I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.
Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.
In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.
When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.
So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.
My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.
That's all well and good for Apple and its' shareholders, of which I am one.
As to whether Apple cares to increase market share, well, that's another story completely. Most people looking to buy a computer that I know don't ask themselves how much profit Apple made as opposed to Dell or HP. They do check their wallet though and the Mac mini and iMac are form factors they are not familiar with on top of being very expensive.
I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.
Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.
In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.
When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.
So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.
My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.
The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.
The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.
I fear, unfortunately, that you're feelings are shared by many more consumers than Apple realizes.
The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.
The Power Mac G5 was introduced in June of 2003. The cheapest model cost $1999. The second revision came in November, where the low end Power Mac G5 stayed exactly the same but got a $200 price cut to $1799. Other than that, there hasn't been a Power Mac since then that has had a price less than $1999.
The low end Mac Pro right now is $2200, and even though the $1799 G5 tower was only around for a few months at that price and every other low end Power Mac G5 was $1999, I'll say the difference is $400. Where does the other $300 come from?
Also, I fail to see how a computer can be fine one day and then 'obsolete' the next. Are we really supposed to believe that a dual processor, dual core Xeon is 'obsolete' because a newer, faster Mac Pro is introduced? There's no question in my mind that these 'obsolete' Mac Pros would smoke the Conore/Kentsfield towers being proposed here and I wouldn't be surprised to see the discounted towers selling for $1799 after newer Mac Pros were introduced.
I've seen this topic come up too many times now and know that even if Apple did come out with a 'mid range' Mac, people would still complain about it not having enough features, expandability, processing power, and the price. You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.
Edit:
Quote:
I fear, unfortunately, that you're feelings are shared by many more consumers than Apple realizes.
Again, look at the fact that Apple made much more money than Dell last quarter and was also competitive with #1 PC maker HP. Apple seems to be doing just fine without a midrange Mac.
. . . look at the fact that Apple made much more money than Dell last quarter and was also competitive with #1 PC maker HP. Apple seems to be doing just fine without a midrange Mac
I agree that Apple's business plan is doing very well financially, and as a stockholder I'm glad. Yet, as a Mac customer, I'm dissatisfied. I've resigned myself to buying used Macs on eBay, to get the price, performance and features I want in a desktop Mac. If I preferred laptops, I would be happier.
In my opinion, Apple's current computer strategy is failing to increase market share significantly in desktops. (A while back there was a report that showed Apple's desktop market shrinking.) I don't expect that Apple will change their product strategy, however, unless forced to do so. If, say, an extremely large business gave Apple a specification for a desktop Mac, Apple would listen.
Quote:
I've seen this topic come up too many times now and know that even if Apple did come out with a 'mid range' Mac, people would still complain about it not having enough features, expandability, processing power, and the price. You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.
Right, but Apple could do so much better. Following this topic over several threads, I notice Mac users have been repeating the same complaints over and over, yet nobody is paying attention at Apple, obviously.
1) Mini Tower: Fewer drives, about three slot plus graphics slot, two optical drives, and a pretty high performance CPU. If Apple offered this from $999 to $1999, it would please a large group of Mac complainers, and give potential switcher something that is familiar to them.
2) Big Mini - Small Desktop: Large enough to hold full size desktop HDD and optical drives, plus enough space and cooling to have a high performance CPU option. Such a model could sell for a little less than the current Mini on the low end, and sell for more on the high end. It might make a good, general purpose office computer too.
How much of a hardship would it really be for Apple to just start offering this sort of thing at $1600-1800 as a BTO option for the Mac Pro? The case can obviously accomodate the hardware, the MOBOs are cheaper than their Woodcrest/Clovertown compatible counterparts..etc etc etc
They wouldn't even have to advertise it or hype it up very much, but it would most definitely shut everyone up and sell a lot of machines in a single swoop. Well, so I think. They could even go back to the Fast, Faster, Fastest selling scheme that they used to use.
What am I even saying this for? It will never happen. I think the real solution is for everyone to just suck it up and save.... \ \ \
Does anyone have any insight as to which would be preferrable in terms of raw performance?
2.66 Kentsfield
2x2.66 Woodcrest
I think the key factor here is price. One Kentsfield must be cheaper than two Woodcrests. If Apple started using Kentsfield in an entry level Mac Pro, they could charge $1799-1999.
I don't think anyone is buying the 2.0 Mac Pro today, it's just a terrible value compared to the 2.66... To me, the Mac Pro line starts at $2499. It's not a horrible price for what you are getting, but it seems that not all people want "workstation" desktops, some people just want a standard desktop machine.
First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower...
I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.
In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.
What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.
I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.
The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...
I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.
Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.
In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.
When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.
So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.
My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.
You make very good points Fran, however, let me ask you this, what is the most popular PC that Dell or HP sell? Is it an all in one, is it a mid range upgradable tower, is it an high end tower?
A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already?
Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.
First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"
So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".
Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.
If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.
Your argument is well founded but based on price.
You are totally correct, at those price points, who wants to spend that kind of cash for a headless mid-range mac.
But you fail to discuss demand. There is certainly deman for the product. The problem has always been price point.
I'm typing this right now on my old cube. years ago when the industry was srong and I was makng fists full of dollars, I needed a mac and going to the store, I examined the imac (too weak), the tower (didn't need card slots and a huge footprint), the cube (PERFECT!!!!). It had a small footprint, serious power, and ....... welll like I said, price was no object, I bougt what I needed regardelss of price and it was the Cube.
Today times for me are tight. Now price is a huge factor. Given the same set of options and the pricing structure was the same, you're right, I woud eiher buy the imac or the tower, but I STILL WANT A CUBE.
So we really need to speak from the DEMAND side. Trick is, Steve need to stop trying to gouge the crap out of everyone and price it properly. Something like $1,499. WHO CAN ARGUE THAT PRICE.
Lastly, he needs to create a new column in his strategy. Instead of Consumer and Pro, he needs Consumer, Prosumer, Professional.
Consumer (White) - MacBook, iMac 17 and 20, Mac Mini
Prosumer (Black) - MacBook, iMac 24, Mac (Headless cube, no pci, and 4 cores = Just power)
Professional (Aluminum) - MacBook Pro, Mac 24 Pro (4 core imac in aluminum), Mac Pro
Ok, maybe i'm going a bit overboard, but ou get my idea. The leap to the Mac Pro is too steep.
. . . I needed a mac and going to the store, I examined the imac (too weak), the tower (didn't need card slots and a huge footprint), the cube (PERFECT!!!!). It had a small footprint, serious power, . . .
Today times for me are tight. Now price is a huge factor. Given the same set of options and the pricing structure was the same, you're right, I woud eiher buy the imac or the tower, but I STILL WANT A CUBE.
Today, I think you could have your cake and eat it, as the saying goes, if Apple would simply build something like this. I might call it a big Mini or a small desktop. It could look like a Cube, or it could be lower and wider, which I would prefer.
Essentially, it would be large enough to contain a standard HDD and standard optical drive. It would also be large enough to have a fan or blower to handle a higher performance CPU, either a 2 core or 4 core, and a good GPU, in the higher priced option of course. To summarize, the top model would have a small footprint, reasonably high performance and a fairly low price tag.
My guess is that it could sell from $499 to $999, depending on options and performance.
You make very good points Fran, however, let me ask you this, what is the most popular PC that Dell or HP sell? Is it an all in one, is it a mid range upgradable tower, is it an high end tower?
There's a growing anti Microsoft backlash and if Apple is serious about gaining market share now is the time to make the move. The xMac could be in the same price range as the iMac (with a mainstream desktop GPU and sans monitor) and would cost Apple a lot less to manufacture.
I believe the xMac we are talking about here falls into a prosumer line. It's offers the buyer more than a lowend computer but it is not the powerhouse of the Mac Pro. I agree that apple needs this type of computer in their lineup and here is why:
The 4 main issues I see problems with in apples current lineup are graphics card, expandability, footprint, and displays. Consumers see no need for a dedicated graphics card and therefore the macmini does not have one, and the imac and mac pro do. So if you want the graphics power like a prosumer would want, a mac mini is out of the question. But the imac is stuck when it comes to expandability and display...you cannot upgrade easily or have multiple internal hard drives, and although the imac has a Great footprint, many users already own displays (maybe even multiple displays). So the imac does not offer what the prosumer really wants in an xMac either. The only other option we have is the Mac Pro. The consensus seems to be that the Mac Pro is way too expensive for many prosumers and it does have quite a large footprint. And from what I have read in these threads, there is obviously a demand for something less.
I think apple could easily offer a "mini mac pro" or a "displayless imac" priced between $999 and $1999. If you look at the imac line, you pay for a laptop chip and a display...take away the display and add faster processers in and you can keep the same price points. Now all they have to do is design a form factor that allows for a few hard drive bays, pci cards, etc while keeping it relatively small.
Essentially what you have is a faster imac without the displays and in a different form factor. The only line it would really cut into in sales is the imacs, but it could be dubbed the iMacs twin or cousin or something. What do you think?
Comments
I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.
Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.
In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.
When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.
So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.
My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.
That's all well and good for Apple and its' shareholders, of which I am one.
As to whether Apple cares to increase market share, well, that's another story completely. Most people looking to buy a computer that I know don't ask themselves how much profit Apple made as opposed to Dell or HP. They do check their wallet though and the Mac mini and iMac are form factors they are not familiar with on top of being very expensive.
I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.
Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.
In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.
When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.
So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.
My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.
The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.
The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.
I fear, unfortunately, that you're feelings are shared by many more consumers than Apple realizes.
The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.
The Power Mac G5 was introduced in June of 2003. The cheapest model cost $1999. The second revision came in November, where the low end Power Mac G5 stayed exactly the same but got a $200 price cut to $1799. Other than that, there hasn't been a Power Mac since then that has had a price less than $1999.
The low end Mac Pro right now is $2200, and even though the $1799 G5 tower was only around for a few months at that price and every other low end Power Mac G5 was $1999, I'll say the difference is $400. Where does the other $300 come from?
Also, I fail to see how a computer can be fine one day and then 'obsolete' the next. Are we really supposed to believe that a dual processor, dual core Xeon is 'obsolete' because a newer, faster Mac Pro is introduced? There's no question in my mind that these 'obsolete' Mac Pros would smoke the Conore/Kentsfield towers being proposed here and I wouldn't be surprised to see the discounted towers selling for $1799 after newer Mac Pros were introduced.
I've seen this topic come up too many times now and know that even if Apple did come out with a 'mid range' Mac, people would still complain about it not having enough features, expandability, processing power, and the price. You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.
Edit:
I fear, unfortunately, that you're feelings are shared by many more consumers than Apple realizes.
Again, look at the fact that Apple made much more money than Dell last quarter and was also competitive with #1 PC maker HP. Apple seems to be doing just fine without a midrange Mac.
. . . look at the fact that Apple made much more money than Dell last quarter and was also competitive with #1 PC maker HP. Apple seems to be doing just fine without a midrange Mac
I agree that Apple's business plan is doing very well financially, and as a stockholder I'm glad. Yet, as a Mac customer, I'm dissatisfied. I've resigned myself to buying used Macs on eBay, to get the price, performance and features I want in a desktop Mac. If I preferred laptops, I would be happier.
In my opinion, Apple's current computer strategy is failing to increase market share significantly in desktops. (A while back there was a report that showed Apple's desktop market shrinking.) I don't expect that Apple will change their product strategy, however, unless forced to do so. If, say, an extremely large business gave Apple a specification for a desktop Mac, Apple would listen.
I've seen this topic come up too many times now and know that even if Apple did come out with a 'mid range' Mac, people would still complain about it not having enough features, expandability, processing power, and the price. You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.
Right, but Apple could do so much better. Following this topic over several threads, I notice Mac users have been repeating the same complaints over and over, yet nobody is paying attention at Apple, obviously.
1) Mini Tower: Fewer drives, about three slot plus graphics slot, two optical drives, and a pretty high performance CPU. If Apple offered this from $999 to $1999, it would please a large group of Mac complainers, and give potential switcher something that is familiar to them.
2) Big Mini - Small Desktop: Large enough to hold full size desktop HDD and optical drives, plus enough space and cooling to have a high performance CPU option. Such a model could sell for a little less than the current Mini on the low end, and sell for more on the high end. It might make a good, general purpose office computer too.
They wouldn't even have to advertise it or hype it up very much, but it would most definitely shut everyone up and sell a lot of machines in a single swoop. Well, so I think. They could even go back to the Fast, Faster, Fastest selling scheme that they used to use.
What am I even saying this for? It will never happen. I think the real solution is for everyone to just suck it up and save....
2.66 Kentsfield
2x2.66 Woodcrest
I think the key factor here is price. One Kentsfield must be cheaper than two Woodcrests. If Apple started using Kentsfield in an entry level Mac Pro, they could charge $1799-1999.
I don't think anyone is buying the 2.0 Mac Pro today, it's just a terrible value compared to the 2.66... To me, the Mac Pro line starts at $2499. It's not a horrible price for what you are getting, but it seems that not all people want "workstation" desktops, some people just want a standard desktop machine.
First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower...
I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.
In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.
What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.
I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.
The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...
2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)
$1999
Any chance?
price way to high try $999 - $1500
I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.
Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.
In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.
When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.
So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.
My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.
You make very good points Fran, however, let me ask you this, what is the most popular PC that Dell or HP sell? Is it an all in one, is it a mid range upgradable tower, is it an high end tower?
business want system that are easy to open the mini is not that kind of system.
They also want something that a disgruntled employee can't stick in their briefcase.
A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already?
Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.
First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"
So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".
Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.
If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.
Your argument is well founded but based on price.
You are totally correct, at those price points, who wants to spend that kind of cash for a headless mid-range mac.
But you fail to discuss demand. There is certainly deman for the product. The problem has always been price point.
I'm typing this right now on my old cube. years ago when the industry was srong and I was makng fists full of dollars, I needed a mac and going to the store, I examined the imac (too weak), the tower (didn't need card slots and a huge footprint), the cube (PERFECT!!!!). It had a small footprint, serious power, and ....... welll like I said, price was no object, I bougt what I needed regardelss of price and it was the Cube.
Today times for me are tight. Now price is a huge factor. Given the same set of options and the pricing structure was the same, you're right, I woud eiher buy the imac or the tower, but I STILL WANT A CUBE.
So we really need to speak from the DEMAND side. Trick is, Steve need to stop trying to gouge the crap out of everyone and price it properly. Something like $1,499. WHO CAN ARGUE THAT PRICE.
Lastly, he needs to create a new column in his strategy. Instead of Consumer and Pro, he needs Consumer, Prosumer, Professional.
Consumer (White) - MacBook, iMac 17 and 20, Mac Mini
Prosumer (Black) - MacBook, iMac 24, Mac (Headless cube, no pci, and 4 cores = Just power)
Professional (Aluminum) - MacBook Pro, Mac 24 Pro (4 core imac in aluminum), Mac Pro
Ok, maybe i'm going a bit overboard, but ou get my idea. The leap to the Mac Pro is too steep.
-Alex
. . . I needed a mac and going to the store, I examined the imac (too weak), the tower (didn't need card slots and a huge footprint), the cube (PERFECT!!!!). It had a small footprint, serious power, . . .
Today times for me are tight. Now price is a huge factor. Given the same set of options and the pricing structure was the same, you're right, I woud eiher buy the imac or the tower, but I STILL WANT A CUBE.
Today, I think you could have your cake and eat it, as the saying goes, if Apple would simply build something like this. I might call it a big Mini or a small desktop. It could look like a Cube, or it could be lower and wider, which I would prefer.
Essentially, it would be large enough to contain a standard HDD and standard optical drive. It would also be large enough to have a fan or blower to handle a higher performance CPU, either a 2 core or 4 core, and a good GPU, in the higher priced option of course. To summarize, the top model would have a small footprint, reasonably high performance and a fairly low price tag.
My guess is that it could sell from $499 to $999, depending on options and performance.
You make very good points Fran, however, let me ask you this, what is the most popular PC that Dell or HP sell? Is it an all in one, is it a mid range upgradable tower, is it an high end tower?
It's probably a laptop.
They also want something that a disgruntled employee can't stick in their briefcase.
That must be why ThinkPads and Lattitudes are such big flops.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7006
desktop CPU prices sweet, sweet ...
only heat and noise were perfect we shall see them in iMac, thats not gonna happen next couple years.
with these CPUs, Mac Mini can be priced lower
another price cut from intel
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7006
desktop CPU prices sweet, sweet ...
only heat and noise were perfect we shall see them in iMac, thats not gonna happen next couple years.
with these CPUs, Mac Mini can be priced lower
They didn't cut the mobile prices. Unfortunately, this isn't relevant to Apple.
Make it upgradeable.
1 HD Slot (If you want a bigger one, then you will have to replace your current one)
1 PCI X16 slot
1 FW800
3 USB 2.0
Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)
So now, the people who want more expandability will be forced to buy the Mac Pro.
The 4 main issues I see problems with in apples current lineup are graphics card, expandability, footprint, and displays. Consumers see no need for a dedicated graphics card and therefore the macmini does not have one, and the imac and mac pro do. So if you want the graphics power like a prosumer would want, a mac mini is out of the question. But the imac is stuck when it comes to expandability and display...you cannot upgrade easily or have multiple internal hard drives, and although the imac has a Great footprint, many users already own displays (maybe even multiple displays). So the imac does not offer what the prosumer really wants in an xMac either. The only other option we have is the Mac Pro. The consensus seems to be that the Mac Pro is way too expensive for many prosumers and it does have quite a large footprint. And from what I have read in these threads, there is obviously a demand for something less.
I think apple could easily offer a "mini mac pro" or a "displayless imac" priced between $999 and $1999. If you look at the imac line, you pay for a laptop chip and a display...take away the display and add faster processers in and you can keep the same price points. Now all they have to do is design a form factor that allows for a few hard drive bays, pci cards, etc while keeping it relatively small.
Essentially what you have is a faster imac without the displays and in a different form factor. The only line it would really cut into in sales is the imacs, but it could be dubbed the iMacs twin or cousin or something. What do you think?