Combo drives are such a low-volume item they're typically more expensive than DVD burners.
If they bought them now, that would be true. However, they're a pretty good indication that Apple stockpiles things like optical drives and LCD panels.
Alas, I misread the headline and thought for one joyous moment that it was predicting that Apple would have a subnotebook rather than a Sub-$1000 notebook.
The Mac world really needs a subnotebook with an iPhone-like touch screen. Come on Steve, give it to us.
Alas, I misread the headline and thought for one joyous moment that it was predicting that Apple would have a subnotebook rather than a Sub-$1000 notebook.
The Mac world really needs a subnotebook with an iPhone-like touch screen. Come on Steve, give it to us.
HEY APPLE, get over the fear of dedicated GPU's already, would yaa! It's 2008, time to face that the smallest market share of PRO's (less than <1% of retail) don't make your bread and butter.
Release a sub tower and macbook with gaming and motion (Illustrator, Motion, Unreal 3, Doom), so the mac store people don't have to keep telling us, yeah, we know already, its the graphic card, then make the MBPro a quad core machine and be done with it, that's what separates them, a 4 core vs 2 core.
Man oh man, sure you won't find all the specs on a PC, but a PC for $599 can run doom and if hacked enough can even run OSX.
Alas, I misread the headline and thought for one joyous moment that it was predicting that Apple would have a subnotebook rather than a Sub-$1000 notebook.
The Mac world really needs a subnotebook with an iPhone-like touch screen. Come on Steve, give it to us.
OK, so there's no touch screen, but the MSI Wind (a.k.a the Advent 4211 in PC World / Dixons in the UK) can run OSX. Even with the extra 75 bucks for a copy of Leopard it's still great value.
Mmm... Not to rain on anyone's parade, but all these new fandangled mini-notebooks with an Atom CPU, has anyone really tested that? Say in comparison to the MacBook Air C2D? I mean in this day and age, for something more in the "laptop" category rather than "phone" category, that MacBook Air CPU is the *bare minimum* for any sort of portable computing.
Mmm... Not to rain on anyone's parade, but all these new fandangled mini-notebooks with an Atom CPU, has anyone really tested that? Say in comparison to the MacBook Air C2D? I mean in this day and age, for something more in the "laptop" category rather than "phone" category, that MacBook Air CPU is the *bare minimum* for any sort of portable computing.
Oh, please. Most people use their laptop to surf the web, check their email, and type resumes. You've got a seriously warped view of computing if you thing the Macbook Air's CPU is the "bare minimum" for stuff like that.
I don't believe this will happen.. Oppenheimer clearly said that margins would be lower, but it will be transitioning a product or product line to new technologies that the competition can't compete with..
So the base $1099 MacBook is going to get a SuperDrive!
A thousand dollar laptop that can burn DVDs.
Lets see DELL and HP match that!
Of course this will eat into their margins as SuperDrives are far more expansive than Combo Drives.
But think of the market share growth this will drive.
Imagine if they put a SuperDrive in the $599 Mac mini!
I believe there is a 100% chance that Apple would benefit by knocking $200 to $250 off the MacBook and iMac, as a way of further boosting market share. To me, it seems an opportune time to take advantage of Microsoft's bumbling and cut into their market share lead, rather than giving them time to recover (which MS might do, eventually).
If this idea is really stupid, could someone please explain why?
Here's why...
Let's say that you were in watch sales (for a living) and were given the choice to sell Rolex or Timex. Clearly more Timex watches are sold than Rolex. Clearly it is easier to sell Timex than Rolex. However, you have to sell several thousand Timex watches to realize the same profit (not revenue, but profit, like the $$$ you get to keep) you realize by selling a single Rolex. Both business models work, but one is easier.
I hope Apple continues to do what it does best and I hope that Steve Jobs has a long and happy life because my life is better because of their strategy.
I, too, don't see what's horribly wrong about Apple selling more Macs...
There is another issues that Apple must deal with in regards to market share that many are not considering. GROWTH and how to manage it.
Apple sold 41% more Macs this past quarter than they did a year ago.
Apple sold 10% more iPods this past quarter than they did a year ago.
Revenue at its Retail stores grew 58% year over year.
40% growth is great but it is hard to manage.
If Apple suddenly drops their prices and demand increases, this will put added pressure on Apple's supply chain, more crowded stores, longer hold times on tech support lines, longer repair times, require increased staffing, etc...
Quality could suffer as well as the user experience.
Apple has worked hard to create a positive image after the debacle of the 1990s.
I'm all for lower prices but not at the expense of quality and excellence.
Combo drives are such a low-volume item they're typically more expensive than DVD burners.
they should drop that MB model. 1gig of ram and a combo drive. please. what a waste. dump it and drop the price on the other two $100-200
along with that move, I can see investigations into a better, more smudge resistant surface for touch devices as well as a shift into more of the solid state drives like they have in the Air as the prices come down.
they should drop that MB model. 1gig of ram and a combo drive. please. what a waste. dump it and drop the price on the other two $100-200
along with that move, I can see investigations into a better, more smudge resistant surface for touch devices as well as a shift into more of the solid state drives like they have in the Air as the prices come down.
No, look, dropping models is the problem. I'll use the Mac mini as an example. It started out (on Intel) with a 1.5GHz Core Solo processor, then up to 1.66GHz Core Duo, then to Core 2 Duo finally up to 2.0GHz. Pretty much the only change has been the CPU, the prices have remained the same- $599 and $799.
Now imagine if, instead of getting dropped, that 1.5GHz model had gotten a price cut. And another. And another, until you've got a $349 1.5GHz single-core mini. Sure, it's slow, but it's fast enough for the crap most people use computers for (myself included). And you can still spend $799 if you want 2.0GHz.
No, look, dropping models is the problem. I'll use the Mac mini as an example. It started out (on Intel) with a 1.5GHz Core Solo processor, then up to 1.66GHz Core Duo, then to Core 2 Duo finally up to 2.0GHz. Pretty much the only change has been the CPU, the prices have remained the same- $599 and $799.
This presumes that it is cheaper to make the older model. That simply isn't the case. In fact the cost of producing the older model often actually increases or becomes impossible once the components are no longer in mass production for the rest of the industry (i.e. the Core was replaced by the Core 2).
This presumes that it is cheaper to make the older model. That simply isn't the case. In fact the cost of producing the older model often actually increases or becomes impossible once the components are no longer in mass production for the rest of the industry (i.e. the Core was replaced by the Core 2).
Yes. You're taking what I said far too literally. Intel sells slow, cheap, modern single core processors. That 1.5GHz Core Solo was replaced by Intel with a 1.6GHz Core 2 model, which costs $30, compared to the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo used by the base mini at about $200. Those are retail prices, Apple pays less of course.
But what if Intel doesn't make 1.6 Core 2 models anymore?
Then Apple can't just cut the price for the model - they HAVE to update the processor.
So your logic would work for 6 months or maybe a year after initial release, but then Apple would have to possibly re-increase the price point when they are forced to use a newer model, which looks bad, or simply always have the Mac mini using 1 year old technology, which also looks bad.
But what if Intel doesn't make 1.6 Core 2 models anymore?
Then Apple can't just cut the price for the model - they HAVE to update the processor.
So your logic would work for 6 months or maybe a year after initial release, but then Apple would have to possibly re-increase the price point when they are forced to use a newer model, which looks bad, or simply always have the Mac mini using 1 year old technology, which also looks bad.
You're still taking me too literally here. What I'm saying is that Intel always has processors at that bottom-end price point, $25 or $30 or whatever. Apple won't use them because, for whatever reason, Apple seems to think that every generation must be faster than the previous generation.
Which is fine, faster is good. But it means that the one thing Apple does not do, that every other computer manufacturer does, is offer cheaper products in addition to faster ones. Because god forbid Apple actually try to sell computers to people who don't have a lot of money to spend.
Comments
Combo drives are such a low-volume item they're typically more expensive than DVD burners.
If they bought them now, that would be true. However, they're a pretty good indication that Apple stockpiles things like optical drives and LCD panels.
The Mac world really needs a subnotebook with an iPhone-like touch screen. Come on Steve, give it to us.
Alas, I misread the headline and thought for one joyous moment that it was predicting that Apple would have a subnotebook rather than a Sub-$1000 notebook.
The Mac world really needs a subnotebook with an iPhone-like touch screen. Come on Steve, give it to us.
HEY APPLE, get over the fear of dedicated GPU's already, would yaa! It's 2008, time to face that the smallest market share of PRO's (less than <1% of retail) don't make your bread and butter.
Release a sub tower and macbook with gaming and motion (Illustrator, Motion, Unreal 3, Doom), so the mac store people don't have to keep telling us, yeah, we know already, its the graphic card, then make the MBPro a quad core machine and be done with it, that's what separates them, a 4 core vs 2 core.
Man oh man, sure you won't find all the specs on a PC, but a PC for $599 can run doom and if hacked enough can even run OSX.
Geeesh.
...It's a... self-aware iPod...
In Soviet Russia, iPod turn YOU on.
Alas, I misread the headline and thought for one joyous moment that it was predicting that Apple would have a subnotebook rather than a Sub-$1000 notebook.
The Mac world really needs a subnotebook with an iPhone-like touch screen. Come on Steve, give it to us.
OK, so there's no touch screen, but the MSI Wind (a.k.a the Advent 4211 in PC World / Dixons in the UK) can run OSX. Even with the extra 75 bucks for a copy of Leopard it's still great value.
Advent 4211 (re-badged MSI Wind)
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/product/seo/219404
Mmm... Not to rain on anyone's parade, but all these new fandangled mini-notebooks with an Atom CPU, has anyone really tested that? Say in comparison to the MacBook Air C2D? I mean in this day and age, for something more in the "laptop" category rather than "phone" category, that MacBook Air CPU is the *bare minimum* for any sort of portable computing.
Oh, please. Most people use their laptop to surf the web, check their email, and type resumes. You've got a seriously warped view of computing if you thing the Macbook Air's CPU is the "bare minimum" for stuff like that.
I don't believe this will happen.. Oppenheimer clearly said that margins would be lower, but it will be transitioning a product or product line to new technologies that the competition can't compete with..
So the base $1099 MacBook is going to get a SuperDrive!
A thousand dollar laptop that can burn DVDs.
Lets see DELL and HP match that!
Of course this will eat into their margins as SuperDrives are far more expansive than Combo Drives.
But think of the market share growth this will drive.
Imagine if they put a SuperDrive in the $599 Mac mini!
My head is about to explode!
Of course this will eat into their margins as SuperDrives are far more expansive than Combo Drives.
Expansive or expensive? They aren't expensive anymore.
So the base $1099 MacBook is going to get a SuperDrive!
A thousand dollar laptop that can burn DVDs.
Lets see DELL and HP match that!
Of course this will eat into their margins as SuperDrives are far more expansive than Combo Drives.
But think of the market share growth this will drive.
Imagine if they put a SuperDrive in the $599 Mac mini!
My head is about to explode!
Expansive or expensive? They aren't expensive anymore.
My poor spelling aside, it was sarcasm.
Seriously, what I would love to see is 2 things...
MacBook mini = $999 11" sub notebook/tablet with SuperDrive
Mac mini = $499 with SuperDrive (add SSD option)
I believe there is a 100% chance that Apple would benefit by knocking $200 to $250 off the MacBook and iMac, as a way of further boosting market share. To me, it seems an opportune time to take advantage of Microsoft's bumbling and cut into their market share lead, rather than giving them time to recover (which MS might do, eventually).
If this idea is really stupid, could someone please explain why?
Here's why...
Let's say that you were in watch sales (for a living) and were given the choice to sell Rolex or Timex. Clearly more Timex watches are sold than Rolex. Clearly it is easier to sell Timex than Rolex. However, you have to sell several thousand Timex watches to realize the same profit (not revenue, but profit, like the $$$ you get to keep) you realize by selling a single Rolex. Both business models work, but one is easier.
I hope Apple continues to do what it does best and I hope that Steve Jobs has a long and happy life because my life is better because of their strategy.
I, too, don't see what's horribly wrong about Apple selling more Macs...
There is another issues that Apple must deal with in regards to market share that many are not considering. GROWTH and how to manage it.
Apple sold 41% more Macs this past quarter than they did a year ago.
Apple sold 10% more iPods this past quarter than they did a year ago.
Revenue at its Retail stores grew 58% year over year.
40% growth is great but it is hard to manage.
If Apple suddenly drops their prices and demand increases, this will put added pressure on Apple's supply chain, more crowded stores, longer hold times on tech support lines, longer repair times, require increased staffing, etc...
Quality could suffer as well as the user experience.
Apple has worked hard to create a positive image after the debacle of the 1990s.
I'm all for lower prices but not at the expense of quality and excellence.
Combo drives are such a low-volume item they're typically more expensive than DVD burners.
they should drop that MB model. 1gig of ram and a combo drive. please. what a waste. dump it and drop the price on the other two $100-200
along with that move, I can see investigations into a better, more smudge resistant surface for touch devices as well as a shift into more of the solid state drives like they have in the Air as the prices come down.
they should drop that MB model. 1gig of ram and a combo drive. please. what a waste. dump it and drop the price on the other two $100-200
along with that move, I can see investigations into a better, more smudge resistant surface for touch devices as well as a shift into more of the solid state drives like they have in the Air as the prices come down.
No, look, dropping models is the problem. I'll use the Mac mini as an example. It started out (on Intel) with a 1.5GHz Core Solo processor, then up to 1.66GHz Core Duo, then to Core 2 Duo finally up to 2.0GHz. Pretty much the only change has been the CPU, the prices have remained the same- $599 and $799.
Now imagine if, instead of getting dropped, that 1.5GHz model had gotten a price cut. And another. And another, until you've got a $349 1.5GHz single-core mini. Sure, it's slow, but it's fast enough for the crap most people use computers for (myself included). And you can still spend $799 if you want 2.0GHz.
No, look, dropping models is the problem. I'll use the Mac mini as an example. It started out (on Intel) with a 1.5GHz Core Solo processor, then up to 1.66GHz Core Duo, then to Core 2 Duo finally up to 2.0GHz. Pretty much the only change has been the CPU, the prices have remained the same- $599 and $799.
This presumes that it is cheaper to make the older model. That simply isn't the case. In fact the cost of producing the older model often actually increases or becomes impossible once the components are no longer in mass production for the rest of the industry (i.e. the Core was replaced by the Core 2).
This presumes that it is cheaper to make the older model. That simply isn't the case. In fact the cost of producing the older model often actually increases or becomes impossible once the components are no longer in mass production for the rest of the industry (i.e. the Core was replaced by the Core 2).
Yes. You're taking what I said far too literally. Intel sells slow, cheap, modern single core processors. That 1.5GHz Core Solo was replaced by Intel with a 1.6GHz Core 2 model, which costs $30, compared to the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo used by the base mini at about $200. Those are retail prices, Apple pays less of course.
Then Apple can't just cut the price for the model - they HAVE to update the processor.
So your logic would work for 6 months or maybe a year after initial release, but then Apple would have to possibly re-increase the price point when they are forced to use a newer model, which looks bad, or simply always have the Mac mini using 1 year old technology, which also looks bad.
But what if Intel doesn't make 1.6 Core 2 models anymore?
Then Apple can't just cut the price for the model - they HAVE to update the processor.
So your logic would work for 6 months or maybe a year after initial release, but then Apple would have to possibly re-increase the price point when they are forced to use a newer model, which looks bad, or simply always have the Mac mini using 1 year old technology, which also looks bad.
You're still taking me too literally here. What I'm saying is that Intel always has processors at that bottom-end price point, $25 or $30 or whatever. Apple won't use them because, for whatever reason, Apple seems to think that every generation must be faster than the previous generation.
Which is fine, faster is good. But it means that the one thing Apple does not do, that every other computer manufacturer does, is offer cheaper products in addition to faster ones. Because god forbid Apple actually try to sell computers to people who don't have a lot of money to spend.