Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?

1697072747583

Comments

  • Reply 1421 of 1657
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Yeah, put a 1.6 ghz core duo in the mini and price it a $499. Keep the other models. Cheap sells in this country.
  • Reply 1422 of 1657
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy View Post


    Is it time to dust off this old thread? APPL stock is down, evidently due to low sales of Macs. Record profits and outstanding iPod sales didn't keep the stock from sliding. Evidently people want something other than a laptop, Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro. Got any suggestions?







    Yes, because the usual profit taking and Apple at 90+ means Apple dropped the ball on its product line.



    The fact that Apple changed its name from Apple computers makes it even LESS likely you'll ever see a new tower much less a cheap one. Did you notice the complete lack of ANY Mac talk after the first 4 minutes 43 seconds of the keynote at MacWorld?



    They sold 800K macs to new mac users...yes, they truly f'up the Apple product line.



    New Mac models are going to be geared toward home media center integration. That MIGHT mean a tower with a bunch of drives but I really doubt it. Probably a new Mini and a Cube sized NAS.



    Vinea
  • Reply 1423 of 1657
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Yeah, put a 1.6 ghz core duo in the mini and price it a $499. Keep the other models. Cheap sells in this country.



    I was thinking more along the lines of a Celeron-M 420 based retail only value series consisting of a Mac Mini, an iMac, and a Macbook.
  • Reply 1424 of 1657
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    Apple dropped slightly to fifth place in rankings of US computer sales during the fourth quarter of 2006, according to preliminary Gartner data obtained by AppleInsider.



    The Mac maker dropped a full percentage point to 5.1 percent of the domestic market between the third and fourth quarters of the year, trading places with Toshiba, which climbed from 5.1 to 5.3 percent. Apple remained out of the top five in the world rankings, but a similar set of data released by IDC on Wednesday puts its international share at 2.4 percent.






    Since Apple laptop sales have been very good lately, it is safe to assume that the slump in market share is due to low sales of desktop Macs, specifically the Mac Mini and iMac, since the Mac Pro is in a workstation class of computers.



    Apple surely has market data showing the type of PC that business and most consumers buy today. Why Apple does not act on their own data is a mystery to me. I'm not suggesting that Apple copy the Windows market, but must be close enough to satisfy the desires of potential customers. It seems to me that the Mac Mini and iMac currently appeal to niche markets. It's possible that their popularity will increase, but Apple can't afford to wait that long if it wants better market performance.



    Some say the desktop market is drying up, that the move is to laptops. "Keep you eye on where the puck is going, not where it has been, bla bla bla." Cute sayings don't change the facts. The desktop market is huge and will not go away anytime soon.



    Another saying is that low end desktops computers are a loss leader, a money sink. This need not be the case for an Apple product. The Mac Mini produces a profit for Apple, but simply does not sell well enough. Change the Mini or make a second model low end Mac to sell along side it.



    I don't believe the entire engineering staff at Apple is tied up with new consumer goodies like iPhones right now. A pretty small team could come up with some Mac desktops that sell well: a low end Mac and prosumer mini tower. Apple needs both.



  • Reply 1425 of 1657
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy View Post


    Since Apple laptop sales have been very good lately, it is safe to assume that the slump in market share is due to low sales of desktop Macs, specifically the Mac Mini and iMac, since the Mac Pro is in a workstation class of computers.



    Actually Mac Pro sales were soft and attributed to lack of universal CS suite. I don't disagree with your desire for Apple to increase it's consumer offerings. I wish they'd make the mini a litle bigger and use desktop parts so that they can offer it at a lower price. The mini is just to expensive IMO.
  • Reply 1426 of 1657
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Actually Mac Pro sales were soft and attributed to lack of universal CS suite. I don't disagree with your desire for Apple to increase it's consumer offerings. I wish they'd make the mini a litle bigger and use desktop parts so that they can offer it at a lower price. The mini is just to expensive IMO.



    Is there any evidence that "laptop parts" cost Apple more than "desktop parts"? Given the enormous number of "laptop parts" that they purchase, that may not be a valid assumption.



    What's the absolute cheapest Dell desktop computer, not counting rebates/specials/sales/etc ?
  • Reply 1427 of 1657
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy View Post


    Apple surely has market data showing the type of PC that business and most consumers buy today. Why Apple does not act on their own data is a mystery to me.





    They do act on that data. Everyone and their mother is only interested in laptops.
  • Reply 1428 of 1657
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,440member
    That's not true at all. Laptops are great and have their purpose. But there will always be a need for desktop computers (and not just in the workplace, but in home as well). I've been doing my work off of a powerbook and 20" widescreen for the last year and it's killing me. Course I need dual 20" to be happy. Older people will always need desktops. With most of their eye sight and back problems, looking down at a smaller screen isn't optimal. Desktops will never completely go away.
  • Reply 1429 of 1657
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    Is there any evidence that "laptop parts" cost Apple more than "desktop parts"? Given the enormous number of "laptop parts" that they purchase, that may not be a valid assumption.



    What's the absolute cheapest Dell desktop computer, not counting rebates/specials/sales/etc ?



    I did assume that desktop parts are more expensive. That's pretty commonly assumed. I don't mean to pick a fight, but do you have any evidence to suggest that laptop parts are the same cost or cheaper? I think that the base model mini should come in a $499. I think thats a psychological price point, but it's just my opinion.
  • Reply 1430 of 1657
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy View Post


    Is it time to dust off this old thread? APPL stock is down, evidently due to low sales of Macs. Record profits and outstanding iPod sales didn't keep the stock from sliding. Evidently people want something other than a laptop, Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro. Got any suggestions?







    I don't think the drop has much to do with its' computer sales. If I were a betting man, I'd place my bet on #1 the guidance for the upcoming quarter, #2 profit taking.



    Oh wait, I am a betting man, I sold my stock anticipating the downturn.
  • Reply 1431 of 1657
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    Is there any evidence that "laptop parts" cost Apple more than "desktop parts"? Given the enormous number of "laptop parts" that they purchase, that may not be a valid assumption.



    What's the absolute cheapest Dell desktop computer, not counting rebates/specials/sales/etc ?



    First, HP and Dell each sell more 945GM/PM chipsets than apple, so they can't be getting that big of a discount. Second these are the prices at similar speeds.



    1.87ghz E6300 $183/ 1.83ghz T5600 $241

    2.13ghz E6400 $224/ 2.17ghz T7400 $423

    2.4ghz E6600 $316/ 2.3ghz T7600 $637



    Seeing that the last two are close to double the price of their desktop equivalents, I think it's safe to say that unless Intel is giving Apple laptop parts basically at cost, they're paying more for laptop parts.
  • Reply 1432 of 1657
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,440member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    First, HP and Dell each sell more 945GM/PM chipsets than apple, so they can't be getting that big of a discount. Second these are the prices at similar speeds.



    1.87ghz E6300 $183/ 1.83ghz T5600 $241

    2.13ghz E6400 $224/ 2.17ghz T7400 $423

    2.4ghz E6600 $316/ 2.3ghz T7600 $637



    Seeing that the last two are close to double the price of their desktop equivalents, I think it's safe to say that unless Intel is giving Apple laptop parts basically at cost, they're paying more for laptop parts.



    Though I agree with your main point, I'd like to point out that we have no idea how much apple gets their supplies from intel compared to other companies. The exclusive move to intel could have something in the contract promising the same prices as their competitors. Unless I missed the contract somewhere.
  • Reply 1433 of 1657
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emig647 View Post


    Though I agree with your main point, I'd like to point out that we have no idea how much apple gets their supplies from intel compared to other companies. The exclusive move to intel could have something in the contract promising the same prices as their competitors. Unless I missed the contract somewhere.



    Intel went on record some time ago (around the time that AMD started its anti-trust suit against them) that all of their customers get the same pricing, with discounts based on volume of chips bought.



    i.e. If Dell and Apple both want 1,000,000 E6300s, they will be charged the same price as each other for those chips.
  • Reply 1434 of 1657
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,440member
    Well that's lame =). Apple makes intel look a lot better than Dell does
  • Reply 1435 of 1657
    OMG this thread is still going! 36 pages and over 1400 posts! Y'all are freaking NUTS!



    Long live the Headless Mac thread!
  • Reply 1436 of 1657
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    Just Mac

    ---------------------------------------

    E6700 65 nm 4MB L2 2.66 GHz 1066 MHz (upgrade option to quad core)

    1 X 1 GB RAM (upgrade option to 4GB)

    320 GB SATA 7.2K HDD (upgrade option to 500/750GB)

    256 MB GPU

    Super Drive



    $1299



    Half the tower of Mac Pro, some new cool form factor ...
  • Reply 1437 of 1657
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,440member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Celemourn View Post


    OMG this thread is still going! 36 pages and over 1400 posts! Y'all are freaking NUTS!



    Long live the Headless Mac thread!



    Nuts like a fox!



    It just shows there is a big demand for this xMac. I won't bring up old stuff by repeating people... ..... ....... ......... yah I will..... there needs to be a middle headless machine between mac mini and mac pro. K everyone... ready set go
  • Reply 1438 of 1657
    After reading a few pages on this thread, I can see there are a some people who do want the 'xMac', but how many people are there in the PC buying world that want this? You have to do a cost analysis on this, as in if there is a significant profit to be made by producing the headless Mac. Example:



    Say you have 100 people that want to buy a Mac. The 100 people are a ratio of the total people buying, (like 1 person would equal 10 people out of the 'real population' of 1000). 50 would like to buy the $1500 iMac and 50 want to buy a $3000 Mac Pro. We will also say that the product cost is 50% of the sale price, or $750 for the iMac and $1500 for the Mac Pro. If the xMac comes out at a even $1500 as well, with a cost of $700. It will really depend on how many want to buy.



    if 10% will switch:

    Original=(50*$1500+50*$3000)-(50*750+50*$1500)=$225,000-$112500=$112,500 profit

    New=(45*$1500+45*$3000+10*1500)-(45*750+45*$1500+10*700)=$217,500-$108,250=$109,250 profit



    if 20% will switch:


    Original=(50*$1500+50*$3000)-(50*750+50*$1500)=$225,000-$112500=$112,500 profit

    New=(40*$1500+40*$3000+20*1500)-(40*750+40*$1500+20*700)=$210,000-$104,000=$106,000 profit



    Now these calculations are extremely simple to make a basic comparison that shows that by losing iMac customers to a xMac if it is similarly priced, but less costly, then the company will make more profit. However, the more customers that drop from the Mac Pro to the xMac will cause lower overall profit, especially if the cost to making the Mac Pro is not very high.



    There is probably an entire finance department devoted to the case analysis of a xMac, once they find a way to not to lose profit, it will come . On the other hand, you can always turn your old Windows machine into a headless Mac, but it is not entirely legal. http://www.insanelymac.com, Steve Jobs even said to think different, sometimes you have to, to get what you want >_>.
  • Reply 1439 of 1657
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BlackShadowWolf View Post


    After reading a few pages on this thread, I can see there are a some people who do want the 'xMac', but how many people are there in the PC buying world that want this?



    Your post is basically providing a few numbers and a new angle on the cannibalisation argument that we agreed to drop several pages back, because people had agreed to disagree.



    What your analysis fails to do is account for extra people that an xMac could attract to the platform - i.e. extra sales that don't take away from iMac sales or Mac Pro sales.



    So the argument comes down to this:



    Will an xMac attract enough new users to the platform to offset any cannibalisation that may occur in the installed user-base? Some people (like me), think yes it would, others, like Vinea, think no it wouldn't.
  • Reply 1440 of 1657
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BlackShadowWolf View Post




    . . . Now these calculations are extremely simple to make a basic comparison that shows that by losing iMac customers to a xMac if it is similarly priced, but less costly, then the company will make more profit. However, the more customers that drop from the Mac Pro to the xMac will cause lower overall profit, especially if the cost to making the Mac Pro is not very high.






    What is often overlooked are the other customers; those who now buy on eBay, or the Windows users who are not switching, because Apple does not have what they want. There is no way to put these new buyers into equation designed to look at shifting sales between existing products.



    Apple must know what people are buying now and will buy, through market research. Why Apple isn't doing something different, I don't know. OH. NOW I GET IT! Apple only thinks different.



Sign In or Register to comment.