Yes, I don't doubt you. Changing to less costly desktop parts would let Apple lower the price even more. I'm not that familiar with the selection of processors. Possibly there is even a cheaper CPU if the case is large enough to handle the heat with a reasonably good fan.
It's about a $70 CPU, you can't desktop parts cheaper than that and they're significantly slower than a Merom Celeron-M. The Core Duo in the Mac Mini is a $200 CPU. When you compare it to other value dual core systems, the price of the Mini is quite favorable.
Since, in the posts above, I rejected a Mac Mini as a suitable low-cost Mac for attracting new users, I should explain why I feel this way. I mentioned its price being too high earlier. A lower price would be less of a barrier for a capricious purchase by a PC user who simply wants to try Mac OS X for a while. The price must make it very tempting.
Low cost to entry means low cost to exit. Switching from Windows to OSX is a significant change with many habits to unlearn and many programs to swap. With a low cost of entry folks simply wont bother to make that annoying investment of time.
Linux is FREE. The desktop adoption rate is still tiny desite its dominance in the server arena. While ubuntu isn't as good as OSX it has many of the same advantages:
resistance to viruses
its own office productivity suite semi-compatible with MS Office
the ability to boot into Windows
based on Unix and therefore more stable than windows
a snobby community that looks down on Windows
And its FREE and runs on pretty much any PC you can build or buy. Which OSX is neither.
People who want to switch will. The cost barrier works both ways.
Quote:
Apple shouldn't be looking for increasing market share with the low end. Market share would come when these curious PC users switch to the Mac later on.
They did switch to the mac on your proposed sub-$500 machine. Upselling to the average $1500 price should be quite amusing because to make them switch that sub-$500 machine needs to be reasonably compelling. No excessive beach balls, 90% of the functionality, the ability to play decent games.
The mini is niche and fills a tryout switcher role very well.
Quote:
Yet price is not my only objection. The Mac Mini is a novelty, and likely strikes many as a toy. I think the small form factor turns away more buyers than it attracts. Also, from a practical standpoint, it does not have enough surface area to mount a desirable number of I/O connectors.
Pray tell what other connectors does one need? Parallel and serial ports? In any case the novelty aspect of the Mini implies lesser functionality than its big brothers (ie reason to trade up). The premium price (of $200 more) is indicative of the high end computer brand. Yet it retains good value because of the form factor being different and the relatively high end components for an "entry" level machine (CoreDuo).
Quote:
Making it considerably larger would solve several problems. For those who see it as a toy, it would look like a real computer. It would have space for more connectors. It would have room for lower cost desktop parts, making a lower selling price possible. It would have room for adding another hard drive.
Lower selling price dilutes the branding. Looking like a real computer leads to less reason to trade up to iMacs.
Of course the whole idea of the xMac camp is to simply replace the iMacs and have Apple go toe to toe with Dell and HP in the areas they are strongest.
And lose badly.
Quote:
I would not suggest eliminating the Mini, at least not now. If it is selling well enough it could stay in production for a long time.
Oh yes, xMac proponents love to couch their suggestions as additions to the lineup rather than wholesale replacement. Let's propose lower cost, more capable machines (at far lower ASP and profits) and hey, if the AIOs and SFF computers survive Apple can keep making them.
How generous.
Never mind that Apple is successful with the current line up and AGAIN we are at the stupid sub-$500 price point that invariably someone beats me up over because "well they aren't suggesting something so ridiculous but something along the lines of $1500".
Which if we were discussing in the first place there wouldn't be any argument and most folks would be in agreement. The only time the discussion gets polarized is because invariably some xMac proponent takes us back to the no-profit price range to gain share.
Which is where Apple was in the late 80s and early 90s and losing money like water. Thanks, but no...as the proponents of a losing strategy the last go around YOU need to show that this so-called "mistake" on the part of Apple needs fixing with such a radical change that failed so miserably in the past.
Because 800K new switchers/qtr, $1500 ASP and 30% margins looks like Apple isn't as dumb or shortsighted as you folks claim.
It's about a $70 CPU, you can't desktop parts cheaper than that and they're significantly slower than a Merom Celeron-M. The Core Duo in the Mac Mini is a $200 CPU. When you compare it to other value dual core systems, the price of the Mini is quite favorable.
Beachball city. Yes, that should be a compelling demonstration of the superiority of OSX...and we thought the Core Solo mini was only so-so...
Lets release a machine that would have problems with 720p playback, no remote and beachballs through most of iLife...
I suspect they will drop the lowest Woodcrest into that $1699 price range when Intel pricing permits that. Apple might also choose to cripple it in some other way but hopefully not.
For Apple $1699 or $1599 is a mid range machine.
Vinea
Woodcrest uses socket 771 which doesn't have solutions other than the dual socket 5000 series motherboards. At $1599 single CPU you'd be stuck with a machine that isn't any faster than the $800 Mac Mini. I know its has to be xeon to be premium enough for you or something, but the people who would actually want such a system would not buy something that crippled. Merom and Conroe are essentially the same core. Woodcrest has stuff added for multi-cpu operation and ECC code. That is the reason the 975x chipset never got released in a 771 package is that it would be redundant with Conroe. We know what we want and are not interested in crippling our experience for some twisted ideal.
Beachball city. Yes, that should be a compelling demonstration of the superiority of OSX...and we thought the Core Solo mini was only so-so...
Lets release a machine that would have problems with 720p playback, no remote and beachballs through most of iLife...
Vinea
First, the merom Celeron is a faster and more advanced chip than the 1.5ghz core solo. Second, How many in that user segment are interested in 720P playback? Use your head man, you're trying to project power user tasks on everyone who has a computer.
I imagine that he just meant more of the same, i.e. more USB ports and perhaps another firewire 400 port or a FireWire 800 port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Of course the whole idea of the xMac camp is to simply replace the iMacs and have Apple go toe to toe with Dell and HP in the areas they are strongest.
Er, no, and oddly you correct yourself immediately:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Oh yes, xMac proponents love to couch their suggestions as additions to the lineup rather than wholesale replacement.
I know you're not one of them, but there a are few people in this thread who think the xMac wouldn't sell because the iMac would be a better option for most people. Personally, I think the intro of an xMac would lead to the demise of the Mini, but the iMac would continue to sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Never mind that Apple is successful with the current line up
No, again, they are successful with their laptop line-up. Good laptop line-up = increasing laptop market share, not so good desktop line-up = stagnant desktop market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The only time the discussion gets polarized is because invariably some xMac proponent takes us back to the no-profit price range to gain share.
Noone is suggesting selling the xMac at anything less than around 25% gross margin, at any price level. So, yes, lower ASP means lower absolute profit if volume doesn't increase, but it doesn't mean no profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Which is where Apple was in the late 80s and early 90s and losing money like water.
It's been explained quite a few times why that was different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
30% margins
Apple admitted that last quarter was probably going to be a one-off on the margins front and are expecting them to return to their more traditional 27% range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
looks like Apple isn't as dumb or shortsighted as you folks claim.
We're talking about desktops, not the overall lineup. Apple are doing great overall, but let's not forget how much of last quarter's margin increase was down to the iPod and had nothing to do with Macs. Just imagine how amazingly they could be doing if they replicated their laptop success in the desktop market.
Beachball city. Yes, that should be a compelling demonstration of the superiority of OSX...and we thought the Core Solo mini was only so-so...
Lets release a machine that would have problems with 720p playback, no remote and beachballs through most of iLife...
Beachballs are not down to too-slow processors. They are down to poor programming or something unexpected happening.
The Celeron M is more powerful than the 1.25 GHz G4 the Mac Mini originally had, that Apple deemed sufficient to run OS X and iLife. Since then, OS X has stayed about the same in terms of computational efficiency, and iLife has actually improved (i.e., got faster compared to previous versions on the same hardware).
I'm pretty sure a Celeron M processor could play back 720p quite happily.
Woodcrest uses socket 771 which doesn't have solutions other than the dual socket 5000 series motherboards. At $1599 single CPU you'd be stuck with a machine that isn't any faster than the $800 Mac Mini. I know its has to be xeon to be premium enough for you or something, but the people who would actually want such a system would not buy something that crippled. Merom and Conroe are essentially the same core. Woodcrest has stuff added for multi-cpu operation and ECC code. That is the reason the 975x chipset never got released in a 771 package is that it would be redundant with Conroe. We know what we want and are not interested in crippling our experience for some twisted ideal.
Really? A 2Ghz Woodcrest no faster than a Mac Mini?
In any case the only reason I suggest a single CPU Xeon (actually I had been thinking dual but whatever) is because that's a zero cost change for Apple without needing to spin a Conroe board.
If you want to suggest a $1500 Conroe Mac Pro is likely I won't object to that either. Either way its still a workstation class machine competing against other workstation class machines from Dell and HP.
First, the merom Celeron is a faster and more advanced chip than the 1.5ghz core solo. Second, How many in that user segment are interested in 720P playback? Use your head man, you're trying to project power user tasks on everyone who has a computer.
Only power users watch iTunes? While its still conjecture that Apple will bump movies to 720p/24 it seems likely once aTV ships.
I suppose you could argue that if aTV can handle it then so can the Celeron.
Only power users watch iTunes? While its still conjecture that Apple will bump movies to 720p/24 it seems likely once aTV ships.
I suppose you could argue that if aTV can handle it then so can the Celeron.
Vinea
I'm saying I've done it on a 2 year old sempron that is much slower and less advanced. HD iTunes isn't going to happen until they're able to get the compression technology to a point where HD movies the same size or smaller than standard definition movies. I wouldn't exactly put my money on iTunes unseating the DVD player the way it did the CD player either.
Really? A 2Ghz Woodcrest no faster than a Mac Mini?
In any case the only reason I suggest a single CPU Xeon (actually I had been thinking dual but whatever) is because that's a zero cost change for Apple without needing to spin a Conroe board.
If you want to suggest a $1500 Conroe Mac Pro is likely I won't object to that either. Either way its still a workstation class machine competing against other workstation class machines from Dell and HP.
Twisted ideal? That's a laugh.
Vinea
A 2ghz Mac pro isn't going to cost $1500, $1800 minimum, and it would be more a high end desktop than a workstation. With FB-DIMMs it actually may be slower than the 2ghz iMac. In the high end multi-threaded environment it's designed to be used in, the latency issue is overcome by the shear power of the cores. In a single threaded consumer task, which conroe was designed for, the latency slow down has been shown to be pretty significant.
I imagine that he just meant more of the same, i.e. more USB ports and perhaps another firewire 400 port or a FireWire 800 port.
It HAS 4 USB already.
Quote:
Er, no, and oddly you correct yourself immediately:
Actually, I think that most xMac folks don't care for the AIO form factor and think its rather silly. I dunno that I disagree BUT you have to admit whether by accident or by plan Apple sells 1 real desktop computer and its in the workstation class.
Everything else is a laptop without a display or in a funny format. There are laptops with more desktop parts than the iMac.
Quote:
I know you're not one of them, but there a are few people in this thread who think the xMac wouldn't sell because the iMac would be a better option for most people. Personally, I think the intro of an xMac would lead to the demise of the Mini, but the iMac would continue to sell.
Doubtful but I won't argue overmuch. The iMac is simply inferior to a tower. Its advantages to Apple IMHO lie in other areas: branding, commonality with laptop components, etc.
Price for performance isn't one.
Quote:
No, again, they are successful with their laptop line-up. Good laptop line-up = increasing laptop market share, not so good desktop line-up = stagnant desktop market share.
Again, effectively Apple doesn't have a desktop line. Whether that's by plan or accident the fact remains that they get an extra 500K or so laptop component purchase to Intel and other vendors. How much that volume discount is would have to be subtracted from laptop profits if Apple moved to a real Conroe desktop line.
My impression is everyone is gearing for more price compression in both laptop and desktop markets as Dell and HP fight over share in BOTH arenas. While Apple's branding and niche status insulates them from this a bit both Dell and HP are going to ship more laptops and command even more volume discounts from Intel, AMD, etc.
I don't think that Apple's line up is accidental and that while not the primary reason, one of many that the iMac remains Merom. Folks argue enough about TDP of the G5 vs Conroe that I would think that it would be possible for Apple to have gone Conroe if they had so desired.
Quote:
Noone is suggesting selling the xMac at anything less than around 25% gross margin, at any price level. So, yes, lower ASP means lower absolute profit if volume doesn't increase, but it doesn't mean no profit.
Yes, no profit is a slight exaggeration...however how many sub-$500 PC commands 25% gross margin?
Quote:
It's been explained quite a few times why that was different.
Different how? The overall strategy was the pursuit of share over margins and ASP because once share was achieved the others could follow. Apple clearly stated in their last conference call that they aren't willing to lower either to gain share. The xMac strategy presupposes both. This is a strategy change back to that of the late 80s early 90s. Hopefully with better execution but they could hardly do worse.
Quote:
Apple admitted that last quarter was probably going to be a one-off on the margins front and are expecting them to return to their more traditional 27% range.
Sure. Which is still nearly double of that of Gateway I believe (though I haven't checked the last qtr for Gateway...they were 14% or so).
Quote:
We're talking about desktops, not the overall lineup. Apple are doing great overall, but let's not forget how much of last quarter's margin increase was down to the iPod and had nothing to do with Macs. Just imagine how amazingly they could be doing if they replicated their laptop success in the desktop market.
Again, there's no certainty that they could and they forego even the possibly meager advantages of the current line up (synergy between desktop and laptop) to try. Not that I'm asking for certainty but I think its rather easy to argue that Linux shares many advantages over Windows that OSX does and yet its desktop penetration numbers are not earth shattering.
So what advantage does Apple have over Dell that commands 25%+ margins on sub-$500 machines in the tower form factor to double or triple the switching over a $599 mini? Because a $400 xMac would on a component by component basis be equivalent to a $450+ Dell. Probably $500 as Dell undoubtably has better volume discounts in the traditional desktop market than Apple.
There is also clearly no way to upsell a $400 xMac to any iMac. Effectively you are trying to "upsell" to a more expensive and less capable platform. Good luck there. You could upsell to other xMacs that compete directly against Dell and HP's lineup. Which why I say that xMac proponents, regardless of protestation, invariably mean replacement of the mini and iMac lines. The only exception would be a low end workstation to fill the needs of the "prosumer" with either an upper end Conroe or a lower end Woodcrest.
Even a $400 machine is above the "impluse" buy category. The 360, arguably a better deal than a Mini, is still not an impluse buy at $300. A windows user, choosing between Vista upgrade and a Xbox (as a media center extender) vs trying out OSX on a $400 xMac is almost no contest. I would think OSX loses every time.
I suspect they will drop the lowest Woodcrest into that $1699 price range when Intel pricing permits that. Apple might also choose to cripple it in some other way but hopefully not.
For Apple $1699 or $1599 is a mid range machine.
Vinea
I would be perfectly fine with that option. They used to offer that option. Then dropped it with the transition to G5's. Bring it back and I'll be a happy camper! Paying 2k+ for a desktop machine is insane!
A 2ghz Mac pro isn't going to cost $1500, $1800 minimum, and it would be more a high end desktop than a workstation. With FB-DIMMs it actually may be slower than the 2ghz iMac. In the high end multi-threaded environment it's designed to be used in, the latency issue is overcome by the shear power of the cores. In a single threaded consumer task, which conroe was designed for, the latency slow down has been shown to be pretty significant.
Dell Precision 490 single Dual Core Intel Xon Processor 2.00 Ghz $1,344. 2.66 Ghz $1734. Given Apple's price advantage on the 2.66Ghz vs Dell I think that Apple could offer the single 2.66Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro at $1,699 or perhaps even $1,649.
And yes, given it competes with the Dell Precision 490 it's STILL a workstation class machine and not a high end desktop which would cost double and have a Core2Duo extreme.
Didn't we have this argument before with the same results? You claiming it can't be done and my simply pointing at Dell's site to show that impossibility shipping today?
Given that everything is dual core your protestations that consumer tasks are singly threaded is incorrect...in as much as few modern programs are singly threaded anyway. Whether they can fill both cores is a different story. In any case a "consumer" is trading a little speed for stability. Even "prosumers" wouldn't be put out. The only folks that would find it negative (as opposed to a wash) are gamers trying to eck out another few FPS. The lack of SLI would be more annoying than FB-DIMMs for them anyway.
The trade off between any minor speed difference of a single CPU Mac Pro (if any to its disadvantage) and an equivalently priced iMac is expansion. The missing feature that you argue is why the iMac so undesireable for "prosumers" and why an xMac would be so superior.
In any case I guess you've disproved that we can get universal agreement on even something so minor as that a $1599 Mac Pro single CPU Woodcrest would be a good addition to the Mac lineup.
I would be perfectly fine with that option. They used to offer that option. Then dropped it with the transition to G5's. Bring it back and I'll be a happy camper! Paying 2k+ for a desktop machine is insane!
Same...other than one person I dunno anyone that would be unhappy with a $$1599/1699 Mac Pro. And with luck Apple would leave in the option to simply add a second processor as some later date.
Dell Precision 490 single Dual Core Intel Xon Processor 2.00 Ghz $1,344. 2.66 Ghz $1734. Given Apple's price advantage on the 2.66Ghz vs Dell I think that Apple could offer the single 2.66Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro at $1,699 or perhaps even $1,649.
The only problem I see with that is Apple having to design a whole new motherboard just for that scenerio. It would be hell on BTO. Instead of dropping in 2 different cpus, now they have to drop in a whole mobo. Which, on a normal pc isn't that hard, but can be a real bitch in a Mac Pro case.
Is it that far out of line for a dual 2.0 Mac Pro to be in the 1700 - 1800 price range after price cuts / clovertown shipping? Keep the 90 dollar 7300gt in it and 1 gig of ram. Hell take out bluetooth and other stuff. Just get that sweet spot lowered.
The only problem I see with that is Apple having to design a whole new motherboard just for that scenerio. It would be hell on BTO. Instead of dropping in 2 different cpus, now they have to drop in a whole mobo. Which, on a normal pc isn't that hard, but can be a real bitch in a Mac Pro case.
Is it that far out of line for a dual 2.0 Mac Pro to be in the 1700 - 1800 price range after price cuts / clovertown shipping? Keep the 90 dollar 7300gt in it and 1 gig of ram. Hell take out bluetooth and other stuff. Just get that sweet spot lowered.
Hmmm...I am really hesitant to pull one of the CPUs in my Mac Pro to see but I wasn't aware that you had to use 2 CPUs on the machine as it is.
Same...other than one person I dunno anyone that would be unhappy with a $$1599/1699 Mac Pro. And with luck Apple would leave in the option to simply add a second processor as some later date.
What would it take for Apple to do that? I'm guessing a new motherboard for a different chip set, no? It would be a quick and easy way to test the market for an xMac, mini tower.
So why would Apple build a mini tower? Lower manufacturing cost, which could lower the selling price and/or yield more profit, however Apple wants to slice it. I'm sure an hardware expert could give examples of how cost would be cut, compared to the Mac Pro version. My starting guesses: smaller power supply, just two HDDs, maybe one optical drive bay if okay with marketing.
For many prosumers, both a smaller case and lower price would make it more attractive than the Mac Pro test-market model.
The only problem I see with that is Apple having to design a whole new motherboard just for that scenerio. It would be hell on BTO. Instead of dropping in 2 different cpus, now they have to drop in a whole mobo. Which, on a normal pc isn't that hard, but can be a real bitch in a Mac Pro case.
Is it that far out of line for a dual 2.0 Mac Pro to be in the 1700 - 1800 price range after price cuts / clovertown shipping? Keep the 90 dollar 7300gt in it and 1 gig of ram. Hell take out bluetooth and other stuff. Just get that sweet spot lowered.
If a new motherboard is necessary design it around conroe and not the Xenon. Screw the Fb Dimms, they only cost more without improving performance. A dual core conroe at 2.6 ghz would make a nice prosummer machine.
Given the Dimension 490 and the Mac Pro both use the 5000 chipset unless Apple did something to require both CPUs on their motherboard there shouldn't be a need for a new board.
They'd only need to do a respin if a) they did domething odd and couldn't run with just 1 CPU or b) they wanted to make sure you couldn't add a second CPU.
In which case, yes, they might as well go with a Conroe. I was assuming that like the Dell the new configuration would be a simple BTO option of only including 1 CPU.
Edit: I googled around and Apple didn't make it easy to get at the CPUs so I won't be doing anything stupid to find out. On the plus side it suggests that they put in mechanical rather than electronic hurdles which implies that a single CPU is more likely to work like any other 5000 based machine.
Comments
Yes, I don't doubt you. Changing to less costly desktop parts would let Apple lower the price even more. I'm not that familiar with the selection of processors. Possibly there is even a cheaper CPU if the case is large enough to handle the heat with a reasonably good fan.
It's about a $70 CPU, you can't desktop parts cheaper than that and they're significantly slower than a Merom Celeron-M. The Core Duo in the Mac Mini is a $200 CPU. When you compare it to other value dual core systems, the price of the Mini is quite favorable.
Since, in the posts above, I rejected a Mac Mini as a suitable low-cost Mac for attracting new users, I should explain why I feel this way. I mentioned its price being too high earlier. A lower price would be less of a barrier for a capricious purchase by a PC user who simply wants to try Mac OS X for a while. The price must make it very tempting.
Low cost to entry means low cost to exit. Switching from Windows to OSX is a significant change with many habits to unlearn and many programs to swap. With a low cost of entry folks simply wont bother to make that annoying investment of time.
Linux is FREE. The desktop adoption rate is still tiny desite its dominance in the server arena. While ubuntu isn't as good as OSX it has many of the same advantages:
resistance to viruses
its own office productivity suite semi-compatible with MS Office
the ability to boot into Windows
based on Unix and therefore more stable than windows
a snobby community that looks down on Windows
And its FREE and runs on pretty much any PC you can build or buy. Which OSX is neither.
People who want to switch will. The cost barrier works both ways.
Apple shouldn't be looking for increasing market share with the low end. Market share would come when these curious PC users switch to the Mac later on.
They did switch to the mac on your proposed sub-$500 machine. Upselling to the average $1500 price should be quite amusing because to make them switch that sub-$500 machine needs to be reasonably compelling. No excessive beach balls, 90% of the functionality, the ability to play decent games.
The mini is niche and fills a tryout switcher role very well.
Yet price is not my only objection. The Mac Mini is a novelty, and likely strikes many as a toy. I think the small form factor turns away more buyers than it attracts. Also, from a practical standpoint, it does not have enough surface area to mount a desirable number of I/O connectors.
Pray tell what other connectors does one need? Parallel and serial ports? In any case the novelty aspect of the Mini implies lesser functionality than its big brothers (ie reason to trade up). The premium price (of $200 more) is indicative of the high end computer brand. Yet it retains good value because of the form factor being different and the relatively high end components for an "entry" level machine (CoreDuo).
Making it considerably larger would solve several problems. For those who see it as a toy, it would look like a real computer. It would have space for more connectors. It would have room for lower cost desktop parts, making a lower selling price possible. It would have room for adding another hard drive.
Lower selling price dilutes the branding. Looking like a real computer leads to less reason to trade up to iMacs.
Of course the whole idea of the xMac camp is to simply replace the iMacs and have Apple go toe to toe with Dell and HP in the areas they are strongest.
And lose badly.
I would not suggest eliminating the Mini, at least not now. If it is selling well enough it could stay in production for a long time.
Oh yes, xMac proponents love to couch their suggestions as additions to the lineup rather than wholesale replacement. Let's propose lower cost, more capable machines (at far lower ASP and profits) and hey, if the AIOs and SFF computers survive Apple can keep making them.
How generous.
Never mind that Apple is successful with the current line up and AGAIN we are at the stupid sub-$500 price point that invariably someone beats me up over because "well they aren't suggesting something so ridiculous but something along the lines of $1500".
Which if we were discussing in the first place there wouldn't be any argument and most folks would be in agreement. The only time the discussion gets polarized is because invariably some xMac proponent takes us back to the no-profit price range to gain share.
Which is where Apple was in the late 80s and early 90s and losing money like water. Thanks, but no...as the proponents of a losing strategy the last go around YOU need to show that this so-called "mistake" on the part of Apple needs fixing with such a radical change that failed so miserably in the past.
Because 800K new switchers/qtr, $1500 ASP and 30% margins looks like Apple isn't as dumb or shortsighted as you folks claim.
Vinea
It's about a $70 CPU, you can't desktop parts cheaper than that and they're significantly slower than a Merom Celeron-M. The Core Duo in the Mac Mini is a $200 CPU. When you compare it to other value dual core systems, the price of the Mini is quite favorable.
Beachball city. Yes, that should be a compelling demonstration of the superiority of OSX...and we thought the Core Solo mini was only so-so...
Lets release a machine that would have problems with 720p playback, no remote and beachballs through most of iLife...
Vinea
I suspect they will drop the lowest Woodcrest into that $1699 price range when Intel pricing permits that. Apple might also choose to cripple it in some other way but hopefully not.
For Apple $1699 or $1599 is a mid range machine.
Vinea
Woodcrest uses socket 771 which doesn't have solutions other than the dual socket 5000 series motherboards. At $1599 single CPU you'd be stuck with a machine that isn't any faster than the $800 Mac Mini. I know its has to be xeon to be premium enough for you or something, but the people who would actually want such a system would not buy something that crippled. Merom and Conroe are essentially the same core. Woodcrest has stuff added for multi-cpu operation and ECC code. That is the reason the 975x chipset never got released in a 771 package is that it would be redundant with Conroe. We know what we want and are not interested in crippling our experience for some twisted ideal.
Beachball city. Yes, that should be a compelling demonstration of the superiority of OSX...and we thought the Core Solo mini was only so-so...
Lets release a machine that would have problems with 720p playback, no remote and beachballs through most of iLife...
Vinea
First, the merom Celeron is a faster and more advanced chip than the 1.5ghz core solo. Second, How many in that user segment are interested in 720P playback? Use your head man, you're trying to project power user tasks on everyone who has a computer.
Pray tell what other connectors does one need?
I imagine that he just meant more of the same, i.e. more USB ports and perhaps another firewire 400 port or a FireWire 800 port.
Of course the whole idea of the xMac camp is to simply replace the iMacs and have Apple go toe to toe with Dell and HP in the areas they are strongest.
Er, no, and oddly you correct yourself immediately:
Oh yes, xMac proponents love to couch their suggestions as additions to the lineup rather than wholesale replacement.
I know you're not one of them, but there a are few people in this thread who think the xMac wouldn't sell because the iMac would be a better option for most people. Personally, I think the intro of an xMac would lead to the demise of the Mini, but the iMac would continue to sell.
Never mind that Apple is successful with the current line up
No, again, they are successful with their laptop line-up. Good laptop line-up = increasing laptop market share, not so good desktop line-up = stagnant desktop market share.
The only time the discussion gets polarized is because invariably some xMac proponent takes us back to the no-profit price range to gain share.
Noone is suggesting selling the xMac at anything less than around 25% gross margin, at any price level. So, yes, lower ASP means lower absolute profit if volume doesn't increase, but it doesn't mean no profit.
Which is where Apple was in the late 80s and early 90s and losing money like water.
It's been explained quite a few times why that was different.
30% margins
Apple admitted that last quarter was probably going to be a one-off on the margins front and are expecting them to return to their more traditional 27% range.
looks like Apple isn't as dumb or shortsighted as you folks claim.
We're talking about desktops, not the overall lineup. Apple are doing great overall, but let's not forget how much of last quarter's margin increase was down to the iPod and had nothing to do with Macs. Just imagine how amazingly they could be doing if they replicated their laptop success in the desktop market.
Beachball city. Yes, that should be a compelling demonstration of the superiority of OSX...and we thought the Core Solo mini was only so-so...
Lets release a machine that would have problems with 720p playback, no remote and beachballs through most of iLife...
Beachballs are not down to too-slow processors. They are down to poor programming or something unexpected happening.
The Celeron M is more powerful than the 1.25 GHz G4 the Mac Mini originally had, that Apple deemed sufficient to run OS X and iLife. Since then, OS X has stayed about the same in terms of computational efficiency, and iLife has actually improved (i.e., got faster compared to previous versions on the same hardware).
I'm pretty sure a Celeron M processor could play back 720p quite happily.
Woodcrest uses socket 771 which doesn't have solutions other than the dual socket 5000 series motherboards. At $1599 single CPU you'd be stuck with a machine that isn't any faster than the $800 Mac Mini. I know its has to be xeon to be premium enough for you or something, but the people who would actually want such a system would not buy something that crippled. Merom and Conroe are essentially the same core. Woodcrest has stuff added for multi-cpu operation and ECC code. That is the reason the 975x chipset never got released in a 771 package is that it would be redundant with Conroe. We know what we want and are not interested in crippling our experience for some twisted ideal.
Really? A 2Ghz Woodcrest no faster than a Mac Mini?
In any case the only reason I suggest a single CPU Xeon (actually I had been thinking dual but whatever) is because that's a zero cost change for Apple without needing to spin a Conroe board.
If you want to suggest a $1500 Conroe Mac Pro is likely I won't object to that either. Either way its still a workstation class machine competing against other workstation class machines from Dell and HP.
Twisted ideal? That's a laugh.
Vinea
First, the merom Celeron is a faster and more advanced chip than the 1.5ghz core solo. Second, How many in that user segment are interested in 720P playback? Use your head man, you're trying to project power user tasks on everyone who has a computer.
Only power users watch iTunes? While its still conjecture that Apple will bump movies to 720p/24 it seems likely once aTV ships.
I suppose you could argue that if aTV can handle it then so can the Celeron.
Vinea
Only power users watch iTunes? While its still conjecture that Apple will bump movies to 720p/24 it seems likely once aTV ships.
I suppose you could argue that if aTV can handle it then so can the Celeron.
Vinea
I'm saying I've done it on a 2 year old sempron that is much slower and less advanced. HD iTunes isn't going to happen until they're able to get the compression technology to a point where HD movies the same size or smaller than standard definition movies. I wouldn't exactly put my money on iTunes unseating the DVD player the way it did the CD player either.
Really? A 2Ghz Woodcrest no faster than a Mac Mini?
In any case the only reason I suggest a single CPU Xeon (actually I had been thinking dual but whatever) is because that's a zero cost change for Apple without needing to spin a Conroe board.
If you want to suggest a $1500 Conroe Mac Pro is likely I won't object to that either. Either way its still a workstation class machine competing against other workstation class machines from Dell and HP.
Twisted ideal? That's a laugh.
Vinea
A 2ghz Mac pro isn't going to cost $1500, $1800 minimum, and it would be more a high end desktop than a workstation. With FB-DIMMs it actually may be slower than the 2ghz iMac. In the high end multi-threaded environment it's designed to be used in, the latency issue is overcome by the shear power of the cores. In a single threaded consumer task, which conroe was designed for, the latency slow down has been shown to be pretty significant.
I imagine that he just meant more of the same, i.e. more USB ports and perhaps another firewire 400 port or a FireWire 800 port.
It HAS 4 USB already.
Er, no, and oddly you correct yourself immediately:
Actually, I think that most xMac folks don't care for the AIO form factor and think its rather silly. I dunno that I disagree BUT you have to admit whether by accident or by plan Apple sells 1 real desktop computer and its in the workstation class.
Everything else is a laptop without a display or in a funny format. There are laptops with more desktop parts than the iMac.
I know you're not one of them, but there a are few people in this thread who think the xMac wouldn't sell because the iMac would be a better option for most people. Personally, I think the intro of an xMac would lead to the demise of the Mini, but the iMac would continue to sell.
Doubtful but I won't argue overmuch. The iMac is simply inferior to a tower. Its advantages to Apple IMHO lie in other areas: branding, commonality with laptop components, etc.
Price for performance isn't one.
No, again, they are successful with their laptop line-up. Good laptop line-up = increasing laptop market share, not so good desktop line-up = stagnant desktop market share.
Again, effectively Apple doesn't have a desktop line. Whether that's by plan or accident the fact remains that they get an extra 500K or so laptop component purchase to Intel and other vendors. How much that volume discount is would have to be subtracted from laptop profits if Apple moved to a real Conroe desktop line.
My impression is everyone is gearing for more price compression in both laptop and desktop markets as Dell and HP fight over share in BOTH arenas. While Apple's branding and niche status insulates them from this a bit both Dell and HP are going to ship more laptops and command even more volume discounts from Intel, AMD, etc.
I don't think that Apple's line up is accidental and that while not the primary reason, one of many that the iMac remains Merom. Folks argue enough about TDP of the G5 vs Conroe that I would think that it would be possible for Apple to have gone Conroe if they had so desired.
Noone is suggesting selling the xMac at anything less than around 25% gross margin, at any price level. So, yes, lower ASP means lower absolute profit if volume doesn't increase, but it doesn't mean no profit.
Yes, no profit is a slight exaggeration...however how many sub-$500 PC commands 25% gross margin?
It's been explained quite a few times why that was different.
Different how? The overall strategy was the pursuit of share over margins and ASP because once share was achieved the others could follow. Apple clearly stated in their last conference call that they aren't willing to lower either to gain share. The xMac strategy presupposes both. This is a strategy change back to that of the late 80s early 90s. Hopefully with better execution but they could hardly do worse.
Apple admitted that last quarter was probably going to be a one-off on the margins front and are expecting them to return to their more traditional 27% range.
Sure. Which is still nearly double of that of Gateway I believe (though I haven't checked the last qtr for Gateway...they were 14% or so).
We're talking about desktops, not the overall lineup. Apple are doing great overall, but let's not forget how much of last quarter's margin increase was down to the iPod and had nothing to do with Macs. Just imagine how amazingly they could be doing if they replicated their laptop success in the desktop market.
Again, there's no certainty that they could and they forego even the possibly meager advantages of the current line up (synergy between desktop and laptop) to try. Not that I'm asking for certainty but I think its rather easy to argue that Linux shares many advantages over Windows that OSX does and yet its desktop penetration numbers are not earth shattering.
So what advantage does Apple have over Dell that commands 25%+ margins on sub-$500 machines in the tower form factor to double or triple the switching over a $599 mini? Because a $400 xMac would on a component by component basis be equivalent to a $450+ Dell. Probably $500 as Dell undoubtably has better volume discounts in the traditional desktop market than Apple.
There is also clearly no way to upsell a $400 xMac to any iMac. Effectively you are trying to "upsell" to a more expensive and less capable platform. Good luck there. You could upsell to other xMacs that compete directly against Dell and HP's lineup. Which why I say that xMac proponents, regardless of protestation, invariably mean replacement of the mini and iMac lines. The only exception would be a low end workstation to fill the needs of the "prosumer" with either an upper end Conroe or a lower end Woodcrest.
Even a $400 machine is above the "impluse" buy category. The 360, arguably a better deal than a Mini, is still not an impluse buy at $300. A windows user, choosing between Vista upgrade and a Xbox (as a media center extender) vs trying out OSX on a $400 xMac is almost no contest. I would think OSX loses every time.
Vinea
I suspect they will drop the lowest Woodcrest into that $1699 price range when Intel pricing permits that. Apple might also choose to cripple it in some other way but hopefully not.
For Apple $1699 or $1599 is a mid range machine.
Vinea
I would be perfectly fine with that option. They used to offer that option. Then dropped it with the transition to G5's. Bring it back and I'll be a happy camper! Paying 2k+ for a desktop machine is insane!
A 2ghz Mac pro isn't going to cost $1500, $1800 minimum, and it would be more a high end desktop than a workstation. With FB-DIMMs it actually may be slower than the 2ghz iMac. In the high end multi-threaded environment it's designed to be used in, the latency issue is overcome by the shear power of the cores. In a single threaded consumer task, which conroe was designed for, the latency slow down has been shown to be pretty significant.
Dell Precision 490 single Dual Core Intel Xon Processor 2.00 Ghz $1,344. 2.66 Ghz $1734. Given Apple's price advantage on the 2.66Ghz vs Dell I think that Apple could offer the single 2.66Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro at $1,699 or perhaps even $1,649.
And yes, given it competes with the Dell Precision 490 it's STILL a workstation class machine and not a high end desktop which would cost double and have a Core2Duo extreme.
Didn't we have this argument before with the same results? You claiming it can't be done and my simply pointing at Dell's site to show that impossibility shipping today?
Given that everything is dual core your protestations that consumer tasks are singly threaded is incorrect...in as much as few modern programs are singly threaded anyway. Whether they can fill both cores is a different story. In any case a "consumer" is trading a little speed for stability. Even "prosumers" wouldn't be put out. The only folks that would find it negative (as opposed to a wash) are gamers trying to eck out another few FPS. The lack of SLI would be more annoying than FB-DIMMs for them anyway.
The trade off between any minor speed difference of a single CPU Mac Pro (if any to its disadvantage) and an equivalently priced iMac is expansion. The missing feature that you argue is why the iMac so undesireable for "prosumers" and why an xMac would be so superior.
In any case I guess you've disproved that we can get universal agreement on even something so minor as that a $1599 Mac Pro single CPU Woodcrest would be a good addition to the Mac lineup.
And you accuse me of twisted ideals.
Vinea
I would be perfectly fine with that option. They used to offer that option. Then dropped it with the transition to G5's. Bring it back and I'll be a happy camper! Paying 2k+ for a desktop machine is insane!
Same...other than one person I dunno anyone that would be unhappy with a $$1599/1699 Mac Pro. And with luck Apple would leave in the option to simply add a second processor as some later date.
Vinea
Dell Precision 490 single Dual Core Intel Xon Processor 2.00 Ghz $1,344. 2.66 Ghz $1734. Given Apple's price advantage on the 2.66Ghz vs Dell I think that Apple could offer the single 2.66Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro at $1,699 or perhaps even $1,649.
The only problem I see with that is Apple having to design a whole new motherboard just for that scenerio. It would be hell on BTO. Instead of dropping in 2 different cpus, now they have to drop in a whole mobo. Which, on a normal pc isn't that hard, but can be a real bitch in a Mac Pro case.
Is it that far out of line for a dual 2.0 Mac Pro to be in the 1700 - 1800 price range after price cuts / clovertown shipping? Keep the 90 dollar 7300gt in it and 1 gig of ram. Hell take out bluetooth and other stuff. Just get that sweet spot lowered.
The only problem I see with that is Apple having to design a whole new motherboard just for that scenerio. It would be hell on BTO. Instead of dropping in 2 different cpus, now they have to drop in a whole mobo. Which, on a normal pc isn't that hard, but can be a real bitch in a Mac Pro case.
Is it that far out of line for a dual 2.0 Mac Pro to be in the 1700 - 1800 price range after price cuts / clovertown shipping? Keep the 90 dollar 7300gt in it and 1 gig of ram. Hell take out bluetooth and other stuff. Just get that sweet spot lowered.
Hmmm...I am really hesitant to pull one of the CPUs in my Mac Pro to see but I wasn't aware that you had to use 2 CPUs on the machine as it is.
Vinea
Same...other than one person I dunno anyone that would be unhappy with a $$1599/1699 Mac Pro. And with luck Apple would leave in the option to simply add a second processor as some later date.
What would it take for Apple to do that? I'm guessing a new motherboard for a different chip set, no? It would be a quick and easy way to test the market for an xMac, mini tower.
So why would Apple build a mini tower? Lower manufacturing cost, which could lower the selling price and/or yield more profit, however Apple wants to slice it. I'm sure an hardware expert could give examples of how cost would be cut, compared to the Mac Pro version. My starting guesses: smaller power supply, just two HDDs, maybe one optical drive bay if okay with marketing.
For many prosumers, both a smaller case and lower price would make it more attractive than the Mac Pro test-market model.
The only problem I see with that is Apple having to design a whole new motherboard just for that scenerio. It would be hell on BTO. Instead of dropping in 2 different cpus, now they have to drop in a whole mobo. Which, on a normal pc isn't that hard, but can be a real bitch in a Mac Pro case.
Is it that far out of line for a dual 2.0 Mac Pro to be in the 1700 - 1800 price range after price cuts / clovertown shipping? Keep the 90 dollar 7300gt in it and 1 gig of ram. Hell take out bluetooth and other stuff. Just get that sweet spot lowered.
If a new motherboard is necessary design it around conroe and not the Xenon. Screw the Fb Dimms, they only cost more without improving performance. A dual core conroe at 2.6 ghz would make a nice prosummer machine.
They'd only need to do a respin if a) they did domething odd and couldn't run with just 1 CPU or b) they wanted to make sure you couldn't add a second CPU.
In which case, yes, they might as well go with a Conroe. I was assuming that like the Dell the new configuration would be a simple BTO option of only including 1 CPU.
Edit: I googled around and Apple didn't make it easy to get at the CPUs so I won't be doing anything stupid to find out.
Vinea