Where's your evidence that any manufacturer doesn't make a profit on computers sold in the >$799 range. This is precisely the range of computers that other OEMs make profit on in their unending attempt to make up for the razor thin profits on the low end computers. Even Micheal Dell admitted this in a quarterly statement.
I think that computers in that price range can be profitable. Especially as Apple get larger market share and can sell larger volumes.
But Apple can't cover all market segments and maintain the high profitability they currently enjoy. That's all I'm saying.
I think that computers in that price range can be profitable. Especially as Apple get larger market share and can sell larger volumes.
But Apple can't cover all market segments and maintain the high profitability they currently enjoy. That's all I'm saying.
Of course they can be profitable, there are many companies making a very good profit off of them. One of the problems here is that I think a lot of Mac users think that budget machines (MATX), prosumer machines (ATX), and workstations (EATX) are all somehow the same.
I would not mind something in the iTV form factor, perhaps a little taller using a riser card to mount one or at most two PCI cards horizontally. Offer in in black or white, the first for component usage the second for desktop.
would actually be nice to have a machine that is reasonably priced that I could upgrade the graphics ability on it. Hell, if they offered the same methods some high end laptops use I would be happy
Years ago there were numerous models like the Classic, LC, Centris, Quadra and Workgroup Server. The Classic was the AIO, the LC and Centris being basically Small Form Factor with only a single expansion slot and the Quadra models (there were several case forms) filled the Workstation slots. With the server at the top end. At various times there were also Mac II and Performa models being sold alongside these too. Even with these 6 of 7 desktop lines it wasn't too difficult to discern which model was for best you.
I believe that as the platform expands there is more than a good argument to offer a choice of form factors and designs.
The laptop market is certainly big enough for a third and four product line and I'm sure there's space for alternatively positioned desktop models too.
Years ago there were numerous models like the Classic, LC, Centris, Quadra and Workgroup Server. The Classic was the AIO, the LC and Centris being basically Small Form Factor with only a single expansion slot and the Quadra models (there were several case forms) filled the Workstation slots. With the server at the top end. At various times there were also Mac II and Performa models being sold alongside these too. Even with these 6 of 7 desktop lines it wasn't too difficult to discern which model was for best you.
Yeah I used to have a Centris. I remember how easy it was just to flip off the lid and I could access the entire machine in 5 seconds. It takes me half an hour to put Ram in the new Mini and I feel like I'm going to break something every time I open it. A computer just shouldn't be designed like that.
The iMac has a panel which is nice but the hard drive isn't easy to get to - I can't think why they don't put these things in the base with a small fan. You could probably get two on top of each other or side by side down there.
That still wouldn't help the screen issue though.
It was said already but this isn't how things are supposed to be. We shouldn't want older hardware or PC hardware. Apple needs to start making their hardware designs functional instead of just aesthetically pleasing.
User serviceable components include Ram, hard drives, displays (by that I mean replacing an external one), PCI cards. By all means seal the motherboard in lead with an Apple logo on the outside but the rest needs to be easily accessed and easily replaceable.
I believe that as the platform expands there is more than a good argument to offer a choice of form factors and designs.
The laptop market is certainly big enough for a third and four product line and I'm sure there's space for alternatively positioned desktop models too.
That looks like it could be the one. A mid-tower quad line. A round hole 'Cubed'.
795-1495 Sort of range.
For the prices they charge? The Mac Pro can go 'all Octo'. Currently #1700-2600. Towers starting at 1,695. Ouch. Unreality.
Lemon Bon Bon
For the prices intel has dropped to, they can afford to go 8-core for the Mac Pro. Of course that widens the gap to something more like the grand canyon.
I see a point in both computers. iMac for my folks, xMac for me. I believe both have a good sized market.
I do too. I can see how the xMac *could* kill off the imac but I can see them co-existing. If it did die off then all it means is that it deserved to because that's the way the market is.
*Nods.
Ben. I agree. The Mac pro hasn't had an update in...well. Count how many GPUS have been released since the 7300GT. :I
And if Apple are going to add a 'sub-note skinny' laptop to their 'grid matrix' then why not a Mid-tower to the desktop mix?
Another point, there are PC AIOs...eg Sony Vaio, however the mid-tower market is much larger and sells waaay more. I can't understand why Apple aren't in it.
With sales of 2 million Macs pending? Surely, SURELY Apple will be able to expand it's matrix not just to 'skinny laptops' but to a mid-tower as well.
I'm more than convinced they can co-exist.
This aint PPC anymore. We DO have the chips from Intel to differentiate the market.
Quads - Mid Towers.
Octs - Workstation.
Duos - Laptops. Cheap entry.
The gap between the iMac and Mac pro is gapingly large. Why use expensive laptop chips and server chips and ignore the very reasonably priced Conroe chip? It could offer a very decent product for a decent price. 1,000-1,500 isn't chicken feed. Yet Apple don't have a tower in that range. It's nothing short of astonishing. And outside of the m/board and the xeon chips? There's little in the Mac Pro to justify such outrageous prices. Looks blankly.
I'd easily drop the display the 24 incher costs from an iMac and put that into a quad cpu and better gpu of a mid-tower.
Ben. I agree. The Mac pro hasn't had an update in...well. Count how many GPUS have been released since the 7300GT. :I
And if Apple are going to add a 'sub-note skinny' laptop to their 'grid matrix' then why not a Mid-tower to the desktop mix?
Another point, there are PC AIOs...eg Sony Vaio, however the mid-tower market is much larger and sells waaay more. I can't understand why Apple aren't in it.
With sales of 2 million Macs pending? Surely, SURELY Apple will be able to expand it's matrix not just to 'skinny laptops' but to a mid-tower as well.
I'm more than convinced they can co-exist.
This aint PPC anymore. We DO have the chips from Intel to differentiate the market.
Quads - Mid Towers.
Octs - Workstation.
Duos - Laptops. Cheap entry.
The gap between the iMac and Mac pro is gapingly large. Why use expensive laptop chips and server chips and ignore the very reasonably priced Conroe chip? It could offer a very decent product for a decent price. 1,000-1,500 isn't chicken feed. Yet Apple don't have a tower in that range. It's nothing short of astonishing. And outside of the m/board and the xeon chips? There's little in the Mac Pro to justify such outrageous prices. Looks blankly.
I'd easily drop the display the 24 incher costs from an iMac and put that into a quad cpu and better gpu of a mid-tower.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Look, ironically enough Apple is actually a very conservative company. They may seem like they're taking risks, but they're really acting within their market. What Apple (and the Mac community as a whole) is cared to do is to cater to users they don't currently have. They won't venture out into making different types of hardware then they have nor will they let anyone else do it. They have the best OS, but they restrict it to only one manufacturer and only niche hardware their small group will buy. They have the best, most successful music player and store combination, but the iPod is restricted to iTunes and vice versa. They have a great video triangle with the Mac, iPod, and iTV, but they are afraid to add PVR or movie rentals in fear that they might lose video sales on iTunes. The PVR functionality could be added quite easily and cheaply by acquiring Elgato. I see a company with all these great products, but are keeping them at the back of the store. I think they're scared to death of the open market.
I think they're scared to death of the open market.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think Apple want's to have any device that's similar to anything else in it's catagory (i.e. Mid-Tower). They want a product that's sooo much cooler that a direct comparison to the competition will seem silly. I don't think they've figured out how to do that in the biggest market of all: The Mid-Tower. There are so many other companies making unusual designs that Apple's afraid they won't be able to come up with something to turn heads. Co'mon Steve, take a chance! Afterall, people are buying the hardware to run the software. Without OSX, Apple would just fade into the list of also-rans.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think Apple want's to have any device that's similar to anything else in it's catagory (i.e. Mid-Tower). They want a product that's sooo much cooler that a direct comparison to the competition will seem silly. I don't think they've figured out how to do that in the biggest market of all: The Mid-Tower. There are so many other companies making unusual designs that Apple's afraid they won't be able to come up with something to turn heads. Co'mon Steve, take a chance! Afterall, people are buying the hardware to run the software. Without OSX, Apple would just fade into the list of also-rans.
The one that I don't agree on in that is that comparitivly Apples stuff isn't designed any more unique than most other manufacturers any more. Everybody else is starting to design things far cooler than Apples.
Comments
Where's your evidence that any manufacturer doesn't make a profit on computers sold in the >$799 range. This is precisely the range of computers that other OEMs make profit on in their unending attempt to make up for the razor thin profits on the low end computers. Even Micheal Dell admitted this in a quarterly statement.
I think that computers in that price range can be profitable. Especially as Apple get larger market share and can sell larger volumes.
But Apple can't cover all market segments and maintain the high profitability they currently enjoy. That's all I'm saying.
I think that computers in that price range can be profitable. Especially as Apple get larger market share and can sell larger volumes.
But Apple can't cover all market segments and maintain the high profitability they currently enjoy. That's all I'm saying.
Fair enough. We just disagree. And yes Apple recently has been very profitable and my AAPL stock been very good to me.
. . . and my AAPL stock been very good to me.
Oh yeah!
I think that computers in that price range can be profitable. Especially as Apple get larger market share and can sell larger volumes.
But Apple can't cover all market segments and maintain the high profitability they currently enjoy. That's all I'm saying.
Of course they can be profitable, there are many companies making a very good profit off of them. One of the problems here is that I think a lot of Mac users think that budget machines (MATX), prosumer machines (ATX), and workstations (EATX) are all somehow the same.
would actually be nice to have a machine that is reasonably priced that I could upgrade the graphics ability on it. Hell, if they offered the same methods some high end laptops use I would be happy
Adding one more model shouldn't stress Apple too much.
We don't need an iMac bigger than 15 inch. It would spoil its appeal.
Apple will never use Intel.
Apple will never enter the server market.
Apple will never support windows.
Apple will never enter the cheap-o market.
Apple will never do a phone.
What's the point of the iPod? Shouldn't they be concentrating on Macs?
Macs aren't for games...and 'never' were.
Macs are only for graphics. They're not office machines.
Apple can't compete with Office.
Apple won't make cheaper versions of the iPod/Mac. 'We' like being exclusive.
Apple won't chase marketshare.
We will never use all 'that' power.
What else can be added to an OS that isn't already there?
There isn't a 'mid-tower' market. *Nods. Sure. Nods*.
There isn't a market for smack talk either.
Feel free to add your own.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I don't understand your change in attitude about the xMac. You were seriously thinking about building one.
Have you changed your mind about the DIY? What happened to cause the 180?
Vinea,
I don't understand your change in attitude about the xMac. You were seriously thinking about building one.
Have you changed your mind about the DIY? What happened to cause the 180?
Eh what? Nothing. Still going to but since I can't GET at the mini until Thanksgiving I haven't bought the parts yet.
I have considered just buying another mini but my wife gives me dirty looks when I start talking in that direction.
Let me clear this up...I think the xMac would be better than the iMac for me.
I don't think its necessarily better for Apple so I don't think they will offer one soon much as folks would like one.
We can get an 80% DIY solution. Whether what you want falls in the 20% or not depends on what you want.
I believe that as the platform expands there is more than a good argument to offer a choice of form factors and designs.
The laptop market is certainly big enough for a third and four product line and I'm sure there's space for alternatively positioned desktop models too.
Years ago there were numerous models like the Classic, LC, Centris, Quadra and Workgroup Server. The Classic was the AIO, the LC and Centris being basically Small Form Factor with only a single expansion slot and the Quadra models (there were several case forms) filled the Workstation slots. With the server at the top end. At various times there were also Mac II and Performa models being sold alongside these too. Even with these 6 of 7 desktop lines it wasn't too difficult to discern which model was for best you.
Yeah I used to have a Centris. I remember how easy it was just to flip off the lid and I could access the entire machine in 5 seconds. It takes me half an hour to put Ram in the new Mini and I feel like I'm going to break something every time I open it. A computer just shouldn't be designed like that.
The iMac has a panel which is nice but the hard drive isn't easy to get to - I can't think why they don't put these things in the base with a small fan. You could probably get two on top of each other or side by side down there.
That still wouldn't help the screen issue though.
It was said already but this isn't how things are supposed to be. We shouldn't want older hardware or PC hardware. Apple needs to start making their hardware designs functional instead of just aesthetically pleasing.
User serviceable components include Ram, hard drives, displays (by that I mean replacing an external one), PCI cards. By all means seal the motherboard in lead with an Apple logo on the outside but the rest needs to be easily accessed and easily replaceable.
I believe that as the platform expands there is more than a good argument to offer a choice of form factors and designs.
The laptop market is certainly big enough for a third and four product line and I'm sure there's space for alternatively positioned desktop models too.
Lemon Bon Bon
We don't need an iMac bigger than 15 inch. It would spoil its appeal.
Apple will never use Intel.
Apple will never enter the server market.
Apple will never support windows.
Apple will never enter the cheap-o market.
Apple will never do a phone.
What's the point of the iPod? Shouldn't they be concentrating on Macs?
Macs aren't for games...and 'never' were.
Macs are only for graphics. They're not office machines.
Apple can't compete with Office.
Apple won't make cheaper versions of the iPod/Mac. 'We' like being exclusive.
Apple won't chase marketshare.
We will never use all 'that' power.
What else can be added to an OS that isn't already there?
There isn't a 'mid-tower' market. *Nods. Sure. Nods*.
There isn't a market for smack talk either.
Feel free to add your own.
Lemon Bon Bon.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." ? Bill Gates, 1981.
--Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
AND:
http://weewave.mer.utexas.edu/DPN_fi...ff/quotes.html
We don't need an iMac bigger than 15 inch. It would spoil its appeal.
Apple will never use Intel.
Apple will never enter the server market.
Apple will never support windows.
Apple will never enter the cheap-o market.
Apple will never do a phone.
What's the point of the iPod? Shouldn't they be concentrating on Macs?
Macs aren't for games...and 'never' were.
Macs are only for graphics. They're not office machines.
Apple can't compete with Office.
Apple won't make cheaper versions of the iPod/Mac. 'We' like being exclusive.
Apple won't chase marketshare.
We will never use all 'that' power.
What else can be added to an OS that isn't already there?
There isn't a 'mid-tower' market. *Nods. Sure. Nods*.
There isn't a market for smack talk either.
Feel free to add your own.
Lemon Bon Bon.
good one!
http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Preps...rticle9070.htm
news for this week
hail hail xMac!!
QX9650
3.0 GHz
130W
12MB
$999
Q9950
2.83 GHz
95W
12MB
$530
Q9450
2.66 GHz
95W
12MB
$316
Q9300
2.50 GHz
95W
6MB
$266
795-1495 Sort of range.
For the prices they charge? The Mac Pro can go 'all Octo'. Currently #1700-2600. Towers starting at 1,695. Ouch. Unreality.
Lemon Bon Bon
That looks like it could be the one. A mid-tower quad line. A round hole 'Cubed'.
795-1495 Sort of range.
For the prices they charge? The Mac Pro can go 'all Octo'. Currently #1700-2600. Towers starting at 1,695. Ouch. Unreality.
Lemon Bon Bon
For the prices intel has dropped to, they can afford to go 8-core for the Mac Pro. Of course that widens the gap to something more like the grand canyon.
I see a point in both computers. iMac for my folks, xMac for me. I believe both have a good sized market.
I do too. I can see how the xMac *could* kill off the imac but I can see them co-existing. If it did die off then all it means is that it deserved to because that's the way the market is.
*Nods.
Ben. I agree. The Mac pro hasn't had an update in...well. Count how many GPUS have been released since the 7300GT. :I
And if Apple are going to add a 'sub-note skinny' laptop to their 'grid matrix' then why not a Mid-tower to the desktop mix?
Another point, there are PC AIOs...eg Sony Vaio, however the mid-tower market is much larger and sells waaay more. I can't understand why Apple aren't in it.
With sales of 2 million Macs pending? Surely, SURELY Apple will be able to expand it's matrix not just to 'skinny laptops' but to a mid-tower as well.
I'm more than convinced they can co-exist.
This aint PPC anymore. We DO have the chips from Intel to differentiate the market.
Quads - Mid Towers.
Octs - Workstation.
Duos - Laptops. Cheap entry.
The gap between the iMac and Mac pro is gapingly large. Why use expensive laptop chips and server chips and ignore the very reasonably priced Conroe chip? It could offer a very decent product for a decent price. 1,000-1,500 isn't chicken feed. Yet Apple don't have a tower in that range. It's nothing short of astonishing. And outside of the m/board and the xeon chips? There's little in the Mac Pro to justify such outrageous prices. Looks blankly.
I'd easily drop the display the 24 incher costs from an iMac and put that into a quad cpu and better gpu of a mid-tower.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Lemon Bon Bon.
*Nods.
Ben. I agree. The Mac pro hasn't had an update in...well. Count how many GPUS have been released since the 7300GT. :I
And if Apple are going to add a 'sub-note skinny' laptop to their 'grid matrix' then why not a Mid-tower to the desktop mix?
Another point, there are PC AIOs...eg Sony Vaio, however the mid-tower market is much larger and sells waaay more. I can't understand why Apple aren't in it.
With sales of 2 million Macs pending? Surely, SURELY Apple will be able to expand it's matrix not just to 'skinny laptops' but to a mid-tower as well.
I'm more than convinced they can co-exist.
This aint PPC anymore. We DO have the chips from Intel to differentiate the market.
Quads - Mid Towers.
Octs - Workstation.
Duos - Laptops. Cheap entry.
The gap between the iMac and Mac pro is gapingly large. Why use expensive laptop chips and server chips and ignore the very reasonably priced Conroe chip? It could offer a very decent product for a decent price. 1,000-1,500 isn't chicken feed. Yet Apple don't have a tower in that range. It's nothing short of astonishing. And outside of the m/board and the xeon chips? There's little in the Mac Pro to justify such outrageous prices. Looks blankly.
I'd easily drop the display the 24 incher costs from an iMac and put that into a quad cpu and better gpu of a mid-tower.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Look, ironically enough Apple is actually a very conservative company. They may seem like they're taking risks, but they're really acting within their market. What Apple (and the Mac community as a whole) is cared to do is to cater to users they don't currently have. They won't venture out into making different types of hardware then they have nor will they let anyone else do it. They have the best OS, but they restrict it to only one manufacturer and only niche hardware their small group will buy. They have the best, most successful music player and store combination, but the iPod is restricted to iTunes and vice versa. They have a great video triangle with the Mac, iPod, and iTV, but they are afraid to add PVR or movie rentals in fear that they might lose video sales on iTunes. The PVR functionality could be added quite easily and cheaply by acquiring Elgato. I see a company with all these great products, but are keeping them at the back of the store. I think they're scared to death of the open market.
I think they're scared to death of the open market.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think Apple want's to have any device that's similar to anything else in it's catagory (i.e. Mid-Tower). They want a product that's sooo much cooler that a direct comparison to the competition will seem silly. I don't think they've figured out how to do that in the biggest market of all: The Mid-Tower. There are so many other companies making unusual designs that Apple's afraid they won't be able to come up with something to turn heads. Co'mon Steve, take a chance! Afterall, people are buying the hardware to run the software. Without OSX, Apple would just fade into the list of also-rans.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think Apple want's to have any device that's similar to anything else in it's catagory (i.e. Mid-Tower). They want a product that's sooo much cooler that a direct comparison to the competition will seem silly. I don't think they've figured out how to do that in the biggest market of all: The Mid-Tower. There are so many other companies making unusual designs that Apple's afraid they won't be able to come up with something to turn heads. Co'mon Steve, take a chance! Afterall, people are buying the hardware to run the software. Without OSX, Apple would just fade into the list of also-rans.
The one that I don't agree on in that is that comparitivly Apples stuff isn't designed any more unique than most other manufacturers any more. Everybody else is starting to design things far cooler than Apples.