One of the biggest arguments one can make is this:
People who use dual lcds, the iMac is simply out of the question. It is such a pain in the ass trying to calibrate 2 monitors let alone 2 DIFFERENT monitors. So you suggest a $2.5k workstation? lol.
I'm sorry that an xMac doesn't fit your life style.
I'm not against an xMac as I've said several times. Its the rational why Apple must provide an xMac.
Quote:
They keep failing because they don't appease the common consumer / business.
Gateway and Sony don't seem to understand this.
Quote:
Emachines had an iMac look-a-like during the iMac boom. Their machine looked ALMOST IDENTICAL... but flopped... why?
Just as important a question. When Apple was nearly going out of business the iMac helped save the company. The iMac was one of Apple's best selling computers......why?
Quote:
Just because laptops are selling quickly does NOT mean the desktop market has shrunk. In fact it's grown, just not at the rate that laptops have.
InformationWeek
By Antone Gonsalves
June 22, 2007
Apple's share of desktop and notebook sales online and through brick-and-mortar stores rose to 13% from 11.6% in April, according to The NPD Group. Apple notebook sales rose to 14.3% of overall purchases from 12.5%, while desktop sales inched up to 10.4% from 10.2%.
Desktop sales in general were far less than notebooks, neither Apple nor Windows PC vendors showed much progress. "Apple is struggling just like everybody else in terms of getting some growth out of that segment," Baker said. Apple desktop sales, however, were better than for Windows machines.
I'm not against an xMac as I've said several times. Its the rational why Apple must provide an xMac. [/b][/i]
Since Apple has exactly what you want, you ought to celebrate and stop trying to tell the AI members on this thread why they can't have what they want. Stay off this thread if it irritates you to hear us discussing an xMac. Why does our need for an xMac cause you so much irritation? Go bother someone else for a change. You're not going to change our needs by your constant naysaying.
How about that? I'm really proud of myself. I was able to write that whole paragraph without once swearing at TenoBell.
Gateway and sony aren't the entire windows platform. If someone wants something else, they have other options.
Quote:
Just as important a question. When Apple was nearly going out of business the iMac helped save the company. The iMac was one of Apple's best selling computers......why?
It saved it for a little while then apple began to slide again a couple years later. The iPod saved Apple and is the major reason for its current successes. I will also point that the iMac was positioned as a bottom of the line machine and the prosumers were served by the PowerMac. Since then the iMac has been forced upon the prosumer and the PowerMac has been replaced with a machine that cost almost $1000 more. Why? Apple knows it has a captive audience that will buy whatever computer Apple puts out and whatever price they want to sell it at. The macbooks are selling like hotcakes because they are basically what is wanted in a thin and light at that price range.
We've shown you that over 95% of desktops sold are towers, we've shown you that all in ones don't sell very well outside of Apple, we've shown you nobody outside the Mac platform buys a workstation for a desktop, we've shown you that Apple's desktop sales are completely stagnant despite a meteoric growth in laptop sales and still you don't listen to anything but Apple is perfect and everyone wants an all in one. You and those like you simply don't want to believe anything outside your own biases despite how overwhelming the evidence is.
No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.
A fact you keep ignoring becuase YOU want an xMac. Thus far you've shown very little other than expensive desktops don't sell much and Apple desktops will always remain expensive because they run at 28%+ margins while the majority of that 95% tower market runs far far less.
Apple's meteoritc growth in laptops is also seen by HP and Dell and those companies sell far more laptops than Apple. Toshiba growth numbers IIRC were pretty good too and all they sell are laptops.
That's another point you folks choose to ignore. There's a top 5 worldwide manufacturer that makes nothing but laptops and they move more machines than Apple (obviously). Apple could DUMP their entire desktop line and STILL grow to match or exceed Toshiba if OSX is the competitive trump card you think it is.
They are likely better off offering a better laptop than a better desktop. An 11" MBP convertible tablet with multi-touch would be a better fit for Apple than an xMac tower. MT is an area Apple can try to own and its much more useful for a convertible tablet than a tower.
I will also point that the iMac was positioned as a bottom of the line machine and the prosumers were served by the PowerMac.
Thanks, I had forgotten that the iMac started out as an entry level computer. Also, that Apple had no true workstation class computer at that time. The PowerMac was a prosumer.
If you haven't noticed, you both are in the minority here.
So we must be obviously wrong. Because we are the minority. Even though both of us prefer an xMac over an iMac. Shall I remind you of Apple's market share? A paltry 5% or so. But the brighest and most profitable 5%.
Most folks don't appear to care about OSX and can't see the difference between it and Vista other than it doesn't have any good games or doesn't run Outlook without a copy of XP.
No one has yet proven that there some mass appeal of OSX that trancends some of its significant shortfalls (namely no games for the home front and only so-so MS support on the enterprise front...entourage sucks, I still need IE for my timesheets, no MS project, no Visio, etc).
That it's easier to use seem to be largely unimportant to the majority of the computing world. Do you really think a tower form factor is going to make that much of a difference?
No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.
Not a current Mac, but I think a chunk of that 95% could switch to Mac OS X is there was suitable hardware, like they hardware they sold before the G5 iMac.
Quote:
Thus far you've shown very little other than expensive desktops don't sell much and Apple desktops will always remain expensive because they run at 28%+ margins while the majority of that 95% tower market runs far far less.
1/5th of all desktops sold are to sold by companies other than the name brand and most of them have higher margins than Apple. Keep believing that all desktops sold outside of the Mac are of the celeron Dell variety
Thanks, I had forgotten that the iMac started out as an entry level computer. Also, that Apple had no true workstation class computer at that time. The PowerMac was a prosumer.
The last Mac workstation before the Mac pro was the 9600. G-series era desktops, but not workstation for high end professionals. Intel era workstations for high end professionals, but no desktops.
The last Mac workstation before the Mac pro was the 9600. G-series era desktops, but not workstation for high end professionals. Intel era workstations for high end professionals, but no desktops.
Heh, I have the Umax s900 sitting in my closet which was the exact same stuff as the 9600. Dual CPU and 8 ram slots for a max of.... 1 gig. . I never really got to use it much because that is when the OS X transition was. Biggest waste of money I've ever had.
No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.
Just because the entire Windows audience won't want one doesn't make the venture worthless. Someone mentioned before that an xMac would have to treble Apple's market share to be worthwhile as a product. These kind of statements are just ridiculous.
It's really not difficult to see that if among the multitude of ugly, beige, cheap plastic PC towers that have LEDs and disability handles all over them there is a product that serves the same market but is quiet, well designed and Windows compatible that it will sell even with a higher (though not unreasonable) markup. This is apparent in pretty much any market you want to look at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
There's a top 5 worldwide manufacturer that makes nothing but laptops and they move more machines than Apple (obviously). Apple could DUMP their entire desktop line and STILL grow to match or exceed Toshiba if OSX is the competitive trump card you think it is.
I could easily believe that one day they will but I wouldn't say because of OS X. The Macbook is only £200 more than the equivalent Mac Mini and for that you get the portability, a screen, keyboard etc.
The Mini looks like it will be first to go according to AI so if they drop the Macbook by £100-200 somehow (not sure what prices Penryn will come in at) then the Mini could easily be replaced (news of both the Mini being dropped and a Macbook update seem to be coinciding). Then when the MBP gets cheap enough, the iMac becomes unnecessary. It's a laptop anyway so if the MBP closes the £350-400 price gap between it and the iMac then the iMac can go.
I reckon they'll leave the Mac Pro with 8 cores+ and when laptops get 4 cores, the consumer desktops will be irrelevant.
That time is not now though and the argument here is that desktop parts that PC manufacturers are currently using are significantly cheaper than the mobile parts Apple are using. In 2-3 years, this won't be the same but it is the case now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
They are likely better off offering a better laptop than a better desktop. An 11" MBP convertible tablet with multi-touch would be a better fit for Apple than an xMac tower. MT is an area Apple can try to own and its much more useful for a convertible tablet than a tower.
Is that just because *you* want a tablet? What evidence is there to suggest that a tablet or touch notebook would sell well at all? It's one of the most niche computer segments and it's crazy to suggest that Apple would be better off selling a product form factor that sells to probably the smallest PC crowd instead of one that sells to the largest.
That time is not now though and the argument here is that desktop parts that PC manufacturers are currently using are significantly cheaper than the mobile parts Apple are using. In 2-3 years, this won't be the same but it is the case now.
At volume the difference to Apple may make it worthwhile to use mobile parts across the line vs adding a completely new parts pipeline.
Quote:
Is that just because *you* want a tablet? What evidence is there to suggest that a tablet or touch notebook would sell well at all? It's one of the most niche computer segments and it's crazy to suggest that Apple would be better off selling a product form factor that sells to probably the smallest PC crowd instead of one that sells to the largest.
No, because a) Apple is patenting things related to muli-touch and a convertible tablet is simply a laptop with a special hinge that allows use with stylus or fingers (digitizer and touch sensor) b) they are trading off the advanced features of the iPhone and the buzz of MT and c) because MT is an area not dominated by existing players.
Unlike towers which a) Apple has no special IP to differentiate it from the market other than OSX which hasn't been a "killer app" as yet b) towers are yesterdays news and about as boring as can be marketing wise and c) dominated by HP, Dell and others already.
And of course Jobs doesn't like consumer towers but DOES like multi-touch.
The odds that I would buy a MT Apple Tablet this Jan is zero because I'm no where near my replacement cycle for my MBP. I COULD see myself getting an xMac if offered this next year. So much for your pointless assertion.
Just because the entire Windows audience won't want one doesn't make the venture worthless. Someone mentioned before that an xMac would have to treble Apple's market share to be worthwhile as a product. These kind of statements are just ridiculous.
I didn't address this. What I meant was I don't see any significant portion of that 95% of the market to be interested in an xMac. I can justify buying a Mac Pro to my bosses because it is price competitive with a Dell Workstation that we would have bought otherwise. An xMac tower that is 15% more expensive wouldn't be as easily justified.
Also, the xMac would need to treble market share based on the lower price point often suggested for the xMac (sometimes as low as $750...half of Apple's $1500 ASP) to actually add to the Apple bottom line. The expectation is that it would significantly cannibalize the higher priced and likely higher margin'd iMac. Apple got away with higher iMac margins before the recent update because...who could really tell? There were no other AIOs that you could price compare with that the iMac wasn't better anyway.
Not so in the tower market. At BEST Apple could keep to the 28% target margins and even then it is unlikely.
Yes, I believe that an xMac is superior to the iMac and that if Apple offered an xMac the iMac sales would tank. What I don't believe is Apple would make much headway selling towers at 28% margins except largely to the same folks that would buy an iMac anyway.
The large majority of that 95% tower base would simply compare a HP tower at 10% margins and figure that OSX is not worth the significant premium over the "free" Vista or even "freer" Ubuntu.
The large majority of that 95% tower base would simply compare a HP tower at 10% margins and figure that OSX is not worth the significant premium over the "free" Vista or even "freer" Ubuntu.
Vinea
I'm going to try to address this again and hope it gets through the set of blinders over your eyes. Apple would NOT be going after the 10% margin celeron HP/Dells with this product. They would be going after the higher margin $1000 prosumer market between that that market and the high end super professional market that the Mac Pro exists in. AKA the one that you and your type does not even want to admit exists because it would require admitting that there are actually informed users outside the Mac platform.
As for OSX, yes there a lot of current Mac users who buy a Mac because it looks good it it raises or status or some other vanity based reason like that, but there are also a bunch of current and potential mac users who are interested in an operating system much more evolved than the train-wreck that is windows and find that linux/unix variants barely workable. I'm willing to spend more to get something that works better and so are quite a few more. What people are not willing to accept having to get a machine that is a major downgrade in capability to get that better operating system. And before you come with the eventual rebuttal here are the areas that that iMac is a downgrade.
-2.4ghz CPU down from 2.66z Dual core or 2.4ghz quad core at similar price.
-4GB max memory via two DIMM sockets down from 8GB Max via 4 DIMM slots
-One single 8x DVD burner that can use only 5.25" discs verus one or more 18X DVD or 4x Blu-ray/HD DVD burner
-One hard drive vs multiple hard drives.
-265MB Radeon HD2600Pro vs up to 512mb Radeon HD2900XT
-Being stuck with what you got vs ability to upgrade to new tech when it comes out.
The iMac is a great general setup for the average user. It has a good mix of features and power. However it only really comes up to the level of a really good MATX setup. In other words its the Acura TL (luxury version of the Accord) of desktops. The Mac Pro on the other hand is a fully loaded 18-wheeler. A lot of users need something more powerful, up getting the Mac Pro is a complete waste.
At volume the difference to Apple may make it worthwhile to use mobile parts across the line vs adding a completely new parts pipeline.
It might but it might not. The iMac and laptops are still different products with different designs. The prices don't really suggest Apple make much of a saving relative to other PC manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
No, because a) Apple is patenting things related to muli-touch and a convertible tablet is simply a laptop with a special hinge that allows use with stylus or fingers (digitizer and touch sensor) b) they are trading off the advanced features of the iPhone and the buzz of MT and c) because MT is an area not dominated by existing players.
I still see no evidence that it will sell well. You are comparing the iphone to a tablet and assuming the touch functions will translate well to a larger form factor. Applications will need to be specially written and how will Apple maintain display quality and strength at that resolution and size?
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see one at some point but I seriously doubt that it's a safer bet to go with a tablet than a mid-range tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Unlike towers which a) Apple has no special IP to differentiate it from the market other than OSX which hasn't been a "killer app" as yet b) towers are yesterdays news and about as boring as can be marketing wise and c) dominated by HP, Dell and others already.
Design, design, design. Apple has nothing special in any of their products except design. That alone is enough to sell a small tower. People don't want AIOs, the PC world shows this quite clearly and Mac users haven't ever expressed any demand for AIOs. Where were the polls back when Apple didn't have an iMac crying out for an all-in-one design? We were happy with towers and then Apple started shafting us with closed appliances starting at the low end and working up until now we have nothing but appliances short of a workstation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The odds that I would buy a MT Apple Tablet this Jan is zero because I'm no where near my replacement cycle for my MBP. I COULD see myself getting an xMac if offered this next year. So much for your pointless assertion.
So let's get this straight, you think Apple should sell a product to the smallest possible market, a market you aren't even a member of and you don't want them to sell to the largest market, which you are a member of. How can that possibly make any sense to you? You want them to sell a product you're not going to buy.
Also, how much extra is this tablet going to be with MT? Will it lack an optical drive? I don't see how a product that will likely be over $6000 (this is the kind of pricing arguments we get from anti-xMac protesters) will sell when the Macbook Pro is way cheaper. Plus the tablet will only have integrated graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
An xMac tower that is 15% more expensive wouldn't be as easily justified.
But it would obviously cost less than a Mac Pro. If your boss is happy to let you buy a Mac Pro then what does he care if you get a cheaper mac?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Also, the xMac would need to treble market share based on the lower price point often suggested for the xMac (sometimes as low as $750...half of Apple's $1500 ASP) to actually add to the Apple bottom line.
The parts are cheaper. It's not as if they are the same parts at a lower price. All we're saying is to use exactly the same margins and simply pass on the savings to us of not bundling a screen and not using mobile components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The expectation is that it would significantly cannibalize the higher priced and likely higher margin'd iMac. Apple got away with higher iMac margins before the recent update because...who could really tell? There were no other AIOs that you could price compare with that the iMac wasn't better anyway.
And you're defending that kind of thing? You think it's right for Apple to make stupid computer configurations so that it's hard for people to tell how badly they are being ripped off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, I believe that an xMac is superior to the iMac and that if Apple offered an xMac the iMac sales would tank. What I don't believe is Apple would make much headway selling towers at 28% margins except largely to the same folks that would buy an iMac anyway.
So where's the problem? Apple make the sales one way or another and as I've said before, PC users will be far more likely to buy a familiar form factor than an AIO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The large majority of that 95% tower base would simply compare a HP tower at 10% margins and figure that OSX is not worth the significant premium over the "free" Vista or even "freer" Ubuntu.
Wrong. They will see a much more nicely designed product and weigh up whether or not it's worth paying a paltry 18% more (about £100-200) for a beautiful, small, easily configured machine that can run both OS X and Windows or Linux (though most consumers don't even know what Linux is) and fits better with their ipod/iphone.
Again I don't expect a majority to go for this as the majority want dirt cheap, rock bottom prices. However, it will appeal to the people who want to spend a bit extra for a good machine but the same people who don't want to be ripped off with novelty products that don't satisfy their needs.
Comments
People who use dual lcds, the iMac is simply out of the question. It is such a pain in the ass trying to calibrate 2 monitors let alone 2 DIFFERENT monitors. So you suggest a $2.5k workstation? lol.
I'm sorry that an xMac doesn't fit your life style.
I'm not against an xMac as I've said several times. Its the rational why Apple must provide an xMac.
They keep failing because they don't appease the common consumer / business.
Gateway and Sony don't seem to understand this.
Emachines had an iMac look-a-like during the iMac boom. Their machine looked ALMOST IDENTICAL... but flopped... why?
Just as important a question. When Apple was nearly going out of business the iMac helped save the company. The iMac was one of Apple's best selling computers......why?
Just because laptops are selling quickly does NOT mean the desktop market has shrunk. In fact it's grown, just not at the rate that laptops have.
InformationWeek
By Antone Gonsalves
June 22, 2007
Apple's share of desktop and notebook sales online and through brick-and-mortar stores rose to 13% from 11.6% in April, according to The NPD Group. Apple notebook sales rose to 14.3% of overall purchases from 12.5%, while desktop sales inched up to 10.4% from 10.2%.
Desktop sales in general were far less than notebooks, neither Apple nor Windows PC vendors showed much progress. "Apple is struggling just like everybody else in terms of getting some growth out of that segment," Baker said. Apple desktop sales, however, were better than for Windows machines.
I'm not against an xMac as I've said several times. Its the rational why Apple must provide an xMac. [/b][/i]
Since Apple has exactly what you want, you ought to celebrate and stop trying to tell the AI members on this thread why they can't have what they want. Stay off this thread if it irritates you to hear us discussing an xMac. Why does our need for an xMac cause you so much irritation? Go bother someone else for a change. You're not going to change our needs by your constant naysaying.
How about that? I'm really proud of myself. I was able to write that whole paragraph without once swearing at TenoBell.
Gateway and Sony don't seem to understand this.
Gateway and sony aren't the entire windows platform. If someone wants something else, they have other options.
Just as important a question. When Apple was nearly going out of business the iMac helped save the company. The iMac was one of Apple's best selling computers......why?
It saved it for a little while then apple began to slide again a couple years later. The iPod saved Apple and is the major reason for its current successes. I will also point that the iMac was positioned as a bottom of the line machine and the prosumers were served by the PowerMac. Since then the iMac has been forced upon the prosumer and the PowerMac has been replaced with a machine that cost almost $1000 more. Why? Apple knows it has a captive audience that will buy whatever computer Apple puts out and whatever price they want to sell it at. The macbooks are selling like hotcakes because they are basically what is wanted in a thin and light at that price range.
Apple knows it has a captive audience that will buy whatever computer Apple puts out and whatever price they want to sell it at.
That's boldly stating the obvious, but it's understates the overwhelming group of people that don't buy a Mac because it's hardware is severely niche.
We've shown you that over 95% of desktops sold are towers, we've shown you that all in ones don't sell very well outside of Apple, we've shown you nobody outside the Mac platform buys a workstation for a desktop, we've shown you that Apple's desktop sales are completely stagnant despite a meteoric growth in laptop sales and still you don't listen to anything but Apple is perfect and everyone wants an all in one. You and those like you simply don't want to believe anything outside your own biases despite how overwhelming the evidence is.
No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.
A fact you keep ignoring becuase YOU want an xMac. Thus far you've shown very little other than expensive desktops don't sell much and Apple desktops will always remain expensive because they run at 28%+ margins while the majority of that 95% tower market runs far far less.
Apple's meteoritc growth in laptops is also seen by HP and Dell and those companies sell far more laptops than Apple. Toshiba growth numbers IIRC were pretty good too and all they sell are laptops.
That's another point you folks choose to ignore. There's a top 5 worldwide manufacturer that makes nothing but laptops and they move more machines than Apple (obviously). Apple could DUMP their entire desktop line and STILL grow to match or exceed Toshiba if OSX is the competitive trump card you think it is.
They are likely better off offering a better laptop than a better desktop. An 11" MBP convertible tablet with multi-touch would be a better fit for Apple than an xMac tower. MT is an area Apple can try to own and its much more useful for a convertible tablet than a tower.
I will also point that the iMac was positioned as a bottom of the line machine and the prosumers were served by the PowerMac.
Thanks, I had forgotten that the iMac started out as an entry level computer. Also, that Apple had no true workstation class computer at that time. The PowerMac was a prosumer.
vinea and TenoBell
If you haven't noticed, you both are in the minority here.
So we must be obviously wrong. Because we are the minority. Even though both of us prefer an xMac over an iMac. Shall I remind you of Apple's market share? A paltry 5% or so. But the brighest and most profitable 5%.
Most folks don't appear to care about OSX and can't see the difference between it and Vista other than it doesn't have any good games or doesn't run Outlook without a copy of XP.
No one has yet proven that there some mass appeal of OSX that trancends some of its significant shortfalls (namely no games for the home front and only so-so MS support on the enterprise front...entourage sucks, I still need IE for my timesheets, no MS project, no Visio, etc).
That it's easier to use seem to be largely unimportant to the majority of the computing world. Do you really think a tower form factor is going to make that much of a difference?
No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.
Not a current Mac, but I think a chunk of that 95% could switch to Mac OS X is there was suitable hardware, like they hardware they sold before the G5 iMac.
Thus far you've shown very little other than expensive desktops don't sell much and Apple desktops will always remain expensive because they run at 28%+ margins while the majority of that 95% tower market runs far far less.
1/5th of all desktops sold are to sold by companies other than the name brand and most of them have higher margins than Apple. Keep believing that all desktops sold outside of the Mac are of the celeron Dell variety
Thanks, I had forgotten that the iMac started out as an entry level computer. Also, that Apple had no true workstation class computer at that time. The PowerMac was a prosumer.
The last Mac workstation before the Mac pro was the 9600. G-series era desktops, but not workstation for high end professionals. Intel era workstations for high end professionals, but no desktops.
The all-in-one dual-core VESA Stand PC mod
http://content.zdnet.com/2346-10533_22-169393-1.html
or a do-it-yourself AIO
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=814&tag=nl.e540
The last Mac workstation before the Mac pro was the 9600. G-series era desktops, but not workstation for high end professionals. Intel era workstations for high end professionals, but no desktops.
Heh, I have the Umax s900 sitting in my closet which was the exact same stuff as the 9600. Dual CPU and 8 ram slots for a max of.... 1 gig.
No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.
Just because the entire Windows audience won't want one doesn't make the venture worthless. Someone mentioned before that an xMac would have to treble Apple's market share to be worthwhile as a product. These kind of statements are just ridiculous.
It's really not difficult to see that if among the multitude of ugly, beige, cheap plastic PC towers that have LEDs and disability handles all over them there is a product that serves the same market but is quiet, well designed and Windows compatible that it will sell even with a higher (though not unreasonable) markup. This is apparent in pretty much any market you want to look at.
There's a top 5 worldwide manufacturer that makes nothing but laptops and they move more machines than Apple (obviously). Apple could DUMP their entire desktop line and STILL grow to match or exceed Toshiba if OSX is the competitive trump card you think it is.
I could easily believe that one day they will but I wouldn't say because of OS X. The Macbook is only £200 more than the equivalent Mac Mini and for that you get the portability, a screen, keyboard etc.
The Mini looks like it will be first to go according to AI so if they drop the Macbook by £100-200 somehow (not sure what prices Penryn will come in at) then the Mini could easily be replaced (news of both the Mini being dropped and a Macbook update seem to be coinciding). Then when the MBP gets cheap enough, the iMac becomes unnecessary. It's a laptop anyway so if the MBP closes the £350-400 price gap between it and the iMac then the iMac can go.
I reckon they'll leave the Mac Pro with 8 cores+ and when laptops get 4 cores, the consumer desktops will be irrelevant.
That time is not now though and the argument here is that desktop parts that PC manufacturers are currently using are significantly cheaper than the mobile parts Apple are using. In 2-3 years, this won't be the same but it is the case now.
They are likely better off offering a better laptop than a better desktop. An 11" MBP convertible tablet with multi-touch would be a better fit for Apple than an xMac tower. MT is an area Apple can try to own and its much more useful for a convertible tablet than a tower.
Is that just because *you* want a tablet? What evidence is there to suggest that a tablet or touch notebook would sell well at all? It's one of the most niche computer segments and it's crazy to suggest that Apple would be better off selling a product form factor that sells to probably the smallest PC crowd instead of one that sells to the largest.
That time is not now though and the argument here is that desktop parts that PC manufacturers are currently using are significantly cheaper than the mobile parts Apple are using. In 2-3 years, this won't be the same but it is the case now.
At volume the difference to Apple may make it worthwhile to use mobile parts across the line vs adding a completely new parts pipeline.
Is that just because *you* want a tablet? What evidence is there to suggest that a tablet or touch notebook would sell well at all? It's one of the most niche computer segments and it's crazy to suggest that Apple would be better off selling a product form factor that sells to probably the smallest PC crowd instead of one that sells to the largest.
No, because a) Apple is patenting things related to muli-touch and a convertible tablet is simply a laptop with a special hinge that allows use with stylus or fingers (digitizer and touch sensor) b) they are trading off the advanced features of the iPhone and the buzz of MT and c) because MT is an area not dominated by existing players.
Unlike towers which a) Apple has no special IP to differentiate it from the market other than OSX which hasn't been a "killer app" as yet b) towers are yesterdays news and about as boring as can be marketing wise and c) dominated by HP, Dell and others already.
And of course Jobs doesn't like consumer towers but DOES like multi-touch.
The odds that I would buy a MT Apple Tablet this Jan is zero because I'm no where near my replacement cycle for my MBP. I COULD see myself getting an xMac if offered this next year. So much for your pointless assertion.
Just because the entire Windows audience won't want one doesn't make the venture worthless. Someone mentioned before that an xMac would have to treble Apple's market share to be worthwhile as a product. These kind of statements are just ridiculous.
I didn't address this. What I meant was I don't see any significant portion of that 95% of the market to be interested in an xMac. I can justify buying a Mac Pro to my bosses because it is price competitive with a Dell Workstation that we would have bought otherwise. An xMac tower that is 15% more expensive wouldn't be as easily justified.
Also, the xMac would need to treble market share based on the lower price point often suggested for the xMac (sometimes as low as $750...half of Apple's $1500 ASP) to actually add to the Apple bottom line. The expectation is that it would significantly cannibalize the higher priced and likely higher margin'd iMac. Apple got away with higher iMac margins before the recent update because...who could really tell? There were no other AIOs that you could price compare with that the iMac wasn't better anyway.
Not so in the tower market. At BEST Apple could keep to the 28% target margins and even then it is unlikely.
Yes, I believe that an xMac is superior to the iMac and that if Apple offered an xMac the iMac sales would tank. What I don't believe is Apple would make much headway selling towers at 28% margins except largely to the same folks that would buy an iMac anyway.
The large majority of that 95% tower base would simply compare a HP tower at 10% margins and figure that OSX is not worth the significant premium over the "free" Vista or even "freer" Ubuntu.
Vinea
And of course Jobs doesn't like consumer towers but DOES like multi-touch.
The odds that I would buy a MT Apple Tablet this Jan is zero because I'm no where near my replacement cycle for my MBP.
How about a MacBook Nano:
Maybe, since Jobs doesn't like towers, he may opt for ALL AIO's
Yah why not, since jobs LOVES AIO so much, and believes it's the future. MAKE EVERYTHING AIO. And watch apple fall hard on desktop sales.
Not even Steve Job's ego is big enough to throw away the pros.
I
The large majority of that 95% tower base would simply compare a HP tower at 10% margins and figure that OSX is not worth the significant premium over the "free" Vista or even "freer" Ubuntu.
Vinea
I'm going to try to address this again and hope it gets through the set of blinders over your eyes. Apple would NOT be going after the 10% margin celeron HP/Dells with this product. They would be going after the higher margin $1000 prosumer market between that that market and the high end super professional market that the Mac Pro exists in. AKA the one that you and your type does not even want to admit exists because it would require admitting that there are actually informed users outside the Mac platform.
As for OSX, yes there a lot of current Mac users who buy a Mac because it looks good it it raises or status or some other vanity based reason like that, but there are also a bunch of current and potential mac users who are interested in an operating system much more evolved than the train-wreck that is windows and find that linux/unix variants barely workable. I'm willing to spend more to get something that works better and so are quite a few more. What people are not willing to accept having to get a machine that is a major downgrade in capability to get that better operating system. And before you come with the eventual rebuttal here are the areas that that iMac is a downgrade.
-2.4ghz CPU down from 2.66z Dual core or 2.4ghz quad core at similar price.
-4GB max memory via two DIMM sockets down from 8GB Max via 4 DIMM slots
-One single 8x DVD burner that can use only 5.25" discs verus one or more 18X DVD or 4x Blu-ray/HD DVD burner
-One hard drive vs multiple hard drives.
-265MB Radeon HD2600Pro vs up to 512mb Radeon HD2900XT
-Being stuck with what you got vs ability to upgrade to new tech when it comes out.
The iMac is a great general setup for the average user. It has a good mix of features and power. However it only really comes up to the level of a really good MATX setup. In other words its the Acura TL (luxury version of the Accord) of desktops. The Mac Pro on the other hand is a fully loaded 18-wheeler. A lot of users need something more powerful, up getting the Mac Pro is a complete waste.
At volume the difference to Apple may make it worthwhile to use mobile parts across the line vs adding a completely new parts pipeline.
It might but it might not. The iMac and laptops are still different products with different designs. The prices don't really suggest Apple make much of a saving relative to other PC manufacturers.
No, because a) Apple is patenting things related to muli-touch and a convertible tablet is simply a laptop with a special hinge that allows use with stylus or fingers (digitizer and touch sensor) b) they are trading off the advanced features of the iPhone and the buzz of MT and c) because MT is an area not dominated by existing players.
I still see no evidence that it will sell well. You are comparing the iphone to a tablet and assuming the touch functions will translate well to a larger form factor. Applications will need to be specially written and how will Apple maintain display quality and strength at that resolution and size?
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see one at some point but I seriously doubt that it's a safer bet to go with a tablet than a mid-range tower.
Unlike towers which a) Apple has no special IP to differentiate it from the market other than OSX which hasn't been a "killer app" as yet b) towers are yesterdays news and about as boring as can be marketing wise and c) dominated by HP, Dell and others already.
Design, design, design. Apple has nothing special in any of their products except design. That alone is enough to sell a small tower. People don't want AIOs, the PC world shows this quite clearly and Mac users haven't ever expressed any demand for AIOs. Where were the polls back when Apple didn't have an iMac crying out for an all-in-one design? We were happy with towers and then Apple started shafting us with closed appliances starting at the low end and working up until now we have nothing but appliances short of a workstation.
The odds that I would buy a MT Apple Tablet this Jan is zero because I'm no where near my replacement cycle for my MBP. I COULD see myself getting an xMac if offered this next year. So much for your pointless assertion.
So let's get this straight, you think Apple should sell a product to the smallest possible market, a market you aren't even a member of and you don't want them to sell to the largest market, which you are a member of. How can that possibly make any sense to you? You want them to sell a product you're not going to buy.
Also, how much extra is this tablet going to be with MT? Will it lack an optical drive? I don't see how a product that will likely be over $6000 (this is the kind of pricing arguments we get from anti-xMac protesters) will sell when the Macbook Pro is way cheaper. Plus the tablet will only have integrated graphics.
An xMac tower that is 15% more expensive wouldn't be as easily justified.
But it would obviously cost less than a Mac Pro. If your boss is happy to let you buy a Mac Pro then what does he care if you get a cheaper mac?
Also, the xMac would need to treble market share based on the lower price point often suggested for the xMac (sometimes as low as $750...half of Apple's $1500 ASP) to actually add to the Apple bottom line.
The parts are cheaper. It's not as if they are the same parts at a lower price. All we're saying is to use exactly the same margins and simply pass on the savings to us of not bundling a screen and not using mobile components.
The expectation is that it would significantly cannibalize the higher priced and likely higher margin'd iMac. Apple got away with higher iMac margins before the recent update because...who could really tell? There were no other AIOs that you could price compare with that the iMac wasn't better anyway.
And you're defending that kind of thing? You think it's right for Apple to make stupid computer configurations so that it's hard for people to tell how badly they are being ripped off?
Yes, I believe that an xMac is superior to the iMac and that if Apple offered an xMac the iMac sales would tank. What I don't believe is Apple would make much headway selling towers at 28% margins except largely to the same folks that would buy an iMac anyway.
So where's the problem? Apple make the sales one way or another and as I've said before, PC users will be far more likely to buy a familiar form factor than an AIO.
The large majority of that 95% tower base would simply compare a HP tower at 10% margins and figure that OSX is not worth the significant premium over the "free" Vista or even "freer" Ubuntu.
Wrong. They will see a much more nicely designed product and weigh up whether or not it's worth paying a paltry 18% more (about £100-200) for a beautiful, small, easily configured machine that can run both OS X and Windows or Linux (though most consumers don't even know what Linux is) and fits better with their ipod/iphone.
Again I don't expect a majority to go for this as the majority want dirt cheap, rock bottom prices. However, it will appeal to the people who want to spend a bit extra for a good machine but the same people who don't want to be ripped off with novelty products that don't satisfy their needs.