See above. The PC and Mac markets are not necessarily the same. In this case Apple is competing against itself more than the PC makers. This is one reason they simplified the product matrix years ago. Remember the iMac/iMac SE/iMacDV/iMacDV+ (or whatever) fiasco? Or the iBook SE? They started cannibalizing their own products. That is why you won't see a midpro tower. It will hurt Mac Pro sales AND iMac sales.
and it will boost sales of appple Displays and get them sales form people who don't want all in ones and need more power then the mini has also haveing the mac pro at $2000 with high cost ram will not be hurt by a $600 and up desktop system.
Whoah. You have completely gone off-base with that one. Just because PCs are headless, so to speak, that doesn't mean that 1) People "want" them to be like that nor 2) Apple wants to make them or 3) There will be real market for them as compared to the Mac Pro and iMac.
I think we're supporting opposite sides with the same argument. PC makers don't make many all-in-ones but that doesn't mean people don't want them vs Apple don't make a reasonably priced, powerful headless Mac and that doesn't mean people don't want one.
As I say, Apple just have to give it a go and we'll find out and not in the half-assed way they did with the G4 cube. It's not as if it's going to ruin them financially like the iphone will.
Mac Mini sales are good compared to the other machines and i think taking the next step will just be for the better, I'm not sure they would even conflict because people clearly either prefer one design or the other:
For point 2, Apple might not want to make them but I'd imagine they like making money so if it's what people want then i don't see why not.
For point 3, it's not just people at AI who want these, I meet PC users all the time who want a small desktop. They are initially blown away by both the iMac and Mini but the mini is underpowered (no dual display either) and they aren't keen on the built-in display model for repairs and also the price of the iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
95% of the market or so is Windows based, so I guess by your logic 95% of the users out there "want" a PC and not a Mac too?
Well obviously not all of them will make a conscious decision to pick one over the other, a lot of people go with the crowd but there are lots of people who prefer the PC model. Some people I work with who are pretty much computer illiterate are quite annoyed at being forced to use a Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
They started cannibalizing their own products. That is why you won't see a midpro tower. It will hurt Mac Pro sales AND iMac sales.
I don't think so. At the end of the day, I can't afford a Mac Pro and I don't want an iMac (though I might if they redesign it) so I end up with a crippled Mini. I would have paid Apple more if they had an option I wanted. Instead they make whatever low profit margin they put on the Mini.
If people don't have the money, they will simply say Macs are too expensive and go with a PC. About 5 people I know who now own PCs have said that. If every Mac user knows a similar 5 people who have the same opinion then that's clearly why Apple's market share is so low. They are not listening to what people really want, they are targeting a niche market and are missing out on a larger market for fear that they will lose sales in that niche market? That doesn't make sense. As I say, different people want different types of machine.
I want headless because I don't want to pay more money for a display when I have one. Whereas my aunt wants an iMac after switching from a PC because of the style (one cable no fuss). There are two needs here and Apple cater for one. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
How about this for my turn: F*** off. How about that?
1st, you don't need to used those words. You can simply say that you don't agree, had no proof, but there's no way organization like Apple don't conduct...
Anyway, I didn't intended to post here, because like it has been said it's the 10,000,000th thread about the xMac. A lot have been already said. But stop comparing what happened in the 90s with some people here wanting a xMac, nobody has asked for customized/Personalized/with-your-name-engraved Macs for each and every mid-tower fans. Things have changed?.
1- It is very difficult to differentiate models when you have only a couple of different cpus/architectures and few clock speeds to work with (G3/G4/G5 era). Now with Intel you can have really specific cpus with more speed ranges that fit different kind of computers: Low and Ultra Low voltage cpus, mobile cpus, desktop cpus of various kinds, workstation/server cpus. Right now Apple only uses 2 of them (mobile and ws/server). Given that the desktop cpus (Conroe/Kentsfield) are good chips powerful and cheap, anyone in his right mind can wonder why Apple isn't using them. Nor why they are not even offering LV cpu options for their current MB and MBPs for the users that may need more autonomy...
2- This thread is based on the rumor of the end of the Mac mini and I'd extend it to the end of the 17" iMac (if this one rumor is also true). Thats leaves a huge hole to fill: the $499-$1299 price range. That some people think it could be filled with a SFF Mac that fits the previous talks about a midrange headless Mac, is understandable.
3- I realized a few days ago that, in fact, Apple is offering less different models than a couple of years ago (before the switch to Intel) while a lot of people thought that going Intel will bring more models. BEFORE INTEL: 5 different notebooks (12 and 14" iBook and 12, 15 and 17" PowerBook), AFTER INTEL just 3 different notebooks (13" MB -- black doesn't count as a model in my book --, 15 and 17" MBP). On the desktop side, we lost a single core powermac (early G5 model) but have now a 24" iMac.
4- I don't know who Apple is talking to when they conduct those surveys, but in markets close to Apple (creative: audio, video, design, photo...) people have been switching to PCs for a long time (years), and my understanding of that (but I could be wrong) is that they can have the same power they need from midrange PCs that cost half the price of a Mac Pro (or PowerMac) at the time. Since most of the creative Pro Apps exist on the PC as well as the Mac (ProTools, Avid, Adobe...) it's not uncommon to see (in a pro recording studio for example) 1 big PM or MP and a multitude of smaller midrange PCs that can be upgraded regularly and then replaced by newer (Conroe-based) when too old.
5- Don't get me wrong, the MP is a wonderful machine, but not everybody has that kind of money for one computer, let alone for equipping a entire office. Last quaterly reports showed that the sweet spot for a Mac is around $1400, that's what most people are paying for a Mac (average), so I don't agree with Vinea when he says that most people would be satisfied with a MP or MBP: they don't want or can't spend that much money for one computer.
6- Yes there may be some sales stolen from the Mac Pro (and other Macs) if Apple releases a better priced tower, but it may also attract people who wouldn't buy a Mac within the current lineup, who knows? I think that Apple, being healthy right now and having access to all the technology and parts at very good prices, should expand their offering, one at a time, a desktop model here, another notebook form factor there, maybe a tablet-style next year, just to cover, better than they do today, most of the type of usage/customer/needs in the market.
1.6M machines is pretty good with sales increasing 36%.
Quote:
Almost no one is advocating low margin towers.
Both margins and ASPs are important. While lower cost towers may not be low margin they will reduce Apple ASPs.
Quote:
If so then why did Dell buy an boutique high margin tower maker?
Alienware moved less than 50K machines per year. Reasonably nice revenue of $100M with ASPs in the $3K range in 2005 (translating to about 35K machines).
The question is why did Alienware sell out? To have the money needed to grow beyond 50K/year according to the CEO. The implication is bootstraping was going to be a long long process selling into a niche gamer market.
Why did Dell buy in 2006? At the time they were an easy way to have AMD gaming rigs and Dell wanted a premium gaming brand.
Tell me why Sony dropped desktops? And IBM, Toshiba, and pretty much everyone else that were a premium PC maker? I think I found one company (Fujitsu? Now I forget) that still sold towers in the US but only by calling their sales office.
Quote:
????? Satifafaction with the existing Apple lines has little to do with how many additional computers Apple could sell to satisfied xMac customers and at what profit.
How many is the part under debate. Apple appears to feel that its not enough to justify elimination of their AIO and SFF lines. When the market conditions change I would expect Apple to offer a lower priced tower. Frankly I expect one in the $1699 price range +/- $100 sooner or later.
$999? Not too likely. $1200? Possible for a cube...$1400 more likely. Tack on 26-30% margins on a tower and you end up in Sony VAIO tower price range. Those sold...poorly. OSX isn't going to be THAT much a tower sales driver given the shift to notebooks anyway.
So you'd end up with lower ASPs even if you maintained margins. Personally, I think Apple towers below the Mac Pro will get reviewed as "overpriced and underpowered".
Both margins and ASPs are important. While lower cost towers may not be low margin they will reduce Apple ASPs.
I'd like to comment on a couple things.
By ASP I assume you mean average selling price. If a cheaper Mac tower only took sales away from the Mac Pro and iMacs, then a Mac mini tower would be a bad idea. ASP would be down, dropping overall desktop revenue. But this is not what many of us see happening.
The argument is that a lower priced and smaller Mac tower would attract new customers to the Mac platform, and also generate more new sales to existing Mac users, who now purchase towers from eBay, or are making do with their older Macs.
Quote:
How many is the part under debate. Apple appears to feel that its not enough to justify elimination of their AIO and SFF lines.
I don't think anyone advocates elimination of the iMac. We may debate why the iMac sells and the Windows AIOs do not, but we don't want it to go away. It's a cool Mac, but not for all of us.
Quote:
When the market conditions change I would expect Apple to offer a lower priced tower. Frankly I expect one in the $1699 price range +/- $100 sooner or later.
$999? Not too likely. $1200? Possible for a cube...$1400 more likely.
. . . Personally, I think Apple towers below the Mac Pro will get reviewed as "overpriced and underpowered".
This is the heart of the debate on what to build. I personally would like to see a $999 mini tower, at the low end, but typical configurations going for $1400. I see no reason it would be "overpriced and underpowered."
$999? Not too likely. $1200? Possible for a cube...$1400 more likely.
No way will it be that expensive. If you consider the 20" iMac. It should be dropping in price when the new ones come out to about $999 I would suspect. If you take the insides out and remove the screen (-$300) then you get a machine you can build for $699.
If they used some desktop parts, it would be even cheaper. They could easily cover the range $499-$999 with upgrades. Then there could be three iMacs ranging from $999 for 20" with GMA (X3100) to $2000 for a 30". Then we jump into Mac Pro territory that starts at $2200 upwards.
. . . consider the 20" iMac. . . . take the insides out and remove the screen. . . . used some desktop parts. [Apple] could easily cover the range $499-$999 with upgrades.
To get that low in price, it would have onboard graphics and no way to install a better graphics card -- no PCIe slots. Strictly a Mac Mini replacement that could make a nice home computer or general purpose office computer.
However, some of use want better performance, but don't want a professional workstation. Apple needs both in its desktop (below workstation) line of Macs.
The iMac is in a class by itself and has much appeal to many Mac users, but I think Apple needs to stop trying to make it the universal desktop for anyone who does not need a Mac Pro.
Here are a couple ways Apple could do it:
A) A single mini tower with two motherboard options. One would cover the $499 to $899 range, with onboard graphics and no PCI slots. The other with PCIe slots, and a good graphics card selection. It would cover the price range of $999 to $1899. The tower enclosures may have cosmetic differences to distinguish them from each other.
Two separate products. One would be smaller, but at least twice the size of a Mac Mini. Maybe a flat box so a Cinema display could be set on top of it. The other a mini tower, with 3 PCIe slots, a good selection of graphics cards, two HDD bays and hopefully two optical drive bays.
Two separate products. One would be smaller, but at least twice the size of a Mac Mini. Maybe a flat box so a Cinema display could be set on top of it. The other a mini tower, with 3 PCIe slots, a good selection of graphics cards, two HDD bays and hopefully two optical drive bays.
Your second product would absolutely kill what's left of Mac Pro sales, although it wouldn't bother me. 95% of those now being forced to buy a Mac Pro would buy it instead. I don't see that happening. You might as well just expect Apple to drop the price $1000 on the Mac Pro.
If we're to hope for a headless Mac that is better than the mini, it will be just that; better than the mini but not good enough to kill Mac Pro sales. More reasonable specs like one PCIe slot, one full size HD, a removable graphics card and more memory slots would satisfy me. And even that would impact Mac Pro sales.
If we're to hope for a headless Mac that is better than the mini, it will be just that; better than the mini but not good enough to kill Mac Pro sales. More reasonable specs like one PCIe slot, one full size HD, a removable graphics card and more memory slots would satisfy me. And even that would impact Mac Pro sales.
That's pretty much what I am looking for. A real graphics card in a PCIe Slot, one extra PCIe slot, two RAM slots are actually fine with me but four would be great and possibly one extra Slot for a CD/DVD/HD/Whatever drive.
Removing the monitor would remove around half the cost of the machine and you could make that up with the added stuff and bump up the specs a bit. So really you are looking at a headless lineup that probably falls slightly below the iMacs in cost but scales up to the cost of the higher-end iMac.
Would it canabalize iMac and Pro sales? Likely. However my feeling is they would make up the loss in sales to new users. Or like me old users who don't care to buy a new mac because of thier current offerings. I don't have any hard evidence to back that up of course :P But it's the only thing that would get me to buy a Mac again unless I find myself in need a notebook.
That's pretty much what I am looking for. A real graphics card in a PCIe Slot, one extra PCIe slot, two RAM slots are actually fine with me but four would be great and possibly one extra Slot for a CD/DVD/HD/Whatever drive.
I think that one PCIe with a removable graphics card and two slots would keep the size down. Two slots would still let you get 4GB Ram and nobody who wants a mini tower should need more. 4x1GB is cheaper but I think the majority of people wanting this type of machine would only go to 2GB. I agree with the extra slot for a second HD or optical drive. I have both an external optical and HD and it would actually cut down my desktop clutter if the computer was big enough to accomodate one of them. I'd probably go with the optical drive as I like to keep my second backup drive external and offline but copying DVDs can be done on an internal drive.
I honestly don't think that if they made a small tower with Core 2 Duo chips that it would affect the quad workstations with 1GHz+ front side buses. It would still be consumer level with 800MHz fsb and dual core chips.
If you take the spec in the iMac:
1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo
GMA
512MB Ram
80GB drive
combo drive
$999
Now take off the LCD screen, use a desktop HD and we save $300 so we get $699 starting price. 2GHz model at $849. 2.4Ghz $999.
Then add everything else like Ram, HD upgrades, GPU as BTO. Naturally they wouldn't offer workstation cards like the X1900 or quadro cards but consumer-level cards thereby again clearly marking a distinction between pro and consumer and not affecting the pro machines.
If the mini is $599, they would have to get close to that as a starting price and given that they can meet that price with the Mini and make a profit, it is most certainly possible.
Now take off the LCD screen, use a desktop HD and we save $300 so we get $699 starting price. 2GHz model at $849. 2.4Ghz $999.
Then add everything else like Ram, HD upgrades, GPU as BTO. Naturally they wouldn't offer workstation cards like the X1900 or quadro cards but consumer-level cards thereby again clearly marking a distinction between pro and consumer and not affecting the pro machines.
If the mini is $599, they would have to get close to that as a starting price and given that they can meet that price with the Mini and make a profit, it is most certainly possible.
The x1900 is older high end gaming card not a workstation one.
apple should put high end gaming cards in the mid-tower.
How about this for my turn: Fuck off. How about that? There is no way there are going to be available links to Apple Market Research studies. Secondly, you're telling me that Apple...one of the largest consumer electronics/computer companies in the world with billions of dollars in assets and inventory....doesn't do market research? Then, you offer those quotes that are out of context and purely anecdotal as "proof" for your bullshit assertion? Wow.
1.6M machines is pretty good with sales increasing 36%.
Here are the last few numbers of desktops that Apple has sold, drawn from Apples Quarterly Reports.
Quarterly Report-----Desktops
12/25/2004----------623
03/26/2005----------608
06/25/2005----------687
12/31/2005----------667
04/01/2006----------614
07/01/2006----------529
12/30/2006----------637
03/31/2007----------626
(Note: the most recent quarter reported is only 3,000 units more than the 12/25/04 quarter.)
I don't see a 36% increase. If anything this only accentuates the astounding laptop sales that Apple has had. No, desktop sales aren't increasing at the same rate as laptops for the industry, but they are increasing overall, just not for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Both margins and ASPs are important. While lower cost towers may not be low margin they will reduce Apple ASPs.
Both the iMac and Mac mini use expensive laptop parts. Trade the laptop parts out, make a good desktop mid to upper range desktops and margins and dollar profits remain the same IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Alienware moved less than 50K machines per year. Reasonably nice revenue of $100M with ASPs in the $3K range in 2005 (translating to about 35K machines).
The question is why did Alienware sell out? To have the money needed to grow beyond 50K/year according to the CEO. The implication is bootstraping was going to be a long long process selling into a niche gamer market.
Why did Dell buy in 2006? At the time they were an easy way to have AMD gaming rigs and Dell wanted a premium gaming brand.
Or it could be that Dell is trying to gain market share in the more lucrative mid to upper end of the desktop sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Tell me why Sony dropped desktops? And IBM, Toshiba, and pretty much everyone else that were a premium PC maker? I think I found one company (Fujitsu? Now I forget) that still sold towers in the US but only by calling their sales office.
Because Sony is run by the content managers and has been mismanaged and now is focusing on the living room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
How many is the part under debate. Apple appears to feel that its not enough to justify elimination of their AIO and SFF lines. When the market conditions change I would expect Apple to offer a lower priced tower. Frankly I expect one in the $1699 price range +/- $100 sooner or later.
$999? Not too likely. $1200? Possible for a cube...$1400 more likely. Tack on 26-30% margins on a tower and you end up in Sony VAIO tower price range. Those sold...poorly. OSX isn't going to be THAT much a tower sales driver given the shift to notebooks anyway.
So you'd end up with lower ASPs even if you maintained margins. Personally, I think Apple towers below the Mac Pro will get reviewed as "overpriced and underpowered".
Vinea
Who knows, Apple should try something to gain desktop market share.
Here are the last few numbers of desktops that Apple has sold, drawn from Apples Quarterly Reports.
Quarterly Report-----Desktops
12/25/2004----------623
03/26/2005----------608
06/25/2005----------687
12/31/2005----------667
04/01/2006----------614
07/01/2006----------529
12/30/2006----------637
03/31/2007----------626
(Note: the most recent quarter reported is only 3,000 units more than the 12/25/04 quarter.)
600K is greater than Alienware's 30-50K.
Quote:
I don't see a 36% increase. If anything this only accentuates the astounding laptop sales that Apple has had. No, desktop sales aren't increasing at the same rate as laptops for the industry, but they are increasing overall, just not for Apple.
Never said they did. You said that Apple's volume was spit. 1.6M is not spit. I don't give a hoot whether it's desktops or laptops.
Quote:
Both the iMac and Mac mini use expensive laptop parts. Trade the laptop parts out, make a good desktop mid to upper range desktops and margins and dollar profits remain the same IMHO.
Still avoiding the issue of revenue and ASPs.
Quote:
Or it could be that Dell is trying to gain market share in the more lucrative mid to upper end of the desktop sales.
By adding a meager 30K desktop/laptop sales? That's one of the dumbest comments in this thread. I have no clue why Dell bought Alienware but it sure as hell wasn't for market share. Who knows what they were thinking...they weren't exactly executing very well when they bought out Alienware.
Quote:
Because Sony is run by the content managers and has been mismanaged and now is focusing on the living room.
And Toshiba and IBM? Or maybe its because there's no flipping market.
Quote:
Who knows, Apple should try something to gain desktop market share.
Apple knows and hasn't done it. Maybe when Leopard rolls out we'll see the hardware changes we've been expecting because the current releases have been rather meager.
If a cheaper Mac tower only took sales away from the Mac Pro and iMacs, then a Mac mini tower would be a bad idea. ASP would be down, dropping overall desktop revenue. But this is not what many of us see happening.
Apple apparently disagrees. Also Sony, Toshiba and IBM disagree there is a market for boutique towers in the price ranges you're talking about.
So lets see...either 4 large companies have performed zero market research and steadfastly ignores a huge potential market or you guys are wrong.
Quote:
The argument is that a lower priced and smaller Mac tower would attract new customers to the Mac platform, and also generate more new sales to existing Mac users, who now purchase towers from eBay, or are making do with their older Macs.
Hopefully more than the meager 30K units of both laptops and desktops that Alienware produced prior to being bought by Dell.
Quote:
I don't think anyone advocates elimination of the iMac. We may debate why the iMac sells and the Windows AIOs do not, but we don't want it to go away. It's a cool Mac, but not for all of us.
Yeah right. Offer a xMac tower that you folks have been describing for $999 and the iMac is dead as a doornail. This argument is just so disingenuous because you want things both ways.
Quote:
This is the heart of the debate on what to build. I personally would like to see a $999 mini tower, at the low end, but typical configurations going for $1400. I see no reason it would be "overpriced and underpowered."
Of course it will be overpriced and underpowered. No $999-$1499 desktop machine commands 28%+ margins except for oddball ones like AIOs and SFFs machines (ie iMac and Mini).
Build a $999 tower with 28% margins and the equivalent Dell or HP will be 10% better at 10% less cost or simply 20% cheaper. This isn't factoring in the higher build quality that Apple MUST have to maintain branding vs Dell and HP.
How this is hard to accept is beyond me. Do you guys really think that HP and Dell are incompetent in their own market segments because their high end offerings are only so-so? Get a flipping grip.
Never said they did. You said that Apple's volume was spit. 1.6M is not spit. I don't give a hoot whether it's desktops or laptops.Vinea
I guess no one else but Alienware sells computers for consumers in the $799 to >$3000 range with a single Conroe cpu with slots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Still avoiding the issue of revenue and ASPs.Vinea
No, I spelled it out quite clearly. The extra expense in using laptop parts in a desktop likely would make the difference up for Apple to maintain margins and dollar profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
By adding a meager 30K desktop/laptop sales? That's one of the dumbest comments in this thread. I have no clue why Dell bought Alienware but it sure as hell wasn't for market share. Who knows what they were thinking...they weren't exactly executing very well when they bought out Alienware.Vinea
What does Alienwares sales volume have anything to do with Apple's. There were more companies than Alienware selling high end consumer desktops. And they don't run Mac OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
And Toshiba and IBM? Or maybe its because there's no flipping market.Vinea
Over 255 million computers were sold last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple knows and hasn't done it. Maybe when Leopard rolls out we'll see the hardware changes we've been expecting because the current releases have been rather meager.
Server burped and lost the response....here's the short version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
I guess no one else but Alienware sells computers for consumers in the $799 to >$3000 range with a single Conroe cpu with slots.
You cited Alienware as an example of a high end maker. 30K sales is hardly significant as an example.
Quote:
No, I spelled it out quite clearly. The extra expense in using laptop parts in a desktop likely would make the difference up for Apple to maintain margins and dollar profits.
Not without massively increasing sales...which isn't a given. Even Sony can sell into a heathy market. That they slashed everything but an AIO and a SFF from their desktop lines is something you guys have yet to have a real rebuttal for other than "Sony Sucks!".
Quote:
What does Alienwares sales volume have anything to do with Apple's. There were more companies than Alienware selling high end consumer desktops. And they don't run Mac OS X.
Fine...name them and their unit sales. Are they over 600K sales? Because by slashing ASPs in half you need to double sales just to stay even. That's ignoring that you end up with double the support calls you need to handle.
OSX is great. Of course, even within the notebook market that greatness isn't doubling mac sales.
and it will boost sales of appple Displays and get them sales form people who don't want all in ones and need more power then the mini has also haveing the mac pro at $2000 with high cost ram will not be hurt by a $600 and up desktop system.
Joe, meet Mr. Punctuation. May you be happy together for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think we're supporting opposite sides with the same argument. PC makers don't make many all-in-ones but that doesn't mean people don't want them vs Apple don't make a reasonably priced, powerful headless Mac and that doesn't mean people don't want one.
But they don't make them for a reason. It's not like they haven't tried.
Quote:
As I say, Apple just have to give it a go and we'll find out and not in the half-assed way they did with the G4 cube. It's not as if it's going to ruin them financially like the iphone will.
I wouldn't say it was half-assed. It just was overpriced, had heat issues, cracking, etc. It wasn't compelling.
Edit: Oh, and I'd say the iphone is going to be huge.
Quote:
Mac Mini sales are good compared to the other machines and i think taking the next step will just be for the better, I'm not sure they would even conflict because people clearly either prefer one design or the other:
Mac Mini sales are not doing well overall (or as well as they were) so much so that AI claims they are going to be shelved. The mini did well when it was cheaper. Not so much now.
For point 2, Apple might not want to make them but I'd imagine they like making money so if it's what people want then i don't see why not.
For point 3, it's not just people at AI who want these, I meet PC users all the time who want a small desktop. They are initially blown away by both the iMac and Mini but the mini is underpowered (no dual display either) and they aren't keen on the built-in display model for repairs and also the price of the iMac.
1. (or 2, whatever): If people really want them en masse, they'll make them. But AI is not exactly a good indicator of that.
2. That's purely anecdotal. Apple also has to be careful. Right now the desktops are priced like this:
Mini 599-799
iMac 999-1999. Let's bag the 17incher for now and call it $1499-1999.
Mac Pro: $2200-$14,000,000,0000
So let's look at where a Midpro tower fits in. Assuming the mini was kept in the lineup, we'll leave that at an average of $700. The iMac comes with a monitor built-in for a about $1500.
What are you going to charge for this machine without a monitor? It would have to be around $1500. Now you're going to have to make some serious cuts from the Mac Pro in order to get that. Let's start with a single C2D processor, like the iMac. We'll also do a little bit less with the graphics and HD. We'll do a 160GB HD and the bottom of the line Mac Pro card, the Nvidia Geforce. We'll knock down the drive bays to 2, and the expansion slots to 2 (from 4).
Now, you want that machine? I mean, it's what you want I guess...a headless expandable iMac. But to save the $700 (and I think that's generous) you're going to have to reduce the specs to what I stated. Remember, the quad core Mac Pro is only $2200. Oh, and of course you still have to add a monitor for at least $600. So there you have it: A slightly better-than-iMac machine without the convenience of the AIO design, all for $2100 before upgrades. I can't see anyone being happy with that option.
Quote:
Well obviously not all of them will make a conscious decision to pick one over the other, a lot of people go with the crowd but there are lots of people who prefer the PC model. Some people I work with who are pretty much computer illiterate are quite annoyed at being forced to use a Mac.
Well obviously. The point is you made an invalid comparison. You said that 95% (or whatever) of people use the PC model, therefore Apple should release a mid pro tower. That's what I'm taking issue with. Yes, I agree that there are people who are annoyed at using a Mac, but it's not because some of them are AIOs. It's because of the differences in the OS and them not being used to it. It's because of different software, etc.
Quote:
I don't think so. At the end of the day, I can't afford a Mac Pro and I don't want an iMac (though I might if they redesign it) so I end up with a crippled Mini. I would have paid Apple more if they had an option I wanted. Instead they make whatever low profit margin they put on the Mini.
Then save for a Mac pro. See, it's exactly my point....you're really just complaining about the price of the Mac pro...it's not that you want what you think you do. And remember what I said. It would be maybe a $700 difference at most. Probably far less. The kind of machine you're talking about would, knowing Apple's pricing schemes, likely be closer to $1700 or $1800. Save for another six months and get the Mac Pro. Or buy a last generation one used. Here's a nice one with a display. I'm just sayin'...
If people don't have the money, they will simply say Macs are too expensive and go with a PC. About 5 people I know who now own PCs have said that. If every Mac user knows a similar 5 people who have the same opinion then that's clearly why Apple's market share is so low. They are not listening to what people really want, they are targeting a niche market and are missing out on a larger market for fear that they will lose sales in that niche market? That doesn't make sense. As I say, different people want different types of machine.
Off base and totally anecdotal. In fact, it's worse...it's hypothetically anecdotal. . No offense. What is the motivation for this hypothetical PC user to not choose a Mac? You can't tell me it's just price. They will realize that there are other options, specifically the iMac. Any truly budget minded consumer is going to go for that option anyway. The power user is not going to be upset with the Mac pro price.
As to Apple's market share: It's climbing steadily, and sales are really doing well across the board. Apple's niche strategy (or consumer strategy as I'd prefer to call it) has revived the company and made it into a force to be reckoned with once again. Apple has done well specifically because they have NOT embraced the kind of thinking you're championing.
Quote:
I want headless because I don't want to pay more money for a display when I have one. Whereas my aunt wants an iMac after switching from a PC because of the style (one cable no fuss). There are two needs here and Apple cater for one. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Then buy a Mac Pro. It's the machine you want and feel you need. As I said, buy one used if you have to. Don't tell me it's Apple's fault because you can't afford what you want. I'd love to be able to buy a Lexus for $30,000 new, but I generally can't. You don't hear me bitching that they should release something cheaper just so I can buy it. Sorry to be harsh...but this is what it sounds like to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
1st, you don't need to used those words. You can simply say that you don't agree, had no proof, but there's no way organization like Apple don't conduct...
He was being a dick. I'll use what words I feel appropriate.
Quote:
Anyway, I didn't intended to post here, because like it has been said it's the 10,000,000th thread about the xMac. A lot have been already said. But stop comparing what happened in the 90s with some people here wanting a xMac, nobody has asked for customized/Personalized/with-your-name-engraved Macs for each and every mid-tower fans. Things have changed™.
This thread comes back over and over and over. Like every 90 days. Enough.
Quote:
1- It is very difficult to differentiate models when you have only a couple of different cpus/architectures and few clock speeds to work with (G3/G4/G5 era). Now with Intel you can have really specific cpus with more speed ranges that fit different kind of computers: Low and Ultra Low voltage cpus, mobile cpus, desktop cpus of various kinds, workstation/server cpus. Right now Apple only uses 2 of them (mobile and ws/server). Given that the desktop cpus (Conroe/Kentsfield) are good chips powerful and cheap, anyone in his right mind can wonder why Apple isn't using them. Nor why they are not even offering LV cpu options for their current MB and MBPs for the users that may need more autonomy...
They are using a mobile chip for <GASP!> mobiles, and a desktop chip for <double gasp!> for desktops. They picked the processors they felt met their needs the best. And they keep it simple for reasons of production costs and simplicity of the product matrix. Have you ever tried to configure over at Dell.com? It's a nightmare.
Quote:
2- This thread is based on the rumor of the end of the Mac mini and I'd extend it to the end of the 17" iMac (if this one rumor is also true). Thats leaves a huge hole to fill: the $499-$1299 price range. That some people think it could be filled with a SFF Mac that fits the previous talks about a midrange headless Mac, is understandable.
OK, now that I agree with. If the 17 inch iMac ANd mini go away, then there is a hole. Agreed.
Quote:
3- I realized a few days ago that, in fact, Apple is offering less different models than a couple of years ago (before the switch to Intel) while a lot of people thought that going Intel will bring more models. BEFORE INTEL: 5 different notebooks (12 and 14" iBook and 12, 15 and 17" PowerBook), AFTER INTEL just 3 different notebooks (13" MB -- black doesn't count as a model in my book --, 15 and 17" MBP). On the desktop side, we lost a single core powermac (early G5 model) but have now a 24" iMac.
So? Why is that bad? We didn't "lose" anything. They simplified.
Quote:
4- I don't know who Apple is talking to when they conduct those surveys, but in markets close to Apple (creative: audio, video, design, photo...) people have been switching to PCs for a long time (years), and my understanding of that (but I could be wrong) is that they can have the same power they need from midrange PCs that cost half the price of a Mac Pro (or PowerMac) at the time. Since most of the creative Pro Apps exist on the PC as well as the Mac (ProTools, Avid, Adobe...) it's not uncommon to see (in a pro recording studio for example) 1 big PM or MP and a multitude of smaller midrange PCs that can be upgraded regularly and then replaced by newer (Conroe-based) when too old.
That was the trend until a few years ago. Now you're seeing it go back the other way as better software, lower prices and speeds have helped Apple a lot.
Quote:
5- Don't get me wrong, the MP is a wonderful machine, but not everybody has that kind of money for one computer, let alone for equipping a entire office. Last quaterly reports showed that the sweet spot for a Mac is around $1400, that's what most people are paying for a Mac (average), so I don't agree with Vinea when he says that most people would be satisfied with a MP or MBP: they don't want or can't spend that much money for one computer.
Oh stop. The MP and MBP are selling very well. The latter is setting records. "Most people" don't buy MPs because they're not made for "most people." For "most people" the iMac is a damn fine and capable machine.
Quote:
6- Yes there may be some sales stolen from the Mac Pro (and other Macs) if Apple releases a better priced tower, but it may also attract people who wouldn't buy a Mac within the current lineup, who knows? I think that Apple, being healthy right now and having access to all the technology and parts at very good prices, should expand their offering, one at a time, a desktop model here, another notebook form factor there, maybe a tablet-style next year, just to cover, better than they do today, most of the type of usage/customer/needs in the market.
1. What people would it attract, and how many of them as compared to how they cannibalize their presumably higher margin MP sales? Answer: It would potentially attract nerds like us that post on AI and whine and bitch about everything Apple. It wouldn't attract a significant amount of switchers.
2. Totally a bad idea. It's easy to go apeshit crazy and start releasing 1,000 different products when things are going well. And I disagree...the market has not embraced tablet computing. More form factors just complicates things. You can't just start throwing out products to see if they float. This has never been Apple's approach in the Jobs II era, and it's shouldn't be. It's why, for example, they waited so long on the iPhone and never released another Newton. Sure, they could have. But it's too much of a drain on resources. Apple wants to make sure when they release something it stands a good chance at being a hit and recouping all the R+D put into it. You don't make the "next great thing" when you're bobbing for, well, Apples.
Joe, meet Mr. Punctuation. May you be happy together for a long time.
Another great argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
So let's look at where a Midpro tower fits in. Assuming the mini was kept in the lineup, we'll leave that at an average of $700. The iMac comes with a monitor built-in for a about $1500.
What are you going to charge for this machine without a monitor? It would have to be around $1500. Now you're going to have to make some serious cuts from the Mac Pro in order to get that. Let's start with a single C2D processor, like the iMac. We'll also do a little bit less with the graphics and HD. We'll do a 160GB HD and the bottom of the line Mac Pro card, the Nvidia Geforce. We'll knock down the drive bays to 2, and the expansion slots to 2 (from 4).
Now, you want that machine? I mean, it's what you want I guess...a headless expandable iMac. But to save the $700 (and I think that's generous) you're going to have to reduce the specs to what I stated. Remember, the quad core Mac Pro is only $2200. Oh, and of course you still have to add a monitor for at least $600. So there you have it: A slightly better-than-iMac machine without the convenience of the AIO design, all for $2100 before upgrades. I can't see anyone being happy with that option.
Charge $1500 without a monitor? If you remove the LCD screen the price should go down. Replace the expensive laptop cpu and exensive laptop ram. The price should go down and still allow Apple to make better than average industry margins and quite possibly maintain dollar profits per machine sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Well obviously. The point is you made an invalid comparison. You said that 95% (or whatever) of people use the PC model, therefore Apple should release a mid pro tower....
Point is that in the PC world, they have options. There are models similar to the Mac mini and iMac models. They don't sell. The consumer for whatever reason has decided. The reasons are irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Then save for a Mac pro. See, it's exactly my point....you're really just complaining about the price of the Mac pro...it's not that you want what you think you do. And remember what I said. It would be maybe a $700 difference at most. Probably far less. The kind of machine you're talking about would, knowing Apple's pricing schemes, likely be closer to $1700 or $1800. Save for another six months and get the Mac Pro. Or buy a last generation one used. Here's a nice one with a display. I'm just sayin'...
Many people do not want nor need a workstation. Some don't need the higher latency ram that the Mac Pro uses. It is disingenuous to tell people to just save up for something they either can not afford or do not need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Off base and totally anecdotal. In fact, it's worse...it's hypothetically anecdotal. . No offense. What is the motivation for this hypothetical PC user to not choose a Mac? You can't tell me it's just price. They will realize that there are other options, specifically the iMac. Any truly budget minded consumer is going to go for that option anyway. The power user is not going to be upset with the Mac pro price.
Looking at the last several years of Apple's desktops sales there doesn't seem to be much motivation for PC users to choose a Mac.
The crux of Marvin's statement is "They are not listening to what people really want, they are targeting a niche market and are missing out on a larger market for fear that they will lose sales in that niche market? That doesn't make sense. As I say, different people want different types of machine." This can be born out by the flat sales volume of Apple's desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
As to Apple's market share: It's climbing steadily, and sales are really doing well across the board. Apple's niche strategy (or consumer strategy as I'd prefer to call it) has revived the company and made it into a force to be reckoned with once again. Apple has done well specifically because they have NOT embraced the kind of thinking you're championing.
Then buy a Mac Pro. It's the machine you want and feel you need. As I said, buy one used if you have to. Don't tell me it's Apple's fault because you can't afford what you want. I'd love to be able to buy a Lexus for $30,000 new, but I generally can't. You don't hear me bitching that they should release something cheaper just so I can buy it. Sorry to be harsh...but this is what it sounds like to me.
Apple's market share is climbing in the US due to laptop sales, not desktop sales. Many people can in fact afford a Mac mini. Apparently they are not buying them and the Mac mini happens to be priced in range of computers that is indeed selling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
He was being a dick. I'll use what words I feel appropriate.
I challenge you to cite one instance. I have stated my position clearly without vulgar language nor with ad hominem attacks. You may disagree, but what you claim here is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
This thread comes back over and over and over. Like every 90 days. Enough.
It should be obvious why. This isn't the only board that this topic comes up on a very regular basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
They are using a mobile chip for <GASP!> mobiles, and a desktop chip for <double gasp!> for desktops. They picked the processors they felt met their needs the best. And they keep it simple for reasons of production costs and simplicity of the product matrix. Have you ever tried to configure over at Dell.com? It's a nightmare.
The Mac mini and iMac are using cpus designed for laptops. No one is arguing that Apple should in any way attempt to emmulate Dell. One more model would not create mass confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Oh stop. The MP and MBP are selling very well. The latter is setting records. "Most people" don't buy MPs because they're not made for "most people." For "most people" the iMac is a damn fine and capable machine.
Yes, the iMac is an excellent machine, for its' target market. So would an xMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
1. What people would it attract, and how many of them as compared to how they cannibalize their presumably higher margin MP sales? Answer: It would potentially attract nerds like us that post on AI and whine and bitch about everything Apple. It wouldn't attract a significant amount of switchers.
2. Totally a bad idea. It's easy to go apeshit crazy and start releasing 1,000 different products when things are going well. And I disagree...the market has not embraced tablet computing. More form factors just complicates things. You can't just start throwing out products to see if they float. This has never been Apple's approach in the Jobs II era, and it's shouldn't be. It's why, for example, they waited so long on the iPhone and never released another Newton. Sure, they could have. But it's too much of a drain on resources. Apple wants to make sure when they release something it stands a good chance at being a hit and recouping all the R+D put into it. You don't make the "next great thing" when you're bobbing for, well, Apples.
Apple has a history of introducing products that are considered high risk, Newton, Pippen, Cube, iPod, Apple's TV. We're not talking about a high risk product that takes years of design and development. It would be low risk, quite possibly high profit and could be discountinued at a moments notice. How did you turn adding one model into "start releasing 1,000 different products". This argument just does not follow.
Yeah right. Offer a xMac tower that you folks have been describing for $999 and the iMac is dead as a doornail.
Okay. You just gave a reason for Apple to build the xMac mini tower, starting at $999. If most all iMac users would start buying a Mac mini tower, Apple would have fewer products in it line and more sales. The Mac mini tower would sell to current iMac customers, and also to those of us who are waiting for a mini tower but are buying on eBay in the meantime.
However, I don't believe a mini tower would take away sales from the iMac in the numbers you seem to suggest. The iMac would survive quite well, IMHO, and a lot of currently dissatisfied Mac users would be buying new Macs again.
Comments
See above. The PC and Mac markets are not necessarily the same. In this case Apple is competing against itself more than the PC makers. This is one reason they simplified the product matrix years ago. Remember the iMac/iMac SE/iMacDV/iMacDV+ (or whatever) fiasco? Or the iBook SE? They started cannibalizing their own products. That is why you won't see a midpro tower. It will hurt Mac Pro sales AND iMac sales.
and it will boost sales of appple Displays and get them sales form people who don't want all in ones and need more power then the mini has also haveing the mac pro at $2000 with high cost ram will not be hurt by a $600 and up desktop system.
Whoah. You have completely gone off-base with that one. Just because PCs are headless, so to speak, that doesn't mean that 1) People "want" them to be like that nor 2) Apple wants to make them or 3) There will be real market for them as compared to the Mac Pro and iMac.
I think we're supporting opposite sides with the same argument. PC makers don't make many all-in-ones but that doesn't mean people don't want them vs Apple don't make a reasonably priced, powerful headless Mac and that doesn't mean people don't want one.
As I say, Apple just have to give it a go and we'll find out and not in the half-assed way they did with the G4 cube. It's not as if it's going to ruin them financially like the iphone will.
Mac Mini sales are good compared to the other machines and i think taking the next step will just be for the better, I'm not sure they would even conflict because people clearly either prefer one design or the other:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._analysts.html
For point 2, Apple might not want to make them but I'd imagine they like making money so if it's what people want then i don't see why not.
For point 3, it's not just people at AI who want these, I meet PC users all the time who want a small desktop. They are initially blown away by both the iMac and Mini but the mini is underpowered (no dual display either) and they aren't keen on the built-in display model for repairs and also the price of the iMac.
95% of the market or so is Windows based, so I guess by your logic 95% of the users out there "want" a PC and not a Mac too?
Well obviously not all of them will make a conscious decision to pick one over the other, a lot of people go with the crowd but there are lots of people who prefer the PC model. Some people I work with who are pretty much computer illiterate are quite annoyed at being forced to use a Mac.
They started cannibalizing their own products. That is why you won't see a midpro tower. It will hurt Mac Pro sales AND iMac sales.
I don't think so. At the end of the day, I can't afford a Mac Pro and I don't want an iMac (though I might if they redesign it) so I end up with a crippled Mini. I would have paid Apple more if they had an option I wanted. Instead they make whatever low profit margin they put on the Mini.
If people don't have the money, they will simply say Macs are too expensive and go with a PC. About 5 people I know who now own PCs have said that. If every Mac user knows a similar 5 people who have the same opinion then that's clearly why Apple's market share is so low. They are not listening to what people really want, they are targeting a niche market and are missing out on a larger market for fear that they will lose sales in that niche market? That doesn't make sense. As I say, different people want different types of machine.
I want headless because I don't want to pay more money for a display when I have one. Whereas my aunt wants an iMac after switching from a PC because of the style (one cable no fuss). There are two needs here and Apple cater for one. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
How about this for my turn: F*** off. How about that?
1st, you don't need to used those words. You can simply say that you don't agree, had no proof, but there's no way organization like Apple don't conduct...
Anyway, I didn't intended to post here, because like it has been said it's the 10,000,000th thread about the xMac. A lot have been already said. But stop comparing what happened in the 90s with some people here wanting a xMac, nobody has asked for customized/Personalized/with-your-name-engraved Macs for each and every mid-tower fans. Things have changed?.
1- It is very difficult to differentiate models when you have only a couple of different cpus/architectures and few clock speeds to work with (G3/G4/G5 era). Now with Intel you can have really specific cpus with more speed ranges that fit different kind of computers: Low and Ultra Low voltage cpus, mobile cpus, desktop cpus of various kinds, workstation/server cpus. Right now Apple only uses 2 of them (mobile and ws/server). Given that the desktop cpus (Conroe/Kentsfield) are good chips powerful and cheap, anyone in his right mind can wonder why Apple isn't using them. Nor why they are not even offering LV cpu options for their current MB and MBPs for the users that may need more autonomy...
2- This thread is based on the rumor of the end of the Mac mini and I'd extend it to the end of the 17" iMac (if this one rumor is also true). Thats leaves a huge hole to fill: the $499-$1299 price range. That some people think it could be filled with a SFF Mac that fits the previous talks about a midrange headless Mac, is understandable.
3- I realized a few days ago that, in fact, Apple is offering less different models than a couple of years ago (before the switch to Intel) while a lot of people thought that going Intel will bring more models. BEFORE INTEL: 5 different notebooks (12 and 14" iBook and 12, 15 and 17" PowerBook), AFTER INTEL just 3 different notebooks (13" MB -- black doesn't count as a model in my book --, 15 and 17" MBP). On the desktop side, we lost a single core powermac (early G5 model) but have now a 24" iMac.
4- I don't know who Apple is talking to when they conduct those surveys, but in markets close to Apple (creative: audio, video, design, photo...) people have been switching to PCs for a long time (years), and my understanding of that (but I could be wrong) is that they can have the same power they need from midrange PCs that cost half the price of a Mac Pro (or PowerMac) at the time. Since most of the creative Pro Apps exist on the PC as well as the Mac (ProTools, Avid, Adobe...) it's not uncommon to see (in a pro recording studio for example) 1 big PM or MP and a multitude of smaller midrange PCs that can be upgraded regularly and then replaced by newer (Conroe-based) when too old.
5- Don't get me wrong, the MP is a wonderful machine, but not everybody has that kind of money for one computer, let alone for equipping a entire office. Last quaterly reports showed that the sweet spot for a Mac is around $1400, that's what most people are paying for a Mac (average), so I don't agree with Vinea when he says that most people would be satisfied with a MP or MBP: they don't want or can't spend that much money for one computer.
6- Yes there may be some sales stolen from the Mac Pro (and other Macs) if Apple releases a better priced tower, but it may also attract people who wouldn't buy a Mac within the current lineup, who knows? I think that Apple, being healthy right now and having access to all the technology and parts at very good prices, should expand their offering, one at a time, a desktop model here, another notebook form factor there, maybe a tablet-style next year, just to cover, better than they do today, most of the type of usage/customer/needs in the market.
agreed. Good money, spit for volume.
1.6M machines is pretty good with sales increasing 36%.
Almost no one is advocating low margin towers.
Both margins and ASPs are important. While lower cost towers may not be low margin they will reduce Apple ASPs.
If so then why did Dell buy an boutique high margin tower maker?
Alienware moved less than 50K machines per year. Reasonably nice revenue of $100M with ASPs in the $3K range in 2005 (translating to about 35K machines).
The question is why did Alienware sell out? To have the money needed to grow beyond 50K/year according to the CEO. The implication is bootstraping was going to be a long long process selling into a niche gamer market.
Why did Dell buy in 2006? At the time they were an easy way to have AMD gaming rigs and Dell wanted a premium gaming brand.
Tell me why Sony dropped desktops? And IBM, Toshiba, and pretty much everyone else that were a premium PC maker? I think I found one company (Fujitsu? Now I forget) that still sold towers in the US but only by calling their sales office.
????? Satifafaction with the existing Apple lines has little to do with how many additional computers Apple could sell to satisfied xMac customers and at what profit.
How many is the part under debate. Apple appears to feel that its not enough to justify elimination of their AIO and SFF lines. When the market conditions change I would expect Apple to offer a lower priced tower. Frankly I expect one in the $1699 price range +/- $100 sooner or later.
$999? Not too likely. $1200? Possible for a cube...$1400 more likely. Tack on 26-30% margins on a tower and you end up in Sony VAIO tower price range. Those sold...poorly. OSX isn't going to be THAT much a tower sales driver given the shift to notebooks anyway.
So you'd end up with lower ASPs even if you maintained margins. Personally, I think Apple towers below the Mac Pro will get reviewed as "overpriced and underpowered".
Vinea
Both margins and ASPs are important. While lower cost towers may not be low margin they will reduce Apple ASPs.
I'd like to comment on a couple things.
By ASP I assume you mean average selling price. If a cheaper Mac tower only took sales away from the Mac Pro and iMacs, then a Mac mini tower would be a bad idea. ASP would be down, dropping overall desktop revenue. But this is not what many of us see happening.
The argument is that a lower priced and smaller Mac tower would attract new customers to the Mac platform, and also generate more new sales to existing Mac users, who now purchase towers from eBay, or are making do with their older Macs.
How many is the part under debate. Apple appears to feel that its not enough to justify elimination of their AIO and SFF lines.
I don't think anyone advocates elimination of the iMac. We may debate why the iMac sells and the Windows AIOs do not, but we don't want it to go away. It's a cool Mac, but not for all of us.
When the market conditions change I would expect Apple to offer a lower priced tower. Frankly I expect one in the $1699 price range +/- $100 sooner or later.
$999? Not too likely. $1200? Possible for a cube...$1400 more likely.
. . . Personally, I think Apple towers below the Mac Pro will get reviewed as "overpriced and underpowered".
This is the heart of the debate on what to build. I personally would like to see a $999 mini tower, at the low end, but typical configurations going for $1400. I see no reason it would be "overpriced and underpowered."
$999? Not too likely. $1200? Possible for a cube...$1400 more likely.
No way will it be that expensive. If you consider the 20" iMac. It should be dropping in price when the new ones come out to about $999 I would suspect. If you take the insides out and remove the screen (-$300) then you get a machine you can build for $699.
If they used some desktop parts, it would be even cheaper. They could easily cover the range $499-$999 with upgrades. Then there could be three iMacs ranging from $999 for 20" with GMA (X3100) to $2000 for a 30". Then we jump into Mac Pro territory that starts at $2200 upwards.
This lineup covers everyone.
. . . consider the 20" iMac. . . . take the insides out and remove the screen. . . . used some desktop parts. [Apple] could easily cover the range $499-$999 with upgrades.
To get that low in price, it would have onboard graphics and no way to install a better graphics card -- no PCIe slots. Strictly a Mac Mini replacement that could make a nice home computer or general purpose office computer.
However, some of use want better performance, but don't want a professional workstation. Apple needs both in its desktop (below workstation) line of Macs.
The iMac is in a class by itself and has much appeal to many Mac users, but I think Apple needs to stop trying to make it the universal desktop for anyone who does not need a Mac Pro.
Here are a couple ways Apple could do it:
A) A single mini tower with two motherboard options. One would cover the $499 to $899 range, with onboard graphics and no PCI slots. The other with PCIe slots, and a good graphics card selection. It would cover the price range of $999 to $1899. The tower enclosures may have cosmetic differences to distinguish them from each other.
Your second product would absolutely kill what's left of Mac Pro sales, although it wouldn't bother me. 95% of those now being forced to buy a Mac Pro would buy it instead. I don't see that happening. You might as well just expect Apple to drop the price $1000 on the Mac Pro.
If we're to hope for a headless Mac that is better than the mini, it will be just that; better than the mini but not good enough to kill Mac Pro sales. More reasonable specs like one PCIe slot, one full size HD, a removable graphics card and more memory slots would satisfy me. And even that would impact Mac Pro sales.
If we're to hope for a headless Mac that is better than the mini, it will be just that; better than the mini but not good enough to kill Mac Pro sales. More reasonable specs like one PCIe slot, one full size HD, a removable graphics card and more memory slots would satisfy me. And even that would impact Mac Pro sales.
That's pretty much what I am looking for. A real graphics card in a PCIe Slot, one extra PCIe slot, two RAM slots are actually fine with me but four would be great and possibly one extra Slot for a CD/DVD/HD/Whatever drive.
Removing the monitor would remove around half the cost of the machine and you could make that up with the added stuff and bump up the specs a bit. So really you are looking at a headless lineup that probably falls slightly below the iMacs in cost but scales up to the cost of the higher-end iMac.
Would it canabalize iMac and Pro sales? Likely. However my feeling is they would make up the loss in sales to new users. Or like me old users who don't care to buy a new mac because of thier current offerings. I don't have any hard evidence to back that up of course :P But it's the only thing that would get me to buy a Mac again unless I find myself in need a notebook.
That's pretty much what I am looking for. A real graphics card in a PCIe Slot, one extra PCIe slot, two RAM slots are actually fine with me but four would be great and possibly one extra Slot for a CD/DVD/HD/Whatever drive.
I think that one PCIe with a removable graphics card and two slots would keep the size down. Two slots would still let you get 4GB Ram and nobody who wants a mini tower should need more. 4x1GB is cheaper but I think the majority of people wanting this type of machine would only go to 2GB. I agree with the extra slot for a second HD or optical drive. I have both an external optical and HD and it would actually cut down my desktop clutter if the computer was big enough to accomodate one of them. I'd probably go with the optical drive as I like to keep my second backup drive external and offline but copying DVDs can be done on an internal drive.
I honestly don't think that if they made a small tower with Core 2 Duo chips that it would affect the quad workstations with 1GHz+ front side buses. It would still be consumer level with 800MHz fsb and dual core chips.
If you take the spec in the iMac:
1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo
GMA
512MB Ram
80GB drive
combo drive
$999
Now take off the LCD screen, use a desktop HD and we save $300 so we get $699 starting price. 2GHz model at $849. 2.4Ghz $999.
Then add everything else like Ram, HD upgrades, GPU as BTO. Naturally they wouldn't offer workstation cards like the X1900 or quadro cards but consumer-level cards thereby again clearly marking a distinction between pro and consumer and not affecting the pro machines.
If the mini is $599, they would have to get close to that as a starting price and given that they can meet that price with the Mini and make a profit, it is most certainly possible.
If you take the spec in the iMac:
1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo
GMA
512MB Ram
80GB drive
combo drive
$999
Now take off the LCD screen, use a desktop HD and we save $300 so we get $699 starting price. 2GHz model at $849. 2.4Ghz $999.
Then add everything else like Ram, HD upgrades, GPU as BTO. Naturally they wouldn't offer workstation cards like the X1900 or quadro cards but consumer-level cards thereby again clearly marking a distinction between pro and consumer and not affecting the pro machines.
If the mini is $599, they would have to get close to that as a starting price and given that they can meet that price with the Mini and make a profit, it is most certainly possible.
The x1900 is older high end gaming card not a workstation one.
apple should put high end gaming cards in the mid-tower.
the mac pros FB-DIMMS slow down gameing.
How about this for my turn: Fuck off. How about that? There is no way there are going to be available links to Apple Market Research studies. Secondly, you're telling me that Apple...one of the largest consumer electronics/computer companies in the world with billions of dollars in assets and inventory....doesn't do market research? Then, you offer those quotes that are out of context and purely anecdotal as "proof" for your bullshit assertion? Wow.
Great argument
1.6M machines is pretty good with sales increasing 36%.
Here are the last few numbers of desktops that Apple has sold, drawn from Apples Quarterly Reports.
Quarterly Report-----Desktops
12/25/2004----------623
03/26/2005----------608
06/25/2005----------687
12/31/2005----------667
04/01/2006----------614
07/01/2006----------529
12/30/2006----------637
03/31/2007----------626
(Note: the most recent quarter reported is only 3,000 units more than the 12/25/04 quarter.)
I don't see a 36% increase. If anything this only accentuates the astounding laptop sales that Apple has had. No, desktop sales aren't increasing at the same rate as laptops for the industry, but they are increasing overall, just not for Apple.
Both margins and ASPs are important. While lower cost towers may not be low margin they will reduce Apple ASPs.
Both the iMac and Mac mini use expensive laptop parts. Trade the laptop parts out, make a good desktop mid to upper range desktops and margins and dollar profits remain the same IMHO.
Alienware moved less than 50K machines per year. Reasonably nice revenue of $100M with ASPs in the $3K range in 2005 (translating to about 35K machines).
The question is why did Alienware sell out? To have the money needed to grow beyond 50K/year according to the CEO. The implication is bootstraping was going to be a long long process selling into a niche gamer market.
Why did Dell buy in 2006? At the time they were an easy way to have AMD gaming rigs and Dell wanted a premium gaming brand.
Or it could be that Dell is trying to gain market share in the more lucrative mid to upper end of the desktop sales.
Tell me why Sony dropped desktops? And IBM, Toshiba, and pretty much everyone else that were a premium PC maker? I think I found one company (Fujitsu? Now I forget) that still sold towers in the US but only by calling their sales office.
Because Sony is run by the content managers and has been mismanaged and now is focusing on the living room.
How many is the part under debate. Apple appears to feel that its not enough to justify elimination of their AIO and SFF lines. When the market conditions change I would expect Apple to offer a lower priced tower. Frankly I expect one in the $1699 price range +/- $100 sooner or later.
$999? Not too likely. $1200? Possible for a cube...$1400 more likely. Tack on 26-30% margins on a tower and you end up in Sony VAIO tower price range. Those sold...poorly. OSX isn't going to be THAT much a tower sales driver given the shift to notebooks anyway.
So you'd end up with lower ASPs even if you maintained margins. Personally, I think Apple towers below the Mac Pro will get reviewed as "overpriced and underpowered".
Vinea
Who knows, Apple should try something to gain desktop market share.
Here are the last few numbers of desktops that Apple has sold, drawn from Apples Quarterly Reports.
Quarterly Report-----Desktops
12/25/2004----------623
03/26/2005----------608
06/25/2005----------687
12/31/2005----------667
04/01/2006----------614
07/01/2006----------529
12/30/2006----------637
03/31/2007----------626
(Note: the most recent quarter reported is only 3,000 units more than the 12/25/04 quarter.)
600K is greater than Alienware's 30-50K.
I don't see a 36% increase. If anything this only accentuates the astounding laptop sales that Apple has had. No, desktop sales aren't increasing at the same rate as laptops for the industry, but they are increasing overall, just not for Apple.
Never said they did. You said that Apple's volume was spit. 1.6M is not spit. I don't give a hoot whether it's desktops or laptops.
Both the iMac and Mac mini use expensive laptop parts. Trade the laptop parts out, make a good desktop mid to upper range desktops and margins and dollar profits remain the same IMHO.
Still avoiding the issue of revenue and ASPs.
Or it could be that Dell is trying to gain market share in the more lucrative mid to upper end of the desktop sales.
By adding a meager 30K desktop/laptop sales? That's one of the dumbest comments in this thread. I have no clue why Dell bought Alienware but it sure as hell wasn't for market share. Who knows what they were thinking...they weren't exactly executing very well when they bought out Alienware.
Because Sony is run by the content managers and has been mismanaged and now is focusing on the living room.
And Toshiba and IBM? Or maybe its because there's no flipping market.
Who knows, Apple should try something to gain desktop market share.
Apple knows and hasn't done it. Maybe when Leopard rolls out we'll see the hardware changes we've been expecting because the current releases have been rather meager.
Vinea
I'd like to comment on a couple things.
By ASP I assume you mean average selling price.
Well I'm not talking about snakes.
If a cheaper Mac tower only took sales away from the Mac Pro and iMacs, then a Mac mini tower would be a bad idea. ASP would be down, dropping overall desktop revenue. But this is not what many of us see happening.
Apple apparently disagrees. Also Sony, Toshiba and IBM disagree there is a market for boutique towers in the price ranges you're talking about.
So lets see...either 4 large companies have performed zero market research and steadfastly ignores a huge potential market or you guys are wrong.
The argument is that a lower priced and smaller Mac tower would attract new customers to the Mac platform, and also generate more new sales to existing Mac users, who now purchase towers from eBay, or are making do with their older Macs.
Hopefully more than the meager 30K units of both laptops and desktops that Alienware produced prior to being bought by Dell.
I don't think anyone advocates elimination of the iMac. We may debate why the iMac sells and the Windows AIOs do not, but we don't want it to go away. It's a cool Mac, but not for all of us.
Yeah right. Offer a xMac tower that you folks have been describing for $999 and the iMac is dead as a doornail. This argument is just so disingenuous because you want things both ways.
This is the heart of the debate on what to build. I personally would like to see a $999 mini tower, at the low end, but typical configurations going for $1400. I see no reason it would be "overpriced and underpowered."
Of course it will be overpriced and underpowered. No $999-$1499 desktop machine commands 28%+ margins except for oddball ones like AIOs and SFFs machines (ie iMac and Mini).
Build a $999 tower with 28% margins and the equivalent Dell or HP will be 10% better at 10% less cost or simply 20% cheaper. This isn't factoring in the higher build quality that Apple MUST have to maintain branding vs Dell and HP.
How this is hard to accept is beyond me. Do you guys really think that HP and Dell are incompetent in their own market segments because their high end offerings are only so-so? Get a flipping grip.
Vinea
600K is greater than Alienware's 30-50K.
Never said they did. You said that Apple's volume was spit. 1.6M is not spit. I don't give a hoot whether it's desktops or laptops.Vinea
I guess no one else but Alienware sells computers for consumers in the $799 to >$3000 range with a single Conroe cpu with slots.
Still avoiding the issue of revenue and ASPs.Vinea
No, I spelled it out quite clearly. The extra expense in using laptop parts in a desktop likely would make the difference up for Apple to maintain margins and dollar profits.
By adding a meager 30K desktop/laptop sales? That's one of the dumbest comments in this thread. I have no clue why Dell bought Alienware but it sure as hell wasn't for market share. Who knows what they were thinking...they weren't exactly executing very well when they bought out Alienware.Vinea
What does Alienwares sales volume have anything to do with Apple's. There were more companies than Alienware selling high end consumer desktops. And they don't run Mac OS X.
And Toshiba and IBM? Or maybe its because there's no flipping market.Vinea
Over 255 million computers were sold last year.
Apple knows and hasn't done it. Maybe when Leopard rolls out we'll see the hardware changes we've been expecting because the current releases have been rather meager.
Vinea
One can only hope.
I guess no one else but Alienware sells computers for consumers in the $799 to >$3000 range with a single Conroe cpu with slots.
You cited Alienware as an example of a high end maker. 30K sales is hardly significant as an example.
No, I spelled it out quite clearly. The extra expense in using laptop parts in a desktop likely would make the difference up for Apple to maintain margins and dollar profits.
Not without massively increasing sales...which isn't a given. Even Sony can sell into a heathy market. That they slashed everything but an AIO and a SFF from their desktop lines is something you guys have yet to have a real rebuttal for other than "Sony Sucks!".
What does Alienwares sales volume have anything to do with Apple's. There were more companies than Alienware selling high end consumer desktops. And they don't run Mac OS X.
Fine...name them and their unit sales. Are they over 600K sales? Because by slashing ASPs in half you need to double sales just to stay even. That's ignoring that you end up with double the support calls you need to handle.
OSX is great. Of course, even within the notebook market that greatness isn't doubling mac sales.
Vinea
and it will boost sales of appple Displays and get them sales form people who don't want all in ones and need more power then the mini has also haveing the mac pro at $2000 with high cost ram will not be hurt by a $600 and up desktop system.
Joe, meet Mr. Punctuation. May you be happy together for a long time.
I think we're supporting opposite sides with the same argument. PC makers don't make many all-in-ones but that doesn't mean people don't want them vs Apple don't make a reasonably priced, powerful headless Mac and that doesn't mean people don't want one.
But they don't make them for a reason. It's not like they haven't tried.
As I say, Apple just have to give it a go and we'll find out and not in the half-assed way they did with the G4 cube. It's not as if it's going to ruin them financially like the iphone will.
I wouldn't say it was half-assed. It just was overpriced, had heat issues, cracking, etc. It wasn't compelling.
Edit: Oh, and I'd say the iphone is going to be huge.
Mac Mini sales are good compared to the other machines and i think taking the next step will just be for the better, I'm not sure they would even conflict because people clearly either prefer one design or the other:
Mac Mini sales are not doing well overall (or as well as they were) so much so that AI claims they are going to be shelved. The mini did well when it was cheaper. Not so much now.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._analysts.html
For point 2, Apple might not want to make them but I'd imagine they like making money so if it's what people want then i don't see why not.
For point 3, it's not just people at AI who want these, I meet PC users all the time who want a small desktop. They are initially blown away by both the iMac and Mini but the mini is underpowered (no dual display either) and they aren't keen on the built-in display model for repairs and also the price of the iMac.
1. (or 2, whatever): If people really want them en masse, they'll make them. But AI is not exactly a good indicator of that.
2. That's purely anecdotal. Apple also has to be careful. Right now the desktops are priced like this:
Mini 599-799
iMac 999-1999. Let's bag the 17incher for now and call it $1499-1999.
Mac Pro: $2200-$14,000,000,0000
So let's look at where a Midpro tower fits in. Assuming the mini was kept in the lineup, we'll leave that at an average of $700. The iMac comes with a monitor built-in for a about $1500.
What are you going to charge for this machine without a monitor? It would have to be around $1500. Now you're going to have to make some serious cuts from the Mac Pro in order to get that. Let's start with a single C2D processor, like the iMac. We'll also do a little bit less with the graphics and HD. We'll do a 160GB HD and the bottom of the line Mac Pro card, the Nvidia Geforce. We'll knock down the drive bays to 2, and the expansion slots to 2 (from 4).
Now, you want that machine? I mean, it's what you want I guess...a headless expandable iMac. But to save the $700 (and I think that's generous) you're going to have to reduce the specs to what I stated. Remember, the quad core Mac Pro is only $2200. Oh, and of course you still have to add a monitor for at least $600. So there you have it: A slightly better-than-iMac machine without the convenience of the AIO design, all for $2100 before upgrades. I can't see anyone being happy with that option.
Well obviously not all of them will make a conscious decision to pick one over the other, a lot of people go with the crowd but there are lots of people who prefer the PC model. Some people I work with who are pretty much computer illiterate are quite annoyed at being forced to use a Mac.
Well obviously. The point is you made an invalid comparison. You said that 95% (or whatever) of people use the PC model, therefore Apple should release a mid pro tower. That's what I'm taking issue with. Yes, I agree that there are people who are annoyed at using a Mac, but it's not because some of them are AIOs. It's because of the differences in the OS and them not being used to it. It's because of different software, etc.
I don't think so. At the end of the day, I can't afford a Mac Pro and I don't want an iMac (though I might if they redesign it) so I end up with a crippled Mini. I would have paid Apple more if they had an option I wanted. Instead they make whatever low profit margin they put on the Mini.
Then save for a Mac pro. See, it's exactly my point....you're really just complaining about the price of the Mac pro...it's not that you want what you think you do. And remember what I said. It would be maybe a $700 difference at most. Probably far less. The kind of machine you're talking about would, knowing Apple's pricing schemes, likely be closer to $1700 or $1800. Save for another six months and get the Mac Pro. Or buy a last generation one used. Here's a nice one with a display. I'm just sayin'...
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Mac-Pro-2-...QQcmdZViewItem
If people don't have the money, they will simply say Macs are too expensive and go with a PC. About 5 people I know who now own PCs have said that. If every Mac user knows a similar 5 people who have the same opinion then that's clearly why Apple's market share is so low. They are not listening to what people really want, they are targeting a niche market and are missing out on a larger market for fear that they will lose sales in that niche market? That doesn't make sense. As I say, different people want different types of machine.
Off base and totally anecdotal. In fact, it's worse...it's hypothetically anecdotal. . No offense. What is the motivation for this hypothetical PC user to not choose a Mac? You can't tell me it's just price. They will realize that there are other options, specifically the iMac. Any truly budget minded consumer is going to go for that option anyway. The power user is not going to be upset with the Mac pro price.
As to Apple's market share: It's climbing steadily, and sales are really doing well across the board. Apple's niche strategy (or consumer strategy as I'd prefer to call it) has revived the company and made it into a force to be reckoned with once again. Apple has done well specifically because they have NOT embraced the kind of thinking you're championing.
I want headless because I don't want to pay more money for a display when I have one. Whereas my aunt wants an iMac after switching from a PC because of the style (one cable no fuss). There are two needs here and Apple cater for one. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Then buy a Mac Pro. It's the machine you want and feel you need. As I said, buy one used if you have to. Don't tell me it's Apple's fault because you can't afford what you want. I'd love to be able to buy a Lexus for $30,000 new, but I generally can't. You don't hear me bitching that they should release something cheaper just so I can buy it. Sorry to be harsh...but this is what it sounds like to me.
1st, you don't need to used those words. You can simply say that you don't agree, had no proof, but there's no way organization like Apple don't conduct...
He was being a dick. I'll use what words I feel appropriate.
Anyway, I didn't intended to post here, because like it has been said it's the 10,000,000th thread about the xMac. A lot have been already said. But stop comparing what happened in the 90s with some people here wanting a xMac, nobody has asked for customized/Personalized/with-your-name-engraved Macs for each and every mid-tower fans. Things have changed™.
This thread comes back over and over and over. Like every 90 days. Enough.
1- It is very difficult to differentiate models when you have only a couple of different cpus/architectures and few clock speeds to work with (G3/G4/G5 era). Now with Intel you can have really specific cpus with more speed ranges that fit different kind of computers: Low and Ultra Low voltage cpus, mobile cpus, desktop cpus of various kinds, workstation/server cpus. Right now Apple only uses 2 of them (mobile and ws/server). Given that the desktop cpus (Conroe/Kentsfield) are good chips powerful and cheap, anyone in his right mind can wonder why Apple isn't using them. Nor why they are not even offering LV cpu options for their current MB and MBPs for the users that may need more autonomy...
They are using a mobile chip for <GASP!> mobiles, and a desktop chip for <double gasp!> for desktops. They picked the processors they felt met their needs the best. And they keep it simple for reasons of production costs and simplicity of the product matrix. Have you ever tried to configure over at Dell.com? It's a nightmare.
2- This thread is based on the rumor of the end of the Mac mini and I'd extend it to the end of the 17" iMac (if this one rumor is also true). Thats leaves a huge hole to fill: the $499-$1299 price range. That some people think it could be filled with a SFF Mac that fits the previous talks about a midrange headless Mac, is understandable.
OK, now that I agree with. If the 17 inch iMac ANd mini go away, then there is a hole. Agreed.
3- I realized a few days ago that, in fact, Apple is offering less different models than a couple of years ago (before the switch to Intel) while a lot of people thought that going Intel will bring more models. BEFORE INTEL: 5 different notebooks (12 and 14" iBook and 12, 15 and 17" PowerBook), AFTER INTEL just 3 different notebooks (13" MB -- black doesn't count as a model in my book --, 15 and 17" MBP). On the desktop side, we lost a single core powermac (early G5 model) but have now a 24" iMac.
So? Why is that bad? We didn't "lose" anything. They simplified.
4- I don't know who Apple is talking to when they conduct those surveys, but in markets close to Apple (creative: audio, video, design, photo...) people have been switching to PCs for a long time (years), and my understanding of that (but I could be wrong) is that they can have the same power they need from midrange PCs that cost half the price of a Mac Pro (or PowerMac) at the time. Since most of the creative Pro Apps exist on the PC as well as the Mac (ProTools, Avid, Adobe...) it's not uncommon to see (in a pro recording studio for example) 1 big PM or MP and a multitude of smaller midrange PCs that can be upgraded regularly and then replaced by newer (Conroe-based) when too old.
That was the trend until a few years ago. Now you're seeing it go back the other way as better software, lower prices and speeds have helped Apple a lot.
5- Don't get me wrong, the MP is a wonderful machine, but not everybody has that kind of money for one computer, let alone for equipping a entire office. Last quaterly reports showed that the sweet spot for a Mac is around $1400, that's what most people are paying for a Mac (average), so I don't agree with Vinea when he says that most people would be satisfied with a MP or MBP: they don't want or can't spend that much money for one computer.
Oh stop. The MP and MBP are selling very well. The latter is setting records. "Most people" don't buy MPs because they're not made for "most people." For "most people" the iMac is a damn fine and capable machine.
6- Yes there may be some sales stolen from the Mac Pro (and other Macs) if Apple releases a better priced tower, but it may also attract people who wouldn't buy a Mac within the current lineup, who knows? I think that Apple, being healthy right now and having access to all the technology and parts at very good prices, should expand their offering, one at a time, a desktop model here, another notebook form factor there, maybe a tablet-style next year, just to cover, better than they do today, most of the type of usage/customer/needs in the market.
1. What people would it attract, and how many of them as compared to how they cannibalize their presumably higher margin MP sales? Answer: It would potentially attract nerds like us that post on AI and whine and bitch about everything Apple. It wouldn't attract a significant amount of switchers.
2. Totally a bad idea. It's easy to go apeshit crazy and start releasing 1,000 different products when things are going well. And I disagree...the market has not embraced tablet computing. More form factors just complicates things. You can't just start throwing out products to see if they float. This has never been Apple's approach in the Jobs II era, and it's shouldn't be. It's why, for example, they waited so long on the iPhone and never released another Newton. Sure, they could have. But it's too much of a drain on resources. Apple wants to make sure when they release something it stands a good chance at being a hit and recouping all the R+D put into it. You don't make the "next great thing" when you're bobbing for, well, Apples.
Joe, meet Mr. Punctuation. May you be happy together for a long time.
Another great argument.
So let's look at where a Midpro tower fits in. Assuming the mini was kept in the lineup, we'll leave that at an average of $700. The iMac comes with a monitor built-in for a about $1500.
What are you going to charge for this machine without a monitor? It would have to be around $1500. Now you're going to have to make some serious cuts from the Mac Pro in order to get that. Let's start with a single C2D processor, like the iMac. We'll also do a little bit less with the graphics and HD. We'll do a 160GB HD and the bottom of the line Mac Pro card, the Nvidia Geforce. We'll knock down the drive bays to 2, and the expansion slots to 2 (from 4).
Now, you want that machine? I mean, it's what you want I guess...a headless expandable iMac. But to save the $700 (and I think that's generous) you're going to have to reduce the specs to what I stated. Remember, the quad core Mac Pro is only $2200. Oh, and of course you still have to add a monitor for at least $600. So there you have it: A slightly better-than-iMac machine without the convenience of the AIO design, all for $2100 before upgrades. I can't see anyone being happy with that option.
Charge $1500 without a monitor? If you remove the LCD screen the price should go down. Replace the expensive laptop cpu and exensive laptop ram. The price should go down and still allow Apple to make better than average industry margins and quite possibly maintain dollar profits per machine sold.
Well obviously. The point is you made an invalid comparison. You said that 95% (or whatever) of people use the PC model, therefore Apple should release a mid pro tower....
Point is that in the PC world, they have options. There are models similar to the Mac mini and iMac models. They don't sell. The consumer for whatever reason has decided. The reasons are irrelevant.
Then save for a Mac pro. See, it's exactly my point....you're really just complaining about the price of the Mac pro...it's not that you want what you think you do. And remember what I said. It would be maybe a $700 difference at most. Probably far less. The kind of machine you're talking about would, knowing Apple's pricing schemes, likely be closer to $1700 or $1800. Save for another six months and get the Mac Pro. Or buy a last generation one used. Here's a nice one with a display. I'm just sayin'...
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Mac-Pro-2-...QQcmdZViewItem
Many people do not want nor need a workstation. Some don't need the higher latency ram that the Mac Pro uses. It is disingenuous to tell people to just save up for something they either can not afford or do not need.
Off base and totally anecdotal. In fact, it's worse...it's hypothetically anecdotal. . No offense. What is the motivation for this hypothetical PC user to not choose a Mac? You can't tell me it's just price. They will realize that there are other options, specifically the iMac. Any truly budget minded consumer is going to go for that option anyway. The power user is not going to be upset with the Mac pro price.
Looking at the last several years of Apple's desktops sales there doesn't seem to be much motivation for PC users to choose a Mac.
The crux of Marvin's statement is "They are not listening to what people really want, they are targeting a niche market and are missing out on a larger market for fear that they will lose sales in that niche market? That doesn't make sense. As I say, different people want different types of machine." This can be born out by the flat sales volume of Apple's desktops.
As to Apple's market share: It's climbing steadily, and sales are really doing well across the board. Apple's niche strategy (or consumer strategy as I'd prefer to call it) has revived the company and made it into a force to be reckoned with once again. Apple has done well specifically because they have NOT embraced the kind of thinking you're championing.
Then buy a Mac Pro. It's the machine you want and feel you need. As I said, buy one used if you have to. Don't tell me it's Apple's fault because you can't afford what you want. I'd love to be able to buy a Lexus for $30,000 new, but I generally can't. You don't hear me bitching that they should release something cheaper just so I can buy it. Sorry to be harsh...but this is what it sounds like to me.
Apple's market share is climbing in the US due to laptop sales, not desktop sales. Many people can in fact afford a Mac mini. Apparently they are not buying them and the Mac mini happens to be priced in range of computers that is indeed selling.
He was being a dick. I'll use what words I feel appropriate.
I challenge you to cite one instance. I have stated my position clearly without vulgar language nor with ad hominem attacks. You may disagree, but what you claim here is wrong.
This thread comes back over and over and over. Like every 90 days. Enough.
It should be obvious why. This isn't the only board that this topic comes up on a very regular basis.
They are using a mobile chip for <GASP!> mobiles, and a desktop chip for <double gasp!> for desktops. They picked the processors they felt met their needs the best. And they keep it simple for reasons of production costs and simplicity of the product matrix. Have you ever tried to configure over at Dell.com? It's a nightmare.
The Mac mini and iMac are using cpus designed for laptops. No one is arguing that Apple should in any way attempt to emmulate Dell. One more model would not create mass confusion.
Oh stop. The MP and MBP are selling very well. The latter is setting records. "Most people" don't buy MPs because they're not made for "most people." For "most people" the iMac is a damn fine and capable machine.
Yes, the iMac is an excellent machine, for its' target market. So would an xMac.
1. What people would it attract, and how many of them as compared to how they cannibalize their presumably higher margin MP sales? Answer: It would potentially attract nerds like us that post on AI and whine and bitch about everything Apple. It wouldn't attract a significant amount of switchers.
2. Totally a bad idea. It's easy to go apeshit crazy and start releasing 1,000 different products when things are going well. And I disagree...the market has not embraced tablet computing. More form factors just complicates things. You can't just start throwing out products to see if they float. This has never been Apple's approach in the Jobs II era, and it's shouldn't be. It's why, for example, they waited so long on the iPhone and never released another Newton. Sure, they could have. But it's too much of a drain on resources. Apple wants to make sure when they release something it stands a good chance at being a hit and recouping all the R+D put into it. You don't make the "next great thing" when you're bobbing for, well, Apples.
Apple has a history of introducing products that are considered high risk, Newton, Pippen, Cube, iPod, Apple's TV. We're not talking about a high risk product that takes years of design and development. It would be low risk, quite possibly high profit and could be discountinued at a moments notice. How did you turn adding one model into "start releasing 1,000 different products". This argument just does not follow.
Yeah right. Offer a xMac tower that you folks have been describing for $999 and the iMac is dead as a doornail.
However, I don't believe a mini tower would take away sales from the iMac in the numbers you seem to suggest. The iMac would survive quite well, IMHO, and a lot of currently dissatisfied Mac users would be buying new Macs again.