell ISN'T getting 28% margins in their $1000 towers. Yet most if not every proponent of the xMac INSISTS that Apple can magically make $1000 towers at 28% margins and gain share.
Quote:
Makes them appear much larger to Intel, what you think Intel can't add? I don't presume to know the price breaks that Intel offers, as you do, but there are computer manufactures out there smaller than Apple that compete very well.
It has been documented that Intel has stated they make no discounts except on volume to avoid any more legal entanglements.
Intel can add. That's the entire point. They can see that 2M units of mobile parts is larger than 1.5M units of mobile parts. They don't CARE if Apple uses them for notebooks or AIOs. All they care about is volume.
Dell and HP make more notebooks than Apple. Their notebook growths are also no anemic. The 500K notebooks/qtr only helps level the field and delay the inevitable.
Quote:
I didn't miss anything and I read it. It makes no sense, unless you subscribe the "milk the faithful reasoning."
It is the IMPLICATION that YOU BROUGHT UP that Sony has decided to target the upscale AIO market, that Apple currently only offers in higher end consumer computers, that is relevant to my statement,"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.".
Sony has had an AIO in their line up for a long time. Thier AIO is far less capable than the iMac and more expensive. That's hardly "willing to do so at lower margins".
The article does not speak to the AIO but rather the towers they had and their media centric strategy.
The point is that only the AIO remains and not the towers...not even the Sony faithful purchased Sony towers and they were actually pretty nice.
Quote:
Sony's AIO may survive. But their RM series will be still born. $3500 for a Intel Core 2 Duo processor and no FireWire 800 port. This product is priced for the professional but is configured for the hobbyist. The only thing I can gather is that Sony is so screwed up now as to be useless for discussion.
Sony had mid-priced VAIO towers. Just look at reviews for them in the 2000-2004 timeframe.
Vinea
PS Don't like being "milked"? Don't buy. Let the market decide. Somehow though, it seems Apple is doing awesome with its current strategy.
If Alienware was in such dire straits, please please explain to me why Dell bought them.
Dell was looking for a strategy to not suck. It wasn't the greatest aquisition for them but not the worst. For whatever reason they couldn't seem to get their XPS brand as cool as Alienware.
Why they cared...I dunno. Read the Alienware interviews. They had always been undercapitalized and only moved like 50K units a year.
Quote:
You keep bringing up IBM, yet it doesn't fit. Lenovo bought IBM's desktop computer line and is doing quite well thank you very much.
As a commodity PC maker with thin margins yes. As a "premium" brand like IBM or Apple? No, don't think so even if they still have the powerful ThinkPad brand.
Quote:
And yes Sony is a bunch of idiots and seems to be run by the content side of the business right now, to the extreme detriment of the manufacturing side of the business.
Mkay. So what of IBM, Toshiba and Apple? No clearly these guys have no clue about the PC markets.
This is so totally wrong. No, people that have Macs do so for the OS and many settle on the hardware. Milk the faithful strategy that you are so good at pointing to, but in obtuse wording as to hide it.
So why are you being dumb and getting "milked"? Do you REALLY think OSX is that much superior to Ubuntu or Vista that you're a willing rube?
Apple is no more "milking" the faithful than BMW or any other premium brand. Yes, you do pay more for an incremental gain over commodity items. Do you really think the 3 series is actually twice the car as the civic? Or designer clothing, while better made with better materials, is really worth the premium of the label?
No.
These are luxury items for most and if you're buying it for professional reasons then you are only doing so because it represents good value vs their competitors.
Comments
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.
This "oddity" is the same decision that every non-commodity PC maker made in the past. Not one still makes towers.
Explain that. No IBM, Sony, Toshiba, NEC, Fujitsu, etc...
Apple has bucked the trend in finding a premium desktop strategy that actually sells 600K units/qtr in the face of $300 towers. Yeah, that's a little odd...but in a good way.
Vinea
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.
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
That's all good for Apple's profits (then again, they would be making more profits at 10%) and people who use Macs as some kind of religious crusade, but it doesn't quite do for those of us who are looking a superior computer, it doesn't quite cut it. You're trying to use value companies like Dell and extremely overpriced value companies like Sony as an example that nobody wants a tower.
Look at the end of the day fanatics aren't going to change the minds of reasonable people or vice versa, so there isn't much point of arguing.
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.
Alienware...purchased by Dell.
Velocity Micro, Polywell...premium brand? Hardly.
Folks have heard of Sony, Apple, Toshiba, IBM, Porsche, BMW, Lexus, Rolex, Cartier, Pellegrino, Prada, Perry Ellis, Hilfiger, Versace, Lear, Gulfstream, H&K, Beretta, Nordstroms, etc
Who the heck is Velocity Micro? Whitebox maker with pretensions. At least folks had heard of Alienware.
Again, find me a premium brand maker that still sells a tower.
Vinea
Apple is not a commodity manufacturer and therefore wisely avoids the commodity tower market.
Vinea
I missed this statement until fisha highlighted it. Normally I dislike car analogies, but:
Following this logic, since BMW is not a commodity manufacturer, BMW wisely avoids the commodity sedan market!
That's all good for Apple's profits (then again, they would be making more profits at 10%) and people who use Macs as some kind of religious crusade, but it doesn't quite do for those of us who are looking a superior computer, it doesn't quite cut it.
Almost every Apple computer is best in class (or danged close). They don't offer many or the one you want but almost the entire product line is a "superior computer".
You're trying to use value companies like Dell and extremely overpriced value companies like Sony as an example that nobody wants a tower.
Lots of folks want a tower. Never disputed. They buy them from Dell and HP and very few from a non-commodity maker. Apple, and other premium brands, are by definition "overpriced".
Look at the end of the day fanatics aren't going to change the minds of reasonable people or vice versa, so there isn't much point of arguing.
Nope. But if you don't want the discussion don't ask WHY Apple doesn't have a mid-tower as people have repeatedly. Don't get all surprised when folks answer.
If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.
The position of most folks that don't see the xMac in the cards don't mind if it appeared but just don't think its likely AND there are good reasons why. Its not just a whim of Jobs and Apple. Its the same decision every other major player in the market made after the price wars started in the desktop market. Consumers are conditioned to pay very little for quite a lot of capability in that form factor.
Vinea
I missed this statement until fisha highlighted it. Normally I dislike car analogies, but:
Following this logic, since BMW is not a commodity manufacturer, BMW wisely avoids the commodity sedan market!
It does avoid the commodity sedan market. It's in the sports and luxury sedan market. Notice this is a different market than the Civic or even Accord? Even the Mini Cooper is marketed as a "premium" brand in the US.
Vinea
Alienware...purchased by Dell.
Velocity Micro, Polywell...premium brand? Hardly.
Folks have heard of Sony, Apple, Toshiba, IBM, Porsche, BMW, Lexus, Rolex, Cartier, Pellegrino, Prada, Perry Ellis, Hilfiger, Versace, Lear, Gulfstream, H&K, Beretta, Nordstroms, etc
Who the heck is Velocity Micro? Whitebox maker with pretensions. At least folks had heard of Alienware.
Again, find me a premium brand maker that still sells a tower.
Vinea
So, what your saying here is Apple is the only premium maker in your mind.
It does. It's in the sports and luxury sedan market. Notice this is a different market than the Civic or even Accord? Even the Mini Cooper is marketed as a "premium" brand in the US.
Vinea
We're not debating the premiumness
A Sedan with a better interior is still a sedan. What Apple is trying to do is make us choose between a 3-door hatch and the X5.
Almost every Apple computer is best in class (or danged close). They don't offer many or the one you want but almost the entire product line is a "superior computer".
Lots of folks want a tower. Never disputed. They buy them from Dell and HP and very few from a non-commodity maker. Apple, and other premium brands, are by definition "overpriced".
Nope. But if you don't want the discussion don't ask WHY Apple doesn't have a mid-tower as people have repeatedly. Don't get all surprised when folks answer.
If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.
The position of most folks that don't see the xMac in the cards don't mind if it appeared but just don't think its likely AND there are good reasons why. Its not just a whim of Jobs and Apple. Its the same decision every other major player in the market made after the price wars started in the desktop market. Consumers are conditioned to pay very little for quite a lot of capability in that form factor.
Vinea
Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again? Better yet, where are these cutting edge designs that they're replacing them with? You say Apple is not a commodity maker, then when countered with boutique companies you dismiss them as irrelevant and counter with companies like IBM, Toshiba, and Sony who were never premium computer makers and in the case of Toshiba never to my knowledge ever made a desktop. Look, if AIOs were really want prosumers wanted, they'd be all over the place and if everyone who wanted a premium tower needed a workstation the premium boutique makers wouldn't sell conroe machines. This is justify another attempt to justify a belief that Apple is perfect and cannot make mistakes. If they can't make mistakes, therefore everyone who doesn't agree with Apple must be in the wrong.
So, what your saying here is Apple is the only premium maker in your mind.
What I'm saying NOW is that you aren't even reading my posts.
Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again?
It's in the post you quoted. IBM, Sony, Toshiba...none sell into the mid-range tower market. IBM might have a workstation buried in their line somwhere but they sold their PC business to Lenovo including their valuable ThinkPad brand. Sony's last VAIO tower is no longer linked on their site or sold in their SonyStyle (online) store. Toshiba stopped making desktops in 2001.
These aren't "major" players. The major players are Dell and HP. These are "premium" players that have high margins and good branding.
Fujitsu-Siemens and NEC surprisingly still have towers. Where the heck you would buy them in the US beats me. Evidently the Fujitsu is still available for enterprise customers and NEC has some presence in Europe. Both tout the greeness of their computers. I guess that's a selling point in Europe.
Vinea
We're not debating the premiumness
A Sedan with a better interior is still a sedan. What Apple is trying to do is make us choose between a 3-door hatch and the X5.
The Mac Pro is a tower. Just one you don't like the price or the "sport/luxury" aspect with the Xeon engine and FB-DIMM suspension.
Vinea
The Mac Pro is a tower. Just one you don't like the price or the "sport/luxury" aspect with the Xeon engine and FB-DIMM suspension.
Vinea
Analogies break down, which is why I don't like them generally. Most of us make a distinction between a Workstation and a Tower, which may be closer to comparing an SUV and Sedan, and you can buy a luxury or cheap model in either case.
The point is simply that Apple could offer a better tower at a higher price, and people would buy it.
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
Apple's Workstation, the Mac Pro, is less expensive than Dell's, in some price comparisons done online it is as much as $1000 less expensive in certain configurations. That's huge. Apple can accomplish this in one of two ways. Either their manufacturing efficiency is that much greater or they are sacrificing margins. Your argument is wrong.
You said it and I quote," Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.. So Apple lowers their margins in order to sell workstations, yes or no? And I completely dispute your statement that Dell's dont have a huge cost advantage, heck, the aluminum tower alone gives them a huge cost advantage.
Makes them appear much larger to Intel, what you think Intel can't add? I don't presume to know the price breaks that Intel offers, as you do, but there are computer manufactures out there smaller than Apple that compete very well. Alienware, Velocity Micro, Polywell were mentioned by BenRoethig. You think Dell bought Alienware because their margins were low? Did Alienware sell more computers than Apple? I don't know but I'll bet their volume discounts were closer to what Apple may be getting than what Dell does.
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
I didn't miss anything and I read it. It makes no sense, unless you subscribe the "milk the faithful reasoning."
It is the IMPLICATION that YOU BROUGHT UP that Sony has decided to target the upscale AIO market, that Apple currently only offers in higher end consumer computers, that is relevant to my statement,"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.".
Sony's AIO may survive. But their RM series will be still born. $3500 for a Intel Core 2 Duo processor and no FireWire 800 port. This product is priced for the professional but is configured for the hobbyist. The only thing I can gather is that Sony is so screwed up now as to be useless for discussion.
...
If nothing else the xMac folks have been far more fanatic about thier position. You've been saying you're not going to buy a Mac because none fit your needs. Fine. Non-fanatics would have moved to a PC site by now because what PC you own and use really isn't all that big a deal.
Vinea
This is so totally wrong. No, people that have Macs do so for the OS and many settle on the hardware. Milk the faithful strategy that you are so good at pointing to, but in obtuse wording as to hide it.
Exactly who are these major players who don't make a tower again? Better yet, where are these cutting edge designs that they're replacing them with? You say Apple is not a commodity maker, then when countered with boutique companies you dismiss them as irrelevant and counter with companies like IBM, Toshiba, and Sony who were never premium computer makers and in the case of Toshiba never to my knowledge ever made a desktop. Look, if AIOs were really want prosumers wanted, they'd be all over the place and if everyone who wanted a premium tower needed a workstation the premium boutique makers wouldn't sell conroe machines. This is justify another attempt to justify a belief that Apple is perfect and cannot make mistakes. If they can't make mistakes, therefore everyone who doesn't agree with Apple must be in the wrong.
Really true, and the anti xMac posters continue to dance around the Apple must protect margin argument yet never just come out and say it for what it is - milk the faithful.
Analogies break down, which is why I don't like them generally. Most of us make a distinction between a Workstation and a Tower, which may be closer to comparing an SUV and Sedan, and you can buy a luxury or cheap model in either case.
The point is simply that Apple could offer a better tower at a higher price, and people would buy it.
I'm not the one that trying to show that BMW competes directly with Honda because they both make sedans.
Your analogy...too bad it doesn't support your thesis very well.
The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.
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?
Are IBM, Sony, Toshiba and Apple all idiots for missing such a golden market? Or maybe those guys have put a little more analysis into it than you guys?
Vinea
...
The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.
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?
Are IBM, Sony, Toshiba and Apple all idiots for missing such a golden market? Or maybe those guys have put a little more analysis into it than you guys?
Vinea
If Alienware was in such dire straits, please please explain to me why Dell bought them.
You keep bringing up IBM, yet it doesn't fit. Lenovo bought IBM's desktop computer line and is doing quite well thank you very much.
And yes Sony is a bunch of idiots and seems to be run by the content side of the business right now, to the extreme detriment of the manufacturing side of the business.
Apple's Workstation, the Mac Pro, is less expensive than Dell's, in some price comparisons done online it is as much as $1000 less expensive in certain configurations. That's huge. Apple can accomplish this in one of two ways. Either their manufacturing efficiency is that much greater or they are sacrificing margins. Your argument is wrong.
You said it and I quote," Its just that all the competitors have the same or higher margins within that bracket and don't have a huge cost advantage.. So Apple lowers their margins in order to sell workstations, yes or no? And I completely dispute your statement that Dell's dont have a huge cost advantage, heck, the aluminum tower alone gives them a huge cost advantage.
Apple does not "sacrifice" its margins on the Mac Pro. Dell simply cannot be profitable without having some high margin items in its lineup. It has high margin items in its workstation and servers. Apple competes with Dell only in these areas. Not where the margins are thin. Why? Because it fits their corporate strategy and strenghts.
How is this hard to understand? Apple targets 28% margins across the entire lineup, higher ASPs and smaller volume. Dell shoots for higher volume, low ASPs and margins that range from razor thin in the $300 PC market all the way beyond Apple levels at the high end.
It is highly unlikely that Apple (or anyone) can get 28% margins in the $1000 tower market and it sure as hell is true that Dell ISN'T getting 28% margins in their $1000 towers. Yet most if not every proponent of the xMac INSISTS that Apple can magically make $1000 towers at 28% margins and gain share.
Makes them appear much larger to Intel, what you think Intel can't add? I don't presume to know the price breaks that Intel offers, as you do, but there are computer manufactures out there smaller than Apple that compete very well.
It has been documented that Intel has stated they make no discounts except on volume to avoid any more legal entanglements.
Intel can add. That's the entire point. They can see that 2M units of mobile parts is larger than 1.5M units of mobile parts. They don't CARE if Apple uses them for notebooks or AIOs. All they care about is volume.
Dell and HP make more notebooks than Apple. Their notebook growths are also no anemic. The 500K notebooks/qtr only helps level the field and delay the inevitable.
I didn't miss anything and I read it. It makes no sense, unless you subscribe the "milk the faithful reasoning."
It is the IMPLICATION that YOU BROUGHT UP that Sony has decided to target the upscale AIO market, that Apple currently only offers in higher end consumer computers, that is relevant to my statement,"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.".
Sony has had an AIO in their line up for a long time. Thier AIO is far less capable than the iMac and more expensive. That's hardly "willing to do so at lower margins".
The article does not speak to the AIO but rather the towers they had and their media centric strategy.
The point is that only the AIO remains and not the towers...not even the Sony faithful purchased Sony towers and they were actually pretty nice.
Sony's AIO may survive. But their RM series will be still born. $3500 for a Intel Core 2 Duo processor and no FireWire 800 port. This product is priced for the professional but is configured for the hobbyist. The only thing I can gather is that Sony is so screwed up now as to be useless for discussion.
Sony had mid-priced VAIO towers. Just look at reviews for them in the 2000-2004 timeframe.
Vinea
PS Don't like being "milked"? Don't buy. Let the market decide. Somehow though, it seems Apple is doing awesome with its current strategy.
If Alienware was in such dire straits, please please explain to me why Dell bought them.
Dell was looking for a strategy to not suck. It wasn't the greatest aquisition for them but not the worst. For whatever reason they couldn't seem to get their XPS brand as cool as Alienware.
Why they cared...I dunno. Read the Alienware interviews. They had always been undercapitalized and only moved like 50K units a year.
You keep bringing up IBM, yet it doesn't fit. Lenovo bought IBM's desktop computer line and is doing quite well thank you very much.
As a commodity PC maker with thin margins yes. As a "premium" brand like IBM or Apple? No, don't think so even if they still have the powerful ThinkPad brand.
And yes Sony is a bunch of idiots and seems to be run by the content side of the business right now, to the extreme detriment of the manufacturing side of the business.
Mkay. So what of IBM, Toshiba and Apple? No clearly these guys have no clue about the PC markets.
Vinea
This is so totally wrong. No, people that have Macs do so for the OS and many settle on the hardware. Milk the faithful strategy that you are so good at pointing to, but in obtuse wording as to hide it.
So why are you being dumb and getting "milked"? Do you REALLY think OSX is that much superior to Ubuntu or Vista that you're a willing rube?
Apple is no more "milking" the faithful than BMW or any other premium brand. Yes, you do pay more for an incremental gain over commodity items. Do you really think the 3 series is actually twice the car as the civic? Or designer clothing, while better made with better materials, is really worth the premium of the label?
No.
These are luxury items for most and if you're buying it for professional reasons then you are only doing so because it represents good value vs their competitors.
Vinea