The mid to upper end consumer machines are obviously not commodity market and this is where Dell tries to increase margins to make up for the low end.
No one here has suggested that Apple get into the commondity market.
Snoopy has suggested $500 xMacs in the past. Here $1000 xMacs. These are within that range. $1600-$2000 and I agree you've left the commodity range. $1100-$1400? Likely outside.
Quote:
We don't assert this, it is fact not ficiton.
The assertion is that this justification for an xMac. Its true that most machines are towers.
Quote:
NO, we have said that margins might, I stress might be, lower, but the distinct possibility exists that Apple may increase market share.
Then why would Apple wish to do this? Dilute their ASPs and profitability on the possibility that it might increase share. So what if they do increase share? They're losing money they could have made.
Quote:
Show me just one reference where any one advocating Apple offer an xMac has said anything close to this.
Go read the umpteen million other xMac threads and get back to me. I sure as heck aint reading them again.
Quote:
No, it is not clear to you.
An xMac with a single Conroe, blah, blah blah priced in the $1499 - $1799 market would not sell. If it had a Xeon, it would not sell even more. This is a redux of the infamous Cube.
A PowerMac sold for $1499-$1699 with a single G5 and even slightly crippled. A single Xeon Mac Pro would sell to the same market and it would be easier to just make it a BTO without futzing with crippling it.
A single Conroe xMac using an Core 2 Duo Extreme in the $1799 range would sell given it would be one of the cheaper Core 2 Duo Extremes on the market and priced under Dell's Precision 390 equivalent.
Either one would be price competitive vs Dell offerings in the same class. A Xeon is simply the easier of the two to implement.
Quote:
Dell averages between 16 - 18% margins, therefore their mid to upper end consumer offering HAVE TO BE HIGHER, MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LOW END $499 MACHINES. What they are, who knows, but considering the volume of the mid to upper end is LOWER, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, than the low end offerings the margins on the mid to upper end in order to skew the average up to 16 - 18% it would seem to be in the 22 - 28% area and maybe just maybe higher. This IS THE LUCRATIVE MARKET YOU KEEP REFERING TO.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say that Dell is getting 14%-18% on their $1000 boxes. The region where Apple DOES compete with Dell is in that lucrative 25%+ region...with the Mac Pro.
At least you finally got that.
$1000 machine? No. $1400 machine? Maybe. $1600 machine? Probably. $2000 machine? Certainly...they do it now.
But hey...you guys that want a Conroe based xMac* all that much why WOULDN'T you buy a $1799 Mac Pro based on the Core 2 Extreme X6800 or Core 2 QX6700 for $1899?
Oh, because you are really saying you don't care about whether Apple offers a "prosumer" xMac of good value. Just that its cheap. Sorry, but that's not a good fit with the brand image.
US market share, right. Oh, except for those buying laptops, which is higher that 6%.
No, I was refering to the installed base numbers from website hits. Questionable absolute numbers but good enough to see relative share of the installed base on an OS level.
Quote:
Facts, figures or made up numbers.
Windows market share indicates that if these folks do hate Microsoft they don't hate it enough to stop using Windows...
Quote:
So. Irrelevant to the discussion of something Apple currently doesn't offer, like the xMac.
My comment was in response to Ben's strawman that folks only purchased because of hw design. They buy for the total experience. It's a nice experience but pricey.
Quote:
Actually, if you compare price/feature the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell, the iMac is comparably priced feature for feature, it is only the Mac mini which fits this statement and it may or may not sell very well, which is bizarre since in any other market the least expensive product is normally the highest seller. Truly bizarre.
The point is that the Mac Pro is less expensive than the Dell because Apple is competing in an area where Dell doesn't move so much volume it can crush Apple on margins. Dell has areas where they enjoy nice margins and this is where Apple (wisely) chooses to compete with them.
iMac vs a Dell tower gets crushed on performance vs price.
Quote:
So what.
So read the post I was responding to.
Quote:
So why oh why is Apple advertising? Nothing they can do will increase market share. Are these commercials for the shareholders.
They can increase SALES and they have been. You're the one who keeps trying to show that they haven't gained share as well. Share have risen and fallen over time. Sales continue to grow these last qtrs.
The point however is that the OS really hasn't been a decisive factor and arguably MacOS had a far more decisive advantage over Windows 3.x than OSX has over Vista/XP.
I would say that branding has been the decisive factor in growth these last quarters. That's a combo of the iPod halo, the exclusive pricing and refinement in ease of use and design.
That and Job's RDF. He's sure cool for a geek.
Quote:
You have got absolutely the most negative things to say about Apple.
Snoopy has suggested $500 xMacs in the past. Here $1000 xMacs.
Whoa! No! I suggested $500 for a bigger Mac Mini, built with desktop parts and enough room for cooling of a higher performance CPU and GPU. Range $500 to $1000. The low price version is lower performance, needless to say, for the economy minded.
Regarding a Mac mini tower, I've been saying $1000 to $2000, but for one post I said possibly as low as $900. We can guess, but only Apple knows what Apple will do. I just hope they make a mini tower sooner, rather than later.
If we'd stop calling everything an xMac, it would clear up such confusion.
Quote:
Then why would Apple wish to do this? Dilute their ASPs and profitability on the possibility that it might increase share. So what if they do increase share? They're losing money they could have made.
Apple doesn't need to dilute their profitability with a mini tower. The price can be set to have minimal impact on the iMac. Would it sell. Damn well it would. There would be no competition because no one else would makes a Mac mini tower. Apple has a clear market, just as it has on all it's computer products.
Would it take some sales from the iMac and Mac Pro? Yes it would, but if Apple set the margins about the same, it would make no difference, and customers would have a choice. Would market share increase? Of course, since potential switchers would have a broader choice, and Mac users would not need to buy on eBay to get something close to what they want.
The above has been repeated over and over. It's okay to not believe what we say, but at least acknowledge that we have addressed the issues.
You also mention that we insist on just a certain type of prosumer tower and don't accept a cut down Mac Pro with a single CPU. Not so. We prefer a desktop CPU solution because of manufacturing cost. Apple can make a lower priced consumer/prosumer mini tower by using desktop, not workstation, components. The idea is to offer a better value tower for those who do not need a workstation. I believe this argument is sound. You obviously don't.
A PowerMac sold for $1499-$1699 with a single G5 and even slightly crippled. A single Xeon Mac Pro would sell to the same market and it would be easier to just make it a BTO without futzing with crippling it.
Remember that the G5 you are talking about only came into existance after the 1.6/1.8/Dual 2.0 GHz G5s were introduced, the solo 1.8 GHz G5 was discontinued, and then the solo 1.8 GHz was reintroduced to replace the 1.6 GHz G5. It had 256 MB of RAM, an 80 GB Hard Drive, a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM, and a 600 MHz FSB.
This machine was not offered at the $1499 price tag until over a year after the G5s were released and the 3rd 'revision' was released. It hasn't been a year for the Mac Pros and it's hard to argue that the addition of the Eight Core Mac Pros is a major update to the line. Regardless, let's look at what the equivilent machine would be today.
The solo processor G5 was $500 cheaper than it's dual processor counterpart. So assuming a $501 price drop off of the 'low end' Dual Processor 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pro ($800 price drop from the standard Dual Processor 2.66 Ghz Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pro), we get this:
One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699
That's the same exact machine as the current $2200 Dual Processor 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon system with only one 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon Processor. I don't think dropping one processor from the machine will make it $501 cheaper but we'll keep it like this for the sake of discussion.
I'm guessing that the people who want a 'headless mid-range tower' would call this overpriced and would say that they'd immediately have to upgrade the RAM, add Airport, Bluetooth, or both, and upgrade the graphics card which would bring the cost of the system up as well.
Out of all of the possibilities I've heard for a 'mid range tower', this is the one that is most likely historically. Apple has in the past offered low end Power Mac towers in this price range and it wouldn't shock me to see them add this type of tower sometime in the future.
What's crazy is that this tower would offer people everything they want in their 'headless mid-range tower' because it would have the same expandability as the top of the line Mac Pros and the same type of processor. But I also have little doubt that they'd take one look at the $1699 price and say that Apple has "once again failed them" because they don't want to pay that much for a computer.
We've had this conversation so many times now, I've lost track of everything that has been said, but I know that there's no way for Apple to make everyone happy here.
I'd love to know how many times this topic has been discussed. Honestly there are only a few important issues that nobody is bothering to figure out. #1 Why does Apple not want to build an xMac? and #2 What would force Apple to build, or decide that it was the right time to build, a headless prosumer Mac. I've always felt that if Apple wanted to do it they would have before now. Their two attempts at a headless Mac (the Cube and Mini) are (were) not up to what most people would want in a xMac. There's something, and not just Steve, that keeps them from doing it. Unless you can answer the above questions, which we can't, any thread like this is nothing more than an extended group rant. Perhaps the better thing to do, as somebody suggested, is to write to Apple about what we're looking for. It might not work but it's better repeating the same thing over and over. Most people want an xMac but clearly Apple doesn't and that's all that matters. I know the purpose of a forum is to discuss and debate but it just seems endless. Maybe we should send an open letter to Apple on why a xMac is needed.
#1 Why does Apple not want to build an xMac? and #2 What would force Apple to build, or decide that it was the right time to build, a headless prosumer Mac. I've always felt that if Apple wanted to do it they would have before now. Their two attempts at a headless Mac (the Cube and Mini) are (were) not up to what most people would want in a xMac.
1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.
2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.
The Cube is/was NOT (for most of us) a mid tower. Yes, maybe it had the specs and similiar blah, blah, blah as other PC towers... (enter dead-horse argument here) but it like the Mac Mini lacks one major feature.
IT'S NOT OPEN FOR UPGRADES!!!
(please don't ask me why I need to upgrade... that will just be pointless)
Why is it like pulling teeth to see this point? We don't want a sealed box. We don't like the limited options that the Apple Elite tell us are good enough. I want choices!!! That's all. User designed choices. NOT PREPACKAGED ONES!!! I would love to have the blue-million choices that the PC boxes allow with the awesome Apple OS. For some reason yet to be explained in all of this mental masturbation is the real why?
Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.
Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? What if I don't? Then I go with a lesser computer (a PC) because I don't have my mind right?
That is REALLY what it sounds like is being suggested.
About a month ago I wanted to get a Mac soooo badly. Now I'm beginning to rethink my position. I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable for about $1000 less than the topped out iMac 24".
So why in the Sam Hill would I want to buy a Mac now???
BTW, I'm one of those Prosumers. Professional by day consumer by night. I'm a professional video Photojournalist and editor. At home I'm a video hobbiest with a wicked appetite for a good interface. I know what I need and Mac apparently doesn't want me to be able to buy it.
About a month ago I wanted to get a Mac soooo badly. Now I'm beginning to rethink my position. I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable for about $1000 less than the topped out iMac 24".
And that will almost always be the case except for the Mac Pro. Macs are simply not all that cost effective except at the top end.
In any case, why would you get a topped out iMac 24" anyway? A "topped out" iMac 24 is over $3600.
Get a Mac Pro with a X1900 for $2700 and add a Dell 24" for $569 or a Dell 30" for $1,269.
Buy some memory from Crucial.
Quad core, 2.66Ghz, X1900, 1GB RAM, 250GB HDD, Dell 30" for $3969. A far better deal than a topped out iMac 24.
A good value vs a Dell workstation.
Quote:
So why in the Sam Hill would I want to buy a Mac now???
BTW, I'm one of those Prosumers. Professional by day consumer by night. I'm a professional video Photojournalist and editor. At home I'm a video hobbiest with a wicked appetite for a good interface. I know what I need and Mac apparently doesn't want me to be able to buy it.
If the tools on OSX does not increase your productivity enough to offset the cost then you don't want a mac.
For you a 15" MBP with a 24" or 30" Dell monitor seems better than a tower anyway. Having FCP available on the flight home or in your hotel room might be useful...or not if you don't travel.
But it really is more about your tool chain than the OS or hardware that should decide for you.
The Cube is/was NOT (for most of us) a mid tower. . . like the Mac Mini lacks one major feature.
IT'S NOT OPEN FOR UPGRADES!!!
. . . We don't like the limited options that the Apple Elite tell us are good enough. I want choices!!! That's all. User designed choices. NOT PREPACKAGED ONES!!! . . .
Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.
Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? . . .
BRAVO!
By the way, have you considered getting a dual core G5 Power Mac on eBay? It's still big, but a lot cheaper than a Mac Pro.
Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.
Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? What if I don't? Then I go with a lesser computer (a PC) because I don't have my mind right?
That is REALLY what it sounds like is being suggested.
As hard as it is to imagine, some of us remember Apple before Steve Jobs took over as CEO from Gil Amelio in July of 1997. Let's take a trip down memory lane.
In 1996-1997, Apple was hemmorhaging money. The company was making major plays for market share and had allowed other companies to license System/Mac OS 7.x and make Mac clones. Power Computing was the most notable, at one point having the fastest Mac out on the market and also undercutting Apple's prices.
At the same time, Apple had literally dozens of machines for sale. They had pizza boxes, towers, all in ones, and laptops. Some of their 'pizza box' Macs were the exact same machines as some of their towers, only in a different case. Some towers were under the Performa line, some were under the Power Mac line. Apple had a major problem, there were too many Macs on the market.
When Jobs took over as CEO, he took action almost immediately. Mac OS 7.7 was renamed to Mac OS 8, which helped end Mac cloning. The Performa brand was discontinued, the Power Mac G3 was released in two varieties (the last pizza box which had already been in development and a tower), and the PowerBook G3 was released (a PowerBook 3400 with a G3 which had already been in development). Anything not directly related to the Mac was killed off, including Apple's printer lines, the Newton, scanners, QuickTake cameras, etc.
Over the course of the next few years, the product line was consolidated to the iMac, the iBook, the Power Mac, and the PowerBook. The decision to consolidate the lines saved Apple. After a few years, the Power Mac G4 Cube was released and it didn't sell well. Apple discontinued it realizing that the market wasn't there for the machine. Apple also tried to maintain an educational all in one called the eMac before realizing that the market was just as willing to buy an iMac. It was also discontinued. Apple did listen to customers though, and the Mac Mini was released as a cheap, entry level machine in 2005.
I know people will argue that the iMac doesn't work for them for X, Y, and Z reasons. But Apple has catered to overlapping segments of the market before and it just hasn't worked out for them. It's obvious that they see the iMac as a 'Prosumer' machine. I think that if Apple saw a market for a mid range tower, they'd release one.
But even if Apple did release a mid range Mac tower, you *still* would have people upset because Apple would charge more for their towers than Dell, HP, <insert PC manufacturer here>. You'd *still* see these boards dominated by posts saying, "I could get a Dell that has the exact same specs as the 'xMac' for $300 cheaper OMFG".
Quote:
I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable
If you're looking for Apple to release a machine that is more powerful, less expensive, and more upgradeable than other custom PCs, you're going to be waiting for a heck of a long time because it's not going to happen.
That's a system is going to be no faster the $1199 iMac and it still has the insanely expensive and high latency FB-DIMMs. No rational person is going to give up their PC for that. How about instead of trying to cripple everything and trying to gouge people for money, they try to make the best and most innovative computer in that category like they did with the blue and white g3. That doesn't mean some bizarre form factor that is so out there that it doesn't do the job. it means sticking a P965 motherboard with its desktop ram and conroe CPUs into the superior Mac Pro case and continuing the legacy of the PowerMac. Apple had chances in the 80s and right after the original iMac was released to gain and keep a significant marketshare. Both times they let their arrogance get the best of them and they slipped into unprofitability. If they squander this really big chance with that same arrogance, they might not get a 4th.
As for the failure of the past:
Cube: More expensive than PMG4 at same price. Looks better, but really an impractical design.
Late PowerMac G4/G5: Non-competitive PowerPC cpus. No chance for any real switchers due to platform. PMG5 case large and less practical than the one it replaced.
1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.
2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.
Actually I think it's more complex than the Cube failing. If you took the guts of the iMac and put it into a simple box, not concept enclosure like the Cube, and bundled it with a LCD at a good price it would work. The Cube was a head of its time and Apple wouldn't need to make that mistake again. If you're right and Apple can never be forced to make a xMac than why bother debating it? I agree that Apple is a bit gun shy and nobody is asking them nor should be return to the pre-Jobs days, but if Apple sold the iMac as "headless" with the same prices and specs, but allowing upgrades, that would make most people happy.
Mac Mini from $599
xMac from $999 (same prices as current 17" 20" and 24" when bundled with a display of that size)
1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.
2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.
Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.
Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.
This is such an easy concept to grasp it defies logic to argue against an xMac.
Comments
The mid to upper end consumer machines are obviously not commodity market and this is where Dell tries to increase margins to make up for the low end.
No one here has suggested that Apple get into the commondity market.
Snoopy has suggested $500 xMacs in the past. Here $1000 xMacs. These are within that range. $1600-$2000 and I agree you've left the commodity range. $1100-$1400? Likely outside.
We don't assert this, it is fact not ficiton.
The assertion is that this justification for an xMac. Its true that most machines are towers.
NO, we have said that margins might, I stress might be, lower, but the distinct possibility exists that Apple may increase market share.
Then why would Apple wish to do this? Dilute their ASPs and profitability on the possibility that it might increase share. So what if they do increase share? They're losing money they could have made.
Show me just one reference where any one advocating Apple offer an xMac has said anything close to this.
Go read the umpteen million other xMac threads and get back to me. I sure as heck aint reading them again.
No, it is not clear to you.
An xMac with a single Conroe, blah, blah blah priced in the $1499 - $1799 market would not sell. If it had a Xeon, it would not sell even more. This is a redux of the infamous Cube.
A PowerMac sold for $1499-$1699 with a single G5 and even slightly crippled. A single Xeon Mac Pro would sell to the same market and it would be easier to just make it a BTO without futzing with crippling it.
A single Conroe xMac using an Core 2 Duo Extreme in the $1799 range would sell given it would be one of the cheaper Core 2 Duo Extremes on the market and priced under Dell's Precision 390 equivalent.
Either one would be price competitive vs Dell offerings in the same class. A Xeon is simply the easier of the two to implement.
Dell averages between 16 - 18% margins, therefore their mid to upper end consumer offering HAVE TO BE HIGHER, MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LOW END $499 MACHINES. What they are, who knows, but considering the volume of the mid to upper end is LOWER, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, than the low end offerings the margins on the mid to upper end in order to skew the average up to 16 - 18% it would seem to be in the 22 - 28% area and maybe just maybe higher. This IS THE LUCRATIVE MARKET YOU KEEP REFERING TO.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say that Dell is getting 14%-18% on their $1000 boxes. The region where Apple DOES compete with Dell is in that lucrative 25%+ region...with the Mac Pro.
At least you finally got that.
$1000 machine? No. $1400 machine? Maybe. $1600 machine? Probably. $2000 machine? Certainly...they do it now.
But hey...you guys that want a Conroe based xMac* all that much why WOULDN'T you buy a $1799 Mac Pro based on the Core 2 Extreme X6800 or Core 2 QX6700 for $1899?
Oh, because you are really saying you don't care about whether Apple offers a "prosumer" xMac of good value. Just that its cheap. Sorry, but that's not a good fit with the brand image.
Vinea
* Other than Dan Wells
US market share, right. Oh, except for those buying laptops, which is higher that 6%.
No, I was refering to the installed base numbers from website hits. Questionable absolute numbers but good enough to see relative share of the installed base on an OS level.
Facts, figures or made up numbers.
Windows market share indicates that if these folks do hate Microsoft they don't hate it enough to stop using Windows...
So. Irrelevant to the discussion of something Apple currently doesn't offer, like the xMac.
My comment was in response to Ben's strawman that folks only purchased because of hw design. They buy for the total experience. It's a nice experience but pricey.
Actually, if you compare price/feature the Mac Pro is less expensive than Dell, the iMac is comparably priced feature for feature, it is only the Mac mini which fits this statement and it may or may not sell very well, which is bizarre since in any other market the least expensive product is normally the highest seller. Truly bizarre.
The point is that the Mac Pro is less expensive than the Dell because Apple is competing in an area where Dell doesn't move so much volume it can crush Apple on margins. Dell has areas where they enjoy nice margins and this is where Apple (wisely) chooses to compete with them.
iMac vs a Dell tower gets crushed on performance vs price.
So what.
So read the post I was responding to.
So why oh why is Apple advertising? Nothing they can do will increase market share. Are these commercials for the shareholders.
They can increase SALES and they have been. You're the one who keeps trying to show that they haven't gained share as well. Share have risen and fallen over time. Sales continue to grow these last qtrs.
The point however is that the OS really hasn't been a decisive factor and arguably MacOS had a far more decisive advantage over Windows 3.x than OSX has over Vista/XP.
I would say that branding has been the decisive factor in growth these last quarters. That's a combo of the iPod halo, the exclusive pricing and refinement in ease of use and design.
That and Job's RDF. He's sure cool for a geek.
You have got absolutely the most negative things to say about Apple.
Only if you have poor reading comprehension...
Vinea
Snoopy has suggested $500 xMacs in the past. Here $1000 xMacs.
Whoa! No! I suggested $500 for a bigger Mac Mini, built with desktop parts and enough room for cooling of a higher performance CPU and GPU. Range $500 to $1000. The low price version is lower performance, needless to say, for the economy minded.
Regarding a Mac mini tower, I've been saying $1000 to $2000, but for one post I said possibly as low as $900. We can guess, but only Apple knows what Apple will do. I just hope they make a mini tower sooner, rather than later.
If we'd stop calling everything an xMac, it would clear up such confusion.
Then why would Apple wish to do this? Dilute their ASPs and profitability on the possibility that it might increase share. So what if they do increase share? They're losing money they could have made.
Apple doesn't need to dilute their profitability with a mini tower. The price can be set to have minimal impact on the iMac. Would it sell. Damn well it would. There would be no competition because no one else would makes a Mac mini tower. Apple has a clear market, just as it has on all it's computer products.
Would it take some sales from the iMac and Mac Pro? Yes it would, but if Apple set the margins about the same, it would make no difference, and customers would have a choice. Would market share increase? Of course, since potential switchers would have a broader choice, and Mac users would not need to buy on eBay to get something close to what they want.
The above has been repeated over and over. It's okay to not believe what we say, but at least acknowledge that we have addressed the issues.
You also mention that we insist on just a certain type of prosumer tower and don't accept a cut down Mac Pro with a single CPU. Not so. We prefer a desktop CPU solution because of manufacturing cost. Apple can make a lower priced consumer/prosumer mini tower by using desktop, not workstation, components. The idea is to offer a better value tower for those who do not need a workstation. I believe this argument is sound. You obviously don't.
A PowerMac sold for $1499-$1699 with a single G5 and even slightly crippled. A single Xeon Mac Pro would sell to the same market and it would be easier to just make it a BTO without futzing with crippling it.
Remember that the G5 you are talking about only came into existance after the 1.6/1.8/Dual 2.0 GHz G5s were introduced, the solo 1.8 GHz G5 was discontinued, and then the solo 1.8 GHz was reintroduced to replace the 1.6 GHz G5. It had 256 MB of RAM, an 80 GB Hard Drive, a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM, and a 600 MHz FSB.
This machine was not offered at the $1499 price tag until over a year after the G5s were released and the 3rd 'revision' was released. It hasn't been a year for the Mac Pros and it's hard to argue that the addition of the Eight Core Mac Pros is a major update to the line. Regardless, let's look at what the equivilent machine would be today.
The solo processor G5 was $500 cheaper than it's dual processor counterpart. So assuming a $501 price drop off of the 'low end' Dual Processor 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pro ($800 price drop from the standard Dual Processor 2.66 Ghz Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pro), we get this:
One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699
That's the same exact machine as the current $2200 Dual Processor 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon system with only one 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Xeon Processor. I don't think dropping one processor from the machine will make it $501 cheaper but we'll keep it like this for the sake of discussion.
I'm guessing that the people who want a 'headless mid-range tower' would call this overpriced and would say that they'd immediately have to upgrade the RAM, add Airport, Bluetooth, or both, and upgrade the graphics card which would bring the cost of the system up as well.
Out of all of the possibilities I've heard for a 'mid range tower', this is the one that is most likely historically. Apple has in the past offered low end Power Mac towers in this price range and it wouldn't shock me to see them add this type of tower sometime in the future.
What's crazy is that this tower would offer people everything they want in their 'headless mid-range tower' because it would have the same expandability as the top of the line Mac Pros and the same type of processor. But I also have little doubt that they'd take one look at the $1699 price and say that Apple has "once again failed them" because they don't want to pay that much for a computer.
We've had this conversation so many times now, I've lost track of everything that has been said, but I know that there's no way for Apple to make everyone happy here.
#1 Why does Apple not want to build an xMac? and #2 What would force Apple to build, or decide that it was the right time to build, a headless prosumer Mac. I've always felt that if Apple wanted to do it they would have before now. Their two attempts at a headless Mac (the Cube and Mini) are (were) not up to what most people would want in a xMac.
1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.
2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.
:rant:
The Cube is/was NOT (for most of us) a mid tower. Yes, maybe it had the specs and similiar blah, blah, blah as other PC towers... (enter dead-horse argument here) but it like the Mac Mini lacks one major feature.
IT'S NOT OPEN FOR UPGRADES!!!
(please don't ask me why I need to upgrade... that will just be pointless)
Why is it like pulling teeth to see this point? We don't want a sealed box. We don't like the limited options that the Apple Elite tell us are good enough. I want choices!!! That's all. User designed choices. NOT PREPACKAGED ONES!!! I would love to have the blue-million choices that the PC boxes allow with the awesome Apple OS. For some reason yet to be explained in all of this mental masturbation is the real why?
Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.
Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? What if I don't? Then I go with a lesser computer (a PC) because I don't have my mind right?
That is REALLY what it sounds like is being suggested.
About a month ago I wanted to get a Mac soooo badly. Now I'm beginning to rethink my position. I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable for about $1000 less than the topped out iMac 24".
So why in the Sam Hill would I want to buy a Mac now???
BTW, I'm one of those Prosumers. Professional by day consumer by night. I'm a professional video Photojournalist and editor. At home I'm a video hobbiest with a wicked appetite for a good interface. I know what I need and Mac apparently doesn't want me to be able to buy it.
:end rant:
About a month ago I wanted to get a Mac soooo badly. Now I'm beginning to rethink my position. I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable for about $1000 less than the topped out iMac 24".
And that will almost always be the case except for the Mac Pro. Macs are simply not all that cost effective except at the top end.
In any case, why would you get a topped out iMac 24" anyway? A "topped out" iMac 24 is over $3600.
Get a Mac Pro with a X1900 for $2700 and add a Dell 24" for $569 or a Dell 30" for $1,269.
Buy some memory from Crucial.
Quad core, 2.66Ghz, X1900, 1GB RAM, 250GB HDD, Dell 30" for $3969. A far better deal than a topped out iMac 24.
A good value vs a Dell workstation.
So why in the Sam Hill would I want to buy a Mac now???
BTW, I'm one of those Prosumers. Professional by day consumer by night. I'm a professional video Photojournalist and editor. At home I'm a video hobbiest with a wicked appetite for a good interface. I know what I need and Mac apparently doesn't want me to be able to buy it.
If the tools on OSX does not increase your productivity enough to offset the cost then you don't want a mac.
For you a 15" MBP with a 24" or 30" Dell monitor seems better than a tower anyway. Having FCP available on the flight home or in your hotel room might be useful...or not if you don't travel.
But it really is more about your tool chain than the OS or hardware that should decide for you.
Vinea
The Cube is/was NOT (for most of us) a mid tower. . . like the Mac Mini lacks one major feature.
IT'S NOT OPEN FOR UPGRADES!!!
. . . We don't like the limited options that the Apple Elite tell us are good enough. I want choices!!! That's all. User designed choices. NOT PREPACKAGED ONES!!! . . .
Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.
Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? . . .
BRAVO!
By the way, have you considered getting a dual core G5 Power Mac on eBay? It's still big, but a lot cheaper than a Mac Pro.
Mac essentially is "allowing" the public the opportunity to purchase either a laptop, an All-in-One, a mini or a behemoth.
Are you trying to tell me that I gotta fit into one of these slots? What if I don't? Then I go with a lesser computer (a PC) because I don't have my mind right?
That is REALLY what it sounds like is being suggested.
As hard as it is to imagine, some of us remember Apple before Steve Jobs took over as CEO from Gil Amelio in July of 1997. Let's take a trip down memory lane.
In 1996-1997, Apple was hemmorhaging money. The company was making major plays for market share and had allowed other companies to license System/Mac OS 7.x and make Mac clones. Power Computing was the most notable, at one point having the fastest Mac out on the market and also undercutting Apple's prices.
At the same time, Apple had literally dozens of machines for sale. They had pizza boxes, towers, all in ones, and laptops. Some of their 'pizza box' Macs were the exact same machines as some of their towers, only in a different case. Some towers were under the Performa line, some were under the Power Mac line. Apple had a major problem, there were too many Macs on the market.
When Jobs took over as CEO, he took action almost immediately. Mac OS 7.7 was renamed to Mac OS 8, which helped end Mac cloning. The Performa brand was discontinued, the Power Mac G3 was released in two varieties (the last pizza box which had already been in development and a tower), and the PowerBook G3 was released (a PowerBook 3400 with a G3 which had already been in development). Anything not directly related to the Mac was killed off, including Apple's printer lines, the Newton, scanners, QuickTake cameras, etc.
Over the course of the next few years, the product line was consolidated to the iMac, the iBook, the Power Mac, and the PowerBook. The decision to consolidate the lines saved Apple. After a few years, the Power Mac G4 Cube was released and it didn't sell well. Apple discontinued it realizing that the market wasn't there for the machine. Apple also tried to maintain an educational all in one called the eMac before realizing that the market was just as willing to buy an iMac. It was also discontinued. Apple did listen to customers though, and the Mac Mini was released as a cheap, entry level machine in 2005.
I know people will argue that the iMac doesn't work for them for X, Y, and Z reasons. But Apple has catered to overlapping segments of the market before and it just hasn't worked out for them. It's obvious that they see the iMac as a 'Prosumer' machine. I think that if Apple saw a market for a mid range tower, they'd release one.
But even if Apple did release a mid range Mac tower, you *still* would have people upset because Apple would charge more for their towers than Dell, HP, <insert PC manufacturer here>. You'd *still* see these boards dominated by posts saying, "I could get a Dell that has the exact same specs as the 'xMac' for $300 cheaper OMFG".
I can get a custom PC, more powerful, less expensive and (horrors...) upgradeable
If you're looking for Apple to release a machine that is more powerful, less expensive, and more upgradeable than other custom PCs, you're going to be waiting for a heck of a long time because it's not going to happen.
http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Lette...he_Missing_Mac
http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529665346.php
2.4GHz dual core, 320MB 8800 GTS, 2GB RAM, 250GB hard drive, and a safe 'n' sane mini tower case.
Go ahead and stack the Apple tax on that for OS X, and a nicer enclosure, etc. Should still be under $2K IMO.
One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699
.
That's a system is going to be no faster the $1199 iMac and it still has the insanely expensive and high latency FB-DIMMs. No rational person is going to give up their PC for that. How about instead of trying to cripple everything and trying to gouge people for money, they try to make the best and most innovative computer in that category like they did with the blue and white g3. That doesn't mean some bizarre form factor that is so out there that it doesn't do the job. it means sticking a P965 motherboard with its desktop ram and conroe CPUs into the superior Mac Pro case and continuing the legacy of the PowerMac. Apple had chances in the 80s and right after the original iMac was released to gain and keep a significant marketshare. Both times they let their arrogance get the best of them and they slipped into unprofitability. If they squander this really big chance with that same arrogance, they might not get a 4th.
As for the failure of the past:
Cube: More expensive than PMG4 at same price. Looks better, but really an impractical design.
Late PowerMac G4/G5: Non-competitive PowerPC cpus. No chance for any real switchers due to platform. PMG5 case large and less practical than the one it replaced.
Look at what Gateway is rolling out at $1399 after rebate:
http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529665346.php
2.4GHz dual core, 320MB 8800 GTS, 2GB RAM, 250GB hard drive, and a safe 'n' sane mini tower case.
Go ahead and stack the Apple tax on that for OS X, and a nicer enclosure, etc. Should still be under $2K IMO.
Better yet:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1173577735222
2.4ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB of high end PC5300 DDR2 RAM
320GB hard drive
20x DVD burner
256MB Geforce 8600GT
Similar quality and appearance to Apple
$1499
OSX is worth a lot, but it isn't worth twice the price of a high end PC.
1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.
2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.
Actually I think it's more complex than the Cube failing. If you took the guts of the iMac and put it into a simple box, not concept enclosure like the Cube, and bundled it with a LCD at a good price it would work. The Cube was a head of its time and Apple wouldn't need to make that mistake again. If you're right and Apple can never be forced to make a xMac than why bother debating it? I agree that Apple is a bit gun shy and nobody is asking them nor should be return to the pre-Jobs days, but if Apple sold the iMac as "headless" with the same prices and specs, but allowing upgrades, that would make most people happy.
Mac Mini from $599
xMac from $999 (same prices as current 17" 20" and 24" when bundled with a display of that size)
Mac Pro from $2400
So far it looks like 1077 people would like it.
http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Lette...he_Missing_Mac
Over 2500 now.
1.) Apple doesn't want to build a 'xMac' because it's last attempt in this market failed. Like it or not, the Cube didn't work. At the time, the Cube was what people had been asking for, a headless iMac that allowed users to upgrade the graphics card. Of course, people had also stated that because it was a "Prosumer" machine, it should have a G4 instead of a G3. When the Cube was released, people balked at the price. It didn't help that the G4 just wasn't gaining any speed at the time either. That said, I'm almost positive that we'd be having the same conversations about the price of the 'xMac' if it were ever released.
2.) Nothing is going to force Apple to make a headless "Prosumer" Mac. While it's true that the Mac Mini doesn't fit the 'xMac' definition, the Cube very much fit the description of the Mac people wanted back then. The main thing that people didn't like about the Cube was the price, and I'm guessing that would be the same thing people wouldn't like about the 'xMac'.
Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.
So far it looks like 1077 people would like it.
http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Lette...he_Missing_Mac
So far it looks like 1077 people would like it.
http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Lette...he_Missing_Mac
Over 2500 now.
less than an hour later up to 2739
Appears to be gaining steam.
Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.
This is such an easy concept to grasp it defies logic to argue against an xMac.
BRAVO!
By the way, have you considered getting a dual core G5 Power Mac on eBay? It's still big, but a lot cheaper than a Mac Pro.
That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?
Thanks for the suggestion,
FOXPhotog