You keep mentioning the mythic quad core PC that is twice as fast and half as cheap as the iMac, but you never seem to present an actual machine or benchmarks that prove its performance.
I don't understand any comparison of performance to a desktop machine running using desktop-grade components that don't have the same size, noise, heat and power constraints that the iMac and Mac Mini has. If all they want is the best cost for performance without any other qualifiers then there is no Mac that will fit their needs.
This article clearly states that they feel the Mac mini is too expensive, while they felt the iMac is appropriately priced.
The article compares the Mac mini to the ASUS Nova P22 Mini-PC. The Nova P22 uses Intel GMA X300 and 667MHz DDR2 RAM. But claims the Mac mini is too expensive in comparison.
The context of my statement was about general desktop sales. Shipping numbers are going down year over year.
Probably because those consumers are satisfied with their machine. Mac Pro owners don't upgrade much either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You keep mentioning the mythic quad core PC that is twice as fast and half as cheap as the iMac, but you never seem to present an actual machine or benchmarks that prove its performance.
Consumers desktop purchase is quickly declining, enterprise and business purchases are largely propping up desktop sales. Apple is more of a consumer company than enterprise and business company.
You are combining 2 different markets to make your argument. Commercial sales is not the same market as professional use. Enterprise and business use is not "propping up" desktop sales, it's a subset. Design houses and the like do not, and will not, buy a laptop for design purposes—portability and the added cost of it is of no use in that setting, it is for consumers who want to take their computers to work in starbucks, or on an airplane. How many of those design houses you mentioned are using laptops on the desks of designers? A key market for Apple is still and always has been the design industry, that puts Apple in the business of marketing to business. Unfortunately, the only desktop, that fits in the budget of many design firms is the iMac. Many buy it, but only because it's the only choice. Many are just switching to PCs. I can almost guarantee you, that if Apple made a headless mac in the price range of the iMac minus the premium of using laptop guts or offset by a bump up in performance, their sales to the design industry and the turn around of upgrade in that industry would go up dramatically. Your argument is the circular argument. If Apple can be profitable selling to the smallest subset of desktops (AIO) which has the least appeal of any form factor overall, they can be even more profitable creating the computer legions of designers would use in the more desirable form factor overall. They don't care about portability, they care about performance for money without the cost of switching all their applications from the mac OS to windows. Again, Apple's success is not dependent on following the same strategy as windows PC sales. In fact, it goes directly against that model. Quoting the numbers of sales trends that represent PC sales is not all that relevant for Apple. If it was, using your logic, the best thing for Apple to do with their measly market share in a shrinking industry would be do do away with their computers all together and just sell iphones and ipods—that would be a very dark day. Fortunately, Apple's success in the computer arena fly directly in the face of the very numbers you are so fond of quoting.
Same reason they offer netbooks so early on. They want to cater to all markets.
No. It's because AIOs are more profitable than towers and they do sell. If they didn't sell they wouldn't bother (i.e. flop). Heck, they keep bringing out new versions to boot.
Netbooks sell like crazy...but not all that profitable.
No 4 processors? No sale for me. I guess I'll be waiting until fall to buy a new iMac.
I don't think the new low-power C2Qs have enough production to suit Apple's needs for this launch, but as some on this forum speculated Apple may be waiting until the SL launch before moving to these desktop chips. Since we know that SL will give a boost over Leopard I would expect the C2Q would come about 6 months after the SL release. That look to be about a year from now.
No. It's because AIOs are more profitable than towers and they do sell. If they didn't sell they wouldn't bother (i.e. flop). Heck, they keep bringing out new versions to boot.
Netbooks sell like crazy...but not all that profitable.
How can you say that? What are you basing that on? Well yes, technically you can say Apple is more profitable selling iMacs than mini-towers. That's only because they don't produce any mini-towers. Within the desktop market as a whole, (AIO) is a tiny, tiny market. Given the form factor and the added cost associated with using laptop parts in a cramped desktop format and associated thermal design constraints, I'm guessing the cost of producing an (AIO) vs. the cost of a minitower is higher. Lower production costs generally equal higher profits. As far as non-laptops go, Apple only sells workstations, (AIO), and what amounts to a beefed up desktop version of a netbook. They don't sell a mid-range headless Mac so how do you know it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so? If the number of posters on the various design and photo forums I see desperate for one is any indication, I think they'd fly off the shelves.
How can you say that? What are you basing that on? Well yes, technically you can say Apple is more profitable selling iMacs than mini-towers. That's only because they don't produce any mini-towers. Within the desktop market as a whole, (AIO) is a tiny, tiny market. Given the form factor and the added cost associated with using laptop parts in a cramped desktop format and associated thermal design constraints, I'm guessing the cost of producing an (AIO) vs. the cost of a minitower is higher. Lower production costs generally equal higher profits. As far as non-laptops go, Apple only sells workstations, (AIO), and what amounts to a beefed up desktop version of a netbook. They don't sell a mid-range headless Mac so how do you know it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so? If the number of posters on the various design and photo forums I see desperate for one is any indication, I think they'd fly off the shelves.
Fly off the shelves, yes, but be highly profitable, perhaps not. As Vinea has been stating, unit sales do not equal profit. Apple has shown that it does not want to enter into the high-volume, low-profit, cut-throat markets that are killing many of the other vendors. They don't compete with cheap notebooks either. I think the same reasons why Apple doesn't sell a $400 16" notebook with VGA and PCMCIA ports applies to why Apple doesn't want to sell a headless Mac.
While I will agree that desktop parts are cheaper than the mobile parts used in the iMac. Looking over this machine. There are a few more nitpicks that would slightly increase the price. This machine has 3GB of RAM and a 500GB HDD. The iMac comes with 4GB of RAM and a 1TB HDD.
Over all people have a choice if they feel comfortable buying a computer from an unknown company with an unknown customer service track record, they are free to do so.
Looking at the benchmarks. You pick the benchamark that tests 3D rendering to show the speed difference between Core i7 and Core Duo. Core i7 has an advantage with 3D rendering in that the software is optimized for quads and hyperthreading.
Looking at the clock for clock comparison the Core 2 Duo E8500 gets a 3905.0, the Core i7 920 gets 3751.0. Straight processor for processor a faster Core 2 Duo still beats a slower Core i7.
Since the far majority of desktops are not being used for 3D rendering. For most practical purposes this still does not show a desktop that is half the cost of the iMac at twice the performance.
You are combining 2 different markets to make your argument. Commercial sales is not the same market as professional use. Enterprise and business use is not "propping up" desktop sales, it's a subset.
Yes these are two different markets, but over all PC sales numbers don't delineate between the two. My over all point is that consumer desktop sales are plummeting.
Quote:
Design houses and the like do not, and will not, buy a laptop for design purposes—portability and the added cost of it is of no use in that setting, it is for consumers who want to take their computers to work in starbucks, or on an airplane. How many of those design houses you mentioned are using laptops on the desks of designers? A key market for Apple is still and always has been the design industry, that puts Apple in the business of marketing to business. Unfortunately, the only desktop, that fits in the budget of many design firms is the iMac. Many buy it, but only because it's the only choice. Many are just switching to PCs. I can almost guarantee you, that if Apple made a headless mac in the price range of the iMac minus the premium of using laptop guts or offset by a bump up in performance, their sales to the design industry and the turn around of upgrade in that industry would go up dramatically.
I addressed this in my last post. Design houses are still using the Power Mac G5. The machines still works fine and they don't update until they really feel they need to. Design houses will use a machine for years and only replace it when they feel they need to.
Quote:
Your argument is the circular argument. If Apple can be profitable selling to the smallest subset of desktops (AIO) which has the least appeal of any form factor overall, they can be even more profitable creating the computer legions of designers would use in the more desirable form factor overall.
Design houses are a fairly small market and don't purchase that many machines, they don't need a specially designed machine.
Quote:
They don't care about portability, they care about performance for money without the cost of switching all their applications from the mac OS to windows.
Everyone is using notebooks these days. Everything doesn't happen in one office and you cannot haul a desktop everywhere you go.
Quote:
Quoting the numbers of sales trends that represent PC sales is not all that relevant for Apple. If it was, using your logic, the best thing for Apple to do with their measly market share in a shrinking industry would be do do away with their computers all together and just sell iphones and ipods—that would be a very dark day. Fortunately, Apple's success in the computer arena fly directly in the face of the very numbers you are so fond of quoting.
PC means personal computer, Apple is in the personal computer business and is effected by the long term sales trends.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion Apple should do away with computers. The numbers show computers are a profitable business. Parts of the market are more profitable than others.
Its clear how Apple is adjusting its products to meet the long term sales trends. Notebooks and smartphones are the biggest sellers. Apple has just had a major refresh of its notebooks and the iPod Touch. Apple will likely introduce a new iPhone in the summer.
How can you say that? What are you basing that on?
Apple margins vs HP and Dell margins. Apple ASPs vs HP and Dell ASPs (average sale price).
Quote:
Well yes, technically you can say Apple is more profitable selling iMacs than mini-towers.
No technicality. Dell's profits tumbled 48%. HP's fell 13%. Apple? Record profits. Gross margins 34.7%.
Quote:
That's only because they don't produce any mini-towers. Within the desktop market as a whole, (AIO) is a tiny, tiny market.
A "tiny tiny" profitable market. Somewhere around 600-700K/qtr. (29% of 2.5M macs last qtr.)
2.4M machines per year with around a $1600 ASP ($1199-$2199) and 34% margins = $1.3B gross profit.
Quote:
Given the form factor and the added cost associated with using laptop parts in a cramped desktop format and associated thermal design constraints, I'm guessing the cost of producing an (AIO) vs. the cost of a minitower is higher.
Costs aren't THAT much higher given the current volumes. What's the added cost in making a $299 netbook vs a tower? But AIOs SELL for a LOT more. Try selling the base iMac as a tower for $1,199.
I don't care if you're Apple. You can't win an "apples to apples" comparison with 34% margins. Sony couldn't, Toshiba couldn't, etc.
Quote:
Lower production costs generally equal higher profits.
Higher margins and higher ASPs equal higher profits.
Quote:
As far as non-laptops go, Apple only sells workstations, (AIO), and what amounts to a beefed up desktop version of a netbook. They don't sell a mid-range headless Mac so how do you know it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so?
Because it would cannibalize their much higher margin and priced AIO, SFF and workstation sales. Both margin and ASPs matter. Take the mini vs iMac.
Sell 1000 $600 machines vs 1000 $1200 machines. Same margins on each. Make half as much. This is why netbooks suck for Dell and HP. Even assuming the margins are the same on the netbooks as a notebook they still get hammered because some percentage of netbooks replace notebook sales at a higher ASP.
This is why the mini gets no love. This is the best time for a mini ever. The spread between the mini and the iMac is the lowest ever. Apple isn't hoping for a lot of Mini sales here...because too much would simply suck their ASPs down too far.
This is why no Apple netbook. This is why there won't be an Apple netbook.
But you might see a 8-10" iPod Ion based tablet...priced around $600-$700. Just crappy enough not to hurt Macbook sales too much. Just good enough to be an awesome iPod/Gamepad/eBook.
You know, thinking about it...I wouldn't be too surprised if Dell was selling as many AIOs as Alienware boxes. In 2005 Alienware pulled in $170M in revenue. Assuming a $2000 ASP that's only 85,000 machines.
Can Dell sell 25K-50K AIOs in a quarter when Apple can sell 500K+? Probably. There are probably 1 in 10 folks out there that wanted an AIO but with Windows.
Is it likely that Dell sells as many or more AIOs than Alienware branded machines? No. Would it be surprising? No, not given Alienware's historically low sales and high ASPs.
An affordable mid-range option that offers buyers the ability to choose their own monitor is not the same thing as cheap crap that falls outside of Apple's design philosophy. There is NO reason to believe another optional form factor in the midrange other than the iMac would be any less profitable for Apple or that they can't create a product with crossover appeal for desktops—none. The machine I'm talking about is certainly not my great idea, it's just the "Maxi" others have talked about elsewhere. Something along the lines of an elongated, taller, mini (maybe with more ventilation around the side) with an easily opened lid that allows for iMac speed processors, a 7200 rpm HD, and a discrete graphics card the user can update later with newer cards if they want, and however much extra RAM that size would allow (no less than 8 gigs at the top end). It could be a good bit larger than the mini and still be very, very small—the mini is tiny. They could simply due away with the mini all together and allow a larger range of BTO options. Start with what is now the bottom of the mini and go up as high as what's in an iMac with the faster HHDs.
The production cost of more BTO options doesn't go up just because the number of options they offer does. They still have to put in an HD, RAM, and a video card in the thing— it doesn't cost any more for the poor Shmoe in China to grab from a slightly larger set options on the assembly line to fill the same number of holes in the same case. Include a "u" shaped adapter (or hell, sell it as an extra for another $19.99) so you can turn it on it's side. In usability terms it is still small enough to feel "mini". You can stick it behind your LCD or anywhere else a mini would fit.
They might be able to ad to the cool factor or give it the "ipod vibe" if it boosts "cuteness" sales by offering the same anodized colors Apple offers in their colored ipods. 3Rd party or Apple themselves could sell skins that stick to the top and bottom if you turn it on it's side to appeal to people who are into that sort of thing (college kids and such). Does it need another differentiating gimmick? I don't think it would but Apple could build a flip up ipod dock in the lid as a BTO so you could charge your color coordinated iPod with it. Maybe something more extreme like a more curved case if that wouldn't reduce the size of internal space too much. Make it shaped like a much, much larger version of the ipod nano but not as shallow. Attach the guts on a modular chassis to one end on the inside, and let half of the entire tube slide away for access—whatever they can come up with to ad their "Apple touch" to it that makes it different from just another desktop—whatever it takes to "iPod" or "iPhone" the thing up a little. I'm sure they can come up with better ideas than I just did. One simple but stylish case with Apple's understated aesthetics, low production costs (doesn't mean low profit margin), and more attractive options to more possible customers.
If you need a workstation, your still gonna buy a Mac pro. People who want an AIO are still gonna buy the iMac. If you don't want an iMac and you don't need or can afford the Mac Pro, you now have an option. People who want the mini will just buy the entry BTO. "But it will cannibalize iMac sales" maybe to a small degree, but WHO CARES? a sale is a sale. It will also bring in more sales than not offering more options to the consumer. They don't have to give it away, it doesn't have to be cheap crap. They can still sell it at a high profit margin, just minus the cost of the monitor. That thing would sell like nobody's business even if the numbers of HP and Dell desktops sales are declining. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Apple could bring some of the excitement of the iPod into the headless desktop arena. Apple's success has come from their talent for taking a part of an existing market and redefining a very small chunk of it to claim as their own where they are basically the only one competing in it. People who write off the desktop as impossible for Apple to succeed in with anything other than the iMac are simply selling Apple too short (this includes Steve Jobs).
Wow finally Apple customers who are a little put off by the current lineup/pricing situation?! I'm not alone!
I will admit the only reason I bought my 20in iMac for graphic design work was due to three things:
1. I wanted to use my 24in PVA matte screen so I bought the cheapest iMac to hook up to it
2. I was only doing freelance 4-8 hours after hours from my regular job
3. No way I was going to shell out $3k+ for a Mac Pro.
Now I'm doing freelance full time and being limited to 4GB of ram on my current iMac is not going well. (I also do photo editing and now getting requests for some video editing) and again I feel I'm in a horrible situation that Apple has placed me in. (Because I love OSX and I really don't want to go back to windows)
I can build (yes, it is very very simple) a new core i7 system, dedicated card, 12GB DDR3, 2X 1TB HD's etc for under $1,600... or get another iMac with a glossy screen I can't use (yes I hate them) and add 2x 4GB DDR3 chips in it for $2,400 or get an 8 Core Mac Pro and put 3rd party ram/HD for over $4k! So I can build a PC and buy a laptop for the same price as the Mac Pro, which one sounds like the smarter choice?
Sorry Apple but I cannot justify paying over 1.5x more for an imac I don't want or 2.5x more for a Mac Pro with a new starting cost of $3,600 (with applecare and wireless card) and this is why there is a lot of anger here.
Wow finally Apple customers who are a little put off by the current lineup/pricing situation?! I'm not alone!
I will admit the only reason I bought my 20in iMac for graphic design work was due to three things:
1. I wanted to use my 24in PVA matte screen so I bought the cheapest iMac to hook up to it
2. I was only doing freelance 4-8 hours after hours from my regular job
3. No way I was going to shell out $3k+ for a Mac Pro.
Now I'm doing freelance full time and being limited to 4GB of ram on my current iMac is not going well. (I also do photo editing and now getting requests for some video editing) and again I feel I'm in a horrible situation that Apple has placed me in. (Because I love OSX and I really don't want to go back to windows)
I can build (yes, it is very very simple) a new core i7 system, dedicated card, 12GB DDR3, 2X 1TB HD's etc for under $1,600... or get another iMac with a glossy screen I can't use (yes I hate them) and add 2x 4GB DDR3 chips in it for $2,400 or get an 8 Core Mac Pro and put 3rd party ram/HD for over $4k! So I can build a PC and buy a laptop for the same price as the Mac Pro, which one sounds like the smarter choice?
Sorry Apple but I cannot justify paying over 1.5x more for an imac I don't want or 2.5x more for a Mac Pro with a new starting cost of $3,600 (with applecare and wireless card) and this is why there is a lot of anger here.
One thing I've learned lately: Apple sycophants abound. Blind following of corporations is thriving. Have you ever seen an old 70s movie called, "Roller Ball" where corporate allegiance replaces common sense? Dramatic analogy? Maybe. Maybe not. Apple consumers are fast acquiring the same ability to rationalize taking what they get vs. getting what they seek in the manner windows users have grown accustomed to. It matters less what I can use than what the masters says I should want. Remember Apple's first commercial referencing Orwell's 1984? So ironic. So accurate. So sad. I am anticipating new and good things from "android" in the coming years. Apple should worry. If you become complacent, someone will come along and eat your lunch.
The blind Apple followers argument is a cheap shot from someone who has no argument based on facts.
You simply want to accuse Apple without taking into account the current state of the computer industry or the current state of the world economy. We have attempted to present to you the reason from the business side of Apple's choices and you completely ignore those facts and realities without actually presenting any facts of your own.
The reason you've stated you feel Apple should build another desktop line is because you believe Apple should be able to come up with some mythical "new and innovative" desktop that will increase sales during a time when desktop sales are projected to plunge 31%. You have no idea what new and innovative desktop Apple could invent that would accomplish this task, nor do you have any evidence if Apple did create such a desktop if this strategy would even work.
Seeing as how Dell has lost over 40% of its profits and HP has lost 13% of its profits, Apple has still remained profitable. Its pretty clear Apple doesn't feel they have the mythical desktop that will increase sales. Therefore Apple is hunkering down and will wait out the worst parts of the recession. Many of us that you wish to call sycophants are simply saying looking at the reality of world economy this seems to be a reasonable plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
One thing I've learned lately: Apple sycophants abound. Blind following of corporations is thriving. Have you ever seen an old 70s movie called, "Roller Ball" where corporate allegiance replaces common sense? Dramatic analogy? Maybe. Maybe not. Apple consumers are fast acquiring the same ability to rationalize taking what they get vs. getting what they seek in the manner windows users have grown accustomed to. It matters less what I can use than what the masters says I should want. Remember Apple's first commercial referencing Orwell's 1984? So ironic. So accurate. So sad. I am anticipating new and good things from "android" in the coming years. Apple should worry. If you become complacent, someone will come along and eat your lunch.
Comments
You keep mentioning the mythic quad core PC that is twice as fast and half as cheap as the iMac, but you never seem to present an actual machine or benchmarks that prove its performance.
I don't understand any comparison of performance to a desktop machine running using desktop-grade components that don't have the same size, noise, heat and power constraints that the iMac and Mac Mini has. If all they want is the best cost for performance without any other qualifiers then there is no Mac that will fit their needs.
This article clearly states that they feel the Mac mini is too expensive, while they felt the iMac is appropriately priced.
The article compares the Mac mini to the ASUS Nova P22 Mini-PC. The Nova P22 uses Intel GMA X300 and 667MHz DDR2 RAM. But claims the Mac mini is too expensive in comparison.
They are not comparable at all. Specs: http://promos.asus.com/US/evensite/Nova/index.htm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=
And let alone the cheapest version of an inferior OS, i.e., Vista Home Premium.
But then again, I may be a little biased, not knowing things like the following are available: http://www.shopping.com/xPF-Tiger_Ma..._v10_4_3_Tiger
The context of my statement was about general desktop sales. Shipping numbers are going down year over year.
Probably because those consumers are satisfied with their machine. Mac Pro owners don't upgrade much either.
You keep mentioning the mythic quad core PC that is twice as fast and half as cheap as the iMac, but you never seem to present an actual machine or benchmarks that prove its performance.
http://www.overclock.co.uk/product/E...g-PC_6719.html
£842
Now ok, it doesn't include a display but you can add an E-IPS for £200. The 3.06GHz mobile chip iMac is £1800.
benchmarks:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-965-review/10
The faster 3.16GHz desktop Core 2 Duo desktop gets 7526, the Core i7 920 gets 15211.
Therefore, a current i7 PC tower is twice as fast and around half the price if you budget your display choice properly.
If the AIOs are such a flop, why do Dell, Sony, HP and Gateway all offer them? Are they all idiots?
Same reason they offer netbooks so early on. They want to cater to all markets.
Consumers desktop purchase is quickly declining, enterprise and business purchases are largely propping up desktop sales. Apple is more of a consumer company than enterprise and business company.
You are combining 2 different markets to make your argument. Commercial sales is not the same market as professional use. Enterprise and business use is not "propping up" desktop sales, it's a subset. Design houses and the like do not, and will not, buy a laptop for design purposes—portability and the added cost of it is of no use in that setting, it is for consumers who want to take their computers to work in starbucks, or on an airplane. How many of those design houses you mentioned are using laptops on the desks of designers? A key market for Apple is still and always has been the design industry, that puts Apple in the business of marketing to business. Unfortunately, the only desktop, that fits in the budget of many design firms is the iMac. Many buy it, but only because it's the only choice. Many are just switching to PCs. I can almost guarantee you, that if Apple made a headless mac in the price range of the iMac minus the premium of using laptop guts or offset by a bump up in performance, their sales to the design industry and the turn around of upgrade in that industry would go up dramatically. Your argument is the circular argument. If Apple can be profitable selling to the smallest subset of desktops (AIO) which has the least appeal of any form factor overall, they can be even more profitable creating the computer legions of designers would use in the more desirable form factor overall. They don't care about portability, they care about performance for money without the cost of switching all their applications from the mac OS to windows. Again, Apple's success is not dependent on following the same strategy as windows PC sales. In fact, it goes directly against that model. Quoting the numbers of sales trends that represent PC sales is not all that relevant for Apple. If it was, using your logic, the best thing for Apple to do with their measly market share in a shrinking industry would be do do away with their computers all together and just sell iphones and ipods—that would be a very dark day. Fortunately, Apple's success in the computer arena fly directly in the face of the very numbers you are so fond of quoting.
Same reason they offer netbooks so early on. They want to cater to all markets.
No. It's because AIOs are more profitable than towers and they do sell. If they didn't sell they wouldn't bother (i.e. flop). Heck, they keep bringing out new versions to boot.
Netbooks sell like crazy...but not all that profitable.
They are not comparable at all. Specs: http://promos.asus.com/US/evensite/Nova/index.htm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=
And let alone the cheapest version of an inferior OS, i.e., Vista Home Premium.
Vista is going to be a bit boggy on 1GB. OSX seems happy. Need to order a 4GB kit.
No 4 processors? No sale for me. I guess I'll be waiting until fall to buy a new iMac.
I don't think the new low-power C2Qs have enough production to suit Apple's needs for this launch, but as some on this forum speculated Apple may be waiting until the SL launch before moving to these desktop chips. Since we know that SL will give a boost over Leopard I would expect the C2Q would come about 6 months after the SL release. That look to be about a year from now.
No. It's because AIOs are more profitable than towers and they do sell. If they didn't sell they wouldn't bother (i.e. flop). Heck, they keep bringing out new versions to boot.
Netbooks sell like crazy...but not all that profitable.
How can you say that? What are you basing that on? Well yes, technically you can say Apple is more profitable selling iMacs than mini-towers. That's only because they don't produce any mini-towers. Within the desktop market as a whole, (AIO) is a tiny, tiny market. Given the form factor and the added cost associated with using laptop parts in a cramped desktop format and associated thermal design constraints, I'm guessing the cost of producing an (AIO) vs. the cost of a minitower is higher. Lower production costs generally equal higher profits. As far as non-laptops go, Apple only sells workstations, (AIO), and what amounts to a beefed up desktop version of a netbook. They don't sell a mid-range headless Mac so how do you know it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so? If the number of posters on the various design and photo forums I see desperate for one is any indication, I think they'd fly off the shelves.
How can you say that? What are you basing that on? Well yes, technically you can say Apple is more profitable selling iMacs than mini-towers. That's only because they don't produce any mini-towers. Within the desktop market as a whole, (AIO) is a tiny, tiny market. Given the form factor and the added cost associated with using laptop parts in a cramped desktop format and associated thermal design constraints, I'm guessing the cost of producing an (AIO) vs. the cost of a minitower is higher. Lower production costs generally equal higher profits. As far as non-laptops go, Apple only sells workstations, (AIO), and what amounts to a beefed up desktop version of a netbook. They don't sell a mid-range headless Mac so how do you know it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so? If the number of posters on the various design and photo forums I see desperate for one is any indication, I think they'd fly off the shelves.
Fly off the shelves, yes, but be highly profitable, perhaps not. As Vinea has been stating, unit sales do not equal profit. Apple has shown that it does not want to enter into the high-volume, low-profit, cut-throat markets that are killing many of the other vendors. They don't compete with cheap notebooks either. I think the same reasons why Apple doesn't sell a $400 16" notebook with VGA and PCMCIA ports applies to why Apple doesn't want to sell a headless Mac.
Over all people have a choice if they feel comfortable buying a computer from an unknown company with an unknown customer service track record, they are free to do so.
Looking at the benchmarks. You pick the benchamark that tests 3D rendering to show the speed difference between Core i7 and Core Duo. Core i7 has an advantage with 3D rendering in that the software is optimized for quads and hyperthreading.
Looking at the clock for clock comparison the Core 2 Duo E8500 gets a 3905.0, the Core i7 920 gets 3751.0. Straight processor for processor a faster Core 2 Duo still beats a slower Core i7.
Since the far majority of desktops are not being used for 3D rendering. For most practical purposes this still does not show a desktop that is half the cost of the iMac at twice the performance.
.
http://www.overclock.co.uk/product/E...g-PC_6719.html
£842
Now ok, it doesn't include a display but you can add an E-IPS for £200. The 3.06GHz mobile chip iMac is £1800.
benchmarks:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-965-review/10
The faster 3.16GHz desktop Core 2 Duo desktop gets 7526, the Core i7 920 gets 15211.
Therefore, a current i7 PC tower is twice as fast and around half the price if you budget your display choice properly.
You are combining 2 different markets to make your argument. Commercial sales is not the same market as professional use. Enterprise and business use is not "propping up" desktop sales, it's a subset.
Yes these are two different markets, but over all PC sales numbers don't delineate between the two. My over all point is that consumer desktop sales are plummeting.
Design houses and the like do not, and will not, buy a laptop for design purposes—portability and the added cost of it is of no use in that setting, it is for consumers who want to take their computers to work in starbucks, or on an airplane. How many of those design houses you mentioned are using laptops on the desks of designers? A key market for Apple is still and always has been the design industry, that puts Apple in the business of marketing to business. Unfortunately, the only desktop, that fits in the budget of many design firms is the iMac. Many buy it, but only because it's the only choice. Many are just switching to PCs. I can almost guarantee you, that if Apple made a headless mac in the price range of the iMac minus the premium of using laptop guts or offset by a bump up in performance, their sales to the design industry and the turn around of upgrade in that industry would go up dramatically.
I addressed this in my last post. Design houses are still using the Power Mac G5. The machines still works fine and they don't update until they really feel they need to. Design houses will use a machine for years and only replace it when they feel they need to.
Your argument is the circular argument. If Apple can be profitable selling to the smallest subset of desktops (AIO) which has the least appeal of any form factor overall, they can be even more profitable creating the computer legions of designers would use in the more desirable form factor overall.
Design houses are a fairly small market and don't purchase that many machines, they don't need a specially designed machine.
They don't care about portability, they care about performance for money without the cost of switching all their applications from the mac OS to windows.
Everyone is using notebooks these days. Everything doesn't happen in one office and you cannot haul a desktop everywhere you go.
Quoting the numbers of sales trends that represent PC sales is not all that relevant for Apple. If it was, using your logic, the best thing for Apple to do with their measly market share in a shrinking industry would be do do away with their computers all together and just sell iphones and ipods—that would be a very dark day. Fortunately, Apple's success in the computer arena fly directly in the face of the very numbers you are so fond of quoting.
PC means personal computer, Apple is in the personal computer business and is effected by the long term sales trends.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion Apple should do away with computers. The numbers show computers are a profitable business. Parts of the market are more profitable than others.
Its clear how Apple is adjusting its products to meet the long term sales trends. Notebooks and smartphones are the biggest sellers. Apple has just had a major refresh of its notebooks and the iPod Touch. Apple will likely introduce a new iPhone in the summer.
How can you say that? What are you basing that on?
Apple margins vs HP and Dell margins. Apple ASPs vs HP and Dell ASPs (average sale price).
Well yes, technically you can say Apple is more profitable selling iMacs than mini-towers.
No technicality. Dell's profits tumbled 48%. HP's fell 13%. Apple? Record profits. Gross margins 34.7%.
That's only because they don't produce any mini-towers. Within the desktop market as a whole, (AIO) is a tiny, tiny market.
A "tiny tiny" profitable market. Somewhere around 600-700K/qtr. (29% of 2.5M macs last qtr.)
2.4M machines per year with around a $1600 ASP ($1199-$2199) and 34% margins = $1.3B gross profit.
Given the form factor and the added cost associated with using laptop parts in a cramped desktop format and associated thermal design constraints, I'm guessing the cost of producing an (AIO) vs. the cost of a minitower is higher.
Costs aren't THAT much higher given the current volumes. What's the added cost in making a $299 netbook vs a tower? But AIOs SELL for a LOT more. Try selling the base iMac as a tower for $1,199.
I don't care if you're Apple. You can't win an "apples to apples" comparison with 34% margins. Sony couldn't, Toshiba couldn't, etc.
Lower production costs generally equal higher profits.
Higher margins and higher ASPs equal higher profits.
As far as non-laptops go, Apple only sells workstations, (AIO), and what amounts to a beefed up desktop version of a netbook. They don't sell a mid-range headless Mac so how do you know it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so?
Because it would cannibalize their much higher margin and priced AIO, SFF and workstation sales. Both margin and ASPs matter. Take the mini vs iMac.
Sell 1000 $600 machines vs 1000 $1200 machines. Same margins on each. Make half as much. This is why netbooks suck for Dell and HP. Even assuming the margins are the same on the netbooks as a notebook they still get hammered because some percentage of netbooks replace notebook sales at a higher ASP.
This is why the mini gets no love. This is the best time for a mini ever. The spread between the mini and the iMac is the lowest ever. Apple isn't hoping for a lot of Mini sales here...because too much would simply suck their ASPs down too far.
This is why no Apple netbook. This is why there won't be an Apple netbook.
But you might see a 8-10" iPod Ion based tablet...priced around $600-$700. Just crappy enough not to hurt Macbook sales too much. Just good enough to be an awesome iPod/Gamepad/eBook.
Can Dell sell 25K-50K AIOs in a quarter when Apple can sell 500K+? Probably. There are probably 1 in 10 folks out there that wanted an AIO but with Windows.
Is it likely that Dell sells as many or more AIOs than Alienware branded machines? No. Would it be surprising? No, not given Alienware's historically low sales and high ASPs.
The production cost of more BTO options doesn't go up just because the number of options they offer does. They still have to put in an HD, RAM, and a video card in the thing— it doesn't cost any more for the poor Shmoe in China to grab from a slightly larger set options on the assembly line to fill the same number of holes in the same case. Include a "u" shaped adapter (or hell, sell it as an extra for another $19.99) so you can turn it on it's side. In usability terms it is still small enough to feel "mini". You can stick it behind your LCD or anywhere else a mini would fit.
They might be able to ad to the cool factor or give it the "ipod vibe" if it boosts "cuteness" sales by offering the same anodized colors Apple offers in their colored ipods. 3Rd party or Apple themselves could sell skins that stick to the top and bottom if you turn it on it's side to appeal to people who are into that sort of thing (college kids and such). Does it need another differentiating gimmick? I don't think it would but Apple could build a flip up ipod dock in the lid as a BTO so you could charge your color coordinated iPod with it. Maybe something more extreme like a more curved case if that wouldn't reduce the size of internal space too much. Make it shaped like a much, much larger version of the ipod nano but not as shallow. Attach the guts on a modular chassis to one end on the inside, and let half of the entire tube slide away for access—whatever they can come up with to ad their "Apple touch" to it that makes it different from just another desktop—whatever it takes to "iPod" or "iPhone" the thing up a little. I'm sure they can come up with better ideas than I just did. One simple but stylish case with Apple's understated aesthetics, low production costs (doesn't mean low profit margin), and more attractive options to more possible customers.
If you need a workstation, your still gonna buy a Mac pro. People who want an AIO are still gonna buy the iMac. If you don't want an iMac and you don't need or can afford the Mac Pro, you now have an option. People who want the mini will just buy the entry BTO. "But it will cannibalize iMac sales" maybe to a small degree, but WHO CARES? a sale is a sale. It will also bring in more sales than not offering more options to the consumer. They don't have to give it away, it doesn't have to be cheap crap. They can still sell it at a high profit margin, just minus the cost of the monitor. That thing would sell like nobody's business even if the numbers of HP and Dell desktops sales are declining. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Apple could bring some of the excitement of the iPod into the headless desktop arena. Apple's success has come from their talent for taking a part of an existing market and redefining a very small chunk of it to claim as their own where they are basically the only one competing in it. People who write off the desktop as impossible for Apple to succeed in with anything other than the iMac are simply selling Apple too short (this includes Steve Jobs).
"But it will cannibalize iMac sales" maybe to a small degree, but WHO CARES?
Apple cares if you lower their ASPs.
a sale is a sale.
As shown above this is untrue.
I will admit the only reason I bought my 20in iMac for graphic design work was due to three things:
1. I wanted to use my 24in PVA matte screen so I bought the cheapest iMac to hook up to it
2. I was only doing freelance 4-8 hours after hours from my regular job
3. No way I was going to shell out $3k+ for a Mac Pro.
Now I'm doing freelance full time and being limited to 4GB of ram on my current iMac is not going well. (I also do photo editing and now getting requests for some video editing) and again I feel I'm in a horrible situation that Apple has placed me in. (Because I love OSX and I really don't want to go back to windows)
I can build (yes, it is very very simple) a new core i7 system, dedicated card, 12GB DDR3, 2X 1TB HD's etc for under $1,600... or get another iMac with a glossy screen I can't use (yes I hate them) and add 2x 4GB DDR3 chips in it for $2,400 or get an 8 Core Mac Pro and put 3rd party ram/HD for over $4k! So I can build a PC and buy a laptop for the same price as the Mac Pro, which one sounds like the smarter choice?
Sorry Apple but I cannot justify paying over 1.5x more for an imac I don't want or 2.5x more for a Mac Pro with a new starting cost of $3,600 (with applecare and wireless card) and this is why there is a lot of anger here.
Wow finally Apple customers who are a little put off by the current lineup/pricing situation?! I'm not alone!
I will admit the only reason I bought my 20in iMac for graphic design work was due to three things:
1. I wanted to use my 24in PVA matte screen so I bought the cheapest iMac to hook up to it
2. I was only doing freelance 4-8 hours after hours from my regular job
3. No way I was going to shell out $3k+ for a Mac Pro.
Now I'm doing freelance full time and being limited to 4GB of ram on my current iMac is not going well. (I also do photo editing and now getting requests for some video editing) and again I feel I'm in a horrible situation that Apple has placed me in. (Because I love OSX and I really don't want to go back to windows)
I can build (yes, it is very very simple) a new core i7 system, dedicated card, 12GB DDR3, 2X 1TB HD's etc for under $1,600... or get another iMac with a glossy screen I can't use (yes I hate them) and add 2x 4GB DDR3 chips in it for $2,400 or get an 8 Core Mac Pro and put 3rd party ram/HD for over $4k! So I can build a PC and buy a laptop for the same price as the Mac Pro, which one sounds like the smarter choice?
Sorry Apple but I cannot justify paying over 1.5x more for an imac I don't want or 2.5x more for a Mac Pro with a new starting cost of $3,600 (with applecare and wireless card) and this is why there is a lot of anger here.
One thing I've learned lately: Apple sycophants abound. Blind following of corporations is thriving. Have you ever seen an old 70s movie called, "Roller Ball" where corporate allegiance replaces common sense? Dramatic analogy? Maybe. Maybe not. Apple consumers are fast acquiring the same ability to rationalize taking what they get vs. getting what they seek in the manner windows users have grown accustomed to. It matters less what I can use than what the masters says I should want. Remember Apple's first commercial referencing Orwell's 1984? So ironic. So accurate. So sad. I am anticipating new and good things from "android" in the coming years. Apple should worry. If you become complacent, someone will come along and eat your lunch.
You simply want to accuse Apple without taking into account the current state of the computer industry or the current state of the world economy. We have attempted to present to you the reason from the business side of Apple's choices and you completely ignore those facts and realities without actually presenting any facts of your own.
The reason you've stated you feel Apple should build another desktop line is because you believe Apple should be able to come up with some mythical "new and innovative" desktop that will increase sales during a time when desktop sales are projected to plunge 31%. You have no idea what new and innovative desktop Apple could invent that would accomplish this task, nor do you have any evidence if Apple did create such a desktop if this strategy would even work.
Seeing as how Dell has lost over 40% of its profits and HP has lost 13% of its profits, Apple has still remained profitable. Its pretty clear Apple doesn't feel they have the mythical desktop that will increase sales. Therefore Apple is hunkering down and will wait out the worst parts of the recession. Many of us that you wish to call sycophants are simply saying looking at the reality of world economy this seems to be a reasonable plan.
One thing I've learned lately: Apple sycophants abound. Blind following of corporations is thriving. Have you ever seen an old 70s movie called, "Roller Ball" where corporate allegiance replaces common sense? Dramatic analogy? Maybe. Maybe not. Apple consumers are fast acquiring the same ability to rationalize taking what they get vs. getting what they seek in the manner windows users have grown accustomed to. It matters less what I can use than what the masters says I should want. Remember Apple's first commercial referencing Orwell's 1984? So ironic. So accurate. So sad. I am anticipating new and good things from "android" in the coming years. Apple should worry. If you become complacent, someone will come along and eat your lunch.