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.
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.
What I was getting at is that if they had a larger gaming community and the developers feeding it with games for OS X then the port to a new game platform would probably be easier so there would be less time and money developing for the platform. Most console developers are already developing for 4 platforms (including PCs) and would be unlikely to support a 5th unless it quickly gained a healthy market share.
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.
I didn't "not address" the size issue. You say it's important, I say it isn't.
It's obvious I'm right, because the vast majority of desktop PCs that are sold are not SFF desktops. If compactness was as important as you say it is for the average consumer, the market would have responded to that demand and everyone and his dog would be selling SFF desktops.
The reality is that SFF desktops are a niche product, because most people don't care about their desktop machine being as compact as possible.
Most people who want a compact computer, buy a laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
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.
Many web technologies are surprisingly CPU intensive, I still think there's a driver for higher CPU speed. Oh yeah, and there's Vista itself which is a real resource hog.
Whether someone needs loads of HDD space, CPU speed, RAM etc. can be beside the point. If Average Joe is faced with machine "A" and machine "B"; if machine "A" is more powerful, has more storage, and is the same price or cheaper than machine "B", Joe is going to choose machine "A", even if it's overkill for his needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
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.
Deliberately crippling your bottom-end machine is ok if you exist in a vacuum, but Apple has many, many competitors. Vast numbers of potential switchers won't even begin to seriously consider switching when Apple doesn't offer a machine that fits their needs/desires. People simply do not choose product "B" that they feel gives them less for their money than product "A".
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Finally, I brought up Snow Leopard to show that the compactness of something is worth real money
comparing compactness of software footprint to compactness of a physical object and saying if one is attractive, so must the other be, is one of the daftest things I've ever read.
Compactness of software footprint is only attractive because it gives you more HDD space.
Compactness of a computer (to the extreme that the Mini takes it) gives you less HDD space.
What I was getting at is that if they had a larger gaming community and the developers feeding it with games for OS X then the port to a new game platform would probably be easier so there would be less time and money developing for the platform. Most console developers are already developing for 4 platforms (including PCs) and would be unlikely to support a 5th unless it quickly gained a healthy market share.
Well SEGA shares are down and there is a rumored MS buyout...kinda a big buy for Apple though given it's in the red and 2.8B market cap.
But if you wanted to jumpstart a games division Apple could instantly do it if it could get Sega and an updated pippin/aTV. Then just sell games over iTunes/AppStore for less than they would at GameStop by dumping all the middlemen and (physical) distro costs.
Sega could operate as is but also port their own titles to the aTV. Which likely would get a rename to Apple Home or something.
Many web technologies are surprisingly CPU intensive, I still think there's a driver for higher CPU speed. Oh yeah, and there's Vista itself which is a real resource hog.
Fortunately Macs run OSX and not vista. Of course a faster processor is useful on that as well. However, it is clear that many users don't need a super fast machine or they wouldn't STILL be using PIII/P4 machines on XP.
Quote:
Deliberately crippling your bottom-end machine is ok if you exist in a vaccuum, but Apple has many, many competitors. Vast numbers of potential switchers won't even begin to seriously consider switching when Apple doesn't offer a machine that fits their needs.
Prove it. All such assertions have been devoid of any data beyond ancedotal.
Apple may not live in a vaccuum but certainly it does live in a sheltered environment because only it sells OSX computers.
Quote:
Compactness of software footprint is only attractive because it gives you more HDD space.
Compactness of a computer (to the extreme that the mini takes it) gives you less HDD space.
Which matters very little given you can just buy a time capsule with a TB of space. I've been storing all my home movies on the TC and I used to hook up a physical cable. Now I don't bother and just go wireless.
For most home users the speed delta isn't that big a killer between GigE and eSATA. Or even 802.11g.
Fortunately Macs run OSX and not vista. Of course a faster processor is useful on that as well. However, it is clear that many users don't need a super fast machine or they wouldn't STILL be using PIII/P4 machines on XP.
Indeed. But if a user is looking at a PC and a Mac, and they say, "hey look, the Mac is the same price as the PC, but it's slower and has less storage", if the sales person, friend, whatever, says "that doesn't matter, because Leopard is faster than Vista", a lot of people won't buy that argument. They're going to feel that the Mac is giving them less for their money and they'll stick to the PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Prove it. All such assertions have been devoid of any data beyond ancedotal.
This has been discussed before. The only way to prove it is to build the xMac and see how many people buy it.
At the very least, I don't have to prove that people don't want SFF desktops, because that much is obvious. If there was massive demand for that form-factor, it would have taken over the Windows space. It hasn't. People don't want SFF desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple may not live in a vaccuum but certainly it does live in a sheltered environment because only it sells OSX computers.
That's only useful once Apple's got a customer hooked on the Apple way. So far, they've only got 4% of the word wide market hooked.
There is massive growth potential there for Apple to bring in more customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Which matters very little given you can just buy a time capsule with a TB of space.
Oops, you just made the price differential between the two machines even bigger.
"don't worry sir, this computer does have much less storage than that PC you were looking at, but you can buy this extra product and then you'll have the same"
Who the hell's going to buy that argument?
Nope, they're going to go buy the PC which gives them much more for their money.
Indeed. But if a user is looking at a PC and a Mac, and they say, "hey look, the Mac is the same price as the PC, but it's slower and has less storage", if the sales person, friend, whatever, says "that doesn't matter, because Leopard is faster than Vista", a lot of people won't buy that argument. They're going to feel that the Mac is giving them less for their money and they'll stick to the PC.
No, because Apple has been very smart in not offering an xMac. The mini and iMac avoid direct comparison simply because they are NOT mini-towers.
Quote:
This has been discussed before. The only way to prove it is to build the xMac and see how many people buy it.
Yes, so you think Apple should risk their entire desktop product line on a hope and a prayer.
Quote:
At the very least, I don't have to prove that people don't want SFF desktops, because that much is obvious. If there was massive demand for that form-factor, it would have taken over the Windows space. It hasn't. People don't want SFF desktops.
Shuttle makes a decent living. Likewise AIOs have been added to many lineups.
Quote:
That's only useful once Apple's got a customer hooked on the Apple way. So far, they've only got 4% of the word wide market hooked.
The most profitable 4%. Dell wishes it was so lucky.
Quote:
There is massive growth potential there for Apple to bring in more customers.
More customers is not the same as more profit. The potential is largely illusory. The real gains are likely to be Apple's anyway using their current business model. It does not need, nor want, the same customers of Dell, HP, etc. EXCEPT at the high end.
Those they will happily continue to steal.
Quote:
Oops, you just made the price differential between the two machines even bigger.
So what? The mac demographic has proven time and time again that it is willing to pay.
Quote:
"don't worry sir, this computer does have much less storage than that PC you were looking at, but you can buy this extra product and then you'll have the same"
Who the hell's going to buy that argument?
Nope, they're going to go buy the PC which gives them much more for their money.
Again, so what? That's why there's Dell, HP, Acer, etc. Just like there's a mercedes as well as toyota, honda, and nissan.
No, because Apple has been very smart in not offering an xMac. The mini and iMac avoid direct comparison simply because they are NOT mini-towers.
Sorry, but that's just total cobblers. If a potential switcher is considering buying a desktop computer, they are going to compare the Mac Mini to a mini-tower, whether you like it or not. And they will see that it costs the same or more whilst simultaneously giving them less computing power and less storage. To them, it's a no-brainer and they stick with the PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, so you think Apple should risk their entire desktop product line on a hope and a prayer.
It's not quite as "fingers-crossed" as that. Like I said, it's clear from the wider market that people don't want SFFs, so I don't see the risk in offering the most popular form-factor along side it and seeing which does better.
The R&D required for a mini-tower is a drop in the ocean for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Shuttle makes a decent living. Likewise AIOs have been added to many lineups.
What share of the market does Shuttle have? Shuttle is a niche player and you know it. SFF desktops are a niche form-factor and you know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The most profitable 4%. Dell wishes it was so lucky.
Jeez. So what's so bad with keeping that most profitable 4% and selling less profitable (but not loss-making, I'm not suggesting anything like that) machines to another 26%?
There's massive revenue and profit growth potential there.
Once you've got to 20 - 30% share, then there is very little profit growth potential because you start having to drop prices across the board in order to make any share gains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
More customers is not the same as more profit. The potential is largely illusory.
I disagree when the starting point is 4% share.
Globally, OS X is still a seriously marginalised platform and there are real benefits to expanding market share in order to reduce said marginalisation. There's a nice upward-spiral possibility here as increasing share leads to decreasing marginalisation leads to your platform being more attractive leads to increasing market share leads to decreasing marginalisation etc. etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So what? The mac demographic has proven time and time again that it is willing to pay.
The hard-core Mac fans, yes. I'm talking about switchers and Mac users who are less die-hard OS X fans.
For most applications conventional touch-screen technology is completely adequate, including restaurants, kiosks, museums, etc.
If that were true, conventional touch-screen computers would be widespread, rather than rare. The Surface computer, and similar multi-touch computers, have additional capabilities that should make them much more attractive to use, and hence more widespread. If you Google for surface computer and click on the two YouTube demos, you’ll see how vastly superior a multitouch interface is to a mere touch-screen. Popular Mechanics wrote:
Surface computing uses a blend of wireless protocols, special machine-readable tags and shape recognition to seamlessly merge the real and the virtual world — an idea the Milan team refers to as "blended reality." The table can be built with a variety of wireless transceivers, including Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and (eventually) radio frequency identification (RFID) and is designed to sync instantly with any device that touches its surface.
One of the key components of surface computing is a "multitouch" screen. It is an idea that has been floating around the research community since the 1980s and is swiftly becoming a hip new product interface — Apple's new iPhone has multitouch scrolling and picture manipulation. Multitouch devices accept input from multiple fingers and multiple users simultaneously, allowing for complex gestures, including grabbing, stretching, swiveling and sliding virtual objects across the table. And the Surface has the added advantage of a horizontal screen, so several people can gather around and use it together. Its interface is the exact opposite of the personal computer: cooperative, hands-on, and designed for public spaces.
After you see the Surface in action, it doesn't take long to figure out just how attractive such a machine must be to the retail and service industries. … The Surface machine is networked and infinitely flexible. You could use it to order food in a restaurant. While you wait, you could play games or surf the Internet, and then eat off its surface. And every table in the joint could be a jukebox, a television or a billboard for advertising. (You didn't think advertisers would miss out on this, did you?)
Computer scientists see technologies such as surface computing and multitouch as the key to a new era of ubiquitous computing, where processing power is embedded in almost every object and everything is interactive. Last year, New York University professor Jeff Han launched a company called Perceptive Pixel, which builds six-figure-plus custom multitouch drafting tables and enormous interactive wall displays for large corporations and military situation rooms. "I firmly believe that in the near future, we will have wallpaper displays in every hallway, in every desk. Every surface will be a point of interaction with a computer," Han says, "and for that to happen, we really need interfaces like this."
In his NY Times review, David Pogue wrote:
This new “surface computer,” as Microsoft calls it, has a multi-touch screen. You can use two fingers or even more — for example, you can drag two corners of a photograph outward to zoom in on it.
Microsoft’s press materials and Web site coyly ignore the existence of … earlier pioneers; when pressed, it insists that its surface computer was developed well before Jeff Han *or* Apple came along. Microsoft says that 120 people have been secretly working on its version, tucked away in an off-campus building, for five years.
Behind the scenes … five video cameras observe your hand movements and relay information to the computer. Microsoft offers some tasty demo modules to show the possibilities:
Restaurant. You pull up on-screen, virtual menus on all four edges of the table at once — because four of you are eating out together — and order your meal by tapping what you want. While you wait for the food, you can each play your own video game, or open up four different Web browsers. And then, after dinner, you can call up your bill, split it four ways, and pay, all electronically.
Virtual Concierge. You walk into a hotel. You see a virtual model of, say, New York City; look up a restaurant; see what it looks like; and drag the restaurant’s address and phone number into your phone, where it shows up as a text message.
Paint Canvas. Finger-painting for the new millennium. That’s gotta be worth $10,000 right there.
Video Puzzle. In this game demo, clear glass tiles (real ones) are placed onto a video that’s playing on the surface. Now you can scatter and scramble them on the glass, even turning them upside-down; the challenge is to reassemble the video by moving and flipping the tiles, as though it’s a new-age jigsaw puzzle.
T-Mobile Stores. In this phone-store demonstration, you can take a phone model off the shelf — or several — and put them onto the tabletop to get the details, like features, calling plans, and so on. You can build a side-by-side comparison, sample some ringtones, or assign a ringtone to someone in your contacts list just by sliding it onto the appropriate name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_steve
Let's get real here -- Microsoft's Surface announcements were nothing but a weak attempt to grab media attention away from the iPhone.
They may have been an attempt to divert attention, but, given the large investment MS has made and the potential large market, they were not “nothing but” that. There was substance as well as hype. And, judged by the positive reviews it's received, MS's attempt was not weak but powerful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_steve
The idea that Surface will generate $10 billion in business is ludicrous.
In light of its capabilities, I believe $5 billion in worldwide sales is achievable for multitouch computers within ten years. Hence, $10 billion would not be ludicrous. It could be achieved in 15 years.
Sorry, but that's just total cobblers. If a potential switcher is considering buying a desktop computer, they are going to compare the Mac Mini to a mini-tower, whether you like it or not. And they will see that it costs the same or more whilst simultaneously giving them less computing power and less storage. To them, it's a no-brainer and they stick with the PC.
Yes they will. But reviewers tend to make the distinction and say that it's difficult to make an "apple to apple" comparison. It is always apples to oranges and it is a deliberate strategy on the part of Apple to be able to continue to sell desktops with very large margins.
The "potential switcher" is only important to Apple if cost is not the driving factor in their computer purchase. It's a "no brainer" for Apple as well not to cater to the lowest market segment that values bang for the buck above total system experience.
Quote:
It's not quite as "fingers-crossed" as that. Like I said, it's clear from the wider market that people don't want SFFs, so I don't see the risk in offering the most popular form-factor along side it and seeing which does better.
Because the "wider market" is a low cost, low margin market. If you think that a mini or imac compares unfavorably now wait and see a mac minitower that costs $300 more than the dell or hp equivalent.
Quote:
The R&D required for a mini-tower is a drop in the ocean for Apple.
The cost isn't with developing a mini-tower. The cost is all the profit lost if the desktop lineup is cannibalized from $1500 machines for $700 machines.
Perhaps they are looking to transition to a more aggressive cost stance due to the US economy but not THAT aggressive.
ASPs are declining across the board as it is. Laptops and SFF computers are becoming commoditized and netbooks becoming more popular. Apple's next move is likely into convertible tablets and away from traditional laptops to maintain ASPs in the face of netbooks.
Quote:
What share of the market does Shuttle have? Shuttle is a niche player and you know it. SFF desktops are a niche form-factor and you know it.
A profitable niche form-factor. One that is outpacing desktop growth. Acer has added a $450 SFF X1200 computer. There is the eeeBox. Lenovo has the $500 ThinkCenter A55 SFF desktop.
Spec wise the A55 is better than the mini but not by a whole lot. Still, in comparison to a mini tower it's rather pricey for what you get. Yet manufactures continue to add SFF offerings to their lineups.
Perhaps because they are becoming more mainstream and less niche?
Quote:
Jeez. So what's so bad with keeping that most profitable 4% and selling less profitable (but not loss-making, I'm not suggesting anything like that) machines to another 26%?
Because that 4% isn't stupid. If there is a $700 Mini (or xMac tower) that is better bang for the buck than the iMac then that's what we'll buy.
Quote:
There's massive revenue and profit growth potential there.
I can equally easily assert that there will be massive cannibiliazation of profit loss. Apple seems to agree thus far.
Quote:
Once you've got to 20 - 30% share, then there is very little profit growth potential because you start having to drop prices across the board in order to make any share gains.
Apple's US market share is what? 8.5% 20% share at $700 ASP vs 8.5% at $1500 ASP is a lot more work for not a whole lot more money. Apple's growth is 31-38% yoy already.
Heck, Apple couldn't handle more growth anyway and given some of the issues with recent machines it's running a little hot as it is.
Quote:
I disagree when the starting point is 4% share.
Globally, OS X is still a seriously marginalised platform and there are real benefits to expanding market share in order to reduce said marginalisation.
LOL. Yes, OSX is seriously marginallized with 38% yoy growth (Gartner).
Quote:
There's a nice upward-spiral possibility here as increasing share leads to decreasing marginalisation leads to your platform being more attractive leads to increasing market share leads to decreasing marginalisation etc. etc.
Yes, because Apple's mindshare is obviously in decline and the platform is marginalized.
Which is why Apple marketshare in the US and Europe is expected to double by 2011.
Quote:
The hard-core Mac fans, yes. I'm talking about switchers and Mac users who are less die-hard OS X fans.
Most mac fans are not hard-core anymore. The platform is very mainstream.
There's little need for a midTower xMac offering by Apple from a business perspective.
Perhaps a new Cube. Certainly the mini needs a refresh.
I didn't "not address" the size issue. You say it's important, I say it isn't.
It's obvious I'm right, because the vast majority of desktop PCs that are sold are not SFF desktops. If compactness was as important as you say it is for the average consumer, the market would have responded to that demand and everyone and his dog would be selling SFF desktops.
The reality is that SFF desktops are a niche product, because most people don't care about their desktop machine being as compact as possible.
Most people who want a compact computer, buy a laptop.
See, no offense but you did it again and apparently you don't know you're doing it. We've talked about SFF vs. mini-tower, that's obviously not what I was talking about. You even quoted a part of the argument and didn't say a thing about it. The COMMITMENT factor. You ignored my 2-story, 6-bedroom home vs. 2-bedroom apartment. With a physically larger purchase comes a mentally larger commitment. Another example: Euro car vs. RV. Yes, there is a similar size differential there to a Mac mini vs. Dell, HP, etc. mini-tower. The Euro-sized car, even if it's a bit more expensive due to say, it being a hybrid is still a smaller psychological investment compared to a reasonably priced RV.
Now as for why SFF desktops aren't in every home...uh....maybe because Apple is the only one offering a consumer-oriented SFF desktop computer. Does Dell or HP or any of the major PC vendors offer anything close to the size of a Mac mini. No. More importantly though, you seem to forget that...THE DESKTOP PC MARKET IS STAGNATING. It's been flat-lining for a while now. Many people ALREADY HAVE a mini-tower under the desk, running Windows XP. That's why Vista has been such a flop: Microsoft's operating systems only do well when people buy new PCs bundled with Windows. The standalone retail version has made them next to nothing. Now the market's completely over-saturated by these beige-box ewaste mini-towers that many people don't see any reason to replace with...yet another ewaste mini-tower.
If Apple put out an xMac, the consumer would just see "same, old same old." Sure, it'd be a prettier "same old," but it wouldn't provide anywhere near the STARK, DRAMATIC contrast the SFF Mac mini does. The mini is marketed towards the interested, yet hesitant Windows user. A standard mini-tower xMac would make them feel like they have to completely replace their Windows mini-tower, while a Mac mini can be an addition. They can place it on the desk at home and still keep their trusty (trusty in their minds, anyway) Dell.
Surprise me by addressing all parts of my argument, rather than oversimplifying it down to "SFF vs. mini-tower."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Many web technologies are surprisingly CPU intensive, I still think there's a driver for higher CPU speed. Oh yeah, and there's Vista itself which is a real resource hog.
Like what? You're talking to the owner of a near 4 year old 1.67Ghz 80GB 15" PowerBook G4 who has visited a great many websites that employ a great many "web technologies." I've surfed the web on current Intel Macs at our university bookstore's tech shop and there's no noticeable boost in web browsing. Examples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Whether someone needs loads of HDD space, CPU speed, RAM etc. can be beside the point. If Average Joe is faced with machine "A" and machine "B"; if machine "A" is more powerful, has more storage, and is the same price or cheaper than machine "B", Joe is going to choose machine "A", even if it's overkill for his needs.
You overestimate Average Joe. He knows he needs a new computer, but HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT ALL THESE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MEAN! He doesn't know about processor speeds, how much RAM he needs, what amount of gigabytes is sufficient for his casual computer tasks. He's not gonna simply look at computers at Best Buy and say "well that Dell must be faster than that HP because that HP is about 4" shorter." What ever will he do? Hmm...oh yeah, he'll TRY IT OUT!! Yes, he'll actually put his hand on that familiar feeling mouse and click on Internet Explorer (because that's what they always do), open Word (to see how the keyboard feels) and if he's feeling like some kinda crazy computer animal, he might open up iTunes or Windows Media Player. Then he'll go to the other mini-tower and try the same darned tasks, to find they're near identical. Then he might stumble upon a very different looking computer (Mac mini) and...try the same things. He'll notice no real performance difference (other than its Safari, which is faster than IE). Then it's up to him whether he wants to completely replace his trusty old PC at home with something running Vista, which he may have heard sucks, or go with a little Mac mini that he can buy without having to toss out the old beige-box under the desk. Shoot, if he's in an Apple Store or Apple reseller, a clerk might even tell him he can run XP on it, if he really had to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Deliberately crippling your bottom-end machine is ok if you exist in a vacuum, but Apple has many, many competitors. Vast numbers of potential switchers won't even begin to seriously consider switching when Apple doesn't offer a machine that fits their needs/desires. People simply do not choose product "B" that they feel gives them less for their money than product "A".
Let's use another size vs. price comparison here: mini van vs. sports car. Hmm, which one gives them more. Sort of a toss up. Now bring their prices down so that the mini van is $400 and the sports car is $600 (talking about a four-seater, not a two-seater). Which gets better gas milage? Which is cooler. Neither option is that expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
comparing compactness of software footprint to compactness of a physical object and saying if one is attractive, so must the other be, is one of the daftest things I've ever read.
Compactness of software footprint is only attractive because it gives you more HDD space.
Compactness of a computer (to the extreme that the Mini takes it) gives you less HDD space.
Right, because the Mac mini's compact case means it must inherently have less data storage? In reality, Apple could easily double or triple the Mac mini's stock HDD and the likely will. You keep perpetuating the notion that Apple will just leave the Mac mini as is for the indefinite future, which isn't realistic. The mini is due for an update. But then again, Apple doesn't want to make the mini too capable, too worthwhile. That's the whole point of it being in their computer lineup: to provide a stepping-stone to a full-fledged Mac desktop like the iMac, or one of their MacBooks.
In general, you're compact = less logic in terms of storage space doesn't go very far. How about floppy disk vs. USB flash drive? Shoot, different sized hard drives can have the same amount of data storage, just as two identical HDD enclosures can have very different capacities. Look at the Time Capsule: 500GB vs.1TB, yet AMAZINGLY, they're the same size. How do they do it?
You overestimate Average Joe. He knows he needs a new computer, but HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT ALL THESE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MEAN! He doesn't know about processor speeds, how much RAM he needs, what amount of gigabytes is sufficient for his casual computer tasks.
He knows that more is better. And that's all he needs to know, really.
any hope that the new product or laptops will be available for students to buy before august's end? I was hoping to see some new ones out today. (also why do they always release on tuesdays).
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.
I'm not saying the 10 - 20% numbers are wrong, but they are somewhat meaningless. If no iMac+Mac Pro sales are lost, great. On the other hand if 80 - 90% iMac+Mac Pro sales are lost, doesn't that prove something? Like maybe not that many people really place that high a value on AIO.
Either way, Apple wins, because I seriously doubt total sales would drop.
What really concerns me at the moment are Peter's comments in the Quarterly conference call. Apple is projecting lower margins, yet the projected computer sales is not showing a corresponding increase in total units sold.
If the lower margins were due to just lower pricing, then supply and demand should result in a larger increase in sales of total units.
If the lower gross margins are due to inclusion of some super duper technology, that means Apple will continue to focus on only the extreme upper end of the consumer market and really doesn't care about computer market share in the slightest. In other words, in order to retain their current sales to only the upper end of the buying public, they are sacrificing gross margins, huh, this doesn't make sense. I thought the whole point of targeting just the upper end of the consumer market was to maintain high gross margins. Kind of ironic, no?
And I believe the comment was made by Peter that the lower margins will continue into 2009.
Apple isn't considering an xMac, nor do I ever expect them to, it is unfortunate, as I believe they could offer an xMac without sacrificing their gross margins.
Apple isn't considering an xMac, nor do I ever expect them to, it is unfortunate, as I believe they could offer an xMac without sacrificing their gross margins.
They may be able to keep their gross margins but the xMac would crater their ASP.
I am not as certain that they can keep the gross margins and increase sales as dramatically as folks think if there is an easy mid-tower to mid-tower comparison.
I think the iMac compares very favorably vs the Sony and Dell AIOs.
I think the mini does well vs similar sized SFF computers but not the cubes and slim towers at the upper end of the SFF market.
Arguably the eeeBox will compare better than the mini but computewise, the aTV is more comparable both price and performance wise. It's just that the aTV is locked down.
Because the "wider market" is a low cost, low margin market. If you think that a mini or imac compares unfavorably now wait and see a mac minitower that costs $300 more than the dell or hp equivalent.
The xMac wouldn't cost $300 more. More like $100 more. A $100 premium for OS X seems reasonable enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The cost isn't with developing a mini-tower. The cost is all the profit lost if the desktop lineup is cannibalized from $1500 machines for $700 machines.
I find it deeply ironic that you think that an xMac would be so appealling that it would destroy Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro sales, yet don't think it would attract any new customers to the platform. How does that work?
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're saying: "xMac not good enough to attract new customers but still a much better option than all other Apple desktops". That doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
LOL. Yes, OSX is seriously marginallized with 38% yoy growth (Gartner).
The platform is seriously marginalised, especially outside the U.S. Do you live in the U.S.? Look at Apple's sales figures, only about 42% of their sales are outside the U.S. despite the U.S. being the third largest computer market (EMEA and ASIA are both larger markets).
There's a variety of web services (e.g. 4OD, BBC iPlayer downloads), software (e.g. UK taxes) and hardware (TV tuners, graphics cards) that are Windows-only. Please spare me my head exploding by picking on the things I've put in brackets, they are mearly examples out of a plethora of possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple's mindshare is obviously in decline and the platform is marginalized.
Where did I say anything about their mindshare being in decline? I did say it was an upward spiral. Apple is already on said upward sprial, I just think they could have traversed it more rapidly by releasing the xMac four years ago.
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're saying: "xMac not good enough to attract new customers but still a much better option than all other Apple desktops". That doesn't make sense.
...
I've never understood these arguments either.
In defense of these arguments, there always seems to be a couple few responses.
1. One being, the gross profit of an xMac or the actual dollar profit won't match the iMacs, so a proportionately higher number of xMacs must be sold.
Can't be proved unless Apple actually tried it, which won't happen.
2. Even offering an xMac wouldn't increase Apple's market share significantly due to built in software barriers.
Again, can't be proved unless Apple actually tried it, which won't happen. But as sales show, there is an increasing interest in Mac OS X at least in the U.S. How much greater would sales be? The iPhone interest alone would suggest there might be enough interest.
In the end, you're right. I hear," looky see, I told you all along that that consumers really want AIO because -fill in blank here- and Apple's recent market share gains prove me so. Oh no, can't sell an xMac because it will cannibalize iMac, Mac mini and Mac Pro sales lowering gross margins and APPL stock.".
See, no offense but you did it again and apparently you don't know you're doing it. You even quoted a part of the argument and didn't say a thing about it. The COMMITMENT factor.
It's an interesting theory and probably true for those where price isn't a factor. In the specific case of a dekstop computer, for most people, the level of commitment is related to price not size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Does Dell or HP or any of the major PC vendors offer anything close to the size of a Mac mini. No.
They don't offer them because there's no demand. If there was a demand as great as you say, they'd have an SFF is their lineup, and it would outsell their other offerings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
More importantly though, you seem to forget that...THE DESKTOP PC MARKET IS STAGNATING. It's been flat-lining for a while now.
You seem to forget that I already said that as time passes, the need for the xMac diminishes. If Apple haven't brought one out within 3 years, there'll be no point any more and we can all stop talking about it.
Another thing is that the desktop market hasn't been flat lining for long. In fact, I'm not sure it is even flat-lining right now. What has been happening is that the laptop market has been growing at a much faster rate than the desktop market. But that doesn't stop the desktop market being huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
If Apple put out an xMac, the consumer would just see "same, old same old."
And be relieved that it's a machine that gives them the same amount of computing power, storage and expandability as the PC they've been looking at. Then they'd start to think about whether OS X is worth the $100 premium.
As it stands with the mini, Joe sees it and thinks "it costs the same/more than the tower I was looking at, but gives me less power, less storage and less expandability. I don't care that it's tiny. In fact, it's so tiny that it can't be a real computer. It must be a toy. I will cease to take it seriously." They go buy the PC and don't even get to a point where they think about the pros and cons of OS X Vs. Vista.
If instead there was an xMac, Joe would look at it and think "that gives me the same computing power, storage and expandability of the PC I was looking at, but it's got OS X and costs $100 more. Is OS X worth that $100 premium?"
Something very similar to this happened on the latpop line when Apple switched from PPC to Intel.
With PPC, people thought the hardware was underpowered and didn't even get to the point of considering OS X's pros and cons over Windows. With the Intel switch, they saw equal hardware specs for a small premium and many people decided OS X was/is worth the premium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
A standard mini-tower xMac would make them feel like they have to completely replace their Windows mini-tower, while a Mac mini can be an addition. They can place it on the desk at home and still keep their trusty (trusty in their minds, anyway) Dell.
This isn't an issue. They're out shopping because they want to replace what they've currently got. An xMac is lower-risk to them than a mini because it gives them the hardware they want; if it turns out that OS X isn't as great as everyone says it is, they can always put Windows on the xMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Surprise me by addressing all parts of my argument, rather than oversimplifying it down to "SFF vs. mini-tower."
Done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Like what?
Flash videos, and Windows Media Player running in Windows XP (for playing 4OD and BBC iPlayer DRMed WMV) both max out my 1.83 Core Duo and make the fans blow like crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
You overestimate Average Joe. He knows he needs a new computer, but HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT ALL THESE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MEAN!
He may not appreciate the detail of how an HDD works, or really understand the difference between it and RAM, he may not appreciate the details of pipelining, execution units, branch prediction, instruction issuers and completers, cache, latency etc. etc. and how all these things can affect performance just as much as CPU clock rate, but he does understand one thing:
"bigger numbers = better"
If machine "A" gives him bigger numbers for the same or less money, he chooses machine "A"
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Let's use another size vs. price comparison here: mini van vs. sports car. Hmm, which one gives them more. Sort of a toss up. Now bring their prices down so that the mini van is $400 and the sports car is $600 (talking about a four-seater, not a two-seater). Which gets better gas milage? Which is cooler. Neither option is that expensive.
Let's not go there. I refuse to discuss computer/car analogies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Right, because the Mac mini's compact case means it must inherently have less data storage?
I'm not sure why you're laughing. You do know the Mini uses a laptop HDD? And that desktop HDDs tend to provide twice the GB/$ of laptop HDDs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
You keep perpetuating the notion that Apple will just leave the Mac mini as is for the indefinite future, which isn't realistic.
I've done nothing of the sort. Yes, the Mini could have more computing power and storage than it currently does whilst maintaining laptop components, because at the moment it's using out-dated laptop components. But it could have even more power, storage and expandability on top of that if it used desktop components instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
That's the whole point of it being in their computer lineup: to provide a stepping-stone to a full-fledged Mac desktop like the iMac, or one of their MacBooks.
As I said already, that's only a good plan if you exist in a vacuum or already have the vast majority of the market. As it is, Apple have crippled their first stepping stone so badly that many people don't take the first step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
In general, you're compact = less logic in terms of storage space doesn't go very far.
I'm not generalising. I'm being very specific. Laptop HDDs offer less GB/$ than desktop HDDs, this is a fact. The Mini is so compact that it must use laptop HDDs. Therefore its compactness limits the maximum HDD storage it can offer, and results in poorer GB/$ compared to similarly priced or even cheaper PC towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Shoot, different sized hard drives can have the same amount of data storage, just as two identical HDD enclosures can have very different capacities. Look at the Time Capsule: 500GB vs.1TB, yet AMAZINGLY, they're the same size. How do they do it?
Is this a trick question? Time Capsule uses dekstop HDDs and clearly the 1 TB HDD has twice the number of platters as the 500 GB HDD. What's that got to do with laptop HDD Vs. Desktop HDD?
He knows that more is better. And that's all he needs to know, really.
By your logic, Average Joe would likely buy the most expensive computer in the store.
In reality, stores like Best Buy stack the shelves with computers that have very similar, competitive specs, some with slightly faster processors but less RAM, others with more HDD space but less impressive video cards. Some are even bundled with crummy displays that the buyer may not have a use for, nor wants to pay for.
Comments
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.
I don't know. I'm thinking outside the box
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.
What I was getting at is that if they had a larger gaming community and the developers feeding it with games for OS X then the port to a new game platform would probably be easier so there would be less time and money developing for the platform. Most console developers are already developing for 4 platforms (including PCs) and would be unlikely to support a 5th unless it quickly gained a healthy market share.
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.
I didn't "not address" the size issue. You say it's important, I say it isn't.
It's obvious I'm right, because the vast majority of desktop PCs that are sold are not SFF desktops. If compactness was as important as you say it is for the average consumer, the market would have responded to that demand and everyone and his dog would be selling SFF desktops.
The reality is that SFF desktops are a niche product, because most people don't care about their desktop machine being as compact as possible.
Most people who want a compact computer, buy a laptop.
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.
Many web technologies are surprisingly CPU intensive, I still think there's a driver for higher CPU speed. Oh yeah, and there's Vista itself which is a real resource hog.
Whether someone needs loads of HDD space, CPU speed, RAM etc. can be beside the point. If Average Joe is faced with machine "A" and machine "B"; if machine "A" is more powerful, has more storage, and is the same price or cheaper than machine "B", Joe is going to choose machine "A", even if it's overkill for his needs.
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.
Deliberately crippling your bottom-end machine is ok if you exist in a vacuum, but Apple has many, many competitors. Vast numbers of potential switchers won't even begin to seriously consider switching when Apple doesn't offer a machine that fits their needs/desires. People simply do not choose product "B" that they feel gives them less for their money than product "A".
Finally, I brought up Snow Leopard to show that the compactness of something is worth real money
Compactness of software footprint is only attractive because it gives you more HDD space.
Compactness of a computer (to the extreme that the Mini takes it) gives you less HDD space.
What I was getting at is that if they had a larger gaming community and the developers feeding it with games for OS X then the port to a new game platform would probably be easier so there would be less time and money developing for the platform. Most console developers are already developing for 4 platforms (including PCs) and would be unlikely to support a 5th unless it quickly gained a healthy market share.
Well SEGA shares are down and there is a rumored MS buyout...kinda a big buy for Apple though given it's in the red and 2.8B market cap.
But if you wanted to jumpstart a games division Apple could instantly do it if it could get Sega and an updated pippin/aTV. Then just sell games over iTunes/AppStore for less than they would at GameStop by dumping all the middlemen and (physical) distro costs.
Sega could operate as is but also port their own titles to the aTV. Which likely would get a rename to Apple Home or something.
Many web technologies are surprisingly CPU intensive, I still think there's a driver for higher CPU speed. Oh yeah, and there's Vista itself which is a real resource hog.
Fortunately Macs run OSX and not vista. Of course a faster processor is useful on that as well. However, it is clear that many users don't need a super fast machine or they wouldn't STILL be using PIII/P4 machines on XP.
Deliberately crippling your bottom-end machine is ok if you exist in a vaccuum, but Apple has many, many competitors. Vast numbers of potential switchers won't even begin to seriously consider switching when Apple doesn't offer a machine that fits their needs.
Prove it. All such assertions have been devoid of any data beyond ancedotal.
Apple may not live in a vaccuum but certainly it does live in a sheltered environment because only it sells OSX computers.
Compactness of software footprint is only attractive because it gives you more HDD space.
Compactness of a computer (to the extreme that the mini takes it) gives you less HDD space.
Which matters very little given you can just buy a time capsule with a TB of space. I've been storing all my home movies on the TC and I used to hook up a physical cable. Now I don't bother and just go wireless.
For most home users the speed delta isn't that big a killer between GigE and eSATA. Or even 802.11g.
Fortunately Macs run OSX and not vista. Of course a faster processor is useful on that as well. However, it is clear that many users don't need a super fast machine or they wouldn't STILL be using PIII/P4 machines on XP.
Indeed. But if a user is looking at a PC and a Mac, and they say, "hey look, the Mac is the same price as the PC, but it's slower and has less storage", if the sales person, friend, whatever, says "that doesn't matter, because Leopard is faster than Vista", a lot of people won't buy that argument. They're going to feel that the Mac is giving them less for their money and they'll stick to the PC.
Prove it. All such assertions have been devoid of any data beyond ancedotal.
This has been discussed before. The only way to prove it is to build the xMac and see how many people buy it.
At the very least, I don't have to prove that people don't want SFF desktops, because that much is obvious. If there was massive demand for that form-factor, it would have taken over the Windows space. It hasn't. People don't want SFF desktops.
Apple may not live in a vaccuum but certainly it does live in a sheltered environment because only it sells OSX computers.
That's only useful once Apple's got a customer hooked on the Apple way. So far, they've only got 4% of the word wide market hooked.
There is massive growth potential there for Apple to bring in more customers.
Which matters very little given you can just buy a time capsule with a TB of space.
Oops, you just made the price differential between the two machines even bigger.
"don't worry sir, this computer does have much less storage than that PC you were looking at, but you can buy this extra product and then you'll have the same"
Who the hell's going to buy that argument?
Nope, they're going to go buy the PC which gives them much more for their money.
Indeed. But if a user is looking at a PC and a Mac, and they say, "hey look, the Mac is the same price as the PC, but it's slower and has less storage", if the sales person, friend, whatever, says "that doesn't matter, because Leopard is faster than Vista", a lot of people won't buy that argument. They're going to feel that the Mac is giving them less for their money and they'll stick to the PC.
No, because Apple has been very smart in not offering an xMac. The mini and iMac avoid direct comparison simply because they are NOT mini-towers.
This has been discussed before. The only way to prove it is to build the xMac and see how many people buy it.
Yes, so you think Apple should risk their entire desktop product line on a hope and a prayer.
At the very least, I don't have to prove that people don't want SFF desktops, because that much is obvious. If there was massive demand for that form-factor, it would have taken over the Windows space. It hasn't. People don't want SFF desktops.
Shuttle makes a decent living. Likewise AIOs have been added to many lineups.
That's only useful once Apple's got a customer hooked on the Apple way. So far, they've only got 4% of the word wide market hooked.
The most profitable 4%. Dell wishes it was so lucky.
There is massive growth potential there for Apple to bring in more customers.
More customers is not the same as more profit. The potential is largely illusory. The real gains are likely to be Apple's anyway using their current business model. It does not need, nor want, the same customers of Dell, HP, etc. EXCEPT at the high end.
Those they will happily continue to steal.
Oops, you just made the price differential between the two machines even bigger.
So what? The mac demographic has proven time and time again that it is willing to pay.
"don't worry sir, this computer does have much less storage than that PC you were looking at, but you can buy this extra product and then you'll have the same"
Who the hell's going to buy that argument?
Nope, they're going to go buy the PC which gives them much more for their money.
Again, so what? That's why there's Dell, HP, Acer, etc. Just like there's a mercedes as well as toyota, honda, and nissan.
Vinea
No, because Apple has been very smart in not offering an xMac. The mini and iMac avoid direct comparison simply because they are NOT mini-towers.
Sorry, but that's just total cobblers. If a potential switcher is considering buying a desktop computer, they are going to compare the Mac Mini to a mini-tower, whether you like it or not. And they will see that it costs the same or more whilst simultaneously giving them less computing power and less storage. To them, it's a no-brainer and they stick with the PC.
Yes, so you think Apple should risk their entire desktop product line on a hope and a prayer.
It's not quite as "fingers-crossed" as that. Like I said, it's clear from the wider market that people don't want SFFs, so I don't see the risk in offering the most popular form-factor along side it and seeing which does better.
The R&D required for a mini-tower is a drop in the ocean for Apple.
Shuttle makes a decent living. Likewise AIOs have been added to many lineups.
What share of the market does Shuttle have? Shuttle is a niche player and you know it. SFF desktops are a niche form-factor and you know it.
The most profitable 4%. Dell wishes it was so lucky.
Jeez. So what's so bad with keeping that most profitable 4% and selling less profitable (but not loss-making, I'm not suggesting anything like that) machines to another 26%?
There's massive revenue and profit growth potential there.
Once you've got to 20 - 30% share, then there is very little profit growth potential because you start having to drop prices across the board in order to make any share gains.
More customers is not the same as more profit. The potential is largely illusory.
I disagree when the starting point is 4% share.
Globally, OS X is still a seriously marginalised platform and there are real benefits to expanding market share in order to reduce said marginalisation. There's a nice upward-spiral possibility here as increasing share leads to decreasing marginalisation leads to your platform being more attractive leads to increasing market share leads to decreasing marginalisation etc. etc.
So what? The mac demographic has proven time and time again that it is willing to pay.
The hard-core Mac fans, yes. I'm talking about switchers and Mac users who are less die-hard OS X fans.
For most applications conventional touch-screen technology is completely adequate, including restaurants, kiosks, museums, etc.
If that were true, conventional touch-screen computers would be widespread, rather than rare. The Surface computer, and similar multi-touch computers, have additional capabilities that should make them much more attractive to use, and hence more widespread. If you Google for surface computer and click on the two YouTube demos, you’ll see how vastly superior a multitouch interface is to a mere touch-screen. Popular Mechanics wrote:
Surface computing uses a blend of wireless protocols, special machine-readable tags and shape recognition to seamlessly merge the real and the virtual world — an idea the Milan team refers to as "blended reality." The table can be built with a variety of wireless transceivers, including Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and (eventually) radio frequency identification (RFID) and is designed to sync instantly with any device that touches its surface.
One of the key components of surface computing is a "multitouch" screen. It is an idea that has been floating around the research community since the 1980s and is swiftly becoming a hip new product interface — Apple's new iPhone has multitouch scrolling and picture manipulation. Multitouch devices accept input from multiple fingers and multiple users simultaneously, allowing for complex gestures, including grabbing, stretching, swiveling and sliding virtual objects across the table. And the Surface has the added advantage of a horizontal screen, so several people can gather around and use it together. Its interface is the exact opposite of the personal computer: cooperative, hands-on, and designed for public spaces.
After you see the Surface in action, it doesn't take long to figure out just how attractive such a machine must be to the retail and service industries. … The Surface machine is networked and infinitely flexible. You could use it to order food in a restaurant. While you wait, you could play games or surf the Internet, and then eat off its surface. And every table in the joint could be a jukebox, a television or a billboard for advertising. (You didn't think advertisers would miss out on this, did you?)
Computer scientists see technologies such as surface computing and multitouch as the key to a new era of ubiquitous computing, where processing power is embedded in almost every object and everything is interactive. Last year, New York University professor Jeff Han launched a company called Perceptive Pixel, which builds six-figure-plus custom multitouch drafting tables and enormous interactive wall displays for large corporations and military situation rooms. "I firmly believe that in the near future, we will have wallpaper displays in every hallway, in every desk. Every surface will be a point of interaction with a computer," Han says, "and for that to happen, we really need interfaces like this."
In his NY Times review, David Pogue wrote:
This new “surface computer,” as Microsoft calls it, has a multi-touch screen. You can use two fingers or even more — for example, you can drag two corners of a photograph outward to zoom in on it.
Microsoft’s press materials and Web site coyly ignore the existence of … earlier pioneers; when pressed, it insists that its surface computer was developed well before Jeff Han *or* Apple came along. Microsoft says that 120 people have been secretly working on its version, tucked away in an off-campus building, for five years.
Behind the scenes … five video cameras observe your hand movements and relay information to the computer. Microsoft offers some tasty demo modules to show the possibilities:
Restaurant. You pull up on-screen, virtual menus on all four edges of the table at once — because four of you are eating out together — and order your meal by tapping what you want. While you wait for the food, you can each play your own video game, or open up four different Web browsers. And then, after dinner, you can call up your bill, split it four ways, and pay, all electronically.
Virtual Concierge. You walk into a hotel. You see a virtual model of, say, New York City; look up a restaurant; see what it looks like; and drag the restaurant’s address and phone number into your phone, where it shows up as a text message.
Paint Canvas. Finger-painting for the new millennium. That’s gotta be worth $10,000 right there.
Video Puzzle. In this game demo, clear glass tiles (real ones) are placed onto a video that’s playing on the surface. Now you can scatter and scramble them on the glass, even turning them upside-down; the challenge is to reassemble the video by moving and flipping the tiles, as though it’s a new-age jigsaw puzzle.
T-Mobile Stores. In this phone-store demonstration, you can take a phone model off the shelf — or several — and put them onto the tabletop to get the details, like features, calling plans, and so on. You can build a side-by-side comparison, sample some ringtones, or assign a ringtone to someone in your contacts list just by sliding it onto the appropriate name.
Let's get real here -- Microsoft's Surface announcements were nothing but a weak attempt to grab media attention away from the iPhone.
They may have been an attempt to divert attention, but, given the large investment MS has made and the potential large market, they were not “nothing but” that. There was substance as well as hype. And, judged by the positive reviews it's received, MS's attempt was not weak but powerful.
The idea that Surface will generate $10 billion in business is ludicrous.
In light of its capabilities, I believe $5 billion in worldwide sales is achievable for multitouch computers within ten years. Hence, $10 billion would not be ludicrous. It could be achieved in 15 years.
Sorry, but that's just total cobblers. If a potential switcher is considering buying a desktop computer, they are going to compare the Mac Mini to a mini-tower, whether you like it or not. And they will see that it costs the same or more whilst simultaneously giving them less computing power and less storage. To them, it's a no-brainer and they stick with the PC.
Yes they will. But reviewers tend to make the distinction and say that it's difficult to make an "apple to apple" comparison. It is always apples to oranges and it is a deliberate strategy on the part of Apple to be able to continue to sell desktops with very large margins.
The "potential switcher" is only important to Apple if cost is not the driving factor in their computer purchase. It's a "no brainer" for Apple as well not to cater to the lowest market segment that values bang for the buck above total system experience.
It's not quite as "fingers-crossed" as that. Like I said, it's clear from the wider market that people don't want SFFs, so I don't see the risk in offering the most popular form-factor along side it and seeing which does better.
Because the "wider market" is a low cost, low margin market. If you think that a mini or imac compares unfavorably now wait and see a mac minitower that costs $300 more than the dell or hp equivalent.
The R&D required for a mini-tower is a drop in the ocean for Apple.
The cost isn't with developing a mini-tower. The cost is all the profit lost if the desktop lineup is cannibalized from $1500 machines for $700 machines.
Perhaps they are looking to transition to a more aggressive cost stance due to the US economy but not THAT aggressive.
ASPs are declining across the board as it is. Laptops and SFF computers are becoming commoditized and netbooks becoming more popular. Apple's next move is likely into convertible tablets and away from traditional laptops to maintain ASPs in the face of netbooks.
What share of the market does Shuttle have? Shuttle is a niche player and you know it. SFF desktops are a niche form-factor and you know it.
A profitable niche form-factor. One that is outpacing desktop growth. Acer has added a $450 SFF X1200 computer. There is the eeeBox. Lenovo has the $500 ThinkCenter A55 SFF desktop.
Spec wise the A55 is better than the mini but not by a whole lot. Still, in comparison to a mini tower it's rather pricey for what you get. Yet manufactures continue to add SFF offerings to their lineups.
Perhaps because they are becoming more mainstream and less niche?
Jeez. So what's so bad with keeping that most profitable 4% and selling less profitable (but not loss-making, I'm not suggesting anything like that) machines to another 26%?
Because that 4% isn't stupid. If there is a $700 Mini (or xMac tower) that is better bang for the buck than the iMac then that's what we'll buy.
There's massive revenue and profit growth potential there.
I can equally easily assert that there will be massive cannibiliazation of profit loss. Apple seems to agree thus far.
Once you've got to 20 - 30% share, then there is very little profit growth potential because you start having to drop prices across the board in order to make any share gains.
Apple's US market share is what? 8.5% 20% share at $700 ASP vs 8.5% at $1500 ASP is a lot more work for not a whole lot more money. Apple's growth is 31-38% yoy already.
Heck, Apple couldn't handle more growth anyway and given some of the issues with recent machines it's running a little hot as it is.
I disagree when the starting point is 4% share.
Globally, OS X is still a seriously marginalised platform and there are real benefits to expanding market share in order to reduce said marginalisation.
LOL. Yes, OSX is seriously marginallized with 38% yoy growth (Gartner).
There's a nice upward-spiral possibility here as increasing share leads to decreasing marginalisation leads to your platform being more attractive leads to increasing market share leads to decreasing marginalisation etc. etc.
Yes, because Apple's mindshare is obviously in decline and the platform is marginalized.
Which is why Apple marketshare in the US and Europe is expected to double by 2011.
The hard-core Mac fans, yes. I'm talking about switchers and Mac users who are less die-hard OS X fans.
Most mac fans are not hard-core anymore. The platform is very mainstream.
There's little need for a midTower xMac offering by Apple from a business perspective.
Perhaps a new Cube. Certainly the mini needs a refresh.
I didn't "not address" the size issue. You say it's important, I say it isn't.
It's obvious I'm right, because the vast majority of desktop PCs that are sold are not SFF desktops. If compactness was as important as you say it is for the average consumer, the market would have responded to that demand and everyone and his dog would be selling SFF desktops.
The reality is that SFF desktops are a niche product, because most people don't care about their desktop machine being as compact as possible.
Most people who want a compact computer, buy a laptop.
See, no offense but you did it again and apparently you don't know you're doing it.
Now as for why SFF desktops aren't in every home...uh....maybe because Apple is the only one offering a consumer-oriented SFF desktop computer.
If Apple put out an xMac, the consumer would just see "same, old same old." Sure, it'd be a prettier "same old," but it wouldn't provide anywhere near the STARK, DRAMATIC contrast the SFF Mac mini does. The mini is marketed towards the interested, yet hesitant Windows user. A standard mini-tower xMac would make them feel like they have to completely replace their Windows mini-tower, while a Mac mini can be an addition. They can place it on the desk at home and still keep their trusty (trusty in their minds, anyway) Dell.
Surprise me by addressing all parts of my argument, rather than oversimplifying it down to "SFF vs. mini-tower."
Many web technologies are surprisingly CPU intensive, I still think there's a driver for higher CPU speed. Oh yeah, and there's Vista itself which is a real resource hog.
Like what?
Whether someone needs loads of HDD space, CPU speed, RAM etc. can be beside the point. If Average Joe is faced with machine "A" and machine "B"; if machine "A" is more powerful, has more storage, and is the same price or cheaper than machine "B", Joe is going to choose machine "A", even if it's overkill for his needs.
You overestimate Average Joe. He knows he needs a new computer, but HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT ALL THESE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MEAN!
Deliberately crippling your bottom-end machine is ok if you exist in a vacuum, but Apple has many, many competitors. Vast numbers of potential switchers won't even begin to seriously consider switching when Apple doesn't offer a machine that fits their needs/desires. People simply do not choose product "B" that they feel gives them less for their money than product "A".
Let's use another size vs. price comparison here: mini van vs. sports car. Hmm, which one gives them more. Sort of a toss up. Now bring their prices down so that the mini van is $400 and the sports car is $600 (talking about a four-seater, not a two-seater). Which gets better gas milage? Which is cooler. Neither option is that expensive.
Compactness of software footprint is only attractive because it gives you more HDD space.
Compactness of a computer (to the extreme that the Mini takes it) gives you less HDD space.
Right, because the Mac mini's compact case means it must inherently have less data storage?
In general, you're compact = less logic in terms of storage space doesn't go very far. How about floppy disk vs. USB flash drive? Shoot, different sized hard drives can have the same amount of data storage, just as two identical HDD enclosures can have very different capacities.
You overestimate Average Joe. He knows he needs a new computer, but HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT ALL THESE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MEAN!
He knows that more is better. And that's all he needs to know, really.
B...
Now we're just rehashing xMac issues...
The topic that won't die.
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.
I'm not saying the 10 - 20% numbers are wrong, but they are somewhat meaningless. If no iMac+Mac Pro sales are lost, great. On the other hand if 80 - 90% iMac+Mac Pro sales are lost, doesn't that prove something? Like maybe not that many people really place that high a value on AIO.
Either way, Apple wins, because I seriously doubt total sales would drop.
What really concerns me at the moment are Peter's comments in the Quarterly conference call. Apple is projecting lower margins, yet the projected computer sales is not showing a corresponding increase in total units sold.
If the lower margins were due to just lower pricing, then supply and demand should result in a larger increase in sales of total units.
If the lower gross margins are due to inclusion of some super duper technology, that means Apple will continue to focus on only the extreme upper end of the consumer market and really doesn't care about computer market share in the slightest. In other words, in order to retain their current sales to only the upper end of the buying public, they are sacrificing gross margins, huh, this doesn't make sense. I thought the whole point of targeting just the upper end of the consumer market was to maintain high gross margins. Kind of ironic, no?
And I believe the comment was made by Peter that the lower margins will continue into 2009.
Apple isn't considering an xMac, nor do I ever expect them to, it is unfortunate, as I believe they could offer an xMac without sacrificing their gross margins.
The topic that won't die.
Yep.
Apple isn't considering an xMac, nor do I ever expect them to, it is unfortunate, as I believe they could offer an xMac without sacrificing their gross margins.
They may be able to keep their gross margins but the xMac would crater their ASP.
I am not as certain that they can keep the gross margins and increase sales as dramatically as folks think if there is an easy mid-tower to mid-tower comparison.
I think the iMac compares very favorably vs the Sony and Dell AIOs.
I think the mini does well vs similar sized SFF computers but not the cubes and slim towers at the upper end of the SFF market.
Arguably the eeeBox will compare better than the mini but computewise, the aTV is more comparable both price and performance wise. It's just that the aTV is locked down.
I think the iMac compares very favorably vs the Sony and Dell AIOs.
It does, but nobody buys those anyway.
Because the "wider market" is a low cost, low margin market. If you think that a mini or imac compares unfavorably now wait and see a mac minitower that costs $300 more than the dell or hp equivalent.
The xMac wouldn't cost $300 more. More like $100 more. A $100 premium for OS X seems reasonable enough.
The cost isn't with developing a mini-tower. The cost is all the profit lost if the desktop lineup is cannibalized from $1500 machines for $700 machines.
I find it deeply ironic that you think that an xMac would be so appealling that it would destroy Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro sales, yet don't think it would attract any new customers to the platform. How does that work?
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're saying: "xMac not good enough to attract new customers but still a much better option than all other Apple desktops". That doesn't make sense.
LOL. Yes, OSX is seriously marginallized with 38% yoy growth (Gartner).
The platform is seriously marginalised, especially outside the U.S. Do you live in the U.S.? Look at Apple's sales figures, only about 42% of their sales are outside the U.S. despite the U.S. being the third largest computer market (EMEA and ASIA are both larger markets).
There's a variety of web services (e.g. 4OD, BBC iPlayer downloads), software (e.g. UK taxes) and hardware (TV tuners, graphics cards) that are Windows-only. Please spare me my head exploding by picking on the things I've put in brackets, they are mearly examples out of a plethora of possibilities.
Apple's mindshare is obviously in decline and the platform is marginalized.
Where did I say anything about their mindshare being in decline? I did say it was an upward spiral. Apple is already on said upward sprial, I just think they could have traversed it more rapidly by releasing the xMac four years ago.
...
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're saying: "xMac not good enough to attract new customers but still a much better option than all other Apple desktops". That doesn't make sense.
...
I've never understood these arguments either.
In defense of these arguments, there always seems to be a couple few responses.
1. One being, the gross profit of an xMac or the actual dollar profit won't match the iMacs, so a proportionately higher number of xMacs must be sold.
Can't be proved unless Apple actually tried it, which won't happen.
2. Even offering an xMac wouldn't increase Apple's market share significantly due to built in software barriers.
Again, can't be proved unless Apple actually tried it, which won't happen. But as sales show, there is an increasing interest in Mac OS X at least in the U.S. How much greater would sales be? The iPhone interest alone would suggest there might be enough interest.
In the end, you're right. I hear," looky see, I told you all along that that consumers really want AIO because -fill in blank here- and Apple's recent market share gains prove me so. Oh no, can't sell an xMac because it will cannibalize iMac, Mac mini and Mac Pro sales lowering gross margins and APPL stock.".
See, no offense but you did it again and apparently you don't know you're doing it.
It's an interesting theory and probably true for those where price isn't a factor. In the specific case of a dekstop computer, for most people, the level of commitment is related to price not size.
Does Dell or HP or any of the major PC vendors offer anything close to the size of a Mac mini. No.
They don't offer them because there's no demand. If there was a demand as great as you say, they'd have an SFF is their lineup, and it would outsell their other offerings.
More importantly though, you seem to forget that...THE DESKTOP PC MARKET IS STAGNATING. It's been flat-lining for a while now.
You seem to forget that I already said that as time passes, the need for the xMac diminishes. If Apple haven't brought one out within 3 years, there'll be no point any more and we can all stop talking about it.
Another thing is that the desktop market hasn't been flat lining for long. In fact, I'm not sure it is even flat-lining right now. What has been happening is that the laptop market has been growing at a much faster rate than the desktop market. But that doesn't stop the desktop market being huge.
If Apple put out an xMac, the consumer would just see "same, old same old."
And be relieved that it's a machine that gives them the same amount of computing power, storage and expandability as the PC they've been looking at. Then they'd start to think about whether OS X is worth the $100 premium.
As it stands with the mini, Joe sees it and thinks "it costs the same/more than the tower I was looking at, but gives me less power, less storage and less expandability. I don't care that it's tiny. In fact, it's so tiny that it can't be a real computer. It must be a toy. I will cease to take it seriously." They go buy the PC and don't even get to a point where they think about the pros and cons of OS X Vs. Vista.
If instead there was an xMac, Joe would look at it and think "that gives me the same computing power, storage and expandability of the PC I was looking at, but it's got OS X and costs $100 more. Is OS X worth that $100 premium?"
Something very similar to this happened on the latpop line when Apple switched from PPC to Intel.
With PPC, people thought the hardware was underpowered and didn't even get to the point of considering OS X's pros and cons over Windows. With the Intel switch, they saw equal hardware specs for a small premium and many people decided OS X was/is worth the premium.
A standard mini-tower xMac would make them feel like they have to completely replace their Windows mini-tower, while a Mac mini can be an addition. They can place it on the desk at home and still keep their trusty (trusty in their minds, anyway) Dell.
This isn't an issue. They're out shopping because they want to replace what they've currently got. An xMac is lower-risk to them than a mini because it gives them the hardware they want; if it turns out that OS X isn't as great as everyone says it is, they can always put Windows on the xMac.
Surprise me by addressing all parts of my argument, rather than oversimplifying it down to "SFF vs. mini-tower."
Done.
Like what?
Flash videos, and Windows Media Player running in Windows XP (for playing 4OD and BBC iPlayer DRMed WMV) both max out my 1.83 Core Duo and make the fans blow like crazy.
You overestimate Average Joe. He knows he needs a new computer, but HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT ALL THESE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MEAN!
He may not appreciate the detail of how an HDD works, or really understand the difference between it and RAM, he may not appreciate the details of pipelining, execution units, branch prediction, instruction issuers and completers, cache, latency etc. etc. and how all these things can affect performance just as much as CPU clock rate, but he does understand one thing:
"bigger numbers = better"
If machine "A" gives him bigger numbers for the same or less money, he chooses machine "A"
Let's use another size vs. price comparison here: mini van vs. sports car. Hmm, which one gives them more. Sort of a toss up. Now bring their prices down so that the mini van is $400 and the sports car is $600 (talking about a four-seater, not a two-seater). Which gets better gas milage? Which is cooler. Neither option is that expensive.
Let's not go there. I refuse to discuss computer/car analogies.
Right, because the Mac mini's compact case means it must inherently have less data storage?
You keep perpetuating the notion that Apple will just leave the Mac mini as is for the indefinite future, which isn't realistic.
I've done nothing of the sort. Yes, the Mini could have more computing power and storage than it currently does whilst maintaining laptop components, because at the moment it's using out-dated laptop components. But it could have even more power, storage and expandability on top of that if it used desktop components instead.
That's the whole point of it being in their computer lineup: to provide a stepping-stone to a full-fledged Mac desktop like the iMac, or one of their MacBooks.
As I said already, that's only a good plan if you exist in a vacuum or already have the vast majority of the market. As it is, Apple have crippled their first stepping stone so badly that many people don't take the first step.
In general, you're compact = less logic in terms of storage space doesn't go very far.
I'm not generalising. I'm being very specific. Laptop HDDs offer less GB/$ than desktop HDDs, this is a fact. The Mini is so compact that it must use laptop HDDs. Therefore its compactness limits the maximum HDD storage it can offer, and results in poorer GB/$ compared to similarly priced or even cheaper PC towers.
Shoot, different sized hard drives can have the same amount of data storage, just as two identical HDD enclosures can have very different capacities.
Is this a trick question? Time Capsule uses dekstop HDDs and clearly the 1 TB HDD has twice the number of platters as the 500 GB HDD. What's that got to do with laptop HDD Vs. Desktop HDD?
He knows that more is better. And that's all he needs to know, really.
By your logic, Average Joe would likely buy the most expensive computer in the store.
In reality, stores like Best Buy stack the shelves with computers that have very similar, competitive specs, some with slightly faster processors but less RAM, others with more HDD space but less impressive video cards. Some are even bundled with crummy displays that the buyer may not have a use for, nor wants to pay for.