Today, tell me how many iMac and Mac Pro sales there would be if there were a $799 E8400 (3.0Ghz Wolfdale) Mini with a GeForce 9100MG equivalent (between a HD2400XT and a GeForce 8400GS)?
What the hell is someone doing buying an iMac if what they actually want is a mini-tower?
Similarly, what the hell is someone doing buying a pro-level workstation when what they actually want is a mini-tower?
The cannibalisation argument doesn't hold water because the iMac and Mac Pro are nothing like a mini-tower and therefore people who want a mini-tower don't buy either of those machines, and people who buy those machines don't want mini-towers (or, if they do, they're damn stupid for buying something that's not a mini-tower, wouldn't you say?).
xMac would attract new customers to the platform, not simply cannibalise sales of other Apple products.
Stuffing a G5 into the mini back then would have seriously impacted PowerMac sales. If you could have done so without melting the thing anyway.
When the mini was launched, Apple did indeed have limited choices when it came to processors and the G4 was indeed the best decision. It's the other laptop components it used - HDD and optical drive - that were dumb then.
What's dumb now is the processor, motherboard chipset, HDD, RAM and optical drive. All currently used components are laptop ones and desktop ones are faster/higher capacity for the same or lower price.
What the hell is someone doing buying an iMac if what they actually want is a mini-tower?
Because there's no mini-tower in the line up. I assume this is a rhetorical question?
Quote:
Similarly, what the hell is someone doing buying a pro-level workstation when what they actually want is a mini-tower?
See above.
Quote:
The cannibalisation argument doesn't hold water because the iMac and Mac Pro are nothing like a mini-tower and therefore people who want a mini-tower don't buy either of those machines, and people who buy those machines don't want mini-towers (or, if they do, they're damn stupid for buying something that's not a mini-tower, wouldn't you say?).
You're calling a lot of folks on this forum stupid. Which xMac proponent doesn't own an iMac, Mac Pro or laptop instead because the xMac that they want because it doesn't exist?
Tell me that the mini I stipulated, built as people prefer (desktop parts with a half decent GPU integrated or dedicated) is inferior in any way to an iMac AND less expensive if you simply buy a Dell monitor vs a ACD.
This INCLUDES footprint since you can hide a mini underneath many 24" monitors. It disappears even below a 20" ACD.
Tell me that many Mac Pro users simply don't want better performance than available with a mini with their own choice of monitor?
Yes, a single PCIe x16 slot would be better than a integrated GeForce 9100MG but if the 9100MG can drive a dual link display (30" ACD) I think many folks would be satisfied with a 3Ghz wolfdale mini that can run CS3 brilliantly on a 30" ACD.
Quote:
xMac would attract new customers to the platform, not simply cannibalise sales of other Apple products.
Yes, but the point is NOT ENOUGH new customers to justify the massive Average Sale Price (ASP) drop.
Because there's no mini-tower in the line up. I assume this is a rhetorical question?
See above.
I think we can agree on the following:
Someone who wants a mini-tower and sees no mini-tower offering from Apple will do one of the following:
Buy a new mini-tower from someone else
Buy a used tower (e.g. PM G5, PM G4)
Buy an iMac
Buy a Mac Mini
Buy a Mac Pro
We can also agree that in the first two cases, Apple loses a sale.
Clearly the points on which we disagree is the total number of people who want a mini-tower in the first place, and the number of people who subsequently choose one of the first two options from the list above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
calling a lot of folks on this forum stupid. Which xMac proponent doesn't own an iMac, Mac Pro or laptop instead because the xMac that they want because it doesn't exist?
Many xMac proponents (myself included) don't want an xMac for themselves but believe it is a missed business opportunity on the part of Apple. Those that want Apple to produce an xMac because they want one for themselves are either struggling along on an old Power Mac G4 and getting increasingly pissed off that Apple offers them nothing new to replace it with, or have consigned themselves to forever buying second-hand Macs, or curse Apple and buy an iMac/mini/pro, or give up and buy a PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Tell me that the mini I stipulated, built as people prefer (desktop parts with a half decent GPU integrated or dedicated) is inferior in any way to an iMac AND less expensive if you simply buy a Dell monitor vs a ACD.
This INCLUDES footprint since you can hide a mini underneath many 24" monitors. It disappears even below a 20" ACD.
No, it doesn't include footprint. The footprint and general sleekness of the iMac would still easily out-do a mini-tower + monitor. So for those people for whom that sleekness is important, they will continue to purchase iMacs.
No, it doesn't include footprint. The footprint and general sleekness of the iMac would still easily out-do a mini-tower + monitor. So for those people for whom that sleekness is important, they will continue to purchase iMacs.
You keep saying mini-tower and I keep writing mini. To clarify, I mean a mini in a slightly larger case (a la aTV/Timecapsule). I have a time capsule next to me and if I stick it on the base of my ACD it takes zero additional footprint and isn't any more or less sleek than an iMac from the front if the colors were somewhat better integrated (I guess an alu case for the mini vice white).
From the back there are 2 additional cables vs a iMac: power to the mini and the single integrated cable from the ACD to the mini (DVI + USB + FW400).
I think you overestimate the desire for sleekness anyway given that folks tend to hang stuff off their iMacs anyway.
I think you overestimate the desire for sleekness anyway given that folks tend to hang stuff off their iMacs anyway.
Nope. I don't think the desire for sleekness is that great, and that's why Apple sells a pitiful number of iMacs relative to the number of mini-towers sold by everyone else.
People who like sleekness, buy an iMac. People who like mini-towers, buy mini-towers.
If Apple introduced a mini-tower, they'd sell probably 10 - 20% fewer iMacs+Mac Pros and Mac Mini sales would almost certainly be obliterated. After a year or so, they'd probably be selling five to ten times as many desktop machines as they currently do.
Nope. I don't think the desire for sleekness is that great, and that's why Apple sells a pitiful number of iMacs relative to the number of mini-towers sold by everyone else.
People who like sleekness, buy an iMac. People who like mini-towers, buy mini-towers.
If Apple introduced a mini-tower, they'd sell probably 10 - 20% fewer iMacs+Mac Pros and Mac Mini sales would almost certainly be obliterated. After a year or so, they'd probably be selling five to ten times as many desktop machines as they currently do.
Perhaps it has escaped your attention that Apple has not been interested in a mini-tower. Are you easily distracted?
Mr. H, I think you missed my counter-argument to your xMac proposal on the previous page:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
...where would be the consumer's drive to buy one of Apple's profitable computers? By doing as you say, the xMac would then become a much more capable, worthwhile computer, defeating the need to move to a full-fledged and far more profitable Mac. Using standard, full-sized, user-replaceable components would also make the job of PC cloners even easier.
Also, while Apple could sure as hell make a prettier mid-tower compared to the competition - essentially a slightly smaller Mac Pro - the Mac Mini provides a DRAMATIC, STARK contrast to what the competitors offer. Just envision an isle of a Best Buy computer department. Walking along, people would see a bunch of mid-towers, some silver, some shinny black, some white, some blue (god, so tasteless), and a brushed metal mid-tower Mac Pro-ish xMac. Now certainly they'd say "oooh." But then they'd say "but look at this little Dell. It's like $250 less and offers a lot of the same specs." And they buy the cheaper PC based on price or fear of the commitment a tower PC gives most people.
Then imagine the same average consumer shopping around and discovering Apple's current Mac Mini:
Consumer: "Mid-tower, mid-tower, mid-tower, mid...WAIT, WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE]!!?? Excuse me sir, is this an Apple hard drive or something?"
Clerk: "No, that's a compu.."
Consumer: "That's a computer? That little thing?"
Clerk: "And it works with your standard monitor, mouse, etc."
Consumer: "Hey honey, come look at this. [wispers] Hey, we could just hook our mouse, keyboard and monitor to this thing. It even comes with this little remote. Just look at it, it's tiny."
Consumer's Significant Other: But can it web browse fast? Can I write Word documents? Email? Can I play music on it?"
Clerk: [eavesdropping on their conversation] Yes, it does all those things fine.
SOLD
I question if it was merely a fear of Power Mac/Mac Pro cannibalization. Don't underestimate the real marketable value of compactness. It costs money to make things abnormally small. The small, portable nature of something is often seen by consumers as impressive. Like Euro-style cars for instance. Americans generally laugh at them when compared to their SUV's and mini vans they use to shuttle their kids and their kids' friends around in. At the same time, no matter how attached and pleased they are with their large automobile, most won't deny how their amazement at how small they can make a car that offers rather decent head and leg room. Miniaturization is a feat that captivates people.
When Snow Leopard ships next year, one of its promoted "features" is that it "dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos."
You're making the xMac a little too compelling for Apple's comfort. Apple certainly doesn't want to cannibalize their profitable computers, but even more so, they don't want to potentially rejuvenate the stagnating beige-box desktop PC market that they're trying to migrate consumers away from.
Mr. H, I think you missed my counter-argument to your xMac proposal on the previous page:
"When Snow Leopard ships next year, one of its promoted "features" is that it "dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos."
As the size of the files increases for photos, I think that will offset any advantage from shrinking the footprint of the OS. IOW, just use a larger HD, or multiple HDs.
Perhaps it has escaped your attention that Apple has not been interested in a mini-tower. Are you easily distracted?
Yes, I know they've got no interest in making one. I'm just saying that I think they should.
It really was a side-comment I made a couple of pages ago, but people really do seem to enjoy arguing about the xMac.
I'm not saying I think the forthcoming transition product is going to be an xMac. I just said as an aside that it's one of the machines Apple should have in their line-up.
As I've said a few times, I believe the "transition" is going to involve either MacBooks or iPods (possibly both).
Mr. H, I think you missed my counter-argument to your xMac proposal on the previous page:
No, I didn't, it's just that I didn't want to derail the thread and make it all about the xMac. Oh well, guess that's shot now.
I don't buy your scenario. I believe the number of people who buy the Mac Mini because it's small is very small. Most people who buy the mini buy it because it's the cheapest Mac, and buy it in spite of it being small. I think most people who buy the Mini would choose an xMac instead if an xMac existed, and I believe that there are vast numbers of folk who dismiss it out of hand because it's overpriced for the amount of computing power and storage space it gives you (if you want a SFF machine, the Mini isn't overpriced).
To put it another way, the Mac Mini has to make all the compromises of a laptop in order to achieve its SFF, but it gives you none of the advantages of a laptop. Most people aren't willing to make the sacrifice in speed, storage and price just to have a small footprint machine because it's a desktop and people aren't interested in a desktop being tiny. In fact, even its tininess in and of itself puts a lot of people off, they consider it a "toy" and refuse to take it seriously.
Interestingly, you also shoot your own argument in the foot a little bit by emphasising at the end that HDD storage is really important. The Mac Mini has woeful storage capacity relative to even low-end desktops. That's because it's too small for a desktop HDD and has to use a laptop HDD instead.
The demand for OSX is insufficient to make Apple as much money selling low margin software commodity OS as it does selling high margin hardware.
.
<snip>
We agree. Where we disagree is that the pressure is sufficient to change business models to the extent that some folks desire. Even quadrupling OSX market share is unlikely to make Apple as profitable as it is today if the hardware sales are significantly impacted.
Ok cool - I think we got to the we-agree-to-disagree point.
You might well be correct, but I guess it all depends on the the actual numbers. I think a four fold market share improvement would be a highly significant shift. And the swing of the pendulum away from Microsoft and towards Apple would be hugely significant. And more than offset any sales of mere hardware.
Since the move to Intel, many people have wondered whether a land-grab on the OS business was pending. And Oppenheimer's rather opaque remarks seemed to fit.
At NeXT, Jobs made a switch from embedded-software-in-a-hardware product to a licensed OS for 486 PCs. But that move was made from a position of weakness. Whether he would do it again is not clear.
Here's my final argument on the matter...
It is based on Apple's choice of hardware lines. If Apple had simply intended to create a parallel market for OS X machines, protected by the USP of the OS. I would expect a "everyman" set of Apple computers which addressed all the most popular computer types. Call this Line Up A (note: Line-Up A would obviously contain a Mini Tower)
But, if Apple had been planning for a licensing option for OS X for many years, they would have anticipated the coming cannibalization problem. Instead of putting out an everyman collection of OS X enabled computers, they would have shifted to a set of unique hardware designs, which would have a hope of continued selling after liberation day. Line Up B
With the exception of the Macbook, Apple's line-up looks a lot more like Line Up B than Line Up A.
Howabout a laptop/multitouch/keyboard tablet that wirelessly transmits to any tv/led screen, enabling the user to travel with a very small but potentially very powerful machine with no inbuilt screen of its own.
What television, in general use, allows for IR beaming? If you have been living in the US you'd know the average television is 8 - 10 years old. Many are even 20+ years old.
To put it another way, the Mac Mini has to make all the compromises of a laptop in order to achieve its SFF, but it gives you none of the advantages of a laptop. Most people aren't willing to make the sacrifice in speed, storage and price just to have a small footprint machine because it's a desktop and people aren't interested in a desktop being tiny. In fact, even its tininess in and of itself puts a lot of people off, they consider it a "toy" and refuse to take it seriously.
Two points of contention.
First, the mini's small size is an important element that it shares with laptops. That is an advantage. Size is valuable to people and if Apple is marketing the Mac Mini to get hesitant Windows users to jump on the Mac "train," they have to reduce the feeling of commitment. I suspect you're throwing out all the parts of my argument that you don't have a good counter-argument for, either intentionally or subconsciously. The points you can't dismiss, you simply won't address. There's a larger commitment to a physically larger purchase. A reasonably priced two story, 6-bedroom house, for instance, brings with it a feeling of commitment to "stick with it." A two bedroom apartment, even a rather pricey one, doesn't come with anywhere near the amount of commitment.
Second, I'm not sure who your "most people" are, but mine are the mainstream computer users, a.k.a. the ones who MAINLY use their computers for the following tasks: web surfing, writing text documents, emailing, maybe using an IM client, listening to music, and usually, viewing pictures taken by their average 3-5MP digital cameras. NONE of these tasks or media require 1) a super fast processor 2) a ton of RAM 3) an amazing or even above average video card 4) tons of storage space.
What of the above do you disagree with? Neither the tasks/media nor the hardware required to enjoy them are that debatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Interestingly, you also shoot your own argument in the foot a little bit by emphasising at the end that HDD storage is really important. The Mac Mini has woeful storage capacity relative to even low-end desktops. That's because it's too small for a desktop HDD and has to use a laptop HDD instead.
Considering Apple's best selling computers are their laptops, they get pretty favorable 2.5" HDD pricing, so the Mac mini more likely ships with 80GB due to laziness on Apple's part to refresh the stock HDD than it is a major price issue at this point. However, the 1.67GHz 80GB 15" PowerBook G4 I'm writing this on has a little over 14GB of free space after nearly three years of heavy use. I've got 23GB of music (which is a good bit more than what the average consumer has), 2GB of video, over 3GB of podcasts (most people don't even know what podcasts are) about 1.5GB of Word documents, nearly 8GB of applications (most average consumers aren't going to download and install hardly any apps that didn't come with their computer), and a ton of other random things I could probably delete.
Yet I have over 14GB of free space and before I purged my music collection recently, I still had 10GB. I certainly don't consider myself a "mainstream" casual computer user, but in between that and a true "power user." So even though Apple could increase the Mac mini's storage to a more roomy 160GB HDD, Jobs and Co. probably realize, as I do, that most people will end up moving to a full-fledged Mac after buying the mini...WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF ITS EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Finally, I brought up Snow Leopard to show that the compactness of something is worth real money and to show that Apple's going mobile in many areas because that's where the future lies. Not in desktop PCs, but portable computers and platforms like the iPod touch and iPhone. The fact that Apple is cutting the fat off Leopard in the next retail release of Mac OS X also supports what I've said about the mini's not-so-small 80GB HDD, which will be less cramped when Snow Leopard ships with all new Macs around this time next year.
Doesn't anyone else think that Apple is going to get into the video game console market soon?
No.
The last thing I would want, is a game system that's tied in with iTunes. Sony and Microsoft already do media sharing very well, as well as streaming vids and content, and Nintendo does well at innovation.
Apple would lose billions and billions at first in HW, and it would only make them money back on software sales, if they had good original IP.
The last thing I would want, is a game system that's tied in with iTunes. Sony and Microsoft already do media sharing very well, as well as streaming vids and content, and Nintendo does well at innovation.
Apple would lose billions and billions at first in HW, and it would only make them money back on software sales, if they had good original IP.
And IIRC, Microsoft owns the rights to Halo.
Agreed, the console market would be very risky for Apple. If they had a larger share of the computer game market they might be able to capitalize on that to help them since they development environment would be similar but they don't, and have not put a lot of resources into expanding it. Apple would need a seasoned internal game development team as well as partnerships with top level development houses just to get ready for launch and if they had either we would have heard more about it by now. Add to that the highly competitive nature for the consoles and 3 major players, at least one with a good amount of money to throw around, another a major media company, and the third capitalizing on industry leading innovation, then I don't see a place for Apple in the market at this time. That may change but it would probably take a buy out of Nintendo by Apple for any real chance of success.
Agreed, the console market would be very risky for Apple. If they had a larger share of the computer game market they might be able to capitalize on that to help them since they development environment would be similar but they don't, and have not put a lot of resources into expanding it.
They don't need a big computer market share, it's a completely different market. They have a pile of cash that is (IIRC) about three times bigger than what MS blew away on XBox the first five or six years. But I would agree that Apple getting into game consoles is probably not going to happen.
Doesn't anyone else think that Apple is going to get into the video game console market soon?
They already have two very popular portable game consoles: the iPhone and iPod touch.
As for a home console, patents filed by Apple a few months ago depict a remote device pointing at a set-top-box (likely referencing the Apple TV) enabling Wii remote-like IR pointing functionality. If Apple saw enough demand for it, they could release an Apple TV SDK in a similar vain to the iPhone/iPod touch SDK, which would allow developers to distribute custom Apple TV apps, including games, that could be browse-able, buy-able and installable from the couch on an Apple TV App Store. Factoring in Apple's recent Remote application for the iPhone/iPod touch that allows wireless music control of computers, AirPort Expresses, and Apple TVs on the network, they could expand that functionality, allowing any iPhone or iPod touch to become an advanced, Multi-Touch, motion-sensitive gaming controller.
That would make the Apple TV into a fully digital distribution, casual game console (it's video card isn't capable of 360/PS3-quality graphics) and would cost Apple no real money to develop an Apple TV SDK that connects with and leverages their already successful iPhone/iPod touch mobile WiFi platform. It's all Cocoa, OpenGL, and tailored versions of OS X.
Doesn't anyone else think that Apple is going to get into the video game console market soon?
The AppleTV is more powerful, both in CPU and graphics, than the original XBox. If Apple wanted to open it up to stupid little arcade games, sold through iTunes, they easily could.
Comments
Today, tell me how many iMac and Mac Pro sales there would be if there were a $799 E8400 (3.0Ghz Wolfdale) Mini with a GeForce 9100MG equivalent (between a HD2400XT and a GeForce 8400GS)?
What the hell is someone doing buying an iMac if what they actually want is a mini-tower?
Similarly, what the hell is someone doing buying a pro-level workstation when what they actually want is a mini-tower?
The cannibalisation argument doesn't hold water because the iMac and Mac Pro are nothing like a mini-tower and therefore people who want a mini-tower don't buy either of those machines, and people who buy those machines don't want mini-towers (or, if they do, they're damn stupid for buying something that's not a mini-tower, wouldn't you say?).
xMac would attract new customers to the platform, not simply cannibalise sales of other Apple products.
Stuffing a G5 into the mini back then would have seriously impacted PowerMac sales. If you could have done so without melting the thing anyway.
When the mini was launched, Apple did indeed have limited choices when it came to processors and the G4 was indeed the best decision. It's the other laptop components it used - HDD and optical drive - that were dumb then.
What's dumb now is the processor, motherboard chipset, HDD, RAM and optical drive. All currently used components are laptop ones and desktop ones are faster/higher capacity for the same or lower price.
What the hell is someone doing buying an iMac if what they actually want is a mini-tower?
Because there's no mini-tower in the line up. I assume this is a rhetorical question?
Similarly, what the hell is someone doing buying a pro-level workstation when what they actually want is a mini-tower?
See above.
The cannibalisation argument doesn't hold water because the iMac and Mac Pro are nothing like a mini-tower and therefore people who want a mini-tower don't buy either of those machines, and people who buy those machines don't want mini-towers (or, if they do, they're damn stupid for buying something that's not a mini-tower, wouldn't you say?).
You're calling a lot of folks on this forum stupid. Which xMac proponent doesn't own an iMac, Mac Pro or laptop instead because the xMac that they want because it doesn't exist?
Tell me that the mini I stipulated, built as people prefer (desktop parts with a half decent GPU integrated or dedicated) is inferior in any way to an iMac AND less expensive if you simply buy a Dell monitor vs a ACD.
This INCLUDES footprint since you can hide a mini underneath many 24" monitors. It disappears even below a 20" ACD.
Tell me that many Mac Pro users simply don't want better performance than available with a mini with their own choice of monitor?
Yes, a single PCIe x16 slot would be better than a integrated GeForce 9100MG but if the 9100MG can drive a dual link display (30" ACD) I think many folks would be satisfied with a 3Ghz wolfdale mini that can run CS3 brilliantly on a 30" ACD.
xMac would attract new customers to the platform, not simply cannibalise sales of other Apple products.
Yes, but the point is NOT ENOUGH new customers to justify the massive Average Sale Price (ASP) drop.
Now we're just rehashing xMac issues...
Because there's no mini-tower in the line up. I assume this is a rhetorical question?
See above.
I think we can agree on the following:
Someone who wants a mini-tower and sees no mini-tower offering from Apple will do one of the following:
- Buy a new mini-tower from someone else
- Buy a used tower (e.g. PM G5, PM G4)
- Buy an iMac
- Buy a Mac Mini
- Buy a Mac Pro
We can also agree that in the first two cases, Apple loses a sale.Clearly the points on which we disagree is the total number of people who want a mini-tower in the first place, and the number of people who subsequently choose one of the first two options from the list above.
calling a lot of folks on this forum stupid. Which xMac proponent doesn't own an iMac, Mac Pro or laptop instead because the xMac that they want because it doesn't exist?
Many xMac proponents (myself included) don't want an xMac for themselves but believe it is a missed business opportunity on the part of Apple. Those that want Apple to produce an xMac because they want one for themselves are either struggling along on an old Power Mac G4 and getting increasingly pissed off that Apple offers them nothing new to replace it with, or have consigned themselves to forever buying second-hand Macs, or curse Apple and buy an iMac/mini/pro, or give up and buy a PC.
Tell me that the mini I stipulated, built as people prefer (desktop parts with a half decent GPU integrated or dedicated) is inferior in any way to an iMac AND less expensive if you simply buy a Dell monitor vs a ACD.
This INCLUDES footprint since you can hide a mini underneath many 24" monitors. It disappears even below a 20" ACD.
No, it doesn't include footprint. The footprint and general sleekness of the iMac would still easily out-do a mini-tower + monitor. So for those people for whom that sleekness is important, they will continue to purchase iMacs.
No, it doesn't include footprint. The footprint and general sleekness of the iMac would still easily out-do a mini-tower + monitor. So for those people for whom that sleekness is important, they will continue to purchase iMacs.
You keep saying mini-tower and I keep writing mini. To clarify, I mean a mini in a slightly larger case (a la aTV/Timecapsule). I have a time capsule next to me and if I stick it on the base of my ACD it takes zero additional footprint and isn't any more or less sleek than an iMac from the front if the colors were somewhat better integrated (I guess an alu case for the mini vice white).
From the back there are 2 additional cables vs a iMac: power to the mini and the single integrated cable from the ACD to the mini (DVI + USB + FW400).
I think you overestimate the desire for sleekness anyway given that folks tend to hang stuff off their iMacs anyway.
I think you overestimate the desire for sleekness anyway given that folks tend to hang stuff off their iMacs anyway.
Nope. I don't think the desire for sleekness is that great, and that's why Apple sells a pitiful number of iMacs relative to the number of mini-towers sold by everyone else.
People who like sleekness, buy an iMac. People who like mini-towers, buy mini-towers.
If Apple introduced a mini-tower, they'd sell probably 10 - 20% fewer iMacs+Mac Pros and Mac Mini sales would almost certainly be obliterated. After a year or so, they'd probably be selling five to ten times as many desktop machines as they currently do.
Nope. I don't think the desire for sleekness is that great, and that's why Apple sells a pitiful number of iMacs relative to the number of mini-towers sold by everyone else.
People who like sleekness, buy an iMac. People who like mini-towers, buy mini-towers.
If Apple introduced a mini-tower, they'd sell probably 10 - 20% fewer iMacs+Mac Pros and Mac Mini sales would almost certainly be obliterated. After a year or so, they'd probably be selling five to ten times as many desktop machines as they currently do.
Perhaps it has escaped your attention that Apple has not been interested in a mini-tower. Are you easily distracted?
...where would be the consumer's drive to buy one of Apple's profitable computers?
Also, while Apple could sure as hell make a prettier mid-tower compared to the competition - essentially a slightly smaller Mac Pro - the Mac Mini provides a DRAMATIC, STARK contrast to what the competitors offer. Just envision an isle of a Best Buy computer department. Walking along, people would see a bunch of mid-towers, some silver, some shinny black, some white, some blue (god, so tasteless), and a brushed metal mid-tower Mac Pro-ish xMac. Now certainly they'd say "oooh." But then they'd say "but look at this little Dell. It's like $250 less and offers a lot of the same specs." And they buy the cheaper PC based on price or fear of the commitment a tower PC gives most people.
Then imagine the same average consumer shopping around and discovering Apple's current Mac Mini:
Consumer: "Mid-tower, mid-tower, mid-tower, mid...WAIT, WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE]!!?? Excuse me sir, is this an Apple hard drive or something?"
Clerk: "No, that's a compu.."
Consumer: "That's a computer? That little thing?"
Clerk: "And it works with your standard monitor, mouse, etc."
Consumer: "Hey honey, come look at this. [wispers] Hey, we could just hook our mouse, keyboard and monitor to this thing. It even comes with this little remote. Just look at it, it's tiny."
Consumer's Significant Other: But can it web browse fast? Can I write Word documents? Email? Can I play music on it?"
Clerk: [eavesdropping on their conversation] Yes, it does all those things fine.
SOLD
I question if it was merely a fear of Power Mac/Mac Pro cannibalization. Don't underestimate the real marketable value of compactness. It costs money to make things abnormally small. The small, portable nature of something is often seen by consumers as impressive. Like Euro-style cars for instance. Americans generally laugh at them when compared to their SUV's and mini vans they use to shuttle their kids and their kids' friends around in. At the same time, no matter how attached and pleased they are with their large automobile, most won't deny how their amazement at how small they can make a car that offers rather decent head and leg room. Miniaturization is a feat that captivates people.
When Snow Leopard ships next year, one of its promoted "features" is that it "dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos."
http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
You're making the xMac a little too compelling for Apple's comfort.
Mr. H, I think you missed my counter-argument to your xMac proposal on the previous page:
"When Snow Leopard ships next year, one of its promoted "features" is that it "dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos."
As the size of the files increases for photos, I think that will offset any advantage from shrinking the footprint of the OS. IOW, just use a larger HD, or multiple HDs.
Perhaps it has escaped your attention that Apple has not been interested in a mini-tower. Are you easily distracted?
It really was a side-comment I made a couple of pages ago, but people really do seem to enjoy arguing about the xMac.
I'm not saying I think the forthcoming transition product is going to be an xMac. I just said as an aside that it's one of the machines Apple should have in their line-up.
As I've said a few times, I believe the "transition" is going to involve either MacBooks or iPods (possibly both).
Mr. H, I think you missed my counter-argument to your xMac proposal on the previous page:
No, I didn't, it's just that I didn't want to derail the thread and make it all about the xMac. Oh well, guess that's shot now.
I don't buy your scenario. I believe the number of people who buy the Mac Mini because it's small is very small. Most people who buy the mini buy it because it's the cheapest Mac, and buy it in spite of it being small. I think most people who buy the Mini would choose an xMac instead if an xMac existed, and I believe that there are vast numbers of folk who dismiss it out of hand because it's overpriced for the amount of computing power and storage space it gives you (if you want a SFF machine, the Mini isn't overpriced).
To put it another way, the Mac Mini has to make all the compromises of a laptop in order to achieve its SFF, but it gives you none of the advantages of a laptop. Most people aren't willing to make the sacrifice in speed, storage and price just to have a small footprint machine because it's a desktop and people aren't interested in a desktop being tiny. In fact, even its tininess in and of itself puts a lot of people off, they consider it a "toy" and refuse to take it seriously.
Interestingly, you also shoot your own argument in the foot a little bit by emphasising at the end that HDD storage is really important. The Mac Mini has woeful storage capacity relative to even low-end desktops. That's because it's too small for a desktop HDD and has to use a laptop HDD instead.
Let me clarify then:
The demand for OSX is insufficient to make Apple as much money selling low margin software commodity OS as it does selling high margin hardware.
.
<snip>
We agree. Where we disagree is that the pressure is sufficient to change business models to the extent that some folks desire. Even quadrupling OSX market share is unlikely to make Apple as profitable as it is today if the hardware sales are significantly impacted.
Ok cool - I think we got to the we-agree-to-disagree point.
You might well be correct, but I guess it all depends on the the actual numbers. I think a four fold market share improvement would be a highly significant shift. And the swing of the pendulum away from Microsoft and towards Apple would be hugely significant. And more than offset any sales of mere hardware.
Since the move to Intel, many people have wondered whether a land-grab on the OS business was pending. And Oppenheimer's rather opaque remarks seemed to fit.
At NeXT, Jobs made a switch from embedded-software-in-a-hardware product to a licensed OS for 486 PCs. But that move was made from a position of weakness. Whether he would do it again is not clear.
Here's my final argument on the matter...
It is based on Apple's choice of hardware lines. If Apple had simply intended to create a parallel market for OS X machines, protected by the USP of the OS. I would expect a "everyman" set of Apple computers which addressed all the most popular computer types. Call this Line Up A (note: Line-Up A would obviously contain a Mini Tower)
But, if Apple had been planning for a licensing option for OS X for many years, they would have anticipated the coming cannibalization problem. Instead of putting out an everyman collection of OS X enabled computers, they would have shifted to a set of unique hardware designs, which would have a hope of continued selling after liberation day. Line Up B
With the exception of the Macbook, Apple's line-up looks a lot more like Line Up B than Line Up A.
C.
Howabout a laptop/multitouch/keyboard tablet that wirelessly transmits to any tv/led screen, enabling the user to travel with a very small but potentially very powerful machine with no inbuilt screen of its own.
What television, in general use, allows for IR beaming? If you have been living in the US you'd know the average television is 8 - 10 years old. Many are even 20+ years old.
To put it another way, the Mac Mini has to make all the compromises of a laptop in order to achieve its SFF, but it gives you none of the advantages of a laptop. Most people aren't willing to make the sacrifice in speed, storage and price just to have a small footprint machine because it's a desktop and people aren't interested in a desktop being tiny. In fact, even its tininess in and of itself puts a lot of people off, they consider it a "toy" and refuse to take it seriously.
Two points of contention.
First, the mini's small size is an important element that it shares with laptops. That is an advantage. Size is valuable to people and if Apple is marketing the Mac Mini to get hesitant Windows users to jump on the Mac "train," they have to reduce the feeling of commitment. I suspect you're throwing out all the parts of my argument that you don't have a good counter-argument for, either intentionally or subconsciously. The points you can't dismiss, you simply won't address. There's a larger commitment to a physically larger purchase. A reasonably priced two story, 6-bedroom house, for instance, brings with it a feeling of commitment to "stick with it." A two bedroom apartment, even a rather pricey one, doesn't come with anywhere near the amount of commitment.
Second, I'm not sure who your "most people" are, but mine are the mainstream computer users, a.k.a. the ones who MAINLY use their computers for the following tasks: web surfing, writing text documents, emailing, maybe using an IM client, listening to music, and usually, viewing pictures taken by their average 3-5MP digital cameras. NONE of these tasks or media require 1) a super fast processor 2) a ton of RAM 3) an amazing or even above average video card 4) tons of storage space.
What of the above do you disagree with? Neither the tasks/media nor the hardware required to enjoy them are that debatable.
Interestingly, you also shoot your own argument in the foot a little bit by emphasising at the end that HDD storage is really important. The Mac Mini has woeful storage capacity relative to even low-end desktops. That's because it's too small for a desktop HDD and has to use a laptop HDD instead.
Considering Apple's best selling computers are their laptops, they get pretty favorable 2.5" HDD pricing, so the Mac mini more likely ships with 80GB due to laziness on Apple's part to refresh the stock HDD than it is a major price issue at this point. However, the 1.67GHz 80GB 15" PowerBook G4 I'm writing this on has a little over 14GB of free space after nearly three years of heavy use. I've got 23GB of music (which is a good bit more than what the average consumer has), 2GB of video, over 3GB of podcasts (most people don't even know what podcasts are) about 1.5GB of Word documents, nearly 8GB of applications (most average consumers aren't going to download and install hardly any apps that didn't come with their computer), and a ton of other random things I could probably delete.
Yet I have over 14GB of free space and before I purged my music collection recently, I still had 10GB. I certainly don't consider myself a "mainstream" casual computer user, but in between that and a true "power user." So even though Apple could increase the Mac mini's storage to a more roomy 160GB HDD, Jobs and Co. probably realize, as I do, that most people will end up moving to a full-fledged Mac after buying the mini...WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF ITS EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Finally, I brought up Snow Leopard to show that the compactness of something is worth real money and to show that Apple's going mobile in many areas because that's where the future lies. Not in desktop PCs, but portable computers and platforms like the iPod touch and iPhone. The fact that Apple is cutting the fat off Leopard in the next retail release of Mac OS X also supports what I've said about the mini's not-so-small 80GB HDD, which will be less cramped when Snow Leopard ships with all new Macs around this time next year.
Doesn't anyone else think that Apple is going to get into the video game console market soon?
No.
The last thing I would want, is a game system that's tied in with iTunes. Sony and Microsoft already do media sharing very well, as well as streaming vids and content, and Nintendo does well at innovation.
Apple would lose billions and billions at first in HW, and it would only make them money back on software sales, if they had good original IP.
And IIRC, Microsoft owns the rights to Halo.
No.
The last thing I would want, is a game system that's tied in with iTunes. Sony and Microsoft already do media sharing very well, as well as streaming vids and content, and Nintendo does well at innovation.
Apple would lose billions and billions at first in HW, and it would only make them money back on software sales, if they had good original IP.
And IIRC, Microsoft owns the rights to Halo.
Agreed, the console market would be very risky for Apple. If they had a larger share of the computer game market they might be able to capitalize on that to help them since they development environment would be similar but they don't, and have not put a lot of resources into expanding it. Apple would need a seasoned internal game development team as well as partnerships with top level development houses just to get ready for launch and if they had either we would have heard more about it by now. Add to that the highly competitive nature for the consoles and 3 major players, at least one with a good amount of money to throw around, another a major media company, and the third capitalizing on industry leading innovation, then I don't see a place for Apple in the market at this time. That may change but it would probably take a buy out of Nintendo by Apple for any real chance of success.
Agreed, the console market would be very risky for Apple. If they had a larger share of the computer game market they might be able to capitalize on that to help them since they development environment would be similar but they don't, and have not put a lot of resources into expanding it.
They don't need a big computer market share, it's a completely different market. They have a pile of cash that is (IIRC) about three times bigger than what MS blew away on XBox the first five or six years. But I would agree that Apple getting into game consoles is probably not going to happen.
Doesn't anyone else think that Apple is going to get into the video game console market soon?
They already have two very popular portable game consoles: the iPhone and iPod touch.
As for a home console, patents filed by Apple a few months ago depict a remote device pointing at a set-top-box (likely referencing the Apple TV) enabling Wii remote-like IR pointing functionality. If Apple saw enough demand for it, they could release an Apple TV SDK in a similar vain to the iPhone/iPod touch SDK, which would allow developers to distribute custom Apple TV apps, including games, that could be browse-able, buy-able and installable from the couch on an Apple TV App Store. Factoring in Apple's recent Remote application for the iPhone/iPod touch that allows wireless music control of computers, AirPort Expresses, and Apple TVs on the network, they could expand that functionality, allowing any iPhone or iPod touch to become an advanced, Multi-Touch, motion-sensitive gaming controller.
That would make the Apple TV into a fully digital distribution, casual game console (it's video card isn't capable of 360/PS3-quality graphics) and would cost Apple no real money to develop an Apple TV SDK that connects with and leverages their already successful iPhone/iPod touch mobile WiFi platform. It's all Cocoa, OpenGL, and tailored versions of OS X.
Doesn't anyone else think that Apple is going to get into the video game console market soon?
The AppleTV is more powerful, both in CPU and graphics, than the original XBox. If Apple wanted to open it up to stupid little arcade games, sold through iTunes, they easily could.