I must be the exception, I have absolutely no desire to build a machine, I just wand a separate monitor, a couple of slots and maybe an extra drive bay.
Look down below your post. The fractures are already appearing.
But I should have used a less ambiguous phrase than "dream machine," which does imply a cost-no-object machine. I meant that everyone has their own firm idea of what the xMac should be and how it should serve and I've seen a lot of these threads turn into "wait, it was going to be X, not Y" or "but I need Z."
Still useless for leveraging OpenCL and OpenGL to their fullest, not to mention gaming or anything related to heavy crunching.
Until the Mac Pro gets 2 full PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots, or the outlandish thought of 3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots producing a Mid-Tower with a differing in x16/x4/x1 slots is not going to happen.
This year's Mac Pro is a stop gap as the industry moves forward to 32nm and OpenCL gets added to all Nvidia and ATi GPUs, not to mention Larabee.
This is the same kind of mistake you made with the 9400M. There are 2 full PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots. Just like the 9400M is OpenCL ready and probably better than the G110M you wanted.
Would it be wise for Apple to release a Mid tower? After the updates yesterday and plenty of people disappointed with the lack of a sizable upgrade, should Apple just release one? I know it would sell but where would it fit in? Between the Mini and the iMac? Between the iMac and the Mac Pro? If it is in between the Mini and the iMac it would most likely be under powered and over priced but if it is in between the iMac and the Mac Pro, it would be too expensive and under powered!
What specs would you like to see in a Apple mid-tower if they were to release one?
2.66 Intel Core2Quad with 6MB of Cache (an optional 3GHz)
2GB of 1GHz DDR3 RAM (upgradeable to 8GB)
The Integrated graphics from NVIDIA or a selection of ATI cards
20 or 24 inch LED Display
and all the other goodies that comes with Macs (bluetooth, Airport, etc.)
The ideal price point would be $1,599. Seems expensive but i would like it to include a screen bundled with it.
They just released such a machine, unfortunately it came with margin increases unheard of in even the Apple world. Literally they might have just gone from the high 30% range to near triple digits.
They just released such a machine, unfortunately it came with margin increases unheard of in even the Apple world. Literally they might have just gone from the high 30% range to near triple digits.
Let's be fair and say that will probable just triple the margins.
But...
You have to take into account Apple's secret goals:
- to move from 3% to 1% marketshare in the desktop segment in calendar year 2009 (a similar goal to the one for the original iPhone)
- not so secret: SJ himself told us that he doesn't want to address certain types of markets/customers, I guess that's about the two-thirds of their "Pro" customers.
Oh, and where's the new "workstation" video card for the "workstation" Mac Pro?
They just released such a machine, unfortunately it came with margin increases unheard of in even the Apple world. Literally they might have just gone from the high 30% range to near triple digits.
Processor $$$ x 3 or 4 for the MSRP (of course configurations are plentiful)
If the Xeon 3500 proc is truly $300 then Apple's Mac Pro base config is 8x the price.
That seems to corroborate Ben's point.
I think Apple's "hey the iMac can be an enthusiast computer too" is limiting. I think that the post Steve Jobs era will see Apple migrate to a more balanced lineup. I'm not convinced that Apple's current strategy hasn't cost them millions in sales over the last few years.
and costs $2206. That processor costs $230 from newEgg, and the x1000 price is probably half that, which gives you a 20x multiple at Dell. I think that both of you guys, plus all the Brits, will be wiping egg of your faces in a month when Dell comes out with their 5500 based workstations.
and costs $2206. That processor costs $230 from newEgg, and the x1000 price is probably half that, which gives you a 20x multiple at Dell. I think that both of you guys, plus all the Brits, will be wiping egg of your faces in a month when Dell comes out with their 5500 based workstations.
They'll probably be also coming out with their 3500 based machines as well. Your whole argument for the pricing of the 3500 based machines is comparing the machines above them. That's like saying the 20" iMac is a good deal because the 24" XPS one costs more than the 24" iMac.
What are you using to balance your assertion? Apple is executing far better than any other computer OEM. Its quite some speculation to say Apple could have done better if they'd done X. Often these recommendations are more in line with other OEM's are doing, repeating strategies that either don't offer revenue growth or are costing companies billions in revenue.
Dell is loosing so much money who knows what condition they will be in by the end of this recession. HP has not suffered the same loss, but who knows how long before they will hemorrhage money like Dell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
I think Apple's "hey the iMac can be an enthusiast computer too" is limiting. I think that the post Steve Jobs era will see Apple migrate to a more balanced lineup. I'm not convinced that Apple's current strategy hasn't cost them millions in sales over the last few years.
Processor $$$ x 3 or 4 for the MSRP (of course configurations are plentiful)
If the Xeon 3500 proc is truly $300 then Apple's Mac Pro base config is 8x the price.
That seems to corroborate Ben's point.
I think Apple's "hey the iMac can be an enthusiast computer too" is limiting. I think that the post Steve Jobs era will see Apple migrate to a more balanced lineup. I'm not convinced that Apple's current strategy hasn't cost them millions in sales over the last few years.
It probably has, I know I spent considerably less on my POS iMac than I would have on an affordable. Then again, why sell both to working Mac users and potential pro switchers and the trendy consumers when you can sell to the trendy consumers alone. We have to go with the Dr. evil logic.
Show your math, demonstrate that your margin argument has merit. In order to do that you have to have a parts cost breakdown.
I see what you mean. An assertion that Apple will be tripling their margins is really a joke. People who say these things have no idea at all how manufacturing works.
They think that they can say this because it appeals to others who want to hear it, and so will agree.
If Apple did that, when comparable machines come, and they will, Apple's sales would totally collapse. Apple isn't spending all that money on R&D, purchasing, contracts with their suppliers and manufacturers to have that happen. It's absurd!
What are you using to balance your assertion? Apple is executing far better than any other computer OEM. Its quite some speculation to say Apple could have done better if they'd done X. Often these recommendations are more in line with other OEM's are doing, repeating strategies that either don't offer revenue growth or are costing companies billions in revenue.
Dell is loosing so much money who knows what condition they will be in by the end of this recession. HP has not suffered the same loss, but who knows how long before they will hemorrhage money like Dell.
Probably the amount of creative professionals I run across that make their living or at least hobby doing stuff that would be great on a Mac Pro but those are beyond their budgets. Plus you have the legions of people with nice monitors that don't want to get rid of the monitor nor move to a slower platform like a mini.
I fully recognize that Apple is doing very well but who's to say that they wouldn't be millions of seats bigger with a more fleshed out range. Apple adherence to the AIO design is atypical of PC and there are thousands of people that love the AIO design but probably millions that don't mind keeping their monitor and base separate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
It probably has, I know I spent considerably less on my POS iMac than I would have on an affordable. Then again, why sell both to working Mac users and potential pro switchers and the trendy consumers when you can sell to the trendy consumers alone. We have to go with the Dr. evil logic.
I think the AIO is a good system up to a certain point and then it gets silly. Apple has never proven that AIO designs are desired by consumers. The iMac used to be sold with a nice $1600 Powermac so Apple users could choose easy setup or expansion.
Today we have an overstretched iMac that has gotten so thin it's silly and a Mac Pro lineup that simply feels out of touch with the market. It's great if you want a Workstation but some people just want to be able to toss in a RAID card or a variety of other cards readily available to PCs.
Is Apple's success a factor of great hardware or them usurping the Mac value added resellers with retail stores and online sales?
I see what you mean. An assertion that Apple will be tripling their margins is really a joke. People who say these things have no idea at all how manufacturing works.
They think that they can say this because it appeals to others who want to hear it, and so will agree.
If Apple did that, when comparable machines come, and they will, Apple's sales would totally collapse. Apple isn't spending all that money on R&D, purchasing, contracts with their suppliers and manufacturers to have that happen. It's absurd!
They have no Mac OS competition, where they collapse too? That market has too much money invested in the platform to easily switch.
Additional specs of the board include 14 SATA ports, one PCI-E x16 slot, two PCI-E x8 slots, and six DDR3 memory slots capable of up to 24GB with unbuffered DIMMs and 48GB with registered DIMM modules. Moreover, power is drawn using a 24 + 8 pin connector supporting both desktop ATX and server SSI power supplies.
14 SATA ports!!! Std ATX PS. We're going to see how close Apple is come March 28th when the embargoes end and everyone and their mamma has a 5500 system.
Probably the amount of creative professionals I run across that make their living or at least hobby doing stuff that would be great on a Mac Pro but those are beyond their budgets. Plus you have the legions of people with nice monitors that don't want to get rid of the monitor nor move to a slower platform like a mini.
I fully recognize that Apple is doing very well but who's to say that they wouldn't be millions of seats bigger with a more fleshed out range. Apple adherence to the AIO design is atypical of PC and there are thousands of people that love the AIO design but probably millions that don't mind keeping their monitor and base separate.
We can criticize Apple for not doing what we want them to do, or criticize them for doing what we don't want them to do, but there is no point to it.
Apple has its concept of what it wants to be as a company. They also have their ideas as to how they want to do it.
The only valid criticism of a company is that they aren't doing well relative to the industry they are in.
Is that the situation with Apple? If so, then criticism is in order, if not, then it isn't.
You can go to every company and complain that they don't make a product that many people would want—from your standpoint, you might be wrong as well.
But does it really matter? No, it doesn't.
People used to ask me why my companies didn't make this or that, or have these services or others. We didn't do that, that's why. And we didn't WANT to do that. That was OUR right. We had our plans.
Quote:
I think the AIO is a good system up to a certain point and then it gets silly. Apple has never proven that AIO designs are desired by consumers. The iMac used to be sold with a nice $1600 Powermac so Apple users could choose easy setup or expansion.
If Apple's goals, and we don't know what they are, are met, then they are sucessful with them.
The older Powermacs were different machines than the present ones. Apple has chosen to move in this direction. We can't say that it's wrong. From their perspective, it's right. They may very well be trying to sell only to higher end users. to separate their consumer lines from their professional/commercial lines.
We may not be happy about that. They may lose some customers, but it's their choice, and if they find that it does for them what they want it to, then it's the right choice for them.
Quote:
Today we have an overstretched iMac that has gotten so thin it's silly...
Consumers want thin. Makes sense? Not really, but when has the consumer ever made a choice based on sense?
Quote:
Is Apple's success a factor of great hardware or them usurping the Mac value added resellers with retail stores and online sales?
I don't even know what that question means! Every sale to a reseller means money and profit for Apple. I'm willing to bet that they make no more profit through their own stores. If you look at the profits of the retail devision, it's not that high. and they can't sell their wares to their stores for less than they would sell them to any other retailer of comparable sales.
Intel X58DP motherboard ~$500 (Roughly same as 5400 chipset)
Take $200 off that if its using the X58SP
3GB ECC DDR3 memory $84 (2GB DDR FB-DIMMs ($100 now much higher when 5400 Mac Pro was released)
Geforce 120GT ~$70 (Radeon 2600XT around $150 when first released in Mac Pro)
You forgot hard drives, CD drives, case, power supply, and assembly.
Does your graphics card support displayPort? If apple is an early adopter of displayPort (I don't know if they are or not), then those cards will cost more.
Comments
I must be the exception, I have absolutely no desire to build a machine, I just wand a separate monitor, a couple of slots and maybe an extra drive bay.
Look down below your post. The fractures are already appearing.
But I should have used a less ambiguous phrase than "dream machine," which does imply a cost-no-object machine. I meant that everyone has their own firm idea of what the xMac should be and how it should serve and I've seen a lot of these threads turn into "wait, it was going to be X, not Y" or "but I need Z."
Whence iBoard and Board Pro.
Still useless for leveraging OpenCL and OpenGL to their fullest, not to mention gaming or anything related to heavy crunching.
Until the Mac Pro gets 2 full PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots, or the outlandish thought of 3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots producing a Mid-Tower with a differing in x16/x4/x1 slots is not going to happen.
This year's Mac Pro is a stop gap as the industry moves forward to 32nm and OpenCL gets added to all Nvidia and ATi GPUs, not to mention Larabee.
This is the same kind of mistake you made with the 9400M. There are 2 full PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots. Just like the 9400M is OpenCL ready and probably better than the G110M you wanted.
Would it be wise for Apple to release a Mid tower? After the updates yesterday and plenty of people disappointed with the lack of a sizable upgrade, should Apple just release one? I know it would sell but where would it fit in? Between the Mini and the iMac? Between the iMac and the Mac Pro? If it is in between the Mini and the iMac it would most likely be under powered and over priced but if it is in between the iMac and the Mac Pro, it would be too expensive and under powered!
What specs would you like to see in a Apple mid-tower if they were to release one?
2.66 Intel Core2Quad with 6MB of Cache (an optional 3GHz)
2GB of 1GHz DDR3 RAM (upgradeable to 8GB)
The Integrated graphics from NVIDIA or a selection of ATI cards
20 or 24 inch LED Display
and all the other goodies that comes with Macs (bluetooth, Airport, etc.)
The ideal price point would be $1,599. Seems expensive but i would like it to include a screen bundled with it.
They just released such a machine, unfortunately it came with margin increases unheard of in even the Apple world. Literally they might have just gone from the high 30% range to near triple digits.
They just released such a machine, unfortunately it came with margin increases unheard of in even the Apple world. Literally they might have just gone from the high 30% range to near triple digits.
Let's be fair and say that will probable just triple the margins.
But...
You have to take into account Apple's secret goals:
- to move from 3% to 1% marketshare in the desktop segment in calendar year 2009 (a similar goal to the one for the original iPhone)
- not so secret: SJ himself told us that he doesn't want to address certain types of markets/customers, I guess that's about the two-thirds of their "Pro" customers.
Oh, and where's the new "workstation" video card for the "workstation" Mac Pro?
That was a nice update for the desktop Macs.
I renewed my vows with my Power Mac G4.
They just released such a machine, unfortunately it came with margin increases unheard of in even the Apple world. Literally they might have just gone from the high 30% range to near triple digits.
Show your math
Show your math
I always use somewhat of an unwritten rule.
Processor $$$ x 3 or 4 for the MSRP (of course configurations are plentiful)
If the Xeon 3500 proc is truly $300 then Apple's Mac Pro base config is 8x the price.
That seems to corroborate Ben's point.
I think Apple's "hey the iMac can be an enthusiast computer too" is limiting. I think that the post Steve Jobs era will see Apple migrate to a more balanced lineup. I'm not convinced that Apple's current strategy hasn't cost them millions in sales over the last few years.
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5405 (2.00GHz,2X6M L2,1333) [Included in Price]
and costs $2206. That processor costs $230 from newEgg, and the x1000 price is probably half that, which gives you a 20x multiple at Dell. I think that both of you guys, plus all the Brits, will be wiping egg of your faces in a month when Dell comes out with their 5500 based workstations.
I don't think that unwritten rule works well, inside or outside of apple. Look at the standard config on the Dell T7400. It has this processor:
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5405 (2.00GHz,2X6M L2,1333) [Included in Price]
and costs $2206. That processor costs $230 from newEgg, and the x1000 price is probably half that, which gives you a 20x multiple at Dell. I think that both of you guys, plus all the Brits, will be wiping egg of your faces in a month when Dell comes out with their 5500 based workstations.
They'll probably be also coming out with their 3500 based machines as well. Your whole argument for the pricing of the 3500 based machines is comparing the machines above them. That's like saying the 20" iMac is a good deal because the 24" XPS one costs more than the 24" iMac.
Show your math, demonstrate that your margin argument has merit. In order to do that you have to have a parts cost breakdown.
Dell is loosing so much money who knows what condition they will be in by the end of this recession. HP has not suffered the same loss, but who knows how long before they will hemorrhage money like Dell.
I think Apple's "hey the iMac can be an enthusiast computer too" is limiting. I think that the post Steve Jobs era will see Apple migrate to a more balanced lineup. I'm not convinced that Apple's current strategy hasn't cost them millions in sales over the last few years.
I always use somewhat of an unwritten rule.
Processor $$$ x 3 or 4 for the MSRP (of course configurations are plentiful)
If the Xeon 3500 proc is truly $300 then Apple's Mac Pro base config is 8x the price.
That seems to corroborate Ben's point.
I think Apple's "hey the iMac can be an enthusiast computer too" is limiting. I think that the post Steve Jobs era will see Apple migrate to a more balanced lineup. I'm not convinced that Apple's current strategy hasn't cost them millions in sales over the last few years.
It probably has, I know I spent considerably less on my POS iMac than I would have on an affordable. Then again, why sell both to working Mac users and potential pro switchers and the trendy consumers when you can sell to the trendy consumers alone. We have to go with the Dr. evil logic.
My whole argument is that your argument is crap.
Show your math, demonstrate that your margin argument has merit. In order to do that you have to have a parts cost breakdown.
I see what you mean. An assertion that Apple will be tripling their margins is really a joke. People who say these things have no idea at all how manufacturing works.
They think that they can say this because it appeals to others who want to hear it, and so will agree.
If Apple did that, when comparable machines come, and they will, Apple's sales would totally collapse. Apple isn't spending all that money on R&D, purchasing, contracts with their suppliers and manufacturers to have that happen. It's absurd!
What are you using to balance your assertion? Apple is executing far better than any other computer OEM. Its quite some speculation to say Apple could have done better if they'd done X. Often these recommendations are more in line with other OEM's are doing, repeating strategies that either don't offer revenue growth or are costing companies billions in revenue.
Dell is loosing so much money who knows what condition they will be in by the end of this recession. HP has not suffered the same loss, but who knows how long before they will hemorrhage money like Dell.
Probably the amount of creative professionals I run across that make their living or at least hobby doing stuff that would be great on a Mac Pro but those are beyond their budgets. Plus you have the legions of people with nice monitors that don't want to get rid of the monitor nor move to a slower platform like a mini.
I fully recognize that Apple is doing very well but who's to say that they wouldn't be millions of seats bigger with a more fleshed out range. Apple adherence to the AIO design is atypical of PC and there are thousands of people that love the AIO design but probably millions that don't mind keeping their monitor and base separate.
It probably has, I know I spent considerably less on my POS iMac than I would have on an affordable. Then again, why sell both to working Mac users and potential pro switchers and the trendy consumers when you can sell to the trendy consumers alone. We have to go with the Dr. evil logic.
I think the AIO is a good system up to a certain point and then it gets silly. Apple has never proven that AIO designs are desired by consumers. The iMac used to be sold with a nice $1600 Powermac so Apple users could choose easy setup or expansion.
Today we have an overstretched iMac that has gotten so thin it's silly and a Mac Pro lineup that simply feels out of touch with the market. It's great if you want a Workstation but some people just want to be able to toss in a RAID card or a variety of other cards readily available to PCs.
Is Apple's success a factor of great hardware or them usurping the Mac value added resellers with retail stores and online sales?
My whole argument is that your argument is crap.
Show your math, demonstrate that your margin argument has merit. In order to do that you have to have a parts cost breakdown.
Alright.
2.66ghz Xeon 3500 $284 (previous xeon 5400 $690)
Intel X58DP motherboard ~$500 (Roughly same as 5400 chipset)
Take $200 off that if its using the X58SP
3GB ECC DDR3 memory $84 (2GB DDR FB-DIMMs ($100 now much higher when 5400 Mac Pro was released)
Geforce 120GT ~$70 (Radeon 2600XT around $150 when first released in Mac Pro)
I see what you mean. An assertion that Apple will be tripling their margins is really a joke. People who say these things have no idea at all how manufacturing works.
They think that they can say this because it appeals to others who want to hear it, and so will agree.
If Apple did that, when comparable machines come, and they will, Apple's sales would totally collapse. Apple isn't spending all that money on R&D, purchasing, contracts with their suppliers and manufacturers to have that happen. It's absurd!
They have no Mac OS competition, where they collapse too? That market has too much money invested in the platform to easily switch.
Additional specs of the board include 14 SATA ports, one PCI-E x16 slot, two PCI-E x8 slots, and six DDR3 memory slots capable of up to 24GB with unbuffered DIMMs and 48GB with registered DIMM modules. Moreover, power is drawn using a 24 + 8 pin connector supporting both desktop ATX and server SSI power supplies.
14 SATA ports!!!
Probably the amount of creative professionals I run across that make their living or at least hobby doing stuff that would be great on a Mac Pro but those are beyond their budgets. Plus you have the legions of people with nice monitors that don't want to get rid of the monitor nor move to a slower platform like a mini.
I fully recognize that Apple is doing very well but who's to say that they wouldn't be millions of seats bigger with a more fleshed out range. Apple adherence to the AIO design is atypical of PC and there are thousands of people that love the AIO design but probably millions that don't mind keeping their monitor and base separate.
We can criticize Apple for not doing what we want them to do, or criticize them for doing what we don't want them to do, but there is no point to it.
Apple has its concept of what it wants to be as a company. They also have their ideas as to how they want to do it.
The only valid criticism of a company is that they aren't doing well relative to the industry they are in.
Is that the situation with Apple? If so, then criticism is in order, if not, then it isn't.
You can go to every company and complain that they don't make a product that many people would want—from your standpoint, you might be wrong as well.
But does it really matter? No, it doesn't.
People used to ask me why my companies didn't make this or that, or have these services or others. We didn't do that, that's why. And we didn't WANT to do that. That was OUR right. We had our plans.
I think the AIO is a good system up to a certain point and then it gets silly. Apple has never proven that AIO designs are desired by consumers. The iMac used to be sold with a nice $1600 Powermac so Apple users could choose easy setup or expansion.
If Apple's goals, and we don't know what they are, are met, then they are sucessful with them.
The older Powermacs were different machines than the present ones. Apple has chosen to move in this direction. We can't say that it's wrong. From their perspective, it's right. They may very well be trying to sell only to higher end users. to separate their consumer lines from their professional/commercial lines.
We may not be happy about that. They may lose some customers, but it's their choice, and if they find that it does for them what they want it to, then it's the right choice for them.
Today we have an overstretched iMac that has gotten so thin it's silly...
Consumers want thin. Makes sense? Not really, but when has the consumer ever made a choice based on sense?
Is Apple's success a factor of great hardware or them usurping the Mac value added resellers with retail stores and online sales?
I don't even know what that question means! Every sale to a reseller means money and profit for Apple. I'm willing to bet that they make no more profit through their own stores. If you look at the profits of the retail devision, it's not that high. and they can't sell their wares to their stores for less than they would sell them to any other retailer of comparable sales.
Alright.
2.66ghz Xeon 3500 $284 (previous xeon 5400 $690)
Intel X58DP motherboard ~$500 (Roughly same as 5400 chipset)
Take $200 off that if its using the X58SP
3GB ECC DDR3 memory $84 (2GB DDR FB-DIMMs ($100 now much higher when 5400 Mac Pro was released)
Geforce 120GT ~$70 (Radeon 2600XT around $150 when first released in Mac Pro)
You forgot hard drives, CD drives, case, power supply, and assembly.
Does your graphics card support displayPort? If apple is an early adopter of displayPort (I don't know if they are or not), then those cards will cost more.
They have no Mac OS competition, where they collapse too? That market has too much money invested in the platform to easily switch.
I'm not sure I completely understood that. Would you please reword it?