Okay. You just gave a reason for Apple to build the xMac mini tower, starting at $999.
Only if you like reduced ASPs and revenues. Even with price drops the ACDs are not very competitive. Bundling the monitor with the Mac is also another Apple tax.
You may not like the Apple tax but its one thing fueling the success of the company in comparison to someone like Dell. Personally, so long as Apple continues to develop OSX and new products like the iPhone and aTV the Apple tax annoyance factor is acceptable.
While I'd like an updated mini I can live with an updated macbook. One or both will appear with Santa Rosa sooner or later.
While I'd like an updated mini I can live with an updated macbook. One or both will appear with Santa Rosa sooner or later.
Yeah, take a MacBook, break off the display at its hinges and you essentially have a mini with a keyboard for $500 more. That's what we may have to do, eventually.
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.
Yes, $1500 without a monitor. Absolutely. The Mac Pro is $2200 without a monitor.
Quote:
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.
I don't see your point. Nor do I think the reasons are irrelevant.
Quote:
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.
Then they should buy an iMac. If the Mac Pro is not needed, the iMac is perfect. And I don't think you understand what the word "disingenuous" means.
Quote:
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.
What exactly is "flat sales volume?" It's all relative. And even if one accepts that Mac Pro sales are not what they "should" be, that doesn't mean the introduction of Mid-pro tower would help. You're speculating.
Quote:
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.
The whole industry is moving to more of a laptop model. That's why. But technically, you're correct for the most part.
Quote:
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.
OK.
Provide a link to any Apple market research studies or reports of Apple sponsered market research studies. I mentioned the only one I've seen. Your turn..
I told you to fuck off because you sir, are being disingenuous . You know full well that a study like that is not going to be found, whether or not it was done. I therefore told you to fuck off. I have no tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. None. Next time you'll know better.
Quote:
It should be obvious why. This isn't the only board that this topic comes up on a very regular basis.
Yes, it is obvious. It's obvious that there will always be people who complain that they can't afford a Mac pro but don't want the stigma of using a "grandma computer" like the iMac. So they invent all kinds of reasons why Apple should release one and why they NEED one. That's what's obvious.
Quote:
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.
I agree with that as you stated it, but that's what others were arguing.
Quote:
Yes, the iMac is an excellent machine, for its' target market. So would an xMac.
In your opinion. Apple apparently feels differently. Somehow I'll take their word over yours. You might want one. 5,000 geeks on AI and MacNN might want one. The question is how many hundred thousand per year would want one.
Quote:
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.
Uh, I was taking issue with the concept he was talking about...he talked about releasing a tablet and other consumer devices.
I also disagree with you about history, at least recent history. The Newton era is ancient history. Apple was not run the way it is now. Pippen is the same thing. The Cube was perhaps the one exception, though I don't think Apple thought it would high risk. People wanted a headless machine. The central problem there was price. The secondary problem with expandability. The last problem was quality control. Name a single product Apple has introduced since then with that level of risk. The iPhone has been developed over years and carefully planned, etc...so that doesn't even begin to cut it.
At least he had an point, pointing to lack of puncuation is not an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Yes, $1500 without a monitor. Absolutely. The Mac Pro is $2200 without a monitor.
And the Mac Pro uses workstation cpus and at this time expensive ram that many professionals and consumers in particular do not need or want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I don't see your point. Nor do I think the reasons are irrelevant.
The point is on the PC side there is choice and the consumer has overwhelmingly not chosen AIO or Mac mini style computers. If there was a compelling need percieved or real, consumers on the PC side would be buying AIO or Mac mini style computers, they are not. Reasons are not relevant, the reasons may range from perceived need, actual need, ignorance or knowledge, but still the reasons, whatever they are, are in fact irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Then they should buy an iMac. If the Mac Pro is not needed, the iMac is perfect. And I don't think you understand what the word "disingenuous" means.
For many consumers and professionals the iMac is not perfect. Consumers in general, when offered a choice, do not choose an iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
What exactly is "flat sales volume?" It's all relative. And even if one accepts that Mac Pro sales are not what they "should" be, that doesn't mean the introduction of Mid-pro tower would help. You're speculating.
The whole industry is moving to more of a laptop model. That's why. But technically, you're correct for the most part.
Yes, I'm speculating. Yes, the percentage of computers sold are indeed migrating to laptops, however, millions of desktops are still sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Provide a link to any Apple market research studies or reports of Apple sponsered market research studies. I mentioned the only one I've seen. Your turn..
I told you to fuck off because you sir, are being disingenuous . You know full well that a study like that is not going to be found, whether or not it was done. I therefore told you to fuck off. I have no tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. None. Next time you'll know better.
No I'm not disingenuous. I made a statement, you made an ad hominem attack and with vulgar language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Yes, it is obvious. It's obvious that there will always be people who complain that they can't afford a Mac pro but don't want the stigma of using a "grandma computer" like the iMac. So they invent all kinds of reasons why Apple should release one and why they NEED one. That's what's obvious.
"grandma computer"? No, they want a computer that is easy to use and flexible. Now you're just making stuff up about what you think people want and why they want it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
In your opinion. Apple apparently feels differently. Somehow I'll take their word over yours. You might want one. 5,000 geeks on AI and MacNN might want one. The question is how many hundred thousand per year would want one.
If you look at the PC side, millions want an xMac style computer and given the options they vote with their wallet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Uh, I was taking issue with the concept he was talking about...he talked about releasing a tablet and other consumer devices.
Ok, I accept that, however, I was only talking about one more model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I also disagree with you about history, at least recent history. The Newton era is ancient history. Apple was not run the way it is now. Pippen is the same thing. The Cube was perhaps the one exception, though I don't think Apple thought it would high risk. People wanted a headless machine. The central problem there was price. The secondary problem with expandability. The last problem was quality control. Name a single product Apple has introduced since then with that level of risk. The iPhone has been developed over years and carefully planned, etc...so that doesn't even begin to cut it.
The iPod and now the iPhone come to mind. Both high risk, considering the amount of R&D required to introduce compared to an xMac. And yes the Cube and the 2nd generation iMac with the swivle arm were both higher risk, especially the iMac.
AUh, I was taking issue with the concept he was talking about...he talked about releasing a tablet and other consumer devices.
I was talking about eventually releasing a tablet-like computer NEXT YEAR. Please read all the sentence, instead of jumping out of your chair as soon as you read "headless" or "tablet".
In bold below, important parts of the sentence.
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.
IMO, the iPhone is already a big step towards a "tablet-like" computer.
Thanks to rickag for keeping answering your rants with calm and class.
For $700, he got a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo processor, three open PCI slots, two open drive bays, six USB2 ports, two Firewire ports, 2GB memory, 320GB hard drive, DVD read/write drive, 15-in-one memory card reader, speakers, keyboard and mouse.
Of course he can't run Mac OS X but I'm so jealous! I'm befuddled as to why Apple won't make something similar for about $1000, or even a bit more.
I wouldn't say it was half-assed. It just was overpriced, had heat issues, cracking, etc. It wasn't compelling.
Do you work in Apple's marketing department?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
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.
Because they are unnecessarily crippled now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
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.
How is it the same? As rickag said if you take bits out, how does the price stay the same?
I think you need to look at it from the Mini as a start point.
Take the Mini contents out and put it in a bigger box -> price is the same
Take the mini components and replace them with desktop parts -> price goes down
Take a good GPU and price goes up by a small amount
At worst it should only be about £200 (~$300) more than the current Mini for models with a good GPU and the same or less for ones with GMA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I can't see anyone being happy with that option.
Yep, you definitely work at Apple 'cos that's exactly what they'll be thinking. Make the mid tower look as bad as possible so no-one can possibly want one.
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. That's what I'm taking issue with.
I agree with rickag:
"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."
This point is quite clear to me and as mentioned the reasons are irrelevant. The point is that given the choice, people buy towers. Apple just don't give you a fair choice. The reasons why people prefer towers is surely irrelevant in the sense that we're only concerned with which model sells better.
If you want to know the reasons then ask the PC users you know. Apple should do the same but they won't because they've already decided that their opinion isn't worth asking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
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'd say there are groups who dislike the OS and groups who dislike the hardware. Almost no one buys a Mac specifically to run Windows so it seems to me the latter group is larger.
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.
Yeah, I'd love to jump from a tiny Mac Mini to a workstation tower that is about 15 times the size. I actually take my Mini with me sometimes when I travel because it's so small. Just like you can do with a Nintendo GameCube.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
The kind of machine you're talking about would, knowing Apple's pricing schemes, likely be closer to $1700 or $1800.
Apple's pricing scheme seems to be make the mid-tower look as unattractive as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
What is the motivation for this hypothetical PC user to not choose a Mac? You can't tell me it's just price.
You have got to be kidding me. Have you never been to any forum outside of a Mac forum? That is the single biggest complaint about them. Relating to towers, it usually includes comments about building your own machine cheaper but mostly it's about graphics cards. We've established that PC users want towers. The cheapest one with a good GPU is £1400, which is ridiculous because it still only has a 7300GT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
They will realize that there are other options, specifically the iMac. Any truly budget minded consumer is going to go for that option anyway.
Some people don't find the iMac aesthetically pleasing and it's still not a budget computer because if they used desktop parts, it would be cheaper and faster like their PC counterparts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
The power user is not going to be upset with the Mac pro price.
I agree but the prosumer would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Apple has done well specifically because they have NOT embraced the kind of thinking you're championing.
They never have embraced that kind of thinking so it's hard to reach that conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
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.
Exactly. You didn't buy from Lexus because they didn't offer something that *you* wanted. PC users are buying PCs because Apple are not offering what they want. Now you get where I'm coming from.
Or is this where I should tell you to save up for a Lexus because it's what you really want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
This thread comes back over and over and over. Like every 90 days. Enough.
There's only one way to stop them coming back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Have you ever tried to configure over at Dell.com? It's a nightmare.
I know, there's so much choice. Thank goodness we don't get any of that from Apple or we'd all get exactly what we want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
It's obvious that there will always be people who complain that they can't afford a Mac pro but don't want the stigma of using a "grandma computer" like the iMac.
Thanks for bringing up another issue to add to the many others we've posted every 90 days. I don't see how you can justify it with reasoning like this. If you also think that it has this association then why are you trying to force it on people? If you had a store full of pink shirts and people walked past, would you shout 'it's just 'cos you don't want people to think you're a homo'. No, you change your stock to match what they are comfortable with. As always it's the simple rules of supply and demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iDave
My brother just bought a new Gateway computer.
For $700, he got a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo processor, three open PCI slots, two open drive bays, six USB2 ports, two Firewire ports, 2GB memory, 320GB hard drive, DVD read/write drive, 15-in-one memory card reader, speakers, keyboard and mouse.
Of course he can't run Mac OS X but I'm so jealous! I'm befuddled as to why Apple won't make something similar for about $1000, or even a bit more.
Yup, $999 for that from Apple would be fine with a decent graphics card. What graphics were in that model? Like I said, Apple could easily do $699 with integrated graphics and basic options.
The 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo doesn't cost Apple any more than the 1.66GHz Core Duo so they could match that spec.
Yup, $999 for that from Apple would be fine with a decent graphics card. What graphics were in that model? Like I said, Apple could easily do $699 with integrated graphics and basic options.
His new Gateway has the GMA 950 integrated graphics just like the Mac mini but it doesn't matter because he took the graphics card out of his old computer and put it in the new one.
For $700, he got a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo processor, three open PCI slots, two open drive bays, six USB2 ports, two Firewire ports, 2GB memory, 320GB hard drive, DVD read/write drive, 15-in-one memory card reader, speakers, keyboard and mouse.
Of course he can't run Mac OS X but I'm so jealous! I'm befuddled as to why Apple won't make something similar for about $1000, or even a bit more.
Because an xMac with those spec destroys iMac sales but reviews poorly against Dell, HP and Gateway machines because it's $300 more expensive.
For $999 you can buy a Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24" display for $669 or a Dell E22WFP 22" display for $309. That's $200-350 cheaper than the equivalent 20 and 24" iMacs. Very few are going to bother with the iMac. This leads to lower ASPs and revenue for Apple.
And yet it is STILL $300 more than the equivalent Dell, HP, Gateway so when it gets reviewed it will likely go against a machine a couple hundred dollars cheaper but with a faster CPU or more memory or something. Which means both overpriced and underperforming because its more expensive and still runs slower.
Reviewers will review tower vs tower. Mac desktop compare favorably because they are the best in category: AIO, SFF (well, not so much anymore) and Workstation. In each of those reviews are positive. Try to pawn off a $700 machine for $999 and not so much.
Because an xMac with those spec destroys iMac sales but reviews poorly against Dell, HP and Gateway machines because it's $300 more expensive.
Your post makes a lot of sense. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
So what's the answer? How can we Mac users get a computer we can afford, that has the storage we need, that connects to the monitors we have, etc.?
I am simply not interested in an all-in-one computer and even if I was, I don't like the looks of or the difficulty of expanding the iMac. I would buy a mini if it was up to date with just a couple of minor improvements. But now (according to rumor) it's going to be discontinued?
Because an xMac with those spec destroys iMac sales but reviews poorly against Dell, HP and Gateway machines because it's $300 more expensive.
Who cares if it destroys the iMac? Why do people keep trying to protect it like it's some sort of emblem of the Mac community?
If it does destroy it (which it won't for reasons we've covered), that tells you that Apple's business model has been wrong all this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
And yet it is STILL $300 more than the equivalent Dell, HP, Gateway so when it gets reviewed it will likely go against a machine a couple hundred dollars cheaper but with a faster CPU or more memory or something.
Nope, it would have the same spec but just be more expensive. This won't compare badly against a Dell or whatever because they don't make nicely designed machines. People are willing to pay more for good design. Otherwise people would never buy fancy watches, cars, clothes etc. However, it's still very much affordable as it's cheaper than the iMac (which as we know, some people are prepared to pay for).
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Try to pawn off a $700 machine for $999 and not so much.
They already do that with the iMac so I don't follow. If Apple put the same markup on a headless mac as they do on the iMac then the machine will still be cheaper and they make a similar profit so I don't see the problem at all.
I don't think it would be good for Apple if the iMac suddenly became unpopular. One could argue that it (and its positive image) saved the company in the late 90s. It continues to reinforce Apple's positive image in the computer business.
That said, I agree if a decent expandable Mac without a display can make the same profit for Apple as an iMac, it's hard to understand why Apple won't make one. I guess Apple truly is afraid such a Mac would hurt iMac sales as well as Mac Pro sales.
This must also be the reason the Mac mini has been left to languish as the undesirable entry level choice for those who can't afford any better. Seems like before long, the mini is going to tarnish Apple's image if it's not bumped with 2007 technology. Is there any other company still selling computers with Core Duo?
Who cares if it destroys the iMac? Why do people keep trying to protect it like it's some sort of emblem of the Mac community?
Well, for one, as iDave pointed out, it IS an emblem of the community.
Second, and more pragmatic, is that it offers good ASPs, competes within the desktop space without competing directly with Dell, HP and Gateway in the tower market where price/performance (i.e. bang for the buck) is a more significant driver of sales than design.
Also, the iMac provides an additional half million or so laptop component buys for Apple to reduce the production costs of the MB and MBP.
Quote:
If it does destroy it (which it won't for reasons we've covered), that tells you that Apple's business model has been wrong all this time.
You mean the highly successful model to date?
Quote:
Nope, it would have the same spec but just be more expensive. This won't compare badly against a Dell or whatever because they don't make nicely designed machines. People are willing to pay more for good design. Otherwise people would never buy fancy watches, cars, clothes etc. However, it's still very much affordable as it's cheaper than the iMac (which as we know, some people are prepared to pay for).
The iMac has a certain cachet due to its AIO form factor. The iMac reinforces the uniqueness (or desired uniqueness anyway) of the Apple branding. You might be able to argue for another SFF computer that is Apple Cube like but not a traditional tower.
The Mac Pro does well because it happens to be a good value in comparison to other workstations in its class (e.g. Dell Precision). An xMac mid/mini tower, not so much if priced $300 above its competitors.
Whether people will pay 28% margins on nicely designed towers is debatable. You might argue the VAIOs were poorly executed but the desktops typically showed more design style than Dell or HP and were typically fairly quiet in comparison to a Dell. I personally thought the VAIOs were nice machines if overpriced.
Quote:
They already do that with the iMac so I don't follow. If Apple put the same markup on a headless mac as they do on the iMac then the machine will still be cheaper and they make a similar profit so I don't see the problem at all.
You don't follow because you fail to realize that Apple pawns off a $799 machine for $1499. Apple's ASP is around the $1500 mark so translating all those 20" iMac sales into $999 xMac sales is a bad deal for Apple.
While a tower might be good for some customers, its not so good for Apple. In the long run a healthier Apple is worth more than a lower cost tower to me. If Dell went *poof* tomorrow there's always HP. If Apple went *poof* there's no replacement.
Sure Apple has a lot of money in the bank today and is executing pretty well but I don't mind that Apple is sitting with a nice large warchest to survive the post-Jobs era through at least one or two screwups.
Unless you want to be stuck with either Linux or Windows as your options...
When might we see a redesign of the Mac Pro? Besides being pricey, it's undesirable (to me) because it's so darn big. It's too big to fit on or under anyone's desk so it sits next to it taking up about three cubic feet of space. Surely Apple can do better with Intel CPUs (now that there's no G5 to be cooled by umpteen fans).
Even if we never see a new mid-range headless Mac or Mac mini, I'd sure like to see Apple put the Mac Pro on a slim-down diet.
For me, the mini came at a great moment. Apple was in transition -- G4s and 5s -- noise, heat and other troubles. Having bought AIO since Performas, I finally jumped ship to a cinema 23' and the mini. I had thought to buy minis every 2 years to keep pace with everything but if Apple offers nothing reasonable soon then their message is clear. Mini 'Switchers' are supposed to go iMac or get lost. Me? I'll go MacPro in due time I guess, but I'll budget one for every 5 years instead and Apple will not get a penny's difference. I'd prefer a third option Apple, please surprise folks like me!
You don't follow because you fail to realize that Apple pawns off a $799 machine for $1499. ...
Vinea
I disagree. Unless something has changed dramatically since the Merom iMac was introduced, when you compared the iMac feature for feature with Dell computers the cost comparisions were not the heavily weighted in Dell's favor. Last time I looked, several months ago the only main difference was in the graphics capabilities between the machines.
I disagree. Unless something has changed dramatically since the Merom iMac was introduced, when you compared the iMac feature for feature with Dell computers the cost comparisions were not the heavily weighted in Dell's favor. Last time I looked, several months ago the only main difference was in the graphics capabilities between the machines.
What? Are you incapable of clicking on Dell's site before saying something completely wrong? No, nothing has "dramatically changed". The iMac typically has a poor bang for the buck ratio in comparison to towers.
My XPS 410 Date 6/19/2007 9:48:54 AM Central Standard Time $1499
Intel® Core?2 Duo Processor E6600 (4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB)
Genuine Windows® XP Home Edition with re-installation CD
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache?
Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
22 inch E228WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 7.0
Windows XP? VCD
Dell AS501PA 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for Analog Flat Panels
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse
56K PCI Data Fax Modem
Microsoft Works 8.
Norton Internet Security? 2006 Edition 15-months
1Yr In-Home Service, Parts + Labor - Next Business Day
So let see:
2.4 Conroe vs 2.16 Merom
2GB vs 1GB Ram
500GB HDD vs 250GB HDD
256MB ATI X1300 Pro vs 128MB ATI X1600
22" WFP analog display vs 20" WFP digital display
(Can do 20" Ultrasharp WFP digital for $60 more)
iMac crushed. The 24" iMac is even worse.
The $1499 20" iMac is roughly equivalent to $999 Dell or Gateway when there is no promotion going on (none at the moment that I can tell) or $699 like the Gateway rig above which I can't replicate on the Gateway site at the moment (need to add a vid card and maybe bump the monitor on the $699 Gateway...probably comes out around $799).
The iMac sucks except for form factor, elegance and OSX. A $999 xMac will suck slightly less but there's only so much design you can put into a boxy mini-tower form factor given folks in this thread want at least 2 PCIe slots, 4 mem slots, 2 drive bays and a partridge in a pear tree.
Nothing smaller than the larger boxy Shuttles...even the Cube is too small. The best you'll end up with is a mini Mac Pro looking thingy unless you go pizza box with risers.
I don't think it would be good for Apple if the iMac suddenly became unpopular. One could argue that it (and its positive image) saved the company in the late 90s. It continues to reinforce Apple's positive image in the computer business.
I get the opposite impression from the people I speak to. The Mac Pro is impressive because for price it is very competitive and it is extremely fast. The Macbook and MBP compete quite well with other manufacturers on price despite the MB using GMA. People have problems with the Mini and iMac. One is crippled, the other is basically a laptop without the functionality of a laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iDave
Is there any other company still selling computers with Core Duo?
Yeah, there are still people selling Pentium-M and older AMD chips. PC manufacturers have done this for ages because they understand that more people will buy an older model but new machine for a cheaper price than a second hand machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You mean the highly successful model to date?
But you can't really call it successful because something can only be considered a success relative to something else. The iMac is a success relative to the Mini because the Mini is crippled. The iMac is a success relative to the Mac Pro because the latter is out of most people's budgets. That doesn't make it a success in my opinion, it makes it the only viable option for most people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You don't follow because you fail to realize that Apple pawns off a $799 machine for $1499. Apple's ASP is around the $1500 mark so translating all those 20" iMac sales into $999 xMac sales is a bad deal for Apple.
The imac markup is closer to 25% than 45%. A $999 tower would cost them $750 to build and they can build a pretty nice machine for that.
They also save money not having to worry about warranty screen repairs for all the iMacs. Also, their manufacturing costs should go down by not having to hook up a display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
While a tower might be good for some customers, its not so good for Apple. In the long run a healthier Apple is worth more than a lower cost tower to me. If Dell went *poof* tomorrow there's always HP. If Apple went *poof* there's no replacement.
Do people not realise that Apple are just another company? The phrase 'not so good for Apple' doesn't really mean anything to me. I'm paying them money that I earn. I don't care for their well-being, I want satisfaction for the money I'm spending.
What really bugs me is that people are perfectly willing for Apple to venture off into building really high risk products like Apple TVs and iphones, leaving the Mac community on hold for a year but mention a product that people are crying out for and you act as though it will be the death of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
2.4 Conroe vs 2.16 Merom
2GB vs 1GB Ram
500GB HDD vs 250GB HDD
256MB ATI X1300 Pro vs 128MB ATI X1600
22" WFP analog display vs 20" WFP digital display
(Can do 20" Ultrasharp WFP digital for $60 more)
iMac crushed. The 24" iMac is even worse.
The ram is easily upgraded, the hard drive is negligible as most people would barely use 250GB, the X1600 is much better than the X1300, the displays are about the same. The only difference is the desktop parts in the Dell, which would make it cheaper and faster, which is why the cube is a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The iMac sucks except for form factor, elegance and OSX.
OS X is not unique to the iMac, a cube would have a good form factor and would be elegant so why do you want to keep the iMac if you think it sucks?
But you can't really call it successful because something can only be considered a success relative to something else. The iMac is a success relative to the Mini because the Mini is crippled. The iMac is a success relative to the Mac Pro because the latter is out of most people's budgets. That doesn't make it a success in my opinion, it makes it the only viable option for most people.
Their business model has been quite successful. That individual models may or may not perform to your level of satisfaction doesn't change that fact.
Quote:
The imac markup is closer to 25% than 45%. A $999 tower would cost them $750 to build and they can build a pretty nice machine for that.
Go spec out a 20" iMac vs a Dell with 20" display. Oh wait...I just did like 2 posts ago. The $1499 iMac is about equivalent to a $800-$900 Dell depending on what deals Dell is offering.
Quote:
They also save money not having to worry about warranty screen repairs for all the iMacs. Also, their manufacturing costs should go down by not having to hook up a display.
They don't save money...they LOSE money because every iMac is an automatic monitor sale at a large markup.
Quote:
Do people not realise that Apple are just another company? The phrase 'not so good for Apple' doesn't really mean anything to me. I'm paying them money that I earn. I don't care for their well-being, I want satisfaction for the money I'm spending.
Then you are a fool that can't see long term. You keep your supplier as well as your customers happy and healthy because in the end you depend on both. Apple provides a useful alternative to other operating systems that has not been replicated and wouldn't likely get replaced should they exit the market.
If you don't have satisfaction from Apple products there's a really easy solution. Stop buying them.
Quote:
What really bugs me is that people are perfectly willing for Apple to venture off into building really high risk products like Apple TVs and iphones, leaving the Mac community on hold for a year but mention a product that people are crying out for and you act as though it will be the death of them.
These people are called "shareholders" and the like Apple going off to try and dominate new markets and not banging their head against the wall trying to sell into the highly price competitive and mature tower market.
One is a potential failure but with huge potential gains. The other is a nearly assured failure with limited gains.
Quote:
The ram is easily upgraded, the hard drive is negligible as most people would barely use 250GB, the X1600 is much better than the X1300, the displays are about the same. The only difference is the desktop parts in the Dell, which would make it cheaper and faster, which is why the cube is a good idea.
It all costs money. Upgrade the RAM, HDD and other stuff and the iMac isn't $1499 anymore. Downgrade the Dell to 1GB RAM and 250GB HDD and you save a couple hundred dollars and its STILL faster.
Quote:
OS X is not unique to the iMac, a cube would have a good form factor and would be elegant so why do you want to keep the iMac if you think it sucks?
A cube can't fit everything that folks in this thread want. I would like a cube but I don't expect one.
Why do I want to keep the iMac? I don't much care other than some desktop models are better than no desktop models. I'm simply explaining why a xMac is a forlorn hope. Apple isn't ignoring you because they are stupid. Apple is ignoring you because you are unimportant and serving your needs means making less money to do other more lucrative things.
Comments
Only if you like reduced ASPs and revenues. Even with price drops the ACDs are not very competitive. Bundling the monitor with the Mac is also another Apple tax.
You may not like the Apple tax but its one thing fueling the success of the company in comparison to someone like Dell. Personally, so long as Apple continues to develop OSX and new products like the iPhone and aTV the Apple tax annoyance factor is acceptable.
While I'd like an updated mini I can live with an updated macbook. One or both will appear with Santa Rosa sooner or later.
Vinea
While I'd like an updated mini I can live with an updated macbook. One or both will appear with Santa Rosa sooner or later.
Yeah, take a MacBook, break off the display at its hinges and you essentially have a mini with a keyboard for $500 more. That's what we may have to do, eventually.
Another great argument.
And his was better?
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.
Yes, $1500 without a monitor. Absolutely. The Mac Pro is $2200 without a monitor.
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.
I don't see your point. Nor do I think the reasons are irrelevant.
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.
Then they should buy an iMac. If the Mac Pro is not needed, the iMac is perfect. And I don't think you understand what the word "disingenuous" means.
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.
What exactly is "flat sales volume?" It's all relative. And even if one accepts that Mac Pro sales are not what they "should" be, that doesn't mean the introduction of Mid-pro tower would help. You're speculating.
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.
The whole industry is moving to more of a laptop model. That's why. But technically, you're correct for the most part.
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.
OK.
Provide a link to any Apple market research studies or reports of Apple sponsered market research studies. I mentioned the only one I've seen. Your turn..
I told you to fuck off because you sir, are being disingenuous . You know full well that a study like that is not going to be found, whether or not it was done. I therefore told you to fuck off. I have no tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. None. Next time you'll know better.
It should be obvious why. This isn't the only board that this topic comes up on a very regular basis.
Yes, it is obvious. It's obvious that there will always be people who complain that they can't afford a Mac pro but don't want the stigma of using a "grandma computer" like the iMac. So they invent all kinds of reasons why Apple should release one and why they NEED one. That's what's obvious.
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.
I agree with that as you stated it, but that's what others were arguing.
Yes, the iMac is an excellent machine, for its' target market. So would an xMac.
In your opinion. Apple apparently feels differently. Somehow I'll take their word over yours. You might want one. 5,000 geeks on AI and MacNN might want one. The question is how many hundred thousand per year would want one.
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.
Uh, I was taking issue with the concept he was talking about...he talked about releasing a tablet and other consumer devices.
I also disagree with you about history, at least recent history. The Newton era is ancient history. Apple was not run the way it is now. Pippen is the same thing. The Cube was perhaps the one exception, though I don't think Apple thought it would high risk. People wanted a headless machine. The central problem there was price. The secondary problem with expandability. The last problem was quality control. Name a single product Apple has introduced since then with that level of risk. The iPhone has been developed over years and carefully planned, etc...so that doesn't even begin to cut it.
And his was better?
At least he had an point, pointing to lack of puncuation is not an argument.
Yes, $1500 without a monitor. Absolutely. The Mac Pro is $2200 without a monitor.
And the Mac Pro uses workstation cpus and at this time expensive ram that many professionals and consumers in particular do not need or want.
I don't see your point. Nor do I think the reasons are irrelevant.
The point is on the PC side there is choice and the consumer has overwhelmingly not chosen AIO or Mac mini style computers. If there was a compelling need percieved or real, consumers on the PC side would be buying AIO or Mac mini style computers, they are not. Reasons are not relevant, the reasons may range from perceived need, actual need, ignorance or knowledge, but still the reasons, whatever they are, are in fact irrelevant.
Then they should buy an iMac. If the Mac Pro is not needed, the iMac is perfect. And I don't think you understand what the word "disingenuous" means.
For many consumers and professionals the iMac is not perfect. Consumers in general, when offered a choice, do not choose an iMac.
What exactly is "flat sales volume?" It's all relative. And even if one accepts that Mac Pro sales are not what they "should" be, that doesn't mean the introduction of Mid-pro tower would help. You're speculating.
The whole industry is moving to more of a laptop model. That's why. But technically, you're correct for the most part.
Yes, I'm speculating. Yes, the percentage of computers sold are indeed migrating to laptops, however, millions of desktops are still sold.
Provide a link to any Apple market research studies or reports of Apple sponsered market research studies. I mentioned the only one I've seen. Your turn..
I told you to fuck off because you sir, are being disingenuous . You know full well that a study like that is not going to be found, whether or not it was done. I therefore told you to fuck off. I have no tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. None. Next time you'll know better.
No I'm not disingenuous. I made a statement, you made an ad hominem attack and with vulgar language.
Yes, it is obvious. It's obvious that there will always be people who complain that they can't afford a Mac pro but don't want the stigma of using a "grandma computer" like the iMac. So they invent all kinds of reasons why Apple should release one and why they NEED one. That's what's obvious.
"grandma computer"? No, they want a computer that is easy to use and flexible. Now you're just making stuff up about what you think people want and why they want it.
In your opinion. Apple apparently feels differently. Somehow I'll take their word over yours. You might want one. 5,000 geeks on AI and MacNN might want one. The question is how many hundred thousand per year would want one.
If you look at the PC side, millions want an xMac style computer and given the options they vote with their wallet.
Uh, I was taking issue with the concept he was talking about...he talked about releasing a tablet and other consumer devices.
Ok, I accept that, however, I was only talking about one more model.
I also disagree with you about history, at least recent history. The Newton era is ancient history. Apple was not run the way it is now. Pippen is the same thing. The Cube was perhaps the one exception, though I don't think Apple thought it would high risk. People wanted a headless machine. The central problem there was price. The secondary problem with expandability. The last problem was quality control. Name a single product Apple has introduced since then with that level of risk. The iPhone has been developed over years and carefully planned, etc...so that doesn't even begin to cut it.
The iPod and now the iPhone come to mind. Both high risk, considering the amount of R&D required to introduce compared to an xMac. And yes the Cube and the 2nd generation iMac with the swivle arm were both higher risk, especially the iMac.
AUh, I was taking issue with the concept he was talking about...he talked about releasing a tablet and other consumer devices.
I was talking about eventually releasing a tablet-like computer NEXT YEAR. Please read all the sentence, instead of jumping out of your chair as soon as you read "headless" or "tablet".
In bold below, important parts of the sentence.
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.
IMO, the iPhone is already a big step towards a "tablet-like" computer.
Thanks to rickag for keeping answering your rants with calm and class.
For $700, he got a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo processor, three open PCI slots, two open drive bays, six USB2 ports, two Firewire ports, 2GB memory, 320GB hard drive, DVD read/write drive, 15-in-one memory card reader, speakers, keyboard and mouse.
Of course he can't run Mac OS X but I'm so jealous! I'm befuddled as to why Apple won't make something similar for about $1000, or even a bit more.
I wouldn't say it was half-assed. It just was overpriced, had heat issues, cracking, etc. It wasn't compelling.
Do you work in Apple's marketing department?
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.
Because they are unnecessarily crippled now.
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.
I think you need to look at it from the Mini as a start point.
Take the Mini contents out and put it in a bigger box -> price is the same
Take the mini components and replace them with desktop parts -> price goes down
Take a good GPU and price goes up by a small amount
At worst it should only be about £200 (~$300) more than the current Mini for models with a good GPU and the same or less for ones with GMA.
I can't see anyone being happy with that option.
Yep, you definitely work at Apple 'cos that's exactly what they'll be thinking. Make the mid tower look as bad as possible so no-one can possibly want one.
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.
I agree with rickag:
"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."
This point is quite clear to me and as mentioned the reasons are irrelevant. The point is that given the choice, people buy towers. Apple just don't give you a fair choice. The reasons why people prefer towers is surely irrelevant in the sense that we're only concerned with which model sells better.
If you want to know the reasons then ask the PC users you know. Apple should do the same but they won't because they've already decided that their opinion isn't worth asking for.
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'd say there are groups who dislike the OS and groups who dislike the hardware. Almost no one buys a Mac specifically to run Windows so it seems to me the latter group is larger.
Then save for a Mac pro. See, it's exactly my point....you're really just complaining about the price of the Mac pro.
Yeah, I'd love to jump from a tiny Mac Mini to a workstation tower that is about 15 times the size. I actually take my Mini with me sometimes when I travel because it's so small. Just like you can do with a Nintendo GameCube.
The kind of machine you're talking about would, knowing Apple's pricing schemes, likely be closer to $1700 or $1800.
Apple's pricing scheme seems to be make the mid-tower look as unattractive as possible.
What is the motivation for this hypothetical PC user to not choose a Mac? You can't tell me it's just price.
You have got to be kidding me. Have you never been to any forum outside of a Mac forum? That is the single biggest complaint about them. Relating to towers, it usually includes comments about building your own machine cheaper but mostly it's about graphics cards. We've established that PC users want towers. The cheapest one with a good GPU is £1400, which is ridiculous because it still only has a 7300GT.
They will realize that there are other options, specifically the iMac. Any truly budget minded consumer is going to go for that option anyway.
Some people don't find the iMac aesthetically pleasing and it's still not a budget computer because if they used desktop parts, it would be cheaper and faster like their PC counterparts.
The power user is not going to be upset with the Mac pro price.
I agree but the prosumer would be.
Apple has done well specifically because they have NOT embraced the kind of thinking you're championing.
They never have embraced that kind of thinking so it's hard to reach that conclusion.
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.
Exactly. You didn't buy from Lexus because they didn't offer something that *you* wanted. PC users are buying PCs because Apple are not offering what they want. Now you get where I'm coming from.
Or is this where I should tell you to save up for a Lexus because it's what you really want?
This thread comes back over and over and over. Like every 90 days. Enough.
There's only one way to stop them coming back.
Have you ever tried to configure over at Dell.com? It's a nightmare.
I know, there's so much choice. Thank goodness we don't get any of that from Apple or we'd all get exactly what we want.
It's obvious that there will always be people who complain that they can't afford a Mac pro but don't want the stigma of using a "grandma computer" like the iMac.
Thanks for bringing up another issue to add to the many others we've posted every 90 days. I don't see how you can justify it with reasoning like this. If you also think that it has this association then why are you trying to force it on people? If you had a store full of pink shirts and people walked past, would you shout 'it's just 'cos you don't want people to think you're a homo'. No, you change your stock to match what they are comfortable with. As always it's the simple rules of supply and demand.
My brother just bought a new Gateway computer.
For $700, he got a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo processor, three open PCI slots, two open drive bays, six USB2 ports, two Firewire ports, 2GB memory, 320GB hard drive, DVD read/write drive, 15-in-one memory card reader, speakers, keyboard and mouse.
Of course he can't run Mac OS X but I'm so jealous! I'm befuddled as to why Apple won't make something similar for about $1000, or even a bit more.
Yup, $999 for that from Apple would be fine with a decent graphics card. What graphics were in that model? Like I said, Apple could easily do $699 with integrated graphics and basic options.
The 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo doesn't cost Apple any more than the 1.66GHz Core Duo so they could match that spec.
Yup, $999 for that from Apple would be fine with a decent graphics card. What graphics were in that model? Like I said, Apple could easily do $699 with integrated graphics and basic options.
His new Gateway has the GMA 950 integrated graphics just like the Mac mini but it doesn't matter because he took the graphics card out of his old computer and put it in the new one.
My brother just bought a new Gateway computer.
For $700, he got a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo processor, three open PCI slots, two open drive bays, six USB2 ports, two Firewire ports, 2GB memory, 320GB hard drive, DVD read/write drive, 15-in-one memory card reader, speakers, keyboard and mouse.
Of course he can't run Mac OS X but I'm so jealous! I'm befuddled as to why Apple won't make something similar for about $1000, or even a bit more.
Because an xMac with those spec destroys iMac sales but reviews poorly against Dell, HP and Gateway machines because it's $300 more expensive.
For $999 you can buy a Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24" display for $669 or a Dell E22WFP 22" display for $309. That's $200-350 cheaper than the equivalent 20 and 24" iMacs. Very few are going to bother with the iMac. This leads to lower ASPs and revenue for Apple.
And yet it is STILL $300 more than the equivalent Dell, HP, Gateway so when it gets reviewed it will likely go against a machine a couple hundred dollars cheaper but with a faster CPU or more memory or something. Which means both overpriced and underperforming because its more expensive and still runs slower.
Reviewers will review tower vs tower. Mac desktop compare favorably because they are the best in category: AIO, SFF (well, not so much anymore) and Workstation. In each of those reviews are positive. Try to pawn off a $700 machine for $999 and not so much.
Vinea
Because an xMac with those spec destroys iMac sales but reviews poorly against Dell, HP and Gateway machines because it's $300 more expensive.
Your post makes a lot of sense. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
So what's the answer? How can we Mac users get a computer we can afford, that has the storage we need, that connects to the monitors we have, etc.?
I am simply not interested in an all-in-one computer and even if I was, I don't like the looks of or the difficulty of expanding the iMac. I would buy a mini if it was up to date with just a couple of minor improvements. But now (according to rumor) it's going to be discontinued?
Because an xMac with those spec destroys iMac sales but reviews poorly against Dell, HP and Gateway machines because it's $300 more expensive.
Who cares if it destroys the iMac? Why do people keep trying to protect it like it's some sort of emblem of the Mac community?
If it does destroy it (which it won't for reasons we've covered), that tells you that Apple's business model has been wrong all this time.
And yet it is STILL $300 more than the equivalent Dell, HP, Gateway so when it gets reviewed it will likely go against a machine a couple hundred dollars cheaper but with a faster CPU or more memory or something.
Nope, it would have the same spec but just be more expensive. This won't compare badly against a Dell or whatever because they don't make nicely designed machines. People are willing to pay more for good design. Otherwise people would never buy fancy watches, cars, clothes etc. However, it's still very much affordable as it's cheaper than the iMac (which as we know, some people are prepared to pay for).
Try to pawn off a $700 machine for $999 and not so much.
They already do that with the iMac so I don't follow. If Apple put the same markup on a headless mac as they do on the iMac then the machine will still be cheaper and they make a similar profit so I don't see the problem at all.
That said, I agree if a decent expandable Mac without a display can make the same profit for Apple as an iMac, it's hard to understand why Apple won't make one. I guess Apple truly is afraid such a Mac would hurt iMac sales as well as Mac Pro sales.
This must also be the reason the Mac mini has been left to languish as the undesirable entry level choice for those who can't afford any better. Seems like before long, the mini is going to tarnish Apple's image if it's not bumped with 2007 technology. Is there any other company still selling computers with Core Duo?
Who cares if it destroys the iMac? Why do people keep trying to protect it like it's some sort of emblem of the Mac community?
Well, for one, as iDave pointed out, it IS an emblem of the community.
Second, and more pragmatic, is that it offers good ASPs, competes within the desktop space without competing directly with Dell, HP and Gateway in the tower market where price/performance (i.e. bang for the buck) is a more significant driver of sales than design.
Also, the iMac provides an additional half million or so laptop component buys for Apple to reduce the production costs of the MB and MBP.
If it does destroy it (which it won't for reasons we've covered), that tells you that Apple's business model has been wrong all this time.
You mean the highly successful model to date?
Nope, it would have the same spec but just be more expensive. This won't compare badly against a Dell or whatever because they don't make nicely designed machines. People are willing to pay more for good design. Otherwise people would never buy fancy watches, cars, clothes etc. However, it's still very much affordable as it's cheaper than the iMac (which as we know, some people are prepared to pay for).
The iMac has a certain cachet due to its AIO form factor. The iMac reinforces the uniqueness (or desired uniqueness anyway) of the Apple branding. You might be able to argue for another SFF computer that is Apple Cube like but not a traditional tower.
The Mac Pro does well because it happens to be a good value in comparison to other workstations in its class (e.g. Dell Precision). An xMac mid/mini tower, not so much if priced $300 above its competitors.
Whether people will pay 28% margins on nicely designed towers is debatable. You might argue the VAIOs were poorly executed but the desktops typically showed more design style than Dell or HP and were typically fairly quiet in comparison to a Dell. I personally thought the VAIOs were nice machines if overpriced.
They already do that with the iMac so I don't follow. If Apple put the same markup on a headless mac as they do on the iMac then the machine will still be cheaper and they make a similar profit so I don't see the problem at all.
You don't follow because you fail to realize that Apple pawns off a $799 machine for $1499. Apple's ASP is around the $1500 mark so translating all those 20" iMac sales into $999 xMac sales is a bad deal for Apple.
While a tower might be good for some customers, its not so good for Apple. In the long run a healthier Apple is worth more than a lower cost tower to me. If Dell went *poof* tomorrow there's always HP. If Apple went *poof* there's no replacement.
Sure Apple has a lot of money in the bank today and is executing pretty well but I don't mind that Apple is sitting with a nice large warchest to survive the post-Jobs era through at least one or two screwups.
Unless you want to be stuck with either Linux or Windows as your options...
Vinea
Even if we never see a new mid-range headless Mac or Mac mini, I'd sure like to see Apple put the Mac Pro on a slim-down diet.
...
You don't follow because you fail to realize that Apple pawns off a $799 machine for $1499. ...
Vinea
I disagree. Unless something has changed dramatically since the Merom iMac was introduced, when you compared the iMac feature for feature with Dell computers the cost comparisions were not the heavily weighted in Dell's favor. Last time I looked, several months ago the only main difference was in the graphics capabilities between the machines.
I disagree. Unless something has changed dramatically since the Merom iMac was introduced, when you compared the iMac feature for feature with Dell computers the cost comparisions were not the heavily weighted in Dell's favor. Last time I looked, several months ago the only main difference was in the graphics capabilities between the machines.
What? Are you incapable of clicking on Dell's site before saying something completely wrong? No, nothing has "dramatically changed". The iMac typically has a poor bang for the buck ratio in comparison to towers.
My XPS 410 Date 6/19/2007 9:48:54 AM Central Standard Time $1499
Intel® Core?2 Duo Processor E6600 (4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB)
Genuine Windows® XP Home Edition with re-installation CD
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache?
Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
22 inch E228WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 7.0
Windows XP? VCD
Dell AS501PA 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for Analog Flat Panels
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse
56K PCI Data Fax Modem
Microsoft Works 8.
Norton Internet Security? 2006 Edition 15-months
1Yr In-Home Service, Parts + Labor - Next Business Day
So let see:
2.4 Conroe vs 2.16 Merom
2GB vs 1GB Ram
500GB HDD vs 250GB HDD
256MB ATI X1300 Pro vs 128MB ATI X1600
22" WFP analog display vs 20" WFP digital display
(Can do 20" Ultrasharp WFP digital for $60 more)
iMac crushed. The 24" iMac is even worse.
The $1499 20" iMac is roughly equivalent to $999 Dell or Gateway when there is no promotion going on (none at the moment that I can tell) or $699 like the Gateway rig above which I can't replicate on the Gateway site at the moment (need to add a vid card and maybe bump the monitor on the $699 Gateway...probably comes out around $799).
The iMac sucks except for form factor, elegance and OSX. A $999 xMac will suck slightly less but there's only so much design you can put into a boxy mini-tower form factor given folks in this thread want at least 2 PCIe slots, 4 mem slots, 2 drive bays and a partridge in a pear tree.
Nothing smaller than the larger boxy Shuttles...even the Cube is too small. The best you'll end up with is a mini Mac Pro looking thingy unless you go pizza box with risers.
Vinea
I don't think it would be good for Apple if the iMac suddenly became unpopular. One could argue that it (and its positive image) saved the company in the late 90s. It continues to reinforce Apple's positive image in the computer business.
I get the opposite impression from the people I speak to. The Mac Pro is impressive because for price it is very competitive and it is extremely fast. The Macbook and MBP compete quite well with other manufacturers on price despite the MB using GMA. People have problems with the Mini and iMac. One is crippled, the other is basically a laptop without the functionality of a laptop.
Is there any other company still selling computers with Core Duo?
Yeah, there are still people selling Pentium-M and older AMD chips. PC manufacturers have done this for ages because they understand that more people will buy an older model but new machine for a cheaper price than a second hand machine.
You mean the highly successful model to date?
But you can't really call it successful because something can only be considered a success relative to something else. The iMac is a success relative to the Mini because the Mini is crippled. The iMac is a success relative to the Mac Pro because the latter is out of most people's budgets. That doesn't make it a success in my opinion, it makes it the only viable option for most people.
You don't follow because you fail to realize that Apple pawns off a $799 machine for $1499. Apple's ASP is around the $1500 mark so translating all those 20" iMac sales into $999 xMac sales is a bad deal for Apple.
The imac markup is closer to 25% than 45%. A $999 tower would cost them $750 to build and they can build a pretty nice machine for that.
They also save money not having to worry about warranty screen repairs for all the iMacs. Also, their manufacturing costs should go down by not having to hook up a display.
While a tower might be good for some customers, its not so good for Apple. In the long run a healthier Apple is worth more than a lower cost tower to me. If Dell went *poof* tomorrow there's always HP. If Apple went *poof* there's no replacement.
Do people not realise that Apple are just another company? The phrase 'not so good for Apple' doesn't really mean anything to me. I'm paying them money that I earn. I don't care for their well-being, I want satisfaction for the money I'm spending.
What really bugs me is that people are perfectly willing for Apple to venture off into building really high risk products like Apple TVs and iphones, leaving the Mac community on hold for a year but mention a product that people are crying out for and you act as though it will be the death of them.
2.4 Conroe vs 2.16 Merom
2GB vs 1GB Ram
500GB HDD vs 250GB HDD
256MB ATI X1300 Pro vs 128MB ATI X1600
22" WFP analog display vs 20" WFP digital display
(Can do 20" Ultrasharp WFP digital for $60 more)
iMac crushed. The 24" iMac is even worse.
The ram is easily upgraded, the hard drive is negligible as most people would barely use 250GB, the X1600 is much better than the X1300, the displays are about the same. The only difference is the desktop parts in the Dell, which would make it cheaper and faster, which is why the cube is a good idea.
The iMac sucks except for form factor, elegance and OSX.
OS X is not unique to the iMac, a cube would have a good form factor and would be elegant so why do you want to keep the iMac if you think it sucks?
But you can't really call it successful because something can only be considered a success relative to something else. The iMac is a success relative to the Mini because the Mini is crippled. The iMac is a success relative to the Mac Pro because the latter is out of most people's budgets. That doesn't make it a success in my opinion, it makes it the only viable option for most people.
Their business model has been quite successful. That individual models may or may not perform to your level of satisfaction doesn't change that fact.
The imac markup is closer to 25% than 45%. A $999 tower would cost them $750 to build and they can build a pretty nice machine for that.
Go spec out a 20" iMac vs a Dell with 20" display. Oh wait...I just did like 2 posts ago. The $1499 iMac is about equivalent to a $800-$900 Dell depending on what deals Dell is offering.
They also save money not having to worry about warranty screen repairs for all the iMacs. Also, their manufacturing costs should go down by not having to hook up a display.
They don't save money...they LOSE money because every iMac is an automatic monitor sale at a large markup.
Do people not realise that Apple are just another company? The phrase 'not so good for Apple' doesn't really mean anything to me. I'm paying them money that I earn. I don't care for their well-being, I want satisfaction for the money I'm spending.
Then you are a fool that can't see long term. You keep your supplier as well as your customers happy and healthy because in the end you depend on both. Apple provides a useful alternative to other operating systems that has not been replicated and wouldn't likely get replaced should they exit the market.
If you don't have satisfaction from Apple products there's a really easy solution. Stop buying them.
What really bugs me is that people are perfectly willing for Apple to venture off into building really high risk products like Apple TVs and iphones, leaving the Mac community on hold for a year but mention a product that people are crying out for and you act as though it will be the death of them.
These people are called "shareholders" and the like Apple going off to try and dominate new markets and not banging their head against the wall trying to sell into the highly price competitive and mature tower market.
One is a potential failure but with huge potential gains. The other is a nearly assured failure with limited gains.
The ram is easily upgraded, the hard drive is negligible as most people would barely use 250GB, the X1600 is much better than the X1300, the displays are about the same. The only difference is the desktop parts in the Dell, which would make it cheaper and faster, which is why the cube is a good idea.
It all costs money. Upgrade the RAM, HDD and other stuff and the iMac isn't $1499 anymore. Downgrade the Dell to 1GB RAM and 250GB HDD and you save a couple hundred dollars and its STILL faster.
OS X is not unique to the iMac, a cube would have a good form factor and would be elegant so why do you want to keep the iMac if you think it sucks?
A cube can't fit everything that folks in this thread want. I would like a cube but I don't expect one.
Why do I want to keep the iMac? I don't much care other than some desktop models are better than no desktop models. I'm simply explaining why a xMac is a forlorn hope. Apple isn't ignoring you because they are stupid. Apple is ignoring you because you are unimportant and serving your needs means making less money to do other more lucrative things.
Vinea