Please explain to use exactly what you would find in the new iMac that you will not find inside a MacBook Pro? of course with exception to the screen size.
Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme) Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.
That said I'd like to see something of a mac pro jr/ xmac as well just to be able to get a little more RAM and more disk into a machine for less $, but also in less space -- these mac pro's are _big_!
However I don't expect to see it in the really short run. I do expect that the mac-mini line will eventually disappear and might then be replaced by something similar but in a slightly larger form-factor, perhaps large enough to hold 2 3.5" SATA drives and handle the heat from a reasonable GPU.
I would also vote for eSata and/or pciExpress slots on the iMac, were Apple soliciting input.
Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme)
Just because Apple don't use an X7800/7900 in their laptops, doesn't stop it being a laptop CPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soward
Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.
And optical drive, and motherboard chipset. Yes, the motherboard, as in the actual PCB, is not the same as that from the MacBook Pro. But the motherboard chipset, the "electronic guts" of the motherboard, is.
So, you think that an iMac costs as much as a MBP? It has the better specsas well.
No, I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You think that a 20, or esp a 24" screen costs the same as a 15, or 17" screen?
If we can assume that the iMac screens cost more, because of their much larger size
I think that the iMac screens probably do cost more, but that the difference is almost certainly surprisingly small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
then the rest of the parts must cost MUCH less to make up for it, considering that the new 24" iMac costs $1799, and the newest 17" MBP costs $2799, a cool thousand more, I would say that Jobs is right on the money. Wouldn't you?
No, I wouldn't say that. Apple save money on the HDD and GPU. All the other components: RAM, CPU, optical drive, motherboard chipset (from Santa Rosa) are obviously the same as that used in the MacBook Pro 17". Which means one thing: the margins on the 17" MBP are much, much higher than those of the iMac. Which doesn't surprise me at all.
Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme) Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.
The main chipset is most likely the notebook chipset, lower power, higher cost. The CPUs are a low power, high cost CPUs, and it's likely the same on the top end. If the top model is using a desktop CPU and desktop chipset (which I really doubt because of cooling & size issues), then there would be no reason to hamstring it with a notebook speed bus, the bus speed isn't a major power consumer compared to the CPU. In all, the only desktop component in the iMac that affects system speed is the hard drive and possibly the video chip.
(xMac buyers are) either potential Windows switchers who currently are saying to themselves "oh well, Apple still don't make the machine I want, guess I'm sticking with Windows",
Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore." It's very frustrating to want to upgrade your Mac but not see a single good replacement. I can't see buying a laptop until I can dock it and use two external monitors and quickly undock it to go. I can't see spending the cash on a Mac Pro. I have monitors and want good graphics, so don't want an iMac. And a mini is too underpowered with horrible graphics.
So I keep my G5 tower and hope Apple starts making products I want to buy before it gets too long in the tooth and I switch to Dell/Ubuntu in frustration or something. Considering I've been using Macs since the Mac Plus (even sticking with them through the tough Spindler years) and I don't want any of their current computers, I'd say Apple's risking something by ignoring the demands of the market.
Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore.".
Face it ~ If Steve Jobs doesn't want it or use it, it won't get built.
A great many of us want a smaller MacBook Pro, say with a screen under 12"
A lot of us would buy it regardless of cost.
Many of the people who want a MacBook subnotebook also want it solid state ~ that is, without any hard drive or superdrive, using flash memory instead.
What is Steve using right now? An iPhone. Perhaps to him, that is his new mini MacBook.
However, it may not just be Steve's disaffection for a mini laptop that keeps one from being built.
It may be that a 12" laptop or smaller just isn't big enough to hold all the components that go into a MacBook. Consider that the new iMacs no longer come in the 17" size. They are much thinner now, and perhaps Apple cannot get all the components into such a thin machine that is smaller than a 20" version.
Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore." It's very frustrating to want to upgrade your Mac but not see a single good replacement. I can't see buying a laptop until I can dock it and use two external monitors and quickly undock it to go. I can't see spending the cash on a Mac Pro. I have monitors and want good graphics, so don't want an iMac. And a mini is too underpowered with horrible graphics.
Yep - there seem to be alot of people on here who think this!
I think that whilst the iMac is a lovely looking machine, it doesn't suit everyone, and there is a large gap in the Apple desktop range between the Mini & the Mac Pro that could easily be filled with a small mini-Tower or similar.
As Steve said 40% of the Global PC market is for notebooks, whilst for Apple 66% are notebook sales.
Last quarter Apple sold about 1.2M Notebooks & 600K desktops
- if Apple's Notebook/Desktop ratios were the same as the rest of the Industry, they'd be selling 1.8M Desktops / quarter
- so effectively Apple is missing out on 1.2M Desktop sales per quarter
- Apple should ask themselves why this is.
- maybe lack of general purpose software is something to do with it, but also, I think it's because of the obvious gaps in their hardware range.
"There is some stuff in our industry we wouldn't be proud to ship. We can't ship junk," he told the gathered press. "We want to make the best personal computers in the industry."
I thought you were supposed to be a software company above and beyond it all. That's why you dropped the "Computer" from your company name. Just wondering...
Please explain to use exactly what you would find in the new iMac that you will not find inside a MacBook Pro? of course with exception to the screen size.
I was waiting to buy the new iMac but ended up going out and getting a MBP last month as i discovered (through this site) that the only way i could get a Apple desktop was to shell out for a Mac Pro and i was not prepared to spend that kind of money on a computer. So wanting very much to stick with Mac i got what i thought was by far the best deal, powerful notebook specs in a notebook package.
Now here is the rub, if i was not prepared to buy a notebook and really wanted a desktop i am not sure i would have bought an iMac, it just does not make any sense at all. Why is the iMac so thin and full of notebook components? Why cant you swap hard drives and add a second monitor to it?
A desktop should be fat! it is supposed to be fat! If i buy a desktop i want a desktop CPU, i want a PCI graphics card that i can swap out if i require a faster one, i want 3.5" drives that can be swapped out easily, i want the ability to add hardware. This is what a desktop is and this is what the majority of desktop PC buyers out there are used to. There is no doubt at all that this strategy is not helping to win switchers over from PC's when a PC user looks at the Apple website and sees the only computer that resembles anything like what they have on their windows machine is a Mac Pro. In fact i would go as far as saying that Apple only have one desktop computer in the Mac Pro and everything else are just different styles of notebooks.
You have the cpu and the support chips. You also have the slotted DVD recorder. And the memory.
Everything else is not from a laptop. That means most of the electronics, the mobo, and daughter boards, the gpu, the HHD, and the power supply. The cooling system. And the rest of the mechanics, including the keyboard, which, while it might look similar to the MB keyboard, is new. And, of course, the mouse.
Easy upgrades is NOT what a desktop is. It's what most desktops do.
But, it's very interesting that even though most people cry out for slots, etc., almost no one does actually upgrade their machines, they buy new ones.
If you are one of the few (as I am), who does upgrade your machine, then this is not for you. Nor was it intended for you (or me).
But, even though It's not for me, I can recognize that it is a brilliant machine for the markets it IS intended for.
Quote:
So when Steve Jobs says you really have to ask yourself what the ell is he going on about???
If you can still say that, then you've missed everything I've said.
I think that the iMac screens probably do cost more, but that the difference is almost certainly surprisingly small.
I'd like to see some pricing from you comparing the OEM numbers then.
Quote:
No, I wouldn't say that. Apple save money on the HDD and GPU. All the other components: RAM, CPU, optical drive, motherboard chipset (from Santa Rosa) are obviously the same as that used in the MacBook Pro 17". Which means one thing: the margins on the 17" MBP are much, much higher than those of the iMac. Which doesn't surprise me at all.
Nope.
You are just guessing on that. While it's certainly likely that the margins on the MBP are higher, they would have to be on the order of 75% to make up for the difference in price from the 24" to the 17". Not happening.
You are just guessing on that. While it's certainly likely that the margins on the MBP are higher, they would have to be on the order of 75% to make up for the difference in price from the 24" to the 17". Not happening.
Er... What the hell are you talking about?
I'm not just guessing. It's plain as day. The iMac uses the Merom processor, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses laptop RAM, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses the chipset from Santa Rosa, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses a laptop slot-loading 8x DVD burner optical drive, so does the MacBook Pro.
So, I'll say it again. The iMac uses a desktop HDD and GPU, which saves Apple some money over the MacBook Pro. The other key components, CPU, RAM, motherboard chipset and RAM are the same in both the iMac and MacBook Pro. Therefore, given the price difference, the MacBook Pro 17" has much higher margins than the iMac.
"There is some stuff in our industry we wouldn't be proud to ship. We can't ship junk," he told the gathered press. "We want to make the best personal computers in the industry."
I thought you were supposed to be a software company above and beyond it all. That's why you dropped the "Computer" from your company name. Just wondering...
You can wonder...
But, Apple is not a software company. They never have been.
If they were, they could have picked up programs for real cheap over the years, which would have added significantly to their software sales, but they didn't.
They are a hardware company, that produces software to have something to run on their hardware, so they can sell that hardware.
If Apple's sales were a much larger fraction of the overall industry, you wouldn't have seen Apple get into as much of the software business as they have the past few years.
They produce only the software that will sell their machines, that isn't being produced by others, or is being produced, but not at the level that would sell their machines.
For example, video.
When Avid began to abandon the platform, it put Apple on notice. As soon as Apple could afford to, they bought programs to replace Avid on the low end. The fact that Adobe's Premier was not an effective professional program at the time (it was intended as an amateur product from the beginning) was also a reason. Apple was losing sales mightily to the PC in the pro video industry. There were, and are, many more products for the PC out there.
Apple had to produce their own, so they did.
Now, Apple is on a roll. But, the vast majority of their sales and profits come from their hardware.
They are forced to provide excellent interfaces for it. But all other hardware companies are trying to do the same thing. That's just because almost everything is run by a computer chip.
That doesn't make all companies software companies because they MUST write software to run their products.
The iPhone, for example. OS X runs the machine. But, it is the kicker, it's not the product.
I'm not just guessing. It's plain as day. The iMac uses the Merom processor, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses laptop RAM, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses the chipset from Santa Rosa, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses a laptop slot-loading 8x DVD burner optical drive, so does the MacBook Pro.
So, I'll say it again. The iMac uses a desktop HDD and GPU, which saves Apple some money over the MacBook Pro. The other key components, CPU, RAM, motherboard chipset and RAM are the same in both the iMac and MacBook Pro. Therefore, given the price difference, the MacBook Pro 17" has much higher margins than the iMac.
The problem is that you're wrong. Period.
There have been teardowns of iMacs from the very beginning. They DON'T use the same mobo, or most anything, other than the cpu, chipset, memory, and optical drive. The rest is all different.
For one thing, the case of the MBP is much more expensive. It's more complex. Miniaturization costs more. It always does.
Even these expensive batteries used add a lot to the price of the machine. More than the power supply of an iMac, and then you have the charger module as well.
Assembly of a MBP is more expensive. I would be very surprised if an iMac uses as much hand assembly as a MBP does.
The margin on this iMac may be around 25%. The margin on a MBP may be 35%. Not nearly enough to account for the difference in price, which is $1,000.
There have been teardowns of iMacs from the very beginning. They DON'T use the same mobo, or most anything, other than the cpu, chipset, memory, and optical drive. The rest is all different.
That's exactly what I've been saying! So how can you then tell me that I'm wrong? I've been saying that the CPU, RAM, chipset and optical drive are the same as the MacBook Pro, and now, at last, you've admitted so too.
So tell us, melgross, what else is on a motherboard, apart from the RAM, CPU, and motherboard chipset?
The GPU perhaps? Right, I've covered that, said it's a cheaper one in the iMac.
Yes, the actual PCB is different, because the internal shape of an iMac is different to that of the MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
For one thing, the case of the MBP is much more expensive. It's more complex. Miniaturization costs more. It always does.
And where exactly did I say anything about the case of the MBP? I'm sure is costs more to assemble than the iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Even these expensive batteries used add a lot to the price of the machine. More than the power supply of an iMac, and then you have the charger module as well.
Yup, agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The margin on this iMac may be around 25%. The margin on a MBP may be 35%.
I'm confident that the MBP is amongst the highest % margin hardware products that Apple make. I really wouldn't be surprised if the gross margins are over 40%.
I'm not really all that sure what we're even arguing about; you even agree that the margins of the MBP are higher than the iMac. It's just that I think the gap in the margins is bigger than you do. It's no big deal.
I'll go out on a limb and say that those of you who so madly desire a minitower are in the closet PC windows users trying to infect the Mac.
I think that's pretty unlikely, I don't know how it's possible to "infect" the Mac platform this way. The reasons Apple has for not producing a more affordable minitower may be valid, but I think your reasoning amounts to an ad hominem argument. I'm not even sure what sort of reasoning can lead you to such a conclusion.
So tell us, melgross, what else is on a motherboard, apart from the RAM, CPU, and motherboard chipset?
The GPU perhaps? Right, I've covered that, said it's a cheaper one in the iMac.
Yes, the actual PCB is different, because the internal shape of an iMac is different to that of the MBP.
I don't have any opinion on the margin of their various product lines. But here are couple other things to consider.
Laptops involve a bunch of engineering and manufacturing problems aren't found in non-portable computers. Iterative design on the casing and frame tends to drive up costs of laptop development. Then it costs more to manufacture because the tooling is far far more complicated while tolerances are also much tighter. Sloppy components being off by a milimeter doesn't matter so much in a desktop. The MBP battery casing probably costs more than an entire iMac case.
Thermal management also drives laptop costs way up. This should not be underestimated. Confined cooling demands sophisticated components that are more expensive than their larger counterparts.
Miniturization and durability are significant costs.
Not that I'm arguing though. I have no idea about Apple's margins.
Comments
I am sorry Mel but the motherboard is not most!
Please explain to use exactly what you would find in the new iMac that you will not find inside a MacBook Pro? of course with exception to the screen size.
Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme) Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.
That said I'd like to see something of a mac pro jr/ xmac as well just to be able to get a little more RAM and more disk into a machine for less $, but also in less space -- these mac pro's are _big_!
However I don't expect to see it in the really short run. I do expect that the mac-mini line will eventually disappear and might then be replaced by something similar but in a slightly larger form-factor, perhaps large enough to hold 2 3.5" SATA drives and handle the heat from a reasonable GPU.
I would also vote for eSata and/or pciExpress slots on the iMac, were Apple soliciting input.
Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme)
Just because Apple don't use an X7800/7900 in their laptops, doesn't stop it being a laptop CPU.
Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.
And optical drive, and motherboard chipset. Yes, the motherboard, as in the actual PCB, is not the same as that from the MacBook Pro. But the motherboard chipset, the "electronic guts" of the motherboard, is.
So, you think that an iMac costs as much as a MBP? It has the better specsas well.
No, I don't.
You think that a 20, or esp a 24" screen costs the same as a 15, or 17" screen?
If we can assume that the iMac screens cost more, because of their much larger size
I think that the iMac screens probably do cost more, but that the difference is almost certainly surprisingly small.
then the rest of the parts must cost MUCH less to make up for it, considering that the new 24" iMac costs $1799, and the newest 17" MBP costs $2799, a cool thousand more, I would say that Jobs is right on the money. Wouldn't you?
No, I wouldn't say that. Apple save money on the HDD and GPU. All the other components: RAM, CPU, optical drive, motherboard chipset (from Santa Rosa) are obviously the same as that used in the MacBook Pro 17". Which means one thing: the margins on the 17" MBP are much, much higher than those of the iMac. Which doesn't surprise me at all.
Well, lets see, it's got a different video subsystem, hard drive, and power supply, and faster CPU (in the 2.8 extreme) Combine that with the motherboard and display/backlight and you've got a lot of different components. Really you are down to the DVD and the RAM that are the only 'laptop' specific items.
The main chipset is most likely the notebook chipset, lower power, higher cost. The CPUs are a low power, high cost CPUs, and it's likely the same on the top end. If the top model is using a desktop CPU and desktop chipset (which I really doubt because of cooling & size issues), then there would be no reason to hamstring it with a notebook speed bus, the bus speed isn't a major power consumer compared to the CPU. In all, the only desktop component in the iMac that affects system speed is the hard drive and possibly the video chip.
(xMac buyers are) either potential Windows switchers who currently are saying to themselves "oh well, Apple still don't make the machine I want, guess I'm sticking with Windows",
Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore." It's very frustrating to want to upgrade your Mac but not see a single good replacement. I can't see buying a laptop until I can dock it and use two external monitors and quickly undock it to go. I can't see spending the cash on a Mac Pro. I have monitors and want good graphics, so don't want an iMac. And a mini is too underpowered with horrible graphics.
So I keep my G5 tower and hope Apple starts making products I want to buy before it gets too long in the tooth and I switch to Dell/Ubuntu in frustration or something. Considering I've been using Macs since the Mac Plus (even sticking with them through the tough Spindler years) and I don't want any of their current computers, I'd say Apple's risking something by ignoring the demands of the market.
Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore.".
Face it ~ If Steve Jobs doesn't want it or use it, it won't get built.
A great many of us want a smaller MacBook Pro, say with a screen under 12"
A lot of us would buy it regardless of cost.
Many of the people who want a MacBook subnotebook also want it solid state ~ that is, without any hard drive or superdrive, using flash memory instead.
What is Steve using right now? An iPhone. Perhaps to him, that is his new mini MacBook.
However, it may not just be Steve's disaffection for a mini laptop that keeps one from being built.
It may be that a 12" laptop or smaller just isn't big enough to hold all the components that go into a MacBook. Consider that the new iMacs no longer come in the 17" size. They are much thinner now, and perhaps Apple cannot get all the components into such a thin machine that is smaller than a 20" version.
That's my take on it. Your mileage may vary.
Regards,
"Never squat with your spurs on."
Or huge Mac fans who are saying "oh well, Apple doesn't make the machines I want anymore." It's very frustrating to want to upgrade your Mac but not see a single good replacement. I can't see buying a laptop until I can dock it and use two external monitors and quickly undock it to go. I can't see spending the cash on a Mac Pro. I have monitors and want good graphics, so don't want an iMac. And a mini is too underpowered with horrible graphics.
Yep - there seem to be alot of people on here who think this!
I think that whilst the iMac is a lovely looking machine, it doesn't suit everyone, and there is a large gap in the Apple desktop range between the Mini & the Mac Pro that could easily be filled with a small mini-Tower or similar.
As Steve said 40% of the Global PC market is for notebooks, whilst for Apple 66% are notebook sales.
Last quarter Apple sold about 1.2M Notebooks & 600K desktops
- if Apple's Notebook/Desktop ratios were the same as the rest of the Industry, they'd be selling 1.8M Desktops / quarter
- so effectively Apple is missing out on 1.2M Desktop sales per quarter
- Apple should ask themselves why this is.
- maybe lack of general purpose software is something to do with it, but also, I think it's because of the obvious gaps in their hardware range.
I thought you were supposed to be a software company above and beyond it all. That's why you dropped the "Computer" from your company name. Just wondering...
Apple TV / Mac Mini Q&A
- Where is the HD content?
- Sales were slow for Mac Mini, so the solution is just better CPU?
- When can we expect 1080P/i version of Apple TV?
/end Q&A
I still think apple dropped the ball, they could've made a hybrid Apple TV / Mac Mini for $999.
Someone was asking to propose a price standard for a new concept midline PC (non iMac)... here's my take
Single processor Intel C2D 2.0 ghz
1 GB Ram (expandable to 4 GB)
256 Geforce 7300 PCI express (give options ; dont intergrate)
250 gb SATA II drive, 7200 rpm
Option for 2nd hdd drive
one bay only: Superdrive 16 X DL DVDrw
- USB 2.0 Ports as well as FW 800, 400
$999
Basically, an Apple tower roughly 2/3rds the size of the Mac Pro.
You have Mac Mini, MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro... how about just "Mac"
If the new iMacs came with a couple of e.SATA ports and an ExpressCard slot, there wouldn't be much need for a desktop form factor...
I'll go out on a limb and say that those of you who so madly desire a minitower are in the closet PC windows users trying to infect the Mac.
I am sorry Mel but the motherboard is not most!
Please explain to use exactly what you would find in the new iMac that you will not find inside a MacBook Pro? of course with exception to the screen size.
I was waiting to buy the new iMac but ended up going out and getting a MBP last month as i discovered (through this site) that the only way i could get a Apple desktop was to shell out for a Mac Pro and i was not prepared to spend that kind of money on a computer. So wanting very much to stick with Mac i got what i thought was by far the best deal, powerful notebook specs in a notebook package.
Now here is the rub, if i was not prepared to buy a notebook and really wanted a desktop i am not sure i would have bought an iMac, it just does not make any sense at all. Why is the iMac so thin and full of notebook components? Why cant you swap hard drives and add a second monitor to it?
A desktop should be fat! it is supposed to be fat! If i buy a desktop i want a desktop CPU, i want a PCI graphics card that i can swap out if i require a faster one, i want 3.5" drives that can be swapped out easily, i want the ability to add hardware. This is what a desktop is and this is what the majority of desktop PC buyers out there are used to. There is no doubt at all that this strategy is not helping to win switchers over from PC's when a PC user looks at the Apple website and sees the only computer that resembles anything like what they have on their windows machine is a Mac Pro. In fact i would go as far as saying that Apple only have one desktop computer in the Mac Pro and everything else are just different styles of notebooks.
You have the cpu and the support chips. You also have the slotted DVD recorder. And the memory.
Everything else is not from a laptop. That means most of the electronics, the mobo, and daughter boards, the gpu, the HHD, and the power supply. The cooling system. And the rest of the mechanics, including the keyboard, which, while it might look similar to the MB keyboard, is new. And, of course, the mouse.
Easy upgrades is NOT what a desktop is. It's what most desktops do.
But, it's very interesting that even though most people cry out for slots, etc., almost no one does actually upgrade their machines, they buy new ones.
If you are one of the few (as I am), who does upgrade your machine, then this is not for you. Nor was it intended for you (or me).
But, even though It's not for me, I can recognize that it is a brilliant machine for the markets it IS intended for.
So when Steve Jobs says you really have to ask yourself what the ell is he going on about???
If you can still say that, then you've missed everything I've said.
No, I don't.
So, then you do agree with Jobs!
I think that the iMac screens probably do cost more, but that the difference is almost certainly surprisingly small.
I'd like to see some pricing from you comparing the OEM numbers then.
No, I wouldn't say that. Apple save money on the HDD and GPU. All the other components: RAM, CPU, optical drive, motherboard chipset (from Santa Rosa) are obviously the same as that used in the MacBook Pro 17". Which means one thing: the margins on the 17" MBP are much, much higher than those of the iMac. Which doesn't surprise me at all.
Nope.
You are just guessing on that. While it's certainly likely that the margins on the MBP are higher, they would have to be on the order of 75% to make up for the difference in price from the 24" to the 17". Not happening.
So, then you do agree with Jobs!
Nope.
You are just guessing on that. While it's certainly likely that the margins on the MBP are higher, they would have to be on the order of 75% to make up for the difference in price from the 24" to the 17". Not happening.
Er... What the hell are you talking about?
I'm not just guessing. It's plain as day. The iMac uses the Merom processor, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses laptop RAM, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses the chipset from Santa Rosa, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses a laptop slot-loading 8x DVD burner optical drive, so does the MacBook Pro.
So, I'll say it again. The iMac uses a desktop HDD and GPU, which saves Apple some money over the MacBook Pro. The other key components, CPU, RAM, motherboard chipset and RAM are the same in both the iMac and MacBook Pro. Therefore, given the price difference, the MacBook Pro 17" has much higher margins than the iMac.
"There is some stuff in our industry we wouldn't be proud to ship. We can't ship junk," he told the gathered press. "We want to make the best personal computers in the industry."
I thought you were supposed to be a software company above and beyond it all. That's why you dropped the "Computer" from your company name. Just wondering...
You can wonder...
But, Apple is not a software company. They never have been.
If they were, they could have picked up programs for real cheap over the years, which would have added significantly to their software sales, but they didn't.
They are a hardware company, that produces software to have something to run on their hardware, so they can sell that hardware.
If Apple's sales were a much larger fraction of the overall industry, you wouldn't have seen Apple get into as much of the software business as they have the past few years.
They produce only the software that will sell their machines, that isn't being produced by others, or is being produced, but not at the level that would sell their machines.
For example, video.
When Avid began to abandon the platform, it put Apple on notice. As soon as Apple could afford to, they bought programs to replace Avid on the low end. The fact that Adobe's Premier was not an effective professional program at the time (it was intended as an amateur product from the beginning) was also a reason. Apple was losing sales mightily to the PC in the pro video industry. There were, and are, many more products for the PC out there.
Apple had to produce their own, so they did.
Now, Apple is on a roll. But, the vast majority of their sales and profits come from their hardware.
They are forced to provide excellent interfaces for it. But all other hardware companies are trying to do the same thing. That's just because almost everything is run by a computer chip.
That doesn't make all companies software companies because they MUST write software to run their products.
The iPhone, for example. OS X runs the machine. But, it is the kicker, it's not the product.
So list the specs and your proposed pricing.
-2.33ghz Core 2 Duo standard
2.66ghz, 3.0ghz, 3.0ghz quad-core BTO
320GB hard drive
-1GB RAM, 4 DIMM slots
-Radeon HD 2600Pro standard
Geforce 8600GTS, Radeon 2900XT BTO
-2 optical drive bays
-2 hard drive bays.
-2-3 PCI-E X1 slots
-Same basic front and rear port configuration as Mac Pro.
Nope.
Er... What the hell are you talking about?
I'm not just guessing. It's plain as day. The iMac uses the Merom processor, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses laptop RAM, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses the chipset from Santa Rosa, so does the MacBook Pro. The iMac uses a laptop slot-loading 8x DVD burner optical drive, so does the MacBook Pro.
So, I'll say it again. The iMac uses a desktop HDD and GPU, which saves Apple some money over the MacBook Pro. The other key components, CPU, RAM, motherboard chipset and RAM are the same in both the iMac and MacBook Pro. Therefore, given the price difference, the MacBook Pro 17" has much higher margins than the iMac.
The problem is that you're wrong. Period.
There have been teardowns of iMacs from the very beginning. They DON'T use the same mobo, or most anything, other than the cpu, chipset, memory, and optical drive. The rest is all different.
For one thing, the case of the MBP is much more expensive. It's more complex. Miniaturization costs more. It always does.
Even these expensive batteries used add a lot to the price of the machine. More than the power supply of an iMac, and then you have the charger module as well.
Assembly of a MBP is more expensive. I would be very surprised if an iMac uses as much hand assembly as a MBP does.
The margin on this iMac may be around 25%. The margin on a MBP may be 35%. Not nearly enough to account for the difference in price, which is $1,000.
The problem is that you're wrong. Period.
There have been teardowns of iMacs from the very beginning. They DON'T use the same mobo, or most anything, other than the cpu, chipset, memory, and optical drive. The rest is all different.
That's exactly what I've been saying! So how can you then tell me that I'm wrong? I've been saying that the CPU, RAM, chipset and optical drive are the same as the MacBook Pro, and now, at last, you've admitted so too.
So tell us, melgross, what else is on a motherboard, apart from the RAM, CPU, and motherboard chipset?
The GPU perhaps? Right, I've covered that, said it's a cheaper one in the iMac.
Yes, the actual PCB is different, because the internal shape of an iMac is different to that of the MBP.
For one thing, the case of the MBP is much more expensive. It's more complex. Miniaturization costs more. It always does.
And where exactly did I say anything about the case of the MBP? I'm sure is costs more to assemble than the iMac.
Even these expensive batteries used add a lot to the price of the machine. More than the power supply of an iMac, and then you have the charger module as well.
Yup, agreed.
The margin on this iMac may be around 25%. The margin on a MBP may be 35%.
I'm confident that the MBP is amongst the highest % margin hardware products that Apple make. I really wouldn't be surprised if the gross margins are over 40%.
I'm not really all that sure what we're even arguing about; you even agree that the margins of the MBP are higher than the iMac. It's just that I think the gap in the margins is bigger than you do. It's no big deal.
I'll go out on a limb and say that those of you who so madly desire a minitower are in the closet PC windows users trying to infect the Mac.
I think that's pretty unlikely, I don't know how it's possible to "infect" the Mac platform this way. The reasons Apple has for not producing a more affordable minitower may be valid, but I think your reasoning amounts to an ad hominem argument. I'm not even sure what sort of reasoning can lead you to such a conclusion.
So tell us, melgross, what else is on a motherboard, apart from the RAM, CPU, and motherboard chipset?
The GPU perhaps? Right, I've covered that, said it's a cheaper one in the iMac.
Yes, the actual PCB is different, because the internal shape of an iMac is different to that of the MBP.
I don't have any opinion on the margin of their various product lines. But here are couple other things to consider.
Laptops involve a bunch of engineering and manufacturing problems aren't found in non-portable computers. Iterative design on the casing and frame tends to drive up costs of laptop development. Then it costs more to manufacture because the tooling is far far more complicated while tolerances are also much tighter. Sloppy components being off by a milimeter doesn't matter so much in a desktop. The MBP battery casing probably costs more than an entire iMac case.
Thermal management also drives laptop costs way up. This should not be underestimated. Confined cooling demands sophisticated components that are more expensive than their larger counterparts.
Miniturization and durability are significant costs.
Not that I'm arguing though. I have no idea about Apple's margins.