There is a group of professionals who don't need a dual Xeon workstation, and would prefer not to pay for it if we didn't have to. I do a couple of things that put me in this category - I am a landscape photographer, professional naturalist and educator at the University level, as well as a doctoral student in Environmental Studies. I work with very large still images on a professional basis (I made 500 16.7 megapixel images in a recent weekend, leading a University trip to Acadia National Park), but I'm not a professional video user (I do own a camcorder, but it's worth about 5% of what my still camera system costs). 3 GB of RAM is a pretty serious limit for large still images (mine open at 100 megabytes, and grow from there, as I add layers and interpolate up (with Genuine Fractals) to print at 16x24 - even without layers, my print-size files are 200 megs). I'm also increasingly worried about laptop cooling systems as I drive my computer hard...
I presently use a MacBook Pro 15" with an external 30" display and a load of external hard drives. I'm contemplating a Mac Pro (dual 2.66) somewhat unhappily instead of upgrading my laptop RAM from 2 gigs to 3 and adding yet another external drive. I'm not sure 3 gigs will be enough (Photoshop grabs every byte I have as soon as I start serious work right now), but I don't need dual Xeons or a 16 gig RAM capacity.
If only Apple would make a $1500 tower with a RAM limit in the 4-8 gig range, one fast Conroe (2.66 or2.93?) and decent capacity for internal storage, photographers would beat a path to their door... The features I don't like about the Mac Pro, apart from the price, are the extremely expensive RAM (it's literally twice as expensive as Precision 390 RAM) and the huge size - the thing is the size of a small pedestal server, which makes sense when you look at the hardware, because it IS a small pedestal server in almost every respect.
I just test-configured a Precision 390 to the specs that might make a decent Apple base configuration, and it was $1753 with a $200+ Quadro 550 graphics card (Dell only offers Quadro and FireGL graphics on that model, while Apple would probably allow a cheaper Radeon or GeForce).
For $1753, the competition is selling -
Conroe 2.66
1 GB RAM
250 GB SATA drive
Quadro 550XL
DVD burner
4 DIMM slots (regular ol' DIMMs, NOT FB-DIMM)
4 hard drive bays
Vista Business
Eliminate the Quadro, replace Vista with Tiger, and you have a seriously fast $1699 Mac with very good expandability (4 GB of RAM is a $200 upgrade, 8 GB is possible, but a $800 upgrade because of expensive 2 GB DIMMs) - hard drive expandability is the same as the Mac Pro.
Does Apple not make this $1700 computer in order to force people to buy a $2500 machine that takes overpriced RAM? The Mac Pro is actually a better deal (Apple's $2500 machine is $3000+ from Dell), but it would be nice to have the $800 cheaper option for those of us who don't need the monster.
Right now, Apple's product line runs
laptop derived(Mini)->laptop(MacBook)->laptop derived(iMac)->Laptop (MBP)->BIG workstation(Mac Pro.) There's room for a true desktop or small workstation for people who work their computer hard enough to worry about a laptop's expandability and cooling, but don't need a dual Xeon monster... Many of us are 34 year old photographers, NOT 17 year old gamers...
Does Apple not make this $1700 computer in order to force people to buy a $2500 machine that takes overpriced RAM?
Apple does it because they have a fanatical user base who, for the most part, will not question having to buy a workstation to get a desktop. For non-fanatic Mac users (specially those who can remember all the way back to the PPC days when we had these kind of systems) and switchers this presents a problem for both Apple and us. For Apple, they instead of gaining $1000 in extra sale, end up losing $1500 when the sale goes to either a PC or a second hand Mac.
The reason why Cube fail was simply becoz it was too expensive or does not offer that much value.
With recent tech like DTX size or BTX size Mb, discount from Intel on chips and dirt cheap DRAM surely 1K cube is feasible. And BTW the mini is EXTEMELY EXPENSIVE for its spec.
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.
You will have to prove to me that Apple gets 28% on each computer they sell. That's just silly, stop making stuff up.
Dell's margins on their workstation are higher than Apple's
For what possible reason would Apple not target those higher margins? The obvious answer is to promote sales. Your conjecture that Apple is doing it to maintain some mythical 28% margin across each product is wrong. You want evidence, explain the just announced quarters 35% margins.
Yes, I understand. Occam's razor and all.
Your arguments is another example of the shear unbelievable lengths to which the anti xMac posters have to go to in order to justify their rationalizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;
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.
You keep mentioning quantity price breaks that manufacturers get.
QUOTE THEM FOR CLARITY
Apple's laptops are quite competitvely priced, yet I do believe other manufacturer's volumes are higher. Wouldn't that mean that Apple again is sacrificing margins for sales?
Or would you have us believe that other manufacturer's margins are higher than Apple's for comparable laptops, but even then this would mean that Apple is sacrificying margins for sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;
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 had mid-priced VAIO towers. Just look at reviews for them in the 2000-2004 timeframe.
Vinea
OK, I believe you, Sony has had AIO for awhile. SO WHAT, it doesn't sell, it won't sell, the vast majority of consumers don't want it and in the Window's world there are plenty of options. This proves nothing.
Why they dropped towers is beyond me. Here's my pet theory. They are trying to more closely integrate their computer line-ups wtih there other product lines, camcorders, dvd players, stereo systems, TV's creating a natural synergy. So what, tens of millions of people are buying mid range towers that have more than acceptable margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I own a Powerbook and iMac, I like OS X, I know OS X, I like Final Cut Express. I accept Apple's pathological resistence to providing hardware that is consumer friendly.
What the anti xMac crowd does not seem to grasp is THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT IT, and when trying to capture market share, WHICH APPLE HAS STATED THEY WANT TO DO, they must conjole, attract, appeal to CURRENT WINDOWS USERS, that have not been limited to niche market AIO, ultra small Mac minis. By and large they have rejected them en mass.
Yes, Apple is doing awesome, I agree. They were also doing awesome with mind boggling margins in the 25 - 35% range, when they lost the computer and OS wars. In board meetings they laughed about the low margins of their competitors back then and I'm sure they are now.
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.
And your point?
I believe they bought them because there are people buying these computers that won't buy from Apple because Apple doesn't offer anything close. There is a market for a mid to upper level tower, just not for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea;
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.
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
As a matter of fact, I don't think Apple is milking the faithful. It's your reasoning that is backing up this argument. I happen to think that the iMac and the original G4 Mac mini were quite a good value for the money(re: currently the Mac mini isn't such a great deal with the Yonah, but that's another argument). THEY JUST ARE NICHE MARKET COMPUTERS.
And NO, Apple computers can not be compared to BMW, they now use the same industry standard insides that the other manufacturers use. More than ever, now since the switch to Intel. They just include more stuff in them than the stripped down versions the rest of the industry offers.
What can be considered BMW-like from Apple is the SOFTWARE, including OS X, iApps, Final Cut Express/Studio, etc.
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.
...
Vinea
Then why in the heck is Apple banging the drum in their advertisements on the virtues of Mac OS X over Windows?
Your attitude here is completely defeatist and negative, as is many of the anti xMac arguments. Almost to a poster, the advocates for an xMac are optimistic, having faith in Apple to provide a competitively priced product that might substantially increase Apple's desktop market share and not adversly effect profits.
As Oddball was oft to say," Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves.".
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.
Then let's talk about how a Mac prosumer tower would fit into Apple's product line, and not be so concerned about how it compares with its Windows counterparts.
First, a Mac mini tower would take no sales from the iMac because of price, when someone compares an iMac to a tower plus a display. An AIO will always be cheaper. I think most of us would agree with that.
A prosumer tower would take sales from the iMac, however, because not all shoppers will need a display too. In addition, there are those who prefer a tower to an AIO, and it doesn't matter why. These shoppers would buy the Mac mini tower if it were available. So why is this considered to be a bad thing? It is giving the customer a choice that he or she does not have today.
I think most of us know why Apple is following the AIO strategy, and not offering a mini tower. Apple, or Steve Jobs specifically, is determined to keep the sales of iMac as high as possible. It is his baby, and he's determined to make it succeed. Steve does a lot of brilliant things, but he also makes some stupid moves. Nobody's perfect.
Second, would a Mac prosumer tower sell enough to make it worthwhile? It's almost a joke to discuss this. Consumer and prosumer towers are the most popular forms of PC there are on the Windows side. To repeat what I've said at least twice now, when we move from Windows to Mac OS X, we don't suddenly change our hardware preferences. We simply look at what Macs are available, rather than what Dell and HP are doing.
Cost wise, a Mac mini tower could bridge the iMac price, and give customers a real choice. That is, the mini tower with a display would cost a little more than a comparable size iMac. Without the display, the tower would be cheaper. That is what I mean by bridging the iMac price.
Quote:
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.
Then, to begin with, Apple would not have to worry about a Mac mini tower robbing the Mac Pro of its sales. Regarding the price of Dells, since Mac users are not choosing between an Apple Mac and Dell, it doesn't matter what a Dell sells for. It would be for curiosity only.
one more thing and important thing about xMac or Mac Cube
we are living in two different ERA, IBM's PPC and intel's Core
there is enough space between Conroe (xMac) and Xeon processor (Mac Pro)
if price is rite, xMac will be successful compared to Mac Cube
It is time one of these could happen, Apple cannot just close one eye keep continuing
1. Conroe in iMac
2. xMac
3. worst still, put Conroe in Mac Pro and drop the price, xServe becomes Xeon class machines ( i do not exactly know the performance difference between Conroe Quads Versus Xeon Quads considering the price difference)
You will have to prove to me that Apple gets 28% on each computer they sell. That's just silly, stop making stuff up.
It was said at one of the quarterlies. I'll look for it later when I have a moment.
Quote:
Dell's margins on their workstation are higher than Apple's
For what possible reason would Apple not target those higher margins? The obvious answer is to promote sales. Your conjecture that Apple is doing it to maintain some mythical 28% margin across each product is wrong. You want evidence, explain the just announced quarters 35% margins.
The reason the margins were high is because component costs dropped and Apple didn't reduce price. They like thier prices and I presume the expect that when they do a rev of the hardware for leopard that the costs will go back to expected levels.
Most of the line up could use a refresh...certainly by the time Santa Rosa rolls in.
Quote:
You keep mentioning quantity price breaks that manufacturers get.
QUOTE THEM FOR CLARITY
Given that the specific numbers are trade secrets that would be difficult. However when there was that spat about Dell, special pricing, monopoly, etc with Intel eventually Intel said they only discount on volume, nothing else.
Quote:
Apple's laptops are quite competitvely priced, yet I do believe other manufacturer's volumes are higher. Wouldn't that mean that Apple again is sacrificing margins for sales?
Or would you have us believe that other manufacturer's margins are higher than Apple's for comparable laptops, but even then this would mean that Apple is sacrificying margins for sales.
Apple's margins for the notebooks it sells is on par with others. How many times do I have to repeat that the notebook market hasn't become a commodity market yet?
Note that Apple does not compete in the ultra-cheap notebook market. That market is growing quickly though. Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO.
Quote:
OK, I believe you, Sony has had AIO for awhile. SO WHAT, it doesn't sell, it won't sell, the vast majority of consumers don't want it and in the Window's world there are plenty of options. This proves nothing.
Why they dropped towers is beyond me. Here's my pet theory. They are trying to more closely integrate their computer line-ups wtih there other product lines, camcorders, dvd players, stereo systems, TV's creating a natural synergy. So what, tens of millions of people are buying mid range towers that have more than acceptable margins.
That integration, ease of use, etc were not compelling enough to sell towers at the rough prices we would expect Apple to sell towers at and at the margins Apple would expect to seel them.
As far as "acceptable" margins, Apple appears to disagree...along with IBM, Sony and Toshiba.
Quote:
What the anti xMac crowd does not seem to grasp is THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT IT, and when trying to capture market share, WHICH APPLE HAS STATED THEY WANT TO DO, they must conjole, attract, appeal to CURRENT WINDOWS USERS, that have not been limited to niche market AIO, ultra small Mac minis. By and large they have rejected them en mass.
Apple has been asked many times these last few quarters of bumper margins whether they would reduce margins to capture more share. Consistently they have said no, they are happy with current growth.
So Apple has stated they want capture more share. ON THEIR TERMS.
Quote:
Yes, Apple is doing awesome, I agree. They were also doing awesome with mind boggling margins in the 25 - 35% range, when they lost the computer and OS wars. In board meetings they laughed about the low margins of their competitors back then and I'm sure they are now.
At no time did Apple have commanding share. Apple vs IBM was a no win for Apple in the business market. The branding of IBM was far too strong in the business arena and their margins were no leaner than Apple's.
The markets that Apple had a shot in, they still are in today (content creation, edu, upper end consumer) with strong share numbers.
OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%
Don't worry about it. Everyone has done that before.
But yeah...expect your margins around the 13-18% region for Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, etc.
Apple can make about the same money with lower support and infrastructure costs and a smaller, more agile company. Great if you can do that...and without Jobs Apple was UNABLE to do that.
The guy has some quirks but overall I can live with them.
Then let's talk about how a Mac prosumer tower would fit into Apple's product line, and not be so concerned about how it compares with its Windows counterparts.
First, a Mac mini tower would take no sales from the iMac because of price, when someone compares an iMac to a tower plus a display. An AIO will always be cheaper. I think most of us would agree with that.
I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that Apple should have a prosumer tower in the price range of $1499-$1699. It is just my opinion is that the easiest way to offer such a tower is to simply have a single Xeon Mac Pro BTO.
With a really slooooow xeon you can get down into the $1250 range. If you agree that the xMac must always be more expensive than a comparable iMac then $1250 is at the bottom end of your range anyway given a $1250 xMac + $679 24" Dell WS display is less expensive than the 24" iMac.
This machine would offer prosumers with all the expansion possibilities they want except as a top end gamer platform.
I think a merom cube would do very well...I also doubt Apple would try a cube soon...a shame really.
Vinea
Sounds good to me. I have two large monitors on my desk now and can't use an iMac. What about a larger Mini - with all the goodies that an iMac has or more. It could be 1, 2, or more inches taller, but it could have the same footprint.
"Super Mini"; MiniPlus; Mini2; -whatever - with 'room' to grow with an 'Elegant" way to open like the MacPro. Sorry, just daydreaming.
That's all well and good for Apple and its' shareholders, of which I am one.
As to whether Apple cares to increase market share, well, that's another story completely. Most people looking to buy a computer that I know don't ask themselves how much profit Apple made as opposed to Dell or HP. They do check their wallet though and the Mac mini and iMac are form factors they are not familiar with on top of being very expensive.
Not in all cases. When I was a PC user, seeing designs like the iMac, Mac Mini, etc. upon wandering into an Apple Store are what grabbed my attention for the sheer fact that they WERE form factors I was unfamiliar with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.
Comments
I presently use a MacBook Pro 15" with an external 30" display and a load of external hard drives. I'm contemplating a Mac Pro (dual 2.66) somewhat unhappily instead of upgrading my laptop RAM from 2 gigs to 3 and adding yet another external drive. I'm not sure 3 gigs will be enough (Photoshop grabs every byte I have as soon as I start serious work right now), but I don't need dual Xeons or a 16 gig RAM capacity.
If only Apple would make a $1500 tower with a RAM limit in the 4-8 gig range, one fast Conroe (2.66 or2.93?) and decent capacity for internal storage, photographers would beat a path to their door... The features I don't like about the Mac Pro, apart from the price, are the extremely expensive RAM (it's literally twice as expensive as Precision 390 RAM) and the huge size - the thing is the size of a small pedestal server, which makes sense when you look at the hardware, because it IS a small pedestal server in almost every respect.
I just test-configured a Precision 390 to the specs that might make a decent Apple base configuration, and it was $1753 with a $200+ Quadro 550 graphics card (Dell only offers Quadro and FireGL graphics on that model, while Apple would probably allow a cheaper Radeon or GeForce).
For $1753, the competition is selling -
Conroe 2.66
1 GB RAM
250 GB SATA drive
Quadro 550XL
DVD burner
4 DIMM slots (regular ol' DIMMs, NOT FB-DIMM)
4 hard drive bays
Vista Business
Eliminate the Quadro, replace Vista with Tiger, and you have a seriously fast $1699 Mac with very good expandability (4 GB of RAM is a $200 upgrade, 8 GB is possible, but a $800 upgrade because of expensive 2 GB DIMMs) - hard drive expandability is the same as the Mac Pro.
Does Apple not make this $1700 computer in order to force people to buy a $2500 machine that takes overpriced RAM? The Mac Pro is actually a better deal (Apple's $2500 machine is $3000+ from Dell), but it would be nice to have the $800 cheaper option for those of us who don't need the monster.
Right now, Apple's product line runs
laptop derived(Mini)->laptop(MacBook)->laptop derived(iMac)->Laptop (MBP)->BIG workstation(Mac Pro.) There's room for a true desktop or small workstation for people who work their computer hard enough to worry about a laptop's expandability and cooling, but don't need a dual Xeon monster... Many of us are 34 year old photographers, NOT 17 year old gamers...
-Dan
Does Apple not make this $1700 computer in order to force people to buy a $2500 machine that takes overpriced RAM?
Apple does it because they have a fanatical user base who, for the most part, will not question having to buy a workstation to get a desktop. For non-fanatic Mac users (specially those who can remember all the way back to the PPC days when we had these kind of systems) and switchers this presents a problem for both Apple and us. For Apple, they instead of gaining $1000 in extra sale, end up losing $1500 when the sale goes to either a PC or a second hand Mac.
With recent tech like DTX size or BTX size Mb, discount from Intel on chips and dirt cheap DRAM surely 1K cube is feasible. And BTW the mini is EXTEMELY EXPENSIVE for its spec.
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.
You will have to prove to me that Apple gets 28% on each computer they sell. That's just silly, stop making stuff up.
Dell's margins on their workstation are higher than Apple's
For what possible reason would Apple not target those higher margins? The obvious answer is to promote sales. Your conjecture that Apple is doing it to maintain some mythical 28% margin across each product is wrong. You want evidence, explain the just announced quarters 35% margins.
Yes, I understand. Occam's razor and all.
Your arguments is another example of the shear unbelievable lengths to which the anti xMac posters have to go to in order to justify their rationalizations.
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.
You keep mentioning quantity price breaks that manufacturers get.
QUOTE THEM FOR CLARITY
Apple's laptops are quite competitvely priced, yet I do believe other manufacturer's volumes are higher. Wouldn't that mean that Apple again is sacrificing margins for sales?
Or would you have us believe that other manufacturer's margins are higher than Apple's for comparable laptops, but even then this would mean that Apple is sacrificying margins for sales.
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 had mid-priced VAIO towers. Just look at reviews for them in the 2000-2004 timeframe.
Vinea
OK, I believe you, Sony has had AIO for awhile. SO WHAT, it doesn't sell, it won't sell, the vast majority of consumers don't want it and in the Window's world there are plenty of options. This proves nothing.
Why they dropped towers is beyond me. Here's my pet theory. They are trying to more closely integrate their computer line-ups wtih there other product lines, camcorders, dvd players, stereo systems, TV's creating a natural synergy. So what, tens of millions of people are buying mid range towers that have more than acceptable margins.
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.
I own a Powerbook and iMac, I like OS X, I know OS X, I like Final Cut Express. I accept Apple's pathological resistence to providing hardware that is consumer friendly.
What the anti xMac crowd does not seem to grasp is THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT IT, and when trying to capture market share, WHICH APPLE HAS STATED THEY WANT TO DO, they must conjole, attract, appeal to CURRENT WINDOWS USERS, that have not been limited to niche market AIO, ultra small Mac minis. By and large they have rejected them en mass.
Yes, Apple is doing awesome, I agree. They were also doing awesome with mind boggling margins in the 25 - 35% range, when they lost the computer and OS wars. In board meetings they laughed about the low margins of their competitors back then and I'm sure they are now.
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.
And your point?
I believe they bought them because there are people buying these computers that won't buy from Apple because Apple doesn't offer anything close. There is a market for a mid to upper level tower, just not for Apple.
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.
er, um you might want to look at this http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4574045&EDATE=
From the article:
"Gross margins were 43% in the first quarter of 2007 compared to 36% in the year-ago
period and 42% in the previous quarter."
EVEN YOU MIGHT CONCEDE 43% IS NOT TOO SLIM.
OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%
Mkay. So what of IBM, Toshiba and Apple? No clearly these guys have no clue about the PC markets.
Vinea
Apparently not since they got out of the business.
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
As a matter of fact, I don't think Apple is milking the faithful. It's your reasoning that is backing up this argument. I happen to think that the iMac and the original G4 Mac mini were quite a good value for the money(re: currently the Mac mini isn't such a great deal with the Yonah, but that's another argument). THEY JUST ARE NICHE MARKET COMPUTERS.
And NO, Apple computers can not be compared to BMW, they now use the same industry standard insides that the other manufacturers use. More than ever, now since the switch to Intel. They just include more stuff in them than the stripped down versions the rest of the industry offers.
What can be considered BMW-like from Apple is the SOFTWARE, including OS X, iApps, Final Cut Express/Studio, etc.
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.
Prove it.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4574045&EDATE=
"Gross margins were 43% in the first quarter of 2007 compared to 36% in the year-ago
period and 42% in the previous quarter."
My evidence is above, were's your's?
OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%
...
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.
...
Vinea
Then why in the heck is Apple banging the drum in their advertisements on the virtues of Mac OS X over Windows?
Your attitude here is completely defeatist and negative, as is many of the anti xMac arguments. Almost to a poster, the advocates for an xMac are optimistic, having faith in Apple to provide a competitively priced product that might substantially increase Apple's desktop market share and not adversly effect profits.
As Oddball was oft to say," Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves.".
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.
Then let's talk about how a Mac prosumer tower would fit into Apple's product line, and not be so concerned about how it compares with its Windows counterparts.
First, a Mac mini tower would take no sales from the iMac because of price, when someone compares an iMac to a tower plus a display. An AIO will always be cheaper. I think most of us would agree with that.
A prosumer tower would take sales from the iMac, however, because not all shoppers will need a display too. In addition, there are those who prefer a tower to an AIO, and it doesn't matter why. These shoppers would buy the Mac mini tower if it were available. So why is this considered to be a bad thing? It is giving the customer a choice that he or she does not have today.
I think most of us know why Apple is following the AIO strategy, and not offering a mini tower. Apple, or Steve Jobs specifically, is determined to keep the sales of iMac as high as possible. It is his baby, and he's determined to make it succeed. Steve does a lot of brilliant things, but he also makes some stupid moves. Nobody's perfect.
Second, would a Mac prosumer tower sell enough to make it worthwhile? It's almost a joke to discuss this. Consumer and prosumer towers are the most popular forms of PC there are on the Windows side. To repeat what I've said at least twice now, when we move from Windows to Mac OS X, we don't suddenly change our hardware preferences. We simply look at what Macs are available, rather than what Dell and HP are doing.
Cost wise, a Mac mini tower could bridge the iMac price, and give customers a real choice. That is, the mini tower with a display would cost a little more than a comparable size iMac. Without the display, the tower would be cheaper. That is what I mean by bridging the iMac price.
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.
Then, to begin with, Apple would not have to worry about a Mac mini tower robbing the Mac Pro of its sales. Regarding the price of Dells, since Mac users are not choosing between an Apple Mac and Dell, it doesn't matter what a Dell sells for. It would be for curiosity only.
we are living in two different ERA, IBM's PPC and intel's Core
there is enough space between Conroe (xMac) and Xeon processor (Mac Pro)
if price is rite, xMac will be successful compared to Mac Cube
It is time one of these could happen, Apple cannot just close one eye keep continuing
1. Conroe in iMac
2. xMac
3. worst still, put Conroe in Mac Pro and drop the price, xServe becomes Xeon class machines ( i do not exactly know the performance difference between Conroe Quads Versus Xeon Quads considering the price difference)
Introducing the "Mac".
I personally think it should just be called "Mac".
Introducing the "Mac".
If you didn't have so few posts, I'd accuse you of trying to resurrect this older and long thread on the subject.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=65570
You will have to prove to me that Apple gets 28% on each computer they sell. That's just silly, stop making stuff up.
It was said at one of the quarterlies. I'll look for it later when I have a moment.
Dell's margins on their workstation are higher than Apple's
For what possible reason would Apple not target those higher margins? The obvious answer is to promote sales. Your conjecture that Apple is doing it to maintain some mythical 28% margin across each product is wrong. You want evidence, explain the just announced quarters 35% margins.
The reason the margins were high is because component costs dropped and Apple didn't reduce price. They like thier prices and I presume the expect that when they do a rev of the hardware for leopard that the costs will go back to expected levels.
Most of the line up could use a refresh...certainly by the time Santa Rosa rolls in.
You keep mentioning quantity price breaks that manufacturers get.
QUOTE THEM FOR CLARITY
Given that the specific numbers are trade secrets that would be difficult. However when there was that spat about Dell, special pricing, monopoly, etc with Intel eventually Intel said they only discount on volume, nothing else.
Apple's laptops are quite competitvely priced, yet I do believe other manufacturer's volumes are higher. Wouldn't that mean that Apple again is sacrificing margins for sales?
Or would you have us believe that other manufacturer's margins are higher than Apple's for comparable laptops, but even then this would mean that Apple is sacrificying margins for sales.
Apple's margins for the notebooks it sells is on par with others. How many times do I have to repeat that the notebook market hasn't become a commodity market yet?
Note that Apple does not compete in the ultra-cheap notebook market. That market is growing quickly though. Eventually Apple will exit the traditional notebook market IMHO.
OK, I believe you, Sony has had AIO for awhile. SO WHAT, it doesn't sell, it won't sell, the vast majority of consumers don't want it and in the Window's world there are plenty of options. This proves nothing.
Why they dropped towers is beyond me. Here's my pet theory. They are trying to more closely integrate their computer line-ups wtih there other product lines, camcorders, dvd players, stereo systems, TV's creating a natural synergy. So what, tens of millions of people are buying mid range towers that have more than acceptable margins.
That integration, ease of use, etc were not compelling enough to sell towers at the rough prices we would expect Apple to sell towers at and at the margins Apple would expect to seel them.
As far as "acceptable" margins, Apple appears to disagree...along with IBM, Sony and Toshiba.
What the anti xMac crowd does not seem to grasp is THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT IT, and when trying to capture market share, WHICH APPLE HAS STATED THEY WANT TO DO, they must conjole, attract, appeal to CURRENT WINDOWS USERS, that have not been limited to niche market AIO, ultra small Mac minis. By and large they have rejected them en mass.
Apple has been asked many times these last few quarters of bumper margins whether they would reduce margins to capture more share. Consistently they have said no, they are happy with current growth.
So Apple has stated they want capture more share. ON THEIR TERMS.
Yes, Apple is doing awesome, I agree. They were also doing awesome with mind boggling margins in the 25 - 35% range, when they lost the computer and OS wars. In board meetings they laughed about the low margins of their competitors back then and I'm sure they are now.
At no time did Apple have commanding share. Apple vs IBM was a no win for Apple in the business market. The branding of IBM was far too strong in the business arena and their margins were no leaner than Apple's.
The markets that Apple had a shot in, they still are in today (content creation, edu, upper end consumer) with strong share numbers.
Vinea
OPPS - I STAND CORRECTED I LINKED TO THE WRONG ARITCLE. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.
IT IS FOR AsiaInfo's OF WHICH LENOVO IT SOFTWARE IS ONLY PART.
MY MISTAKE, I'LL TAKE MY LUMPS NOW. LENOVO'S GROSS MARGINS WERE IN FACT ONLY 13.5%
Don't worry about it. Everyone has done that before.
But yeah...expect your margins around the 13-18% region for Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, etc.
Apple can make about the same money with lower support and infrastructure costs and a smaller, more agile company. Great if you can do that...and without Jobs Apple was UNABLE to do that.
The guy has some quirks but overall I can live with them.
Vinea
one more thing and important thing about xMac or Mac Cube
I think a merom cube would do very well...I also doubt Apple would try a cube soon...a shame really.
Vinea
Then let's talk about how a Mac prosumer tower would fit into Apple's product line, and not be so concerned about how it compares with its Windows counterparts.
First, a Mac mini tower would take no sales from the iMac because of price, when someone compares an iMac to a tower plus a display. An AIO will always be cheaper. I think most of us would agree with that.
I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that Apple should have a prosumer tower in the price range of $1499-$1699. It is just my opinion is that the easiest way to offer such a tower is to simply have a single Xeon Mac Pro BTO.
With a really slooooow xeon you can get down into the $1250 range. If you agree that the xMac must always be more expensive than a comparable iMac then $1250 is at the bottom end of your range anyway given a $1250 xMac + $679 24" Dell WS display is less expensive than the 24" iMac.
This machine would offer prosumers with all the expansion possibilities they want except as a top end gamer platform.
Vinea
I think a merom cube would do very well...I also doubt Apple would try a cube soon...a shame really.
Vinea
Sounds good to me. I have two large monitors on my desk now and can't use an iMac. What about a larger Mini - with all the goodies that an iMac has or more. It could be 1, 2, or more inches taller, but it could have the same footprint.
"Super Mini"; MiniPlus; Mini2; -whatever - with 'room' to grow with an 'Elegant" way to open like the MacPro. Sorry, just daydreaming.
That's all well and good for Apple and its' shareholders, of which I am one.
As to whether Apple cares to increase market share, well, that's another story completely. Most people looking to buy a computer that I know don't ask themselves how much profit Apple made as opposed to Dell or HP. They do check their wallet though and the Mac mini and iMac are form factors they are not familiar with on top of being very expensive.
Not in all cases. When I was a PC user, seeing designs like the iMac, Mac Mini, etc. upon wandering into an Apple Store are what grabbed my attention for the sheer fact that they WERE form factors I was unfamiliar with. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.