The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.
These other manufacturers were not Apple. These other manufacturers were competing with other Windows PC makers. No one competes with Apple in Mac OS X space. (Beside that, as someone pointed out, better quality tower makers may not do so badly in Windows world either.)
Quote:
If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting . . .
Well, you messed that one up right off the starting block. I don't remember anyone claiming it is a lucrative market. It's just a very big market. There are lots of customers for a consumer/prosumer tower, so competition is fierce, and it is NOT lucrative. Everyone wants a piece of this Windows market.
On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far. You could argue that Mac users don't want a mini tower, but who will believe you?
Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out.
Quote:
Your analogy...too bad it doesn't support your thesis very well.
I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.
These other manufacturers were not Apple. These other manufacturers were competing with other Windows PC makers. No one competes with Apple in Mac OS X space.
Apple competes in the larger market. Folks complain that the lack of a $1000 tower means that Apple is not competitive vs the Windows PC makers.
Therefore any Apple tower offering would be compared to their equivalent PC offerings if the objective is to get more switchers (increase share).
We have seen that premium brand towers have not fared well in the larger market with the significant premium brand makers exiting the market.
Within the OSX space the towers would compete with the iMac and Mac Pro. Given that only the edu iMac is priced at $1000 AND AIOs are not very attractive vs towers then the only reasonable conclusion is that within the OSX space the towers would eliminate the majority of iMac sales.
This would reduce ASPs and revenue even if margins were maintained.
Call it milking the faithful if you like but the bottom line is that it would be a bad business decision.
Quote:
Well, you messed that one up right off the starting block. I don't remember anyone claiming it is a lucrative market. It's just a very big market. There are lots of customers for a consumer/prosumer tower, so competition is fierce, and it is NOT lucrative. Everyone wants a piece of this Windows market.
If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...
I'll agree that the low and mid end tower market isn't all that profitable.
Quote:
I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.
Dell and HP are like Honda and Toyota.
BMW does not directly compete with Honda and Toyota except with their luxury divisions: Acura and Lexus.
Likewise Apple does not directly compete with Dell or HP except within their high end lines/divisions.
What you are complaining about is that BMW doesn't make a sedan like the Civic but only cars that compete with the luxury and sport sedans/SUVs in the Acura line.
That's the whole point of a premium/high end brand! Low volume, high margins. Quality over quantity. Better performance for a lot more money.
I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.
Yes and no. If the user wants Mac OS X over the crapshoot called windows, they have no choice but to take what Apple gives them or just not come at all. With Apple were to let others sell Mac OS X on more suitable hardware that would be a different matter, but they don't.
Quote:
Folks complain that the lack of a $1000 tower means that Apple is not competitive vs the Windows PC makers.
As for the not being competitive, the 5% for the platform speaks for itself. I would expect a company with Apple's advantages to be closer to 15-20%. Also, When did we say we were looking a $1000 tower? Once again you're confusing prosumers with budget users and making assumptions based on your own biases.
If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...
According to the Mac dictionary, lucrative means:
producing a great deal of profit
This is how I used the word. In my example, the Windows consumer/prosumer tower market is not what I'd call lucrative. It is profitable only because it does not operate in the red, and I'm not so sure of that from remarks on this forum.
Why should Apple pursue it? Because Apple should make a prosumer mini tower and ignore the very low end tower, like below $700 or there about. A prosumer Mac tower could be as profitable as any other Mac.
Also, When did we say we were looking a $1000 tower? Once again you're confusing prosumers with budget users and making assumptions based on your own biases.
Ben read the thread. Page one starting as early as post #16.
As far as "prosumers" a single Xeon BTO in the $1499-$1699 range would work. Never argued against that.
Ben read the thread. Page one starting as early as post #16.
As far as "prosumers" a single Xeon BTO in the $1499-$1699 range would work. Never argued against that.
Vinea
You're still looking at a CPU and RAM that is twice as expensive as the desktop versions.
You can get xeon machine at that price, but you're looking at a 2.0ghz machine that because of memory latency might not be all that much faster in non-graphic intensive programs than the $1299 Macbook I'm buying next week. That's a pretty horrible deal for $1500. Then again, that is why Intel developed actual desktop parts and every other computer company on the planet uses them.
Therefore any Apple tower offering would be compared to their equivalent PC offerings if the objective is to get more switchers (increase share).
Not so in my opinion. Your statement would be true if a Windows user was looking at a Mac mini tower to run Window, only. Few would suggest such a scenario. Rather, we speak of a prosumer Mac tower in regard to two groups, existing Mac users, and those interested in switching from Window OS to Mac OS X.
In these cases, a Mac costs a little more, usually, and this is true whether it is an iMac or the mini tower that many of us have been promoting. I believe this point gets overlooked or ignored over and over in criticizing a Mac mini tower.
Why is it that you say a Mac mini tower cannot compete with Windows products, while an iMac is competitive? This notion make no sense, especially in light of the popularity of towers on the Windows side, and the low sales of Windows AIOs.
Really, you guys have to realize that the market for the computer you want is small unless the price is very low, in which case there's not a lot of incentive for Apple to get into that market.
We are speaking of the consumer/prosumer tower market, which is a very big Windows market, even if we count just those priced above say $700. How can you say a market for a prosumer Mac tower would be s small? When we become Mac users we don't automatically alter our hardware preferences.
Not so in my opinion. Your statement would be true if a Windows user was looking at a Mac mini tower to run Window, only. Few would suggest such a scenario. Rather, we speak of a prosumer Mac tower in regard to two groups, existing Mac users, and those interested in switching from Window OS to Mac OS X.
The reviews of the Mac Pro tend to discuss performance and price vs their Dell counterparts. The OS is a non-factor in many comparisons.
This would likely also be the scenario with any Apple tower since a direct apples to apples comparison is possible.
Quote:
In these cases, a Mac costs a little more, usually, and this is true whether it is an iMac or the mini tower that many of us have been promoting. I believe this point gets overlooked or ignored over and over in criticizing a Mac mini tower.
It is NOT ignored. The point is that an Apple tower in the price points that have been discussed ($1K) would compare very poorly against their Dell counterparts. Apple can be competitive in the $1499 region if it chooses the battleground. In other words with a Mac Pro and NOT a Mac mini tower running Conroe.
The comparison vs Dell would be Xeon vs Xeon and Apple would compare well. Apple pushing a mid-priced Conroe tower plays directly into the strengths of Dell and HP and into the weaknesses of Apple.
Quote:
Why is it that you say a Mac mini tower cannot compete with Windows products, while an iMac is competitive? This notion make no sense, especially in light of the popularity of towers on the Windows side, and the low sales of Windows AIOs.
The notion makes no sense because I never said that and it's a strawman. Find where I say an iMac is competitive vs a tower? In fact I say the exact opposite.
What I DO say is that the AIO (and SFF) form factor hides this disparity better since a direct comparison is not as easy and the form factor provides real value for those that an AIO works well either from an aesthetic or space perspective.
But from a pure functionality vs price (ie bang for the buck) comparison perspective a tower wins. Fortunately an AIO and SFF computer is not judged as heavily from a pure functionality (spec) perspective.
The reviews of the Mac Pro tend to discuss performance and price vs their Dell counterparts. The OS is a non-factor in many comparisons.
This would likely also be the scenario with any Apple tower since a direct apples to apples comparison is possible.
Here you talk about critique of hardware, where a Mac workstation or tower is compared with a Windows counterpart. The topic, however, is viability of a Mac prosumer tower as a choice for "customers," Mac users and potential switcher from the Windows side.
Now, I cannot see why Apple, which is so successful with the Mac Pro, would fail if it offered a smaller prosumer tower. What is the great strength of Dell and HP in the mid-range tower market, except for low price do to small markup?
Apple would still compare favorably with a mid-range tower, however, since this is what customers want. $200 more for a Mac isn't unreasonable, since it comes with iLife applications and a professional OS, not a cut down Home Edition.
Quote:
Apple can be competitive in the $1499 region if it chooses the battleground. In other words with a Mac Pro and NOT a Mac mini tower running Conroe.
I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.
Quote:
What I DO say is that the AIO (and SFF) form factor hides this disparity better since a direct comparison is not as easy and the form factor provides real value for those that an AIO works well either from an aesthetic or space perspective.
This is likely so, but it does not change the fact that many computer users want a mid-performance tower. Simply switching from Windows to Mac OS does not change our preference for hardware.
About a mid-range (think Shuttle size) cannibalizing Mac Pro sales. I really don't think it will. The people who are buying Mac Pros have a specific reason on why they are buying one. They are usually video editors/photographers/etc; they are not going to buy a mid-range tower instead of a Mac Pro.
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?
Thats because they are simply offering the same product as all the cheaper ones . . . thats different from Apple. Apple offer a compeltely different OS and the advantages of that that go with it . . . iLife etc. Nowadays . . . which is different from the past, as an out of the box solution as a mid-tower, an apple system offers more compared to straight Windows pre-load machine, and so could reasonably attract a premium.
All the parts to make it are already there and if they continued to use the Merom setup in a mid-tower, then that only helps to their leverage against Intel.
Quote:
I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.
but it doesn't have to be a cut-down MacPro on the hardware level . . . why cant it just be the iMac internals, put in a MacPro style case. If they can turn a profit on an iMac, they could just as easily turn a profit on the same hardward, without display, in a silver box.
Here you talk about critique of hardware, where a Mac workstation or tower is compared with a Windows counterpart. The topic, however, is viability of a Mac prosumer tower as a choice for "customers," Mac users and potential switcher from the Windows side.
Yes we are talking about the viability of a Mac prosumer tower. Hence the discussion of how it fits in the product line, the impact to Apple revenue, the impact of the prosumer tower to the branding and whether the product would sell in enough volume to bother.
Quote:
Now, I cannot see why Apple, which is so successful with the Mac Pro, would fail if it offered a smaller prosumer tower. What is the great strength of Dell and HP in the mid-range tower market, except for low price do to small markup?
Yes. The primary criteria for the mid-ranged tower market appears to be based on price vs performance. Dell and HP have a business model and corporate culture that excels in producing machines in that price range with excellent value.
Apple's business model and corporate culture is completely different. Steve Jobs would be no more successful in running Dell than Michael Dell would be at running Apple.
Quote:
Apple would still compare favorably with a mid-range tower, however, since this is what customers want. $200 more for a Mac isn't unreasonable, since it comes with iLife applications and a professional OS, not a cut down Home Edition.
It did not help Sony. Sony had their equivalent of iLife and media center software.
The advantage of OSX over Windows is ZERO or negative for the majority of folks. Any UI, stability and inherent OS advantages are far outweighed by Windows market share. You want to play many games? Windows. Interact with many web sites? Explorer.
Quote:
I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.
A $1500 Xeon Mac Pro would be compared to a $1550 Xeon Dell Precision.
A $1200 Conroe xMac would be compared to a $1000 Conroe Dell Dimension.
It is a perception issue. A $1500 Mac Pro is LESS expensive than its competition. A $1200 Conroe tower MORE expensive than its competition.
A $1500 Mac Pro would be perceived as a better value than a $1200 xMac because you cannot go directly to the Dell site and configure a better machine for less.
Quote:
This is likely so, but it does not change the fact that many computer users want a mid-performance tower.
About a mid-range (think Shuttle size) cannibalizing Mac Pro sales. I really don't think it will. The people who are buying Mac Pros have a specific reason on why they are buying one. They are usually video editors/photographers/etc; they are not going to buy a mid-range tower instead of a Mac Pro.
I don't think a Merom based Shuttle would cannibalize Mac pro sales. It would destroy iMac sales unless priced fairly high.
A Conroe based Shuttle could cannibalize some Mac pro sales but not much. Mostly the lower end buys.
I'd love a Shuttle sized Mac...merom or conroe. I would think Merom more likely. I also think it would be in the $1500 range...
We are speaking of the consumer/prosumer tower market, which is a very big Windows market, even if we count just those priced above say $700. How can you say a market for a prosumer Mac tower would be s small? When we become Mac users we don't automatically alter our hardware preferences.
Plus, who many people outside of Apple are buying AIOs like the iMacs or low end SFF machines like the Mini. For Apple a "niche" can be very lucrative., especially one where users expect to pay over $1000. The only reason I can see Apple not being here is some kind of unique form factor delusion by Jobs or some desire not to be conventional in any way. Look there are quite a few of us who who care less about this counter culture crap that has been going on since Jobs got back. We do not want to be different to just be different or have some need to feel like we're better than anyone else. We just want the best OS/ computer combination available. When the best OS belongs to Apple and you have to go to the PC ranks to get any kind of practical hardware when it comes to desktops (yes there is a difference between a desktop and a workstation) there is a problem.
. . . why cant [a mid-tower Mac] just be the iMac internals, put in a MacPro style case[?] If they can turn a profit on an iMac, they could just as easily turn a profit on the same hardware, without display, in a silver box.
Desktop components are a little cheaper and have higher performance. Therefore, a Conroe mid-tower Mac would compete better.
Sometimes an argument is raised about getting a better deal on laptop parts because of high volume Mac Book sales. In my experience doing cost estimates for proposed new products, a company can get a discount based on the total order. That is, if Apple orders 900,000 laptop drives and 100,000 desktop drives, Apple can get the 1,000,000 quantity price on all drives.
Comments
The point is that other manufacturers have offered better towers at a higher price and not enough people bought it.
These other manufacturers were not Apple. These other manufacturers were competing with other Windows PC makers. No one competes with Apple in Mac OS X space. (Beside that, as someone pointed out, better quality tower makers may not do so badly in Windows world either.)
If the tower market is so lucrative as you guys keep insisting . . .
Well, you messed that one up right off the starting block. I don't remember anyone claiming it is a lucrative market. It's just a very big market. There are lots of customers for a consumer/prosumer tower, so competition is fierce, and it is NOT lucrative. Everyone wants a piece of this Windows market.
On the Mac side, however, there is no one making such a tower to satisfy customer demand. The market is there, but no one to fill it so far. You could argue that Mac users don't want a mini tower, but who will believe you?
Can you give any reason why Mac users would not want the same sort of product that is so popular among Windows users? When we move from Windows to the Mac, we do not have some sort of transformation that changes our preferences for hardware features. Of course many of us want a mini tower, and it doesn't take market research to figure that one out.
Your analogy...too bad it doesn't support your thesis very well.
I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.
These other manufacturers were not Apple. These other manufacturers were competing with other Windows PC makers. No one competes with Apple in Mac OS X space.
Apple competes in the larger market. Folks complain that the lack of a $1000 tower means that Apple is not competitive vs the Windows PC makers.
Therefore any Apple tower offering would be compared to their equivalent PC offerings if the objective is to get more switchers (increase share).
We have seen that premium brand towers have not fared well in the larger market with the significant premium brand makers exiting the market.
Within the OSX space the towers would compete with the iMac and Mac Pro. Given that only the edu iMac is priced at $1000 AND AIOs are not very attractive vs towers then the only reasonable conclusion is that within the OSX space the towers would eliminate the majority of iMac sales.
This would reduce ASPs and revenue even if margins were maintained.
Call it milking the faithful if you like but the bottom line is that it would be a bad business decision.
Well, you messed that one up right off the starting block. I don't remember anyone claiming it is a lucrative market. It's just a very big market. There are lots of customers for a consumer/prosumer tower, so competition is fierce, and it is NOT lucrative. Everyone wants a piece of this Windows market.
If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lucrative
I'll agree that the low and mid end tower market isn't all that profitable.
I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.
Dell and HP are like Honda and Toyota.
BMW does not directly compete with Honda and Toyota except with their luxury divisions: Acura and Lexus.
Likewise Apple does not directly compete with Dell or HP except within their high end lines/divisions.
What you are complaining about is that BMW doesn't make a sedan like the Civic but only cars that compete with the luxury and sport sedans/SUVs in the Acura line.
That's the whole point of a premium/high end brand! Low volume, high margins. Quality over quantity. Better performance for a lot more money.
Vinea
I said analogies break down. They are a poor way to try to prove anything. Yet, an SUV = Workstation, and a Sedan = Consumer/Prosumer Tower. It works well enough for me. BMW makes high quality sedans. Apple could make high quality mini towers.
I look at it this way:
iMac: Subaru Baja
Conroe Mac: Pickup
Mac Pro: 18-wheeler.
Apple competes in the larger market.
Yes and no. If the user wants Mac OS X over the crapshoot called windows, they have no choice but to take what Apple gives them or just not come at all. With Apple were to let others sell Mac OS X on more suitable hardware that would be a different matter, but they don't.
Folks complain that the lack of a $1000 tower means that Apple is not competitive vs the Windows PC makers.
As for the not being competitive, the 5% for the platform speaks for itself. I would expect a company with Apple's advantages to be closer to 15-20%. Also, When did we say we were looking a $1000 tower? Once again you're confusing prosumers with budget users and making assumptions based on your own biases.
Mac Pro Core 2 Duo
P965 chipset.
2.4ghz core 2 Duo (2.13, 2.67 BTO)
1GB DDR2 667mhz RAM (4 slots, up to 8GB)
250GB hard drive (3 extra slots)
16x superdrive
256mb GeForce 8300GT (256mb 8600GT, 640MB 8800GTS BTO)
3 PCI-E x1 slots.
Bluetooth/Airport Extreme-N BTO
$1499-1699.
If the tower market is not lucrative why pursue it? I get the impression you don't know that lucrative means profitable...
According to the Mac dictionary, lucrative means:
producing a great deal of profit
This is how I used the word. In my example, the Windows consumer/prosumer tower market is not what I'd call lucrative. It is profitable only because it does not operate in the red, and I'm not so sure of that from remarks on this forum.
Why should Apple pursue it? Because Apple should make a prosumer mini tower and ignore the very low end tower, like below $700 or there about. A prosumer Mac tower could be as profitable as any other Mac.
Also, When did we say we were looking a $1000 tower? Once again you're confusing prosumers with budget users and making assumptions based on your own biases.
Ben read the thread. Page one starting as early as post #16.
As far as "prosumers" a single Xeon BTO in the $1499-$1699 range would work. Never argued against that.
Vinea
Ben read the thread. Page one starting as early as post #16.
As far as "prosumers" a single Xeon BTO in the $1499-$1699 range would work. Never argued against that.
Vinea
You're still looking at a CPU and RAM that is twice as expensive as the desktop versions.
You can get xeon machine at that price, but you're looking at a 2.0ghz machine that because of memory latency might not be all that much faster in non-graphic intensive programs than the $1299 Macbook I'm buying next week. That's a pretty horrible deal for $1500. Then again, that is why Intel developed actual desktop parts and every other computer company on the planet uses them.
Apple competes in the larger market. . .
Therefore any Apple tower offering would be compared to their equivalent PC offerings if the objective is to get more switchers (increase share).
Not so in my opinion. Your statement would be true if a Windows user was looking at a Mac mini tower to run Window, only. Few would suggest such a scenario. Rather, we speak of a prosumer Mac tower in regard to two groups, existing Mac users, and those interested in switching from Window OS to Mac OS X.
In these cases, a Mac costs a little more, usually, and this is true whether it is an iMac or the mini tower that many of us have been promoting. I believe this point gets overlooked or ignored over and over in criticizing a Mac mini tower.
Why is it that you say a Mac mini tower cannot compete with Windows products, while an iMac is competitive? This notion make no sense, especially in light of the popularity of towers on the Windows side, and the low sales of Windows AIOs.
Really, you guys have to realize that the market for the computer you want is small unless the price is very low, in which case there's not a lot of incentive for Apple to get into that market.
We are speaking of the consumer/prosumer tower market, which is a very big Windows market, even if we count just those priced above say $700. How can you say a market for a prosumer Mac tower would be s small? When we become Mac users we don't automatically alter our hardware preferences.
Not so in my opinion. Your statement would be true if a Windows user was looking at a Mac mini tower to run Window, only. Few would suggest such a scenario. Rather, we speak of a prosumer Mac tower in regard to two groups, existing Mac users, and those interested in switching from Window OS to Mac OS X.
The reviews of the Mac Pro tend to discuss performance and price vs their Dell counterparts. The OS is a non-factor in many comparisons.
This would likely also be the scenario with any Apple tower since a direct apples to apples comparison is possible.
In these cases, a Mac costs a little more, usually, and this is true whether it is an iMac or the mini tower that many of us have been promoting. I believe this point gets overlooked or ignored over and over in criticizing a Mac mini tower.
It is NOT ignored. The point is that an Apple tower in the price points that have been discussed ($1K) would compare very poorly against their Dell counterparts. Apple can be competitive in the $1499 region if it chooses the battleground. In other words with a Mac Pro and NOT a Mac mini tower running Conroe.
The comparison vs Dell would be Xeon vs Xeon and Apple would compare well. Apple pushing a mid-priced Conroe tower plays directly into the strengths of Dell and HP and into the weaknesses of Apple.
Why is it that you say a Mac mini tower cannot compete with Windows products, while an iMac is competitive? This notion make no sense, especially in light of the popularity of towers on the Windows side, and the low sales of Windows AIOs.
The notion makes no sense because I never said that and it's a strawman. Find where I say an iMac is competitive vs a tower? In fact I say the exact opposite.
What I DO say is that the AIO (and SFF) form factor hides this disparity better since a direct comparison is not as easy and the form factor provides real value for those that an AIO works well either from an aesthetic or space perspective.
But from a pure functionality vs price (ie bang for the buck) comparison perspective a tower wins. Fortunately an AIO and SFF computer is not judged as heavily from a pure functionality (spec) perspective.
Vinea
The reviews of the Mac Pro tend to discuss performance and price vs their Dell counterparts. The OS is a non-factor in many comparisons.
This would likely also be the scenario with any Apple tower since a direct apples to apples comparison is possible.
Here you talk about critique of hardware, where a Mac workstation or tower is compared with a Windows counterpart. The topic, however, is viability of a Mac prosumer tower as a choice for "customers," Mac users and potential switcher from the Windows side.
Now, I cannot see why Apple, which is so successful with the Mac Pro, would fail if it offered a smaller prosumer tower. What is the great strength of Dell and HP in the mid-range tower market, except for low price do to small markup?
Apple would still compare favorably with a mid-range tower, however, since this is what customers want. $200 more for a Mac isn't unreasonable, since it comes with iLife applications and a professional OS, not a cut down Home Edition.
Apple can be competitive in the $1499 region if it chooses the battleground. In other words with a Mac Pro and NOT a Mac mini tower running Conroe.
I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.
What I DO say is that the AIO (and SFF) form factor hides this disparity better since a direct comparison is not as easy and the form factor provides real value for those that an AIO works well either from an aesthetic or space perspective.
This is likely so, but it does not change the fact that many computer users want a mid-performance tower. Simply switching from Windows to Mac OS does not change our preference for hardware.
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?
Thats because they are simply offering the same product as all the cheaper ones . . . thats different from Apple. Apple offer a compeltely different OS and the advantages of that that go with it . . . iLife etc. Nowadays . . . which is different from the past, as an out of the box solution as a mid-tower, an apple system offers more compared to straight Windows pre-load machine, and so could reasonably attract a premium.
All the parts to make it are already there and if they continued to use the Merom setup in a mid-tower, then that only helps to their leverage against Intel.
I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.
but it doesn't have to be a cut-down MacPro on the hardware level . . . why cant it just be the iMac internals, put in a MacPro style case. If they can turn a profit on an iMac, they could just as easily turn a profit on the same hardward, without display, in a silver box.
Here you talk about critique of hardware, where a Mac workstation or tower is compared with a Windows counterpart. The topic, however, is viability of a Mac prosumer tower as a choice for "customers," Mac users and potential switcher from the Windows side.
Yes we are talking about the viability of a Mac prosumer tower. Hence the discussion of how it fits in the product line, the impact to Apple revenue, the impact of the prosumer tower to the branding and whether the product would sell in enough volume to bother.
Now, I cannot see why Apple, which is so successful with the Mac Pro, would fail if it offered a smaller prosumer tower. What is the great strength of Dell and HP in the mid-range tower market, except for low price do to small markup?
Yes. The primary criteria for the mid-ranged tower market appears to be based on price vs performance. Dell and HP have a business model and corporate culture that excels in producing machines in that price range with excellent value.
Apple's business model and corporate culture is completely different. Steve Jobs would be no more successful in running Dell than Michael Dell would be at running Apple.
Apple would still compare favorably with a mid-range tower, however, since this is what customers want. $200 more for a Mac isn't unreasonable, since it comes with iLife applications and a professional OS, not a cut down Home Edition.
It did not help Sony. Sony had their equivalent of iLife and media center software.
The advantage of OSX over Windows is ZERO or negative for the majority of folks. Any UI, stability and inherent OS advantages are far outweighed by Windows market share. You want to play many games? Windows. Interact with many web sites? Explorer.
I don't see why you think this is so. A cut down Mac Pro would have higher component cost and have to sell for more than a comparable Conroe mini tower. I don't think the bigger enclosure and Xeon name on the CPU makes a difference to customers. It's performance and features. A $1500 Mac Pro would not do as well as a $1200 Mac mini tower with the same performance.
A $1500 Xeon Mac Pro would be compared to a $1550 Xeon Dell Precision.
A $1200 Conroe xMac would be compared to a $1000 Conroe Dell Dimension.
It is a perception issue. A $1500 Mac Pro is LESS expensive than its competition. A $1200 Conroe tower MORE expensive than its competition.
A $1500 Mac Pro would be perceived as a better value than a $1200 xMac because you cannot go directly to the Dell site and configure a better machine for less.
This is likely so, but it does not change the fact that many computer users want a mid-performance tower.
Tell that to Sony and Toshiba.
Vinea
About a mid-range (think Shuttle size) cannibalizing Mac Pro sales. I really don't think it will. The people who are buying Mac Pros have a specific reason on why they are buying one. They are usually video editors/photographers/etc; they are not going to buy a mid-range tower instead of a Mac Pro.
I don't think a Merom based Shuttle would cannibalize Mac pro sales. It would destroy iMac sales unless priced fairly high.
A Conroe based Shuttle could cannibalize some Mac pro sales but not much. Mostly the lower end buys.
I'd love a Shuttle sized Mac...merom or conroe. I would think Merom more likely. I also think it would be in the $1500 range...
Vinea
We are speaking of the consumer/prosumer tower market, which is a very big Windows market, even if we count just those priced above say $700. How can you say a market for a prosumer Mac tower would be s small? When we become Mac users we don't automatically alter our hardware preferences.
Plus, who many people outside of Apple are buying AIOs like the iMacs or low end SFF machines like the Mini. For Apple a "niche" can be very lucrative., especially one where users expect to pay over $1000. The only reason I can see Apple not being here is some kind of unique form factor delusion by Jobs or some desire not to be conventional in any way. Look there are quite a few of us who who care less about this counter culture crap that has been going on since Jobs got back. We do not want to be different to just be different or have some need to feel like we're better than anyone else. We just want the best OS/ computer combination available. When the best OS belongs to Apple and you have to go to the PC ranks to get any kind of practical hardware when it comes to desktops (yes there is a difference between a desktop and a workstation) there is a problem.
I don't think a Merom based Shuttle would cannibalize Mac pro sales. It would destroy iMac sales unless priced fairly high.
A Conroe based Shuttle could cannibalize some Mac pro sales but not much. Mostly the lower end buys.
I'd love a Shuttle sized Mac...merom or conroe. I would think Merom more likely. I also think it would be in the $1500 range...
Vinea
There would still be people who buy iMacs. AKA parents, children, first timers.
When the best OS belongs to Apple and you have to go to the PC ranks to get any kind of practical hardware there is a problem.
Amen!
. . . why cant [a mid-tower Mac] just be the iMac internals, put in a MacPro style case[?] If they can turn a profit on an iMac, they could just as easily turn a profit on the same hardware, without display, in a silver box.
Desktop components are a little cheaper and have higher performance. Therefore, a Conroe mid-tower Mac would compete better.
Sometimes an argument is raised about getting a better deal on laptop parts because of high volume Mac Book sales. In my experience doing cost estimates for proposed new products, a company can get a discount based on the total order. That is, if Apple orders 900,000 laptop drives and 100,000 desktop drives, Apple can get the 1,000,000 quantity price on all drives.
Mac Pro Core 2 Duo
P965 chipset.
2.4ghz core 2 Duo (2.13, 2.67 BTO)
1GB DDR2 667mhz RAM (4 slots, up to 8GB)
250GB hard drive (3 extra slots)
16x superdrive
256mb GeForce 8300GT (256mb 8600GT, 640MB 8800GTS BTO)
3 PCI-E x1 slots.
Bluetooth/Airport Extreme-N BTO
$1499-1699.
I like that, nice config and good price for gamers and like market.