A $2578 iMac is price competitvely with a $2574 Dell. Mkay...so is a Mac Pro because both of those are at the top end of the spectrum with large margins. That doesn't show that $800 machines have 25%+ margins.
Again, if all you want is an xMac that > $1500 that's fine by me. I agree, let's have at it and bring on the towers. If you want to go back down to that $700-$800 market segment then I say its a short term gain (cheaper macs) for a long term loss (weaker Apple). Given Apple is the sole source for machines that don't suck I prefer the status quo.
As far as the rest of your assertions at least you finally posted a source. Feel free to recalculate with 5% margins for 50% of unit sales (<$500), 18% margins for 30% ($500-$800) and whatever for the remaining 20% upper tier ($800-$3000+).
Here's a quick sample:
$400 * 5 = 2000 * 0.05 = $100
$700 * 3 = 2100 * 0.18 = $378
$1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800
Total revenue = $7300
18% gross margins = $1314
Gross Margins from above? $1278
What have I shown? I can take any set of numbers, apply some math and, in this case, 30 seconds with the calculator can show nearly anything. If I need to show some obtuse outcome it would take me longer than 30 secs to "massage" the numbers to something more suitable. I guessed pretty close so the number is only short a little (somewhere between 17% and 18%) and requires me to do no further work in illustrating...well, not a whole lot other than numbers are very malleable while looking very official.
Hopefully I haven't made some embarrasing math error but really, I spent very little time on this.
Given Apple is the sole source for machines that don't suck I prefer the status quo.
.....................Vinea
That's a very opinionated statement if I've ever heard one given the fact that this thread is all about that people are sick of how Apples offerings suck for them, and they would prefer something along the lines of a true desktop that is not strictly limited, and confined so that they can actually customize it if they so wish.
Your own attempt at gross margins at certain price points yielded $1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800. 25% margins you say, for $1600 computer, what again are the prices of Apple's 20" iMacs? So even after you massaged the numbers you still get 25% margins for Dell in the price range of the 20" iMacs.
$799 is not an arbritrary price point. It represented the base price point for a tower with a Core 2 Duo Conroe with integrated graphics, 3-4 slots, 2 harddrive bays and 2 optical drive bays. Kind of the point of this thread. Which at the time, the Conroe had been newly introduced, therefore, cutting edge and most certainly would have justified greater margins. So, you cheated by dipping down into the $700 range.
No matter how you slice or dice the numbers the fact that the market for computers above the price point of $799 represents only 15% of the market, the margins must be substantially higher than the overall margins of 14 - 16% reported by Dell.
In the end, my numbers regarding speculation on Dell's margins at the price point Apple charges for iMacs is just as valid as yours regarding Apple's gross margins for the iMacs.
Just for your knowledge. You might want to compare these numbers for gross margins.
(re: remember that Microsoft's gross margins include the losses incurred for the XBox and Zune.)
\t\t
This might help put perspective on margins related to software and how it may affect Apple's overall gross margins considering they do indeed sell software.
That's a very opinionated statement if I've ever heard one given the fact that this thread is all about that people are sick of how Apples offerings suck for them, and they would prefer something along the lines of a true desktop that is not strictly limited, and confined so that they can actually customize it if they so wish.
Fine...replace "computer" with "operating system" although we could possibly agree to "computer system" but whatever.
Man what a nit picky thing to object to on an Apple forum. If you think Apple machines suck that much and you're sick of it then buy something else. 95% of the world does.
Your own attempt at gross margins at certain price points yielded $1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800. 25% margins you say, for $1600 computer, what again are the prices of Apple's 20" iMacs? So even after you massaged the numbers you still get 25% margins for Dell in the price range of the 20" iMacs.
YES, I USED 25% MARGINS FOR COMPUTERS AT OR ABOVE $1500. NO KIDDING AND THAT WAS NEVER DISPUTED. WHAT WAS DISPUTED WAS THAT $800 DELL COMPUTERS HAD 25%+ MARGINS.
Clear? Should I pick a bigger font size?
I did no massaging. I picked reasonable looking numbers out of the blue. They came out about right first go because...oh my gosh...I'm not advocating something silly. I simply said cheap computers have low margins (5%), medium computers had medium margins (18%) and expensive computers had high margins (25%). Ohhhhh, how innovative.
If I had thought the goal was 14%-16% margins I'd have picked 15% instead of 18% but whatever...I hit around 17% so hey buddy...guess what? $800 PCs can have mid ranged margins and the sky won't fall and Dell doesn't need to have a chat with the SEC. At least not about that.
You don't like my numbers feel free to waste the afternoon picking new ones and "massage" them to your heart's content.
Quote:
$799 is not an arbritrary price point. It represented the base price point for a tower with a Core 2 Duo Conroe with integrated graphics, 3-4 slots, 2 harddrive bays and 2 optical drive bays. Kind of the point of this thread. Which at the time, the Conroe had been newly introduced, therefore, cutting edge and most certainly would have justified greater margins. So, you cheated by dipping down into the $700 range.
No matter how you slice or dice the numbers the fact that the market for computers above the price point of $799 represents only 15% of the market, the margins must be substantially higher than the overall margins of 14 - 16% reported by Dell.
No...it really doesn't. It only needs to be around that 14-16% margins reported by Dell. You want to fiddle with the numbers so that $800 machines are 15% margins and figure out what the low and high ends COULD be, be my guest. Its rather pointless since you don't have enough data to show that your idiotic model is any more accurate than my idiotic model.
Although with a grand total of THREE price points I can say that my model is 50% more complex than yours. And therefore 50,000X more relevant (ObMath: 50,000 * 0.0 = ?). Whee!
Although, I will point out the obvious here that you seem to not get:
More expensive computers...cost more...and thereby generate more revenue. Taking a bigger slices from bigger pies means you get a heck of a lot more pie from a lot fewer slices than taking many smaller slices from much smaller pies.
Quote:
In the end, my numbers regarding speculation on Dell's margins at the price point Apple charges for iMacs is just as valid as yours regarding Apple's gross margins for the iMacs.
Except that asserting that $800 PCs have 25% margins is really really stupid while asserting that $1500 PCs have 28% margins is just a wild guess, hopefully in the right ballpark. You are just being argumentative right? You don't REALLY believe that Dell is making 25%+ margins on $799 PCs?
9-1 ratio to boot. Slid the numbers your way as much as wasn't silly and used the 30% number rather than the 25% number. Note these are to be considered "averages" since the $400 covers computers from $300 to $500 and the $800 one from $500 to $1000 and the $1500 one from $1000 to Alienware UberRig.
Fine...replace "computer" with "operating system" although we could possibly agree to "computer system" but whatever.
Man what a nit picky thing to object to on an Apple forum. If you think Apple machines suck that much and you're sick of it then buy something else. 95% of the world does.
Vinea
Well it is nit picky but so are most computer buyers. And you also bring up a good point in that. The OS is great, but it's only 1/3rd the reason to buy a computer. Hardware, and Applications are the other 2/3rds, and for those two thirds the other side has a better deal. It's not a 50/50 choice over two OS's and Apples is better. The deck is stacked in the opponents favor, Apple has to come to grips with that, this thread, and all the other threads about this all over the net that are of the overwhelming belief of that, and we (forum posters) are just a small minority of the people that believe this.
Again, if all you want is an xMac that > $1500 that's fine by me. I agree, let's have at it and bring on the towers. If you want to go back down to that $700-$800 market segment then I say its a short term gain (cheaper macs) for a long term loss (weaker Apple).
So are you saying the Mac Mini has weakened Apple somehow? If not then how would making a tower with desktop parts the same spec as the current Mini at the same price be any more damaging? It's cheaper to build.
I wouldn't mind if they were only >$1500 but the point about the xMac is that it can cover the entire range from the Mac Mini right up to the Mac Pro range - in short it covers everyone. Everyone who doesn't want a laptop or a workstation.
This is the great thing about it, Apple don't even have the hassle the iMac has if people want bigger drives installed. The small tower could have an easy open panel for more Ram and drives so upgrade times are cut way down. There could easily be a list of GPUs that people can choose from just like the Mac Pro but gamer cards (maybe 3-4 models) and not quadros etc.
So are you saying the Mac Mini has weakened Apple somehow? If not then how would making a tower with desktop parts the same spec as the current Mini at the same price be any more damaging? It's cheaper to build.
Nope. because a) They didn't sell all that many Mini's or their ASP would be below $1500 and b) because the Mini was carefully positioned not to be much of a threat of cannibalizing iMac sales.
Quote:
I wouldn't mind if they were only >$1500 but the point about the xMac is that it can cover the entire range from the Mac Mini right up to the Mac Pro range - in short it covers everyone. Everyone who doesn't want a laptop or a workstation.
Fine, we're all hopefully in agreement that a $1500+ xMac tower would be grand.
Point stands, your numbers concerning Apples margins is based on just a specious speculation as mine.
edit: after further thought, no, your latest attempt is way off.
Your numbers have breakdown of 50% at $800 and above(4 @ $800 + 1 @ $1500 ) and 50% below $800(5 @ $400)
The $799 ~ $800 price point represents only 15% of the desktop market, not 50%.
You have the inability to read anything you don't want to. The $800 point includes all computers from $500 to $1000. Just like the $500 one covers everything from $0 to $500. They match the chart reasonably close. Originally it was $700 but you whined so I made it $800. Again you whine. Whatever.
Don't like those numbers...feel free to play with them yourself.
You can simply repeat "point stands" all you want but anyone with 2 brain cells to bang together realizes that its not "90% of computers at 5% and 10% of computers at 50% margins" but a range. Therefore saying $800 computers MUST have 25%+ margins is dumb as bricks.
We're done with this because while it was amusing to laugh at you for a while but its kinda boring going around in circles because you either don't get it or choose to act dumb.
Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
Cube is a glorified mini.
I think they could design it without major limitations. As long as the drives (only 2 HDs and 1 optical or 2 opticals and 1 HD), Ram and a PCI slot or two are easily accessible then it could still be pretty small. If they just use a similar setup to the Mac Pro but with less parts. A single quad chip instead of two duals or two quads in the pro. I suspect the pro would be better to move to dual quads completely.
A cube also counters the point about Apple having to offer something more than the competition. There are PC cubes out there but they aren't everywhere - Apple could still have the advantage of a small form factor vs PCs. A well designed larger desktop will sell but having the 'cube' label has some sales appeal and it gives it an identity. Apple wouldn't use the term xMac because that doesn't relate to anything and I've always wondered where that name came from. What would they call a mid-range tower? Just Mac would be good but that will confuse people when it comes to asking for support.
I agree that it shouldn't compromise the computer so if they couldn't build a cube without crippling it then it would have to be a normal desktop but if that's the case then they aren't as good technical designers as they like to believe.
If they can fit dual 2.33GHz CPUs, one 7200 rpm drive and a Nvidia 8600M GT into a Macbook Pro then they can surely put a 2.4 GHz Core 2 quad with two HDs into something at least 2-3 times the size of a mac Mini.
Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.
I wouldn't have put it quite so bluntly, but yes. A revisit of the Cube would not attract many new customers and would be pretty much doomed to failure.
Quote:
mjteix
"I'd settle"
Unfortunately, that's is the position many Apple desktop customers are already doing for the ability to enjoy Apple's software. I settled for an iMac.
Why should Apple expect consumers to "settle" when Apple doesn't have to force such an issue? There are no rational reasons for Apple to do this.
I fear it is a philosophy that dates all the way back when Apple firmly believed that computers for consumers should be treated like appliances. I used to think it had more to do with protecting the margins on the iMacs and professional level computers. This obviously doesn't hold true for the Mac Pro since it was demonstratlby less expensive than competitors, sometimes by a wide margin. But Jobs recent comments have made me a believer, Apple will never offer for sale a consumer level computer with anything closely resembling the flexibility and ease of use of a tower of any kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You have the inability to read anything you don't want to. The $800 point includes all computers from $500 to $1000. Just like the $500 one covers everything from $0 to $500. They match the chart reasonably close. Originally it was $700 but you whined so I made it $800. Again you whine. Whatever.
Don't like those numbers...feel free to play with them yourself.
You can simply repeat "point stands" all you want but anyone with 2 brain cells to bang together realizes that its not "90% of computers at 5% and 10% of computers at 50% margins" but a range. Therefore saying $800 computers MUST have 25%+ margins is dumb as bricks.
We're done with this because while it was amusing to laugh at you for a while but its kinda boring going around in circles because you either don't get it or choose to act dumb.
I'm not whinning, just pointing out your errors.
Your biggest error is believing that Apple's margins on computers are significantly greater than Dell's in the >$799 price range. You extrapolate from Apple's gross margins to come up with gross margins on computers. You ignore the fact that Apple's laptop and desktop business as of the June quarter less than 50% of their gross sales and what effect this has on overall gross margins.
You claim that the margins on the top 15% of Dells computer line starts at or is in the 14 - 16 % range which is quite frankly nuts. Hard to tell what your talking about because the range you selected $500 - $1000 dollars includes bargin basement computers to the high end of the computer line, reflecting, well, nothing.
You still haven't addressed the fact that iMacs are competitively priced quite often, usually based on where they are in their life cycle and how it is that Apple can maintain better gross margins on computers when compared to Dell.
Obviously you were not paying attention to this thread. What do you think it was about before Viena, and co. started going at it?
Although if your talking about a something that just suits you alone; in which it does look that way, why even post. Try to be realistic.
Keep your engines down a little bit, will you. I know what the thread is all about, and I agree that Vin and co. are distracting. Since the Cube was mentionned "again", I thought it would be interesting to use the term but for a tower design, since I used "half" to describe it, I find it interesting to use it again (and again) to describe more precisely what I think it could be.
Since this is a poll and there's a "something, I'll explain" choice, I'm entitled to my opinion too (or are you already sold on your opinion that the mythical xMac should just be like the slim desktop Dell image you keep posting, that seemed to be YOUR image of a true desktop).
Now you want realistic, here's realistic:
- giving the Xmac somehow HALF the features of the Mac Pro, will make the products differenciation easier.
- giving the xMac dimensions as 13x13" makes using standard mATX motherboards and other components easier to fit in, hence lower the costs of manufacturing. The other dimension (6.5" wide, is reminiscent of the size of the Mac mini, which can be kind of an Apple touch)
- 4 RAM slots are common on desktop motherboard using Intel's recent chipsets (instead of some funny numbers we can find on threads like this one)
- 2 HD bays are some kind on consensus for a midrange/midpriced computer
- only one Optical drive also (as some people are already suggesting that optical drives are unnecessary most of the time)
...
I just appear to have speakers with almost the dimensions I've described (14x7x12", JMLab series 5), I put one close to my display, and it looks good (in black), and it is also smaller that my old PM G4.
I'm trying to be as much "realistic" as I can reading or writing on these threads, but there are way too many jerks, I-know-alls, I-know-betters, I-dont-wanna-knows and I-know-nothing-and-it-shows that you have to take everything with a grain of salt, but still with a sense of humor you seem lacking these days.
To rickag: I didn't settle of an iMac (I have a MB for general tasks, and still use the old G4 for audio). No way I'll ever buy an iMac - in it's current form - for audio work, an used MP yes, but no iMac.
Comments
Again, if all you want is an xMac that > $1500 that's fine by me. I agree, let's have at it and bring on the towers. If you want to go back down to that $700-$800 market segment then I say its a short term gain (cheaper macs) for a long term loss (weaker Apple). Given Apple is the sole source for machines that don't suck I prefer the status quo.
As far as the rest of your assertions at least you finally posted a source. Feel free to recalculate with 5% margins for 50% of unit sales (<$500), 18% margins for 30% ($500-$800) and whatever for the remaining 20% upper tier ($800-$3000+).
Here's a quick sample:
$400 * 5 = 2000 * 0.05 = $100
$700 * 3 = 2100 * 0.18 = $378
$1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800
Total revenue = $7300
18% gross margins = $1314
Gross Margins from above? $1278
What have I shown? I can take any set of numbers, apply some math and, in this case, 30 seconds with the calculator can show nearly anything. If I need to show some obtuse outcome it would take me longer than 30 secs to "massage" the numbers to something more suitable. I guessed pretty close so the number is only short a little (somewhere between 17% and 18%) and requires me to do no further work in illustrating...well, not a whole lot other than numbers are very malleable while looking very official.
Hopefully I haven't made some embarrasing math error but really, I spent very little time on this.
Vinea
..............
Given Apple is the sole source for machines that don't suck I prefer the status quo.
.....................Vinea
That's a very opinionated statement if I've ever heard one given the fact that this thread is all about that people are sick of how Apples offerings suck for them, and they would prefer something along the lines of a true desktop that is not strictly limited, and confined so that they can actually customize it if they so wish.
Your own attempt at gross margins at certain price points yielded $1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800. 25% margins you say, for $1600 computer, what again are the prices of Apple's 20" iMacs? So even after you massaged the numbers you still get 25% margins for Dell in the price range of the 20" iMacs.
$799 is not an arbritrary price point. It represented the base price point for a tower with a Core 2 Duo Conroe with integrated graphics, 3-4 slots, 2 harddrive bays and 2 optical drive bays. Kind of the point of this thread. Which at the time, the Conroe had been newly introduced, therefore, cutting edge and most certainly would have justified greater margins. So, you cheated by dipping down into the $700 range.
No matter how you slice or dice the numbers the fact that the market for computers above the price point of $799 represents only 15% of the market, the margins must be substantially higher than the overall margins of 14 - 16% reported by Dell.
In the end, my numbers regarding speculation on Dell's margins at the price point Apple charges for iMacs is just as valid as yours regarding Apple's gross margins for the iMacs.
Just for your knowledge. You might want to compare these numbers for gross margins.
http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/...&symbol=MSFT.O
http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/...&symbol=MSFT.O
Scan down to the tables "Profitability Ratios".
Microsoft's Gross Margin (TTM)\t79.08
Apple's Gross Margin (TTM)\t33.04
(re: remember that Microsoft's gross margins include the losses incurred for the XBox and Zune.)
\t\t
This might help put perspective on margins related to software and how it may affect Apple's overall gross margins considering they do indeed sell software.
That's a very opinionated statement if I've ever heard one given the fact that this thread is all about that people are sick of how Apples offerings suck for them, and they would prefer something along the lines of a true desktop that is not strictly limited, and confined so that they can actually customize it if they so wish.
Fine...replace "computer" with "operating system" although we could possibly agree to "computer system" but whatever.
Man what a nit picky thing to object to on an Apple forum. If you think Apple machines suck that much and you're sick of it then buy something else. 95% of the world does.
Vinea
The price comparisons stand.
Your own attempt at gross margins at certain price points yielded $1600 * 2 = 3200 * 0.25 = $800. 25% margins you say, for $1600 computer, what again are the prices of Apple's 20" iMacs? So even after you massaged the numbers you still get 25% margins for Dell in the price range of the 20" iMacs.
YES, I USED 25% MARGINS FOR COMPUTERS AT OR ABOVE $1500. NO KIDDING AND THAT WAS NEVER DISPUTED. WHAT WAS DISPUTED WAS THAT $800 DELL COMPUTERS HAD 25%+ MARGINS.
Clear? Should I pick a bigger font size?
I did no massaging. I picked reasonable looking numbers out of the blue. They came out about right first go because...oh my gosh...I'm not advocating something silly. I simply said cheap computers have low margins (5%), medium computers had medium margins (18%) and expensive computers had high margins (25%). Ohhhhh, how innovative.
If I had thought the goal was 14%-16% margins I'd have picked 15% instead of 18% but whatever...I hit around 17% so hey buddy...guess what? $800 PCs can have mid ranged margins and the sky won't fall and Dell doesn't need to have a chat with the SEC. At least not about that.
You don't like my numbers feel free to waste the afternoon picking new ones and "massage" them to your heart's content.
$799 is not an arbritrary price point. It represented the base price point for a tower with a Core 2 Duo Conroe with integrated graphics, 3-4 slots, 2 harddrive bays and 2 optical drive bays. Kind of the point of this thread. Which at the time, the Conroe had been newly introduced, therefore, cutting edge and most certainly would have justified greater margins. So, you cheated by dipping down into the $700 range.
No matter how you slice or dice the numbers the fact that the market for computers above the price point of $799 represents only 15% of the market, the margins must be substantially higher than the overall margins of 14 - 16% reported by Dell.
No...it really doesn't. It only needs to be around that 14-16% margins reported by Dell. You want to fiddle with the numbers so that $800 machines are 15% margins and figure out what the low and high ends COULD be, be my guest. Its rather pointless since you don't have enough data to show that your idiotic model is any more accurate than my idiotic model.
Although with a grand total of THREE price points I can say that my model is 50% more complex than yours. And therefore 50,000X more relevant (ObMath: 50,000 * 0.0 = ?). Whee!
Although, I will point out the obvious here that you seem to not get:
More expensive computers...cost more...and thereby generate more revenue. Taking a bigger slices from bigger pies means you get a heck of a lot more pie from a lot fewer slices than taking many smaller slices from much smaller pies.
In the end, my numbers regarding speculation on Dell's margins at the price point Apple charges for iMacs is just as valid as yours regarding Apple's gross margins for the iMacs.
Except that asserting that $800 PCs have 25% margins is really really stupid while asserting that $1500 PCs have 28% margins is just a wild guess, hopefully in the right ballpark. You are just being argumentative right? You don't REALLY believe that Dell is making 25%+ margins on $799 PCs?
$400 * 5 = $2000 * 0.05 = $100
$800 * 4 = $3200 * 0.15 = $480
$1500 * 1 = $1500 * 0.30 = $450
$6700 revenue with $940 profit
$14% margin
9-1 ratio to boot. Slid the numbers your way as much as wasn't silly and used the 30% number rather than the 25% number. Note these are to be considered "averages" since the $400 covers computers from $300 to $500 and the $800 one from $500 to $1000 and the $1500 one from $1000 to Alienware UberRig.
ASP is a bit low to represent Dell though.
Fine...replace "computer" with "operating system" although we could possibly agree to "computer system" but whatever.
Man what a nit picky thing to object to on an Apple forum. If you think Apple machines suck that much and you're sick of it then buy something else. 95% of the world does.
Vinea
Well it is nit picky but so are most computer buyers. And you also bring up a good point in that. The OS is great, but it's only 1/3rd the reason to buy a computer. Hardware, and Applications are the other 2/3rds, and for those two thirds the other side has a better deal. It's not a 50/50 choice over two OS's and Apples is better. The deck is stacked in the opponents favor, Apple has to come to grips with that, this thread, and all the other threads about this all over the net that are of the overwhelming belief of that, and we (forum posters) are just a small minority of the people that believe this.
Again, if all you want is an xMac that > $1500 that's fine by me. I agree, let's have at it and bring on the towers. If you want to go back down to that $700-$800 market segment then I say its a short term gain (cheaper macs) for a long term loss (weaker Apple).
So are you saying the Mac Mini has weakened Apple somehow? If not then how would making a tower with desktop parts the same spec as the current Mini at the same price be any more damaging? It's cheaper to build.
I wouldn't mind if they were only >$1500 but the point about the xMac is that it can cover the entire range from the Mac Mini right up to the Mac Pro range - in short it covers everyone. Everyone who doesn't want a laptop or a workstation.
This is the great thing about it, Apple don't even have the hassle the iMac has if people want bigger drives installed. The small tower could have an easy open panel for more Ram and drives so upgrade times are cut way down. There could easily be a list of GPUs that people can choose from just like the Mac Pro but gamer cards (maybe 3-4 models) and not quadros etc.
No more returns because of defective displays.
So are you saying the Mac Mini has weakened Apple somehow? If not then how would making a tower with desktop parts the same spec as the current Mini at the same price be any more damaging? It's cheaper to build.
Nope. because a) They didn't sell all that many Mini's or their ASP would be below $1500 and b) because the Mini was carefully positioned not to be much of a threat of cannibalizing iMac sales.
I wouldn't mind if they were only >$1500 but the point about the xMac is that it can cover the entire range from the Mac Mini right up to the Mac Pro range - in short it covers everyone. Everyone who doesn't want a laptop or a workstation.
Fine, we're all hopefully in agreement that a $1500+ xMac tower would be grand.
[B][SIZE="4"]...Rantings removed
Point stands, your numbers concerning Apples margins is based on just a specious speculation as mine.
edit: after further thought, no, your latest attempt is way off.
Your numbers have breakdown of 50% at $800 and above(4 @ $800 + 1 @ $1500 ) and 50% below $800(5 @ $400)
The $799 ~ $800 price point represents only 15% of the desktop market, not 50%.
It's a perfect mid-tower chip. Stick a Geforce 8700 GT (or whatever it'll be called...) with it and you have a perfect £1000 'Cube' replacement.
Lemon Bon Bon.
...and the quad 2.4 gig Intel chip is now less than £200 on Micro Direct. Ram and HDs are dirt cheap.
It's a perfect mid-tower chip. Stick a Geforce 8700 GT (or whatever it'll be called...) with it and you have a perfect £1000 'Cube' replacement.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.
Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.
... Cube is a glorified mini.
Point stands, your numbers concerning Apples margins is based on just a specious speculation as mine.
edit: after further thought, no, your latest attempt is way off.
Your numbers have breakdown of 50% at $800 and above(4 @ $800 + 1 @ $1500 ) and 50% below $800(5 @ $400)
The $799 ~ $800 price point represents only 15% of the desktop market, not 50%.
You have the inability to read anything you don't want to. The $800 point includes all computers from $500 to $1000. Just like the $500 one covers everything from $0 to $500. They match the chart reasonably close. Originally it was $700 but you whined so I made it $800. Again you whine. Whatever.
Don't like those numbers...feel free to play with them yourself.
You can simply repeat "point stands" all you want but anyone with 2 brain cells to bang together realizes that its not "90% of computers at 5% and 10% of computers at 50% margins" but a range. Therefore saying $800 computers MUST have 25%+ margins is dumb as bricks.
We're done with this because while it was amusing to laugh at you for a while but its kinda boring going around in circles because you either don't get it or choose to act dumb.
...and the quad 2.4 gig Intel chip is now less than £200 on Micro Direct. Ram and HDs are dirt cheap.
It's a perfect mid-tower chip. Stick a Geforce 8700 GT (or whatever it'll be called...) with it and you have a perfect £1000 'Cube' replacement.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.
... Cube is a glorified mini.
I'd settle for HALF a 13" square CUBE (HWD=13x6.5x13),
with HALF the number of processors,
with HALF the number of optical bays,
with HALF the number of hard drive bays,
with HALF the number of RAM slots,
with HALF the number of PCIs slots (but 3 would be OK too)
of the Mac Pro.
I'd settle for ...................
with HALF the number of processors,
with HALF the number of optical bays,
with HALF the number of hard drive bays,
with HALF the number of RAM slots,
with HALF the number of PCIs slots (but 3 would be OK too)
of the Mac Pro.
Obviously you were not paying attention to this thread. What do you think it was about before Viena, and co. started going at it?
Although if your talking about a something that just suits you alone; in which it does look that way, why even post. Try to be realistic.
Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.
Cube is a glorified mini.
I think they could design it without major limitations. As long as the drives (only 2 HDs and 1 optical or 2 opticals and 1 HD), Ram and a PCI slot or two are easily accessible then it could still be pretty small. If they just use a similar setup to the Mac Pro but with less parts. A single quad chip instead of two duals or two quads in the pro. I suspect the pro would be better to move to dual quads completely.
A cube also counters the point about Apple having to offer something more than the competition. There are PC cubes out there but they aren't everywhere - Apple could still have the advantage of a small form factor vs PCs. A well designed larger desktop will sell but having the 'cube' label has some sales appeal and it gives it an identity. Apple wouldn't use the term xMac because that doesn't relate to anything and I've always wondered where that name came from. What would they call a mid-range tower? Just Mac would be good but that will confuse people when it comes to asking for support.
I agree that it shouldn't compromise the computer so if they couldn't build a cube without crippling it then it would have to be a normal desktop but if that's the case then they aren't as good technical designers as they like to believe.
If they can fit dual 2.33GHz CPUs, one 7200 rpm drive and a Nvidia 8600M GT into a Macbook Pro then they can surely put a 2.4 GHz Core 2 quad with two HDs into something at least 2-3 times the size of a mac Mini.
onlooker
Screw the cube. As you can see it's been defeated in this thread already. Get over it.
Users would adopt a true desktop, not another confined system that has strict limitations.
I wouldn't have put it quite so bluntly, but yes. A revisit of the Cube would not attract many new customers and would be pretty much doomed to failure.
mjteix
"I'd settle"
Unfortunately, that's is the position many Apple desktop customers are already doing for the ability to enjoy Apple's software. I settled for an iMac.
Why should Apple expect consumers to "settle" when Apple doesn't have to force such an issue? There are no rational reasons for Apple to do this.
I fear it is a philosophy that dates all the way back when Apple firmly believed that computers for consumers should be treated like appliances. I used to think it had more to do with protecting the margins on the iMacs and professional level computers. This obviously doesn't hold true for the Mac Pro since it was demonstratlby less expensive than competitors, sometimes by a wide margin. But Jobs recent comments have made me a believer, Apple will never offer for sale a consumer level computer with anything closely resembling the flexibility and ease of use of a tower of any kind.
You have the inability to read anything you don't want to. The $800 point includes all computers from $500 to $1000. Just like the $500 one covers everything from $0 to $500. They match the chart reasonably close. Originally it was $700 but you whined so I made it $800. Again you whine. Whatever.
Don't like those numbers...feel free to play with them yourself.
You can simply repeat "point stands" all you want but anyone with 2 brain cells to bang together realizes that its not "90% of computers at 5% and 10% of computers at 50% margins" but a range. Therefore saying $800 computers MUST have 25%+ margins is dumb as bricks.
We're done with this because while it was amusing to laugh at you for a while but its kinda boring going around in circles because you either don't get it or choose to act dumb.
I'm not whinning, just pointing out your errors.
Your biggest error is believing that Apple's margins on computers are significantly greater than Dell's in the >$799 price range. You extrapolate from Apple's gross margins to come up with gross margins on computers. You ignore the fact that Apple's laptop and desktop business as of the June quarter less than 50% of their gross sales and what effect this has on overall gross margins.
You claim that the margins on the top 15% of Dells computer line starts at or is in the 14 - 16 % range which is quite frankly nuts. Hard to tell what your talking about because the range you selected $500 - $1000 dollars includes bargin basement computers to the high end of the computer line, reflecting, well, nothing.
You still haven't addressed the fact that iMacs are competitively priced quite often, usually based on where they are in their life cycle and how it is that Apple can maintain better gross margins on computers when compared to Dell.
Obviously you were not paying attention to this thread. What do you think it was about before Viena, and co. started going at it?
Although if your talking about a something that just suits you alone; in which it does look that way, why even post. Try to be realistic.
Keep your engines down a little bit, will you. I know what the thread is all about, and I agree that Vin and co. are distracting. Since the Cube was mentionned "again", I thought it would be interesting to use the term but for a tower design, since I used "half" to describe it, I find it interesting to use it again (and again) to describe more precisely what I think it could be.
Since this is a poll and there's a "something, I'll explain" choice, I'm entitled to my opinion too (or are you already sold on your opinion that the mythical xMac should just be like the slim desktop Dell image you keep posting, that seemed to be YOUR image of a true desktop).
Now you want realistic, here's realistic:
- giving the Xmac somehow HALF the features of the Mac Pro, will make the products differenciation easier.
- giving the xMac dimensions as 13x13" makes using standard mATX motherboards and other components easier to fit in, hence lower the costs of manufacturing. The other dimension (6.5" wide, is reminiscent of the size of the Mac mini, which can be kind of an Apple touch)
- 4 RAM slots are common on desktop motherboard using Intel's recent chipsets (instead of some funny numbers we can find on threads like this one)
- 2 HD bays are some kind on consensus for a midrange/midpriced computer
- only one Optical drive also (as some people are already suggesting that optical drives are unnecessary most of the time)
...
I just appear to have speakers with almost the dimensions I've described (14x7x12", JMLab series 5), I put one close to my display, and it looks good (in black), and it is also smaller that my old PM G4.
I'm trying to be as much "realistic" as I can reading or writing on these threads, but there are way too many jerks, I-know-alls, I-know-betters, I-dont-wanna-knows and I-know-nothing-and-it-shows that you have to take everything with a grain of salt, but still with a sense of humor you seem lacking these days.
To rickag: I didn't settle of an iMac (I have a MB for general tasks, and still use the old G4 for audio). No way I'll ever buy an iMac - in it's current form - for audio work, an used MP yes, but no iMac.