As Ben points out its a modified X5000 motherboard.
There's also no "fun with numbers". Dell offers a single 2.0Ghz CPU X5000 based Precision for $1503. A price $4 less from Apple is hardly impossible.
They HAVE offered a single CPU PowerMac in the past in the $1499-$1799 price range. The analysis simply attempts to figure out what you could get at these price points by looking at what other vendors offer at these points.
Apple COULD charge more but as seen with CURRENT pricing they are very competitive with Dell on the dual CPU models.
Which would be a seperate BTO option to add memory. Or you order said memory from Crucial for hundreds less than what Apple sells them for.
This point is simply dumb. The $2499 dual 2.66 Mac Pro TODAY comes with an anemic 1GB of RAM standard.
Yes, you are trying to argue with me. Your points have been rather argumentative and you refuse to accept the reality of today. The reality of Apple pricing on the Mac Pros is that on equivalent models they ARE priced less than Dell. The historical pricing on PowerMacs with single vs dual CPUs put them in the same price range as the single CPU Dell Precisions that the Mac Pro already competes with. All Macs arguably ship with too little RAM standard anyway. The X5000 chipset can run with a single CPU.
That you can't agree to things you can easily verify by going to Intel, Dell and Apple's website is simply argumentative.
See? They ALREADY SELL THE $2,499 DUAL 2.66GHZ MAC PRO WITH IGB OF RAM. I can capitalize too. A single 2.0Ghz Mac Pro at $1,499 might cannibalize dual CPU configurations (a point I covered in the previous post) but only the dual 2.0Ghz model.
There are ways to mitigate this:
1) Eliminate the dual 2.0Ghz BTO option. Buying two $680 2.66Ghz Xeons is $1360 with a total price of $2760...about the same as just buying from Apple directly after you eBay your old part.
2) Start with a 2.66Ghz single CPU option at $1799. Again the final price for dual 2.66 is about the same the Apple price.
3) Epoxy over the second CPU slot and eliminate the ability to add a second CPU.
Even if you don't do anything the $400 price difference is partially offset by labor hours. They don't make getting to the CPU all that easy. Most companies and individuals would likely not bother. Espeically if single 2.66Ghz and single 3.0Ghz models were also offered.
I would argue for both options 1 & 2. I'm going to guess most purchasers of the dual 2.0Ghz Mac Pros are doing so to save money since the 2.66Ghz model is a much better value. Therefore the $400 cost savings of a single 2.66 Ghz model ($1799) is worth a lot more to them than the second CPU in the dual 2.0Ghz configuration. Then Apple can drop the 2.0Ghz part entirely and increase buys of the 2.66Ghz part.
I would hope they wouldn't do #3 although the DID cripple their single 1.8Ghz G5 model.
It clearly would not. Dell offers one. Apple has offer similar models in the past. There is no technical limitation to doing so. The cannibalization issue can be mitigated.
Vinea
I?m sorry, Vinea, but if you think that you can twist things around so that Apple would offer a $2200 Mac Pro with dual 2.0 GHz Xeons (the cheapest possible Mac Pro configuration) and remove ONE PART that costs them MAYBE $200 (the second processor) and then they would reduce the price by $700 because you think they should, you are DREAMING. Why not have them include the 30? screen in your $1500 price point while you are at it. Or why don?t you argue that Apple would maintain their margin in your mystical stripped $1500 Mac Pro by leaving out a $200 part and reducing the price by $700.
There are two things I would bet the farm on: Apple WILL NOT offer a single processor Mac Pro in the current form just so you can get a cheap Mac Pro and populate it even more cheaply than the current Apple BTO options AND Apple WILL NOT remove a $200 part and then offer the Mac Pro for $700 less.
You can go on and on about how you would like things to be, but I am just trying to point out reality to you. I am not defending Apple?s pricing strategies, I am only pointing out that what you want never will happen. Get a grip.
I’m sorry, Vinea, but if you think that you can twist things around so that Apple would offer a $2200 Mac Pro with dual 2.0 GHz Xeons (the cheapest possible Mac Pro configuration) and remove ONE PART that costs them MAYBE $200 (the second processor) and then they would reduce the price by $700 because you think they should, you are DREAMING.
I was about to say that Dell does it but they don't anymore...its $1674 now. So I guess we're at 2.0Ghz for $1649 if they want to stay below Dell pricing or $1699 if they don't care.
Does $200 more make you feel better? The point wasn't to do weird complex math with insufficient data but to look at what other vendors were offering and extrapolate from a known good number. Evidently Dell had a sale. Not a very well marked sale.
So the revised BTO line up is:
$1699 for single 2.0Ghz Mac Pro ($25 more than equivalent Dell
$1799 for single 2.66Ghz Mac Pro ($250 less than equivalent Dell)
$2499 for double 2.66Ghz Mac Pro ($350 less than equivalent Dell)
$3298 for double 3.0Ghz Mac Pro ($4 less than the equivalent Dell)
$3997 for double 3.0Ghz Quad Mac Pro (no Dell equivalent)
The single 2.0 is such a bad value we'll just delete it and it solves the cannibalization issues further.
If you prefer then the single CPU 2.66 option can be $1849 or $1899 but that's a little higher than where Apple historically has been for the bottom end. Either is still cheaper than Dell so fine.
The 5130 is a $316 part qty 1000. The 5150 is a $690 part qty 1000.
Dell single 2.0Ghz CPU is now 1,674.
Dell double 2.0Ghz CPU is now 2,103
Dell single 2.66Ghz CPU is now 2,044
Dell double 2.66Ghz CPU is now 2,843
Dell double 3.0Ghz CPU is now 3,303
Quote:
Why not have them include the 30” screen in your $1500 price point while you are at it.
Evidently Dell was having a sale. Something that if you had bothered looking at yesterday rather than ranting and raving you may have spotted and pointed that out rather than continue to make stupid arguments like this one.
Quote:
There are two things I would bet the farm on: Apple WILL NOT offer a single processor Mac Pro in the current form just so you can get a cheap Mac Pro and populate it even more cheaply than the current Apple BTO options AND Apple WILL NOT remove a $200 part and then offer the Mac Pro for $700 less.
So you'd like to ignore the 2.66 at $1799 option I suggested to play at being outraged.
I simply acknowledge that Dell was having a sale (or possibly user error...although I am 90% sure I clicked the right CPU options and none of the other CPU selections ends up at $1503), the premise was incorrect so my conclusion was also incorrect so yes, the $700 less number is too extreme at the 2.0 level unless Apple is willing to have a sale and cut margins.
However $700 less at the 2.66 level is about the cost of the 2.66 part at QTY 1000. The margins still get hit a bit but not to the same degree as for the 2.0 Ghz model.
Oh, and you don't know what Apple pays for the 5130. I bet they don't sell all THAT many.
Quote:
You can go on and on about how you would like things to be, but I am just trying to point out reality to you. I am not defending Apple’s pricing strategies, I am only pointing out that what you want never will happen. Get a grip.
Jim
Get a grip yourself and argue with actual facts and references rather than simple outrage. Pointing out that my basis for analysis is flawed (Dell was having a sale) is way more effective and productive than making idiotic claims such as Apple would never sell a Mac Pro with only 1GB of RAM.
I have zero problems admitting I made a mistake. Seems that you do. This is why such an emotionally charged topic like the xMac is just so annoying to discuss*. We go round and round in circles to no real end.
Vinea
* Yes, I was/am deliberately prodding you by calling specific arguments of yours stupid or idiotic. They were/are. This topic so much beating a dead horse I have zero tolerance for that kind of stuff. Especially if I make them which occasionally I do. Here I made an honest mistake as opposed to willful ignorance so I'm not inclined to flog myself over it.
I was about to say that Dell does it but they don't anymore...its $1674 now. So I guess we're at 2.0Ghz for $1649 if they want to stay below Dell pricing or $1699 if they don't care.
Does $200 more make you feel better? The point wasn't to do weird complex math with insufficient data but to look at what other vendors were offering and extrapolate from a known good number. Evidently Dell had a sale. Not a very well marked sale.
So the revised BTO line up is:
$1699 for single 2.0Ghz Mac Pro ($25 more than equivalent Dell
$1799 for single 2.66Ghz Mac Pro ($250 less than equivalent Dell)
$2499 for double 2.66Ghz Mac Pro ($350 less than equivalent Dell)
$3298 for double 3.0Ghz Mac Pro ($4 less than the equivalent Dell)
$3997 for double 3.0Ghz Quad Mac Pro (no Dell equivalent)
The single 2.0 is such a bad value we'll just delete it and it solves the cannibalization issues further.
If you prefer then the single CPU 2.66 option can be $1849 or $1899 but that's a little higher than where Apple historically has been for the bottom end. Either is still cheaper than Dell so fine.
The 5130 is a $316 part qty 1000. The 5150 is a $690 part qty 1000.
Dell single 2.0Ghz CPU is now 1,674.
Dell double 2.0Ghz CPU is now 2,103
Dell single 2.66Ghz CPU is now 2,044
Dell double 2.66Ghz CPU is now 2,843
Dell double 3.0Ghz CPU is now 3,303
Evidently Dell was having a sale. Something that if you had bothered looking at yesterday rather than ranting and raving you may have spotted and pointed that out rather than continue to make stupid arguments like this one.
So you'd like to ignore the 2.66 at $1799 option I suggested to play at being outraged.
I simply acknowledge that Dell was having a sale (or possibly user error...although I am 90% sure I clicked the right CPU options and none of the other CPU selections ends up at $1503), the premise was incorrect so my conclusion was also incorrect so yes, the $700 less number is too extreme at the 2.0 level unless Apple is willing to have a sale and cut margins.
However $700 less at the 2.66 level is about the cost of the 2.66 part at QTY 1000. The margins still get hit a bit but not to the same degree as for the 2.0 Ghz model.
Oh, and you don't know what Apple pays for the 5130. I bet they don't sell all THAT many.
Get a grip yourself and argue with actual facts and references rather than simple outrage. Pointing out that my basis for analysis is flawed (Dell was having a sale) is way more effective and productive than making idiotic claims such as Apple would never sell a Mac Pro with only 1GB of RAM.
I have zero problems admitting I made a mistake. Seems that you do. This is why such an emotionally charged topic like the xMac is just so annoying to discuss*. We go round and round in circles to no real end.
Vinea
* Yes, I was/am deliberately prodding you by calling specific arguments of yours stupid or idiotic. They were/are. This topic so much beating a dead horse I have zero tolerance for that kind of stuff. Especially if I make them which occasionally I do. Here I made an honest mistake as opposed to willful ignorance so I'm not inclined to flog myself over it.
Vinea, this is getting tiring. I NEVER said that Apple didn?t offer a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram (one GB of ram IS the standard configuration), I said they don?t offer a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram AND with only one CPU (read more carefully). And I DID say that a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram would NOT be a configuration that would be useful. Gee, I guess you made another mistake when you concluded that I made one.
The fact of the matter is that it doesn?t matter what price Dell offers a particular configuration (on sale or not) ? within the constraint of classic economic behavior. If you want a Mac Pro, you will pay what Apple wants (or buy it second-hand). If all you care about is getting a single Xeon CPU/single GB of FB-DIMM ram BOX that doesn?t run OS X for as cheaply as possible, you will buy the Dell or build your own.
I?ll say what I said before: ?There are two things I would bet the farm on: Apple WILL NOT offer a single processor Mac Pro in the current form just so you can get a cheap Mac Pro and populate it even more cheaply than the current Apple BTO options AND Apple WILL NOT remove a $200 part and then offer the Mac Pro for $700 less.?
Please let me know as soon as the current Mac Pro shows up in the Apple store with a $700 price reduction after Apple has removed ONLY a $200 second processor. Otherwise, please don?t respond with something that has no basis in Apple?s reality. Even if you and I would like the Mac Pro to be cheaper, such a MASSIVE reduction in Apple?s margin as your $1500 Mac Pro isn?t going to happen. Why would Apple do that? Answer: They won?t.
Vinea, this is getting tiring. I NEVER said that Apple didn’t offer a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram (one GB of ram IS the standard configuration), I said they don’t offer a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram AND with only one CPU (read more carefully). And I DID say that a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram would NOT be a configuration that would be useful. Gee, I guess you made another mistake when you concluded that I made one.
You were trying to say the configuration was bad because it came with only 1GB RAM standard because "no one would ever buy one". They do. It is useful because folks pick that to minimize cost and populate with 3rd party RAM. Which is why Apple offers it.
I don't know your state of knowledge when you wrote that but it certainly is possible you were unaware that was the default configuration since the top end iMac comes with 2GB standard. Assuming that Mac Pro would as well isn't impossible. Which is why I pointed it out and you are now belatedly repeating.
Jesus. You think YOU'RE tired? Why the hell am I defending a simple little choice as picking the SAME DAMN RAM CONFIGURATION APPLE SELLS TODAY IF YOU AREN'T SIMPLY BEING ARGUMENTATIVE?
It was stupid. I called it stupid. Spin it all you like but the criticism is still dumb as rocks and a diversion away from points you couldn't address.
Quote:
I’ll say what I said before: “There are two things I would bet the farm on: Apple WILL NOT offer a single processor Mac Pro in the current form just so you can get a cheap Mac Pro and populate it even more cheaply than the current Apple BTO options AND Apple WILL NOT remove a $200 part and then offer the Mac Pro for $700 less.“
It appears we agree to a point. But you have so many caveats in there that the statement itself if pointless. You don't know its a $200 part. The revised price point isn't $700 less anymore.
But since we agree you can let it go now since its tiring for both of us. Its not like you actually ever discussed anything since you continue to ignore the modifications to address your concerns/comments.
You simply want to characterize me as someone who wants a cheap mac pro...which is a real laugh since BenRothig accuses me of the exact opposite...a defender of Apple's margins and a worshipper of style over substance.
I'm describing AT MOST what I think Apple will offer. Single CPU Xeon Mac Pro. The price and exact configuration itself is flexible as long as its far enough below $2000 to make it affordable (or why bother...you can get the dual 2.0 model). There's historical precedent for a $1499-$1799 MacPro/PowerMac. There's headroom beneath Dell's pricing. There's no guarantee that Apple WILL do this but it fits their model from the last several years.
Folks that want a $700-$1200 Conroe box are the ones that wants to get cheap headless macs that are not likely to happen while Jobs is CEO. It would adversly affect iMac and Mac Pro sales, lower ASP and revenue.
As I pointed out...the Mac Pro case is equal to the top end CoolerMaster and ThermalTakes that run $300.
A slow $1500 Mac Pro with a 2.0Ghz CPU is roughly equivalent to a E4400. An E4400 with a $300 case is likely around $1200. I haven't tried to part it out but the Dell with a E4400 is $899. The low end Dell cases are like the $30-$50 cases.
That's both expensive for a computer, and cheap for a case at the same time.
Newegg:
E4400, Antec P180, Apevia ATX-CW500WP4 500W, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB, Wintec AMPX 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 800, BIOSTAR TForce TP35D2-A7 motherboard with P35 chipset, MSI GeForce 8400GS (256MB) --- under $600. I didn't stop to pick parts carefully, just went with something that came up on the first page and represented relatively new tech. These parts had two active rebates, which I didn't count. Only thing I went back and changed was my initial mobo pick, which turned out to be micro-ATX with nVidia chipset. I put in a more expensive ATX one with Intel chipset to better represent what Apple would be going with.
The quality and price level of the P180 is plenty for a consumer desktop. Apple design at that price would look amazing. A $300 workstation case is wasteful, just like the Xeons.
Quote:
Having good reviews is one step for making people want to buy it. Perception is a very important aspect of the buying decision. Folks can be convinced to buy a more expensive item that is percieved as a better VALUE than a lower priced item.
A product that costs $100 more but performs worse than the exact same product that costs $100 less is a hard sell even with good branding and in this case, better software.
So you propose to fix that by making it cost a lot more like the Mac Pro?
Quote:
Compare that to your $1200 xMac with the exact same hardware specifications as a $1000 Dell, HP or Gateway. Poor relative value. Bad reviews. Apple branding damaged.
Unless I'm somehow mistaken, they'd have a good case unlike virtually all their immediate competitors, quiet and trustworthy cooling, the OS, trustworthy drivers for both OS X and Windows, the remote, maybe some unexpected Apple magic.
Apple branding is already damaged every time someone comes up on a web forum and asks if Macs can (insert any simple thing here that is covered by a tower) should he switch, and gets a chorus of "no" as an answer.
So you propose to fix that by making it cost a lot more like the Mac Pro?
No, the fix is to BE a Mac Pro and therefore compared to other workstation class machines rather than desktops.
The price is whatever it ends up being with whatever processor it ends up being to remain competitive with other workstation class machines.
This fullfills the objective to provide an expandable tower at significantly less than the current $2200. What significantly means may vary but hopefully at least in the $400 range to around $1800.
A single CPU Mac Pro can do so without competing directly with Conroe based desktops made by Dell, HP, Acer, etc. Just as the iMac does not compete directly with Conroe based desktops made by Dell, HP, Acer, etc.
The fact that a Conroe box would outperform them at a lower price is a non-issue with respect to public perception of Apple computers.
There are Conroe configurations that can outperform Mac Pro models at a lower price point today for singly threaded apps, games, etc and yet the perception is that the Mac Pro is a good value because its in a different weight class but also because equivalent machines in its weight class are priced higher.
This is somewhat less true of the iMac BUT direct comparisons of the iMac are rarely made against Dell, HP, Acer towers because its not a tower. When a comparison is made there is usually some caveat that while the iMac has poor bang for the buck it is more stylish or slim or some other qualifier for why it doesn't just outright suck when you compare what you pay with what you get in terms of benchmarked performance.
This is how Apple can get away charging hundreds more on consumer machines with huge margins that runs far slower conventional tower PCs without getting hammered by the tech and mainstream press. Too much anyway. It's always an Apples to Oranges comparison.
What this boils down to is you'd like Apple to sell slow workstations to 10 people and get purely good press rather than sell powerful desktops to 100 people and have a few people (who aren't buying and wouldn't buy even at a cheaper price) bitch about the computers being slightly too expensive compared to some computers from other manufacturers that happen to share a component or two with these ones.
And that in a market where some hobbyists drop $3000 on their computer without blinking an eye. Some of that goes towards things like water cooling, expensive cases, custom paintjobs that do not put their computer any farther in benchmarks but have aesthetic or practical goals such as fun, beauty or quiet. Just like Apple's offering would. Why are the companies offering those parts, services and computers still in business when they should be getting compared to the cheapest HP has to offer, getting a ton of bad press and committing seppuku to deal with the shame?
You didn't offer any reason why the Apple strong points I talked about in the last post would fail to generate differentiation between Apple's offering and cheap builds.
As I pointed out...the Mac Pro case is equal to the top end CoolerMaster and ThermalTakes that run $300.
A slow $1500 Mac Pro with a 2.0Ghz CPU is roughly equivalent to a E4400. An E4400 with a $300 case is likely around $1200. I haven't tried to part it out but the Dell with a E4400 is $899. The low end Dell cases are like the $30-$50 cases.
Are you really comparing a 2.0GHz Xeon to a E4400?
By the way, there's a Dell with a E6540 for $700-800 (Inspiron 531s). Stop trying to compare Dell and Apple, Dell is a mess. In fact most PC "manufacturers" don't know what to do: they are still trying to sell PCs with pentium D and 4, celeron D, new and old AMDs and newer intel core cpus, it is crazy, no wonder most of them are failing and going out of business.
It's Apple chance to come up with a simple, attractive and reasonably priced desktop and clean up the market!!!
Are you really comparing a 2.0GHz Xeon to a E4400?
Do you know what a E4400 is?
Are you aware of the Xeon 5130 specs?
Have you been adbucted lately?
Yes. Its a low end processor...and for $800 that's the Dell I found. Yes, Dell's a mess, I didn't do an exhaustive search. Yes, the E4400 has a smaller cache and slower FSB but I was erring on their side because I didn't want to deal with: "No the E6420 is MUCH faster because of the memory latency on the FB-DIMMs".
So I get pinged from the opposite direction.
Quote:
By the way, there's a Dell with a E6540 for $700-800 (Inspiron 531s).
Fine. Use that. $1200 2.33Ghz C2D vs $1500 2.0Ghz Xeon. For $300 you get more ram expansion and the option for a second CPU at the cost of a slower CPU and slower RAM.
The $1500 price point is shown to be impossible at Apple's margins now anyway so the whole discussion if OBE.
Compare with a $1800 2.66Ghz Xeon. This time YOU pick the E6700 config that you want to compare. The point is that the nice case and power supply doesn't have zero value.
Whether the cost delta is worth the possibility of extra RAM or second CPU is debatable but its also not a zero value.
I am not the one always comparing a Mac Pro or an potentiel SP Mac Pro to an "equivalent" Dell. I don't care what they offer and at what price. I just know/care about what Apple is offering and what they could offer if they choose to use a desktop platform instead of a server/workstation platform for a mythical new desktop Mac. Today, offering a SP dual-core Mac Pro would be un-ecological, even un-ethical: "we're in the market to offer the best personal computers..."
But if you really want to know what I would like to compare the xMac with, in terms of specs/price not look, go there: HP-Pavilion-Media-Center-TV-PC-M-8120-N
And I wouldn't mind paying a little more and/or have less features than that for a Mac!
Like I've already said here or elsewhere, my wining xMac team would be:
$999 barebone dual-core Conroe xMac (even the E4400 if you really want to)
$1299 entry-level quad-core Kentsfield xMac (could even be $1349 to really fit between the two 20" iMacs)
$1999 Extreme Edition (the cpu) quad-core Kensfield xMac
I'll go back to the title of the thread because that's what is important: Why do you want a minitower?
Because a minitower would use:
- a smaller enclosure/smaller power supply more adapted to what's inside the computer
- a desktop motherboard, with less features than the server/workstation one, cheaper, less power hungry
- a desktop processor (instead of two server cpus), still fast but a lot cheaper, and less power hungry
Yet all this would give me:
- more power than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- more expandability/room for internal/faster components than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- the satisfaction to buy a new (as opposed to used) computer that fits my needs and my budget
- more future-proof than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- and SteveJobs-proof®
Late november this year or at least early january next year, I really hope that the Mac Pro goes dual-quad all the way and gets 2GB RAM standard with penryn chips and at the same price points. That would make the xMac even more a necessity than it is today. The gap in the desktop line-up will then appear big as a montain (where are the quads?). And since the first mobile quads (44W) will not appear before the summer 2008 and only in the 24" iMac and maybe (maybe) the 17" MBP...
Now don't tell me that creating a new Mac will cost Apple a lot, because 1) it is not true 2) with the new iMac, they just redesigned completly 2 models:
- new enclosures (2)
- new motherboards (2) even if they use inventory chipsets
- new glossy displays (2)
- new cpus (2, 800FSB 2.0 and 2.8GHz Meroms)
- new gpus (2)
- even a new keyboard
And they lowered the prices $200-300.
R&D for a new xMac:
1 new enclosure ()
1 new motherboard (driiinnnngggggg!
- Hello Intel, wasup dog?
- Good Mr. Apple, good. What can I do for you today?
- I need G33 motherboards with only PCIe slots, a DVI port, FW400/800, a EFI ROM and no legacy PC ports please...
- Of course, of course, but won't you prefer our unreleased (secret) G33++Deluxe, it's really better than the G33 and we can deliver it to you today for the same low price as the regular G33 - customization is on us as usual...
- heu... let me check with Steve... (laughs on the background) ... Hey, Intel, Steve doesn't seem very pleased but yeah, we're gonna take the new one.
- Of course, of course, I am typing as fast as I can your order, but you know with that M$ OS and software it can be painful.
- Oh by the way, Intel, when can I get the new unreleased secret mobile chips you talked about last time, 'cause Steve doesn't want to talk only about desktops for a whole keynote again.
- Oh we're almost done, almost done (the repeating is due to the dual-core brainwash of all Intel empoyees), like for the Core Duo we'd like you to be our first mobile-penryn customer for sure.
I am not the one always comparing a Mac Pro or an potentiel SP Mac Pro to an "equivalent" Dell. I don't care what they offer and at what price. I just know/care about what Apple is offering and what they could offer if they choose to use a desktop platform instead of a server/workstation platform for a mythical new desktop Mac.
There's an ignore feature if you don't care. They COULD choose to do a desktop system. They HAVEN'T and aren't likely to.
Quote:
Today, offering a SP dual-core Mac Pro would be un-ecological, even un-ethical: "we're in the market to offer the best personal computers..."
LOL. Unethical?
Quote:
Like I've already said here or elsewhere, my wining xMac team would be:
$999 barebone dual-core Conroe xMac (even the E4400 if you really want to)
$1299 entry-level quad-core Kentsfield xMac (could even be $1349 to really fit between the two 20" iMacs)
$1999 Extreme Edition (the cpu) quad-core Kensfield xMac
I don't mind...whatever you like. You'll just have to write off the iMac. Now that's probably a small loss but you need to also make sure in your proposed lineup that you maintain ASP and margins. $2K for an extreme seems light but whatever. Its not happening so propose all you like.
Quote:
- and SteveJobs-proof®
Heh...Steve Jobs isn't the problem. Steve Jobs is why you have an Apple today and not a Commodore or Be.
Quote:
Now don't tell me that creating a new Mac will cost Apple a lot, because 1) it is not true 2) with the new iMac, they just redesigned completly 2 models:
- new enclosures (2)
- new motherboards (2) even if they use inventory chipsets
- new glossy displays (2)
- new cpus (2, 800FSB 2.0 and 2.8GHz Meroms)
- new gpus (2)
- even a new keyboard
And they lowered the prices $200-300.
Money they just flushed down the toilet if they introduce an xMac because the xMac will destroy all iMac sales.
So ain't happening this year. Probably not till SJ is gone which is hopefully a long time.
The reason its $2200 is because of the second CPU. Were it BTO for a single 2.0Ghz Xeon and $1600-$1700 then it's only a little more for the expansion capabilities.
That's a 90% solution to your needs. You continually reject it because of "server parts" being "too slow".
Then you should abandon Apple until Jobs retires since you don't like status symbol computers. That's ALL Apple will make EVEN if it decided to make a Conroe based mid-tower.
You're trying to turn Apple back to a commodity company as existed when you bought your G3. A company that was one foot in the grave and fading fast.
No thanks.
Or a CPU from the Mac Pro. But one point of a headless iMac is...well removing the display. Not everyone makes Conroe or low prices a requirement. Making Conroe and low prices a requirement arguable makes it Not Apple.
Not everyone is in your "we" category. There had been multiple postings about the cube form factor long before I posted so obviously SOMEONE else in this thread cares.
You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO.
The PowerMac became the Mac Pro. I have a QuickSilver and a Mac Pro and while the Mac Pro is a bit bigger than the QuickSilver in reality the only difference between the two is that Apple used to offer a single CPU version of the QuickSilver and PowerMac G5 and doesn't yet with the Mac Pro.
The PowerMac has never really been priced for consumers.
Vinea
This has got to be the most depressing post I've seen in this thread. So much negativity.
"abandon Apple" "status symbol computers" "turn Apple back to a commodity company" "You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO." "Apple used to offer a single CPU version"
I remember a time when the Macintosh came in three varieties: a PowerMac 6100, a 7100, and an 8100. The 6100 was an unexpandable pizzabox. The 8100 was a big empty ugly box that you could stuff drives and cards in. And the 7100 was priced in between, with enough slots for the average joe like me, who bought it. The offerings made sense, even though it was not Apple's heyday.
We now have two pizza boxes (the mini and the iMac) and a big empty expensive box, with nothing in between. I think most of us will agree that we need something in between.
Heh...Steve Jobs isn't the problem. Steve Jobs is why you have an Apple today and not a Commodore or Be.
Yes he is, I know, he used to be my boss (that was a long time ago, don't even try to speculate anything).
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Money they just flushed down the toilet if they introduce an xMac because the xMac will destroy all iMac sales.
If that's true, why keep a product in the line-up that could be easily destroyed by a simple plain midtower desktop computer, that would cost a lot less to design and manufacture and generate more sales/margins. And that doesn't mean they have to make it ugly. Make it cute, make it powerful, price it nicely so it can really generate all those sales and profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So ain't happening this year. Probably not till SJ is gone which is hopefully a long time.
I can wait until next year, no problem. I mean for the xMac, not for SJ to quit (he is good with iTunes, iPods and the Mercedes/Jaguar/VW...) and I have a VW
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Aren't these xMac threads fun?
Depending, who's writing. Sometimes it's fun when I see that Joe has wrote something, I always wonder how he's gonna shape its same comment again. But he surprised me yesterday, he made a longer post than usual that had more "meat"... Snoopy is also funny. Ben is like the grumpy old man, I imagine him a little overweight and with a beard (no offense Ben). You... are Satan or better, the little at Satan's feet doing the dirty work for him! But someone has to do it I suppose.
I remember a time when the Macintosh came in three varieties: a PowerMac 6100, a 7100, and an 8100. The 6100 was an unexpandable pizzabox. The 8100 was a big empty ugly box that you could stuff drives and cards in. And the 7100 was priced in between, with enough slots for the average joe like me, who bought it. The offerings made sense, even though it was not Apple's heyday.
We now have two pizza boxes (the mini and the iMac) and a big empty expensive box, with nothing in between. I think most of us will agree that we need something in between.
The Mac Pro is more the successor to the 9000 series PowerMacs. The slot of the 7000 and 8000 series goes unfilled. Look, there is more than enough room for a consumer SFF and a consumer tower. A Minitower is too big for your tastes and needs and your little pizza box/Cube as you want it offers little over this iMac I'm typing on
Ben is like the grumpy old man, I imagine him a little overweight and with a beard (no offense Ben). .
Beard, no. Maybe in like 15 years when I'm 40. Goatee on occasion, but no beard. Beard doesn't quite go with the suit. As for the grumpiness I've had all in ones, I've had laptops, I've had towers, and I ever experimented with a windows PC for a while (and wished I could buy a bottle of jack at the time). Every time I learned a little bit about what works and doesn't work for me. Apple has created an operating system that is hands down far superior to windows. In fact, I find windows barely usable. However, there is also this "we know what's best for everyone and have the right to make decisions for you" arrogance that drives me up the wall. There's also a conservatism that keeps Apple in a very narrow box unwilling to risk a little and venture outside that box. I Just give the users different options and let them decide for themselves. They'll probably gain some new users in the process.
I am not the one always comparing a Mac Pro or an potentiel SP Mac Pro to an "equivalent" Dell. I don't care what they offer and at what price. I just know/care about what Apple is offering and what they could offer if they choose to use a desktop platform instead of a server/workstation platform for a mythical new desktop Mac. Today, offering a SP dual-core Mac Pro would be un-ecological, even un-ethical: "we're in the market to offer the best personal computers..."
But if you really want to know what I would like to compare the xMac with, in terms of specs/price not look, go there: HP-Pavilion-Media-Center-TV-PC-M-8120-N
And I wouldn't mind paying a little more and/or have less features than that for a Mac!
Like I've already said here or elsewhere, my wining xMac team would be:
$999 barebone dual-core Conroe xMac (even the E4400 if you really want to)
$1299 entry-level quad-core Kentsfield xMac (could even be $1349 to really fit between the two 20" iMacs)
$1999 Extreme Edition (the cpu) quad-core Kensfield xMac
I'll go back to the title of the thread because that's what is important: Why do you want a minitower?
Because a minitower would use:
- a smaller enclosure/smaller power supply more adapted to what's inside the computer
- a desktop motherboard, with less features than the server/workstation one, cheaper, less power hungry
- a desktop processor (instead of two server cpus), still fast but a lot cheaper, and less power hungry
Yet all this would give me:
- more power than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- more expandability/room for internal/faster components than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- the satisfaction to buy a new (as opposed to used) computer that fits my needs and my budget
- more future-proof than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- and SteveJobs-proof®
Late november this year or at least early january next year, I really hope that the Mac Pro goes dual-quad all the way and gets 2GB RAM standard with penryn chips and at the same price points. That would make the xMac even more a necessity than it is today. The gap in the desktop line-up will then appear big as a montain (where are the quads?). And since the first mobile quads (44W) will not appear before the summer 2008 and only in the 24" iMac and maybe (maybe) the 17" MBP...
Now don't tell me that creating a new Mac will cost Apple a lot, because 1) it is not true 2) with the new iMac, they just redesigned completly 2 models:
- new enclosures (2)
- new motherboards (2) even if they use inventory chipsets
- new glossy displays (2)
- new cpus (2, 800FSB 2.0 and 2.8GHz Meroms)
- new gpus (2)
- even a new keyboard
And they lowered the prices $200-300.
R&D for a new xMac:
1 new enclosure ()
1 new motherboard (driiinnnngggggg!
- Hello Intel, wasup dog?
- Good Mr. Apple, good. What can I do for you today?
- I need G33 motherboards with only PCIe slots, a DVI port, FW400/800, a EFI ROM and no legacy PC ports please...
- Of course, of course, but won't you prefer our unreleased (secret) G33++Deluxe, it's really better than the G33 and we can deliver it to you today for the same low price as the regular G33 - customization is on us as usual...
replace the G33++Deluxe with the G35
and maybe a have a pci slot for things like a sound card.
The chipset has 1 x16 slot and 6 x1 links
x16 x4 with 2 x1 links for on board network chip and wifi card. firewire on pci bus.
or
x16 x1 x1 x1 with 3 x1 links for on board stuff maybe put firewire on it.
or
x16 x2 x1 with 3 x1 links for on board stuff maybe put firewire on it.
or
x16 x1 x1 with 4 x1 links for on board stuff.
Quote: Originally Posted by mjteix
- heu... let me check with Steve... (laughs on the background) ... Hey, Intel, Steve doesn't seem very pleased but yeah, we're gonna take the new one.
- Of course, of course, I am typing as fast as I can your order, but you know with that M$ OS and software it can be painful.
- Oh by the way, Intel, when can I get the new unreleased secret mobile chips you talked about last time, 'cause Steve doesn't want to talk only about desktops for a whole keynote again.
- Oh we're almost done, almost done (the repeating is due to the dual-core brainwash of all Intel empoyees), like for the Core Duo we'd like you to be our first mobile-penryn customer for sure.
- OK then, see you dog.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
3 new cpus (testing)
1 integrated gpu driver (design? and testing)
Release it after Leopard for even less testing.
the board will be open to the full desktop cpu line.
The intel on board video chips use the same driver set.
This has got to be the most depressing post I've seen in this thread. So much negativity.
"abandon Apple" "status symbol computers" "turn Apple back to a commodity company" "You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO." "Apple used to offer a single CPU version"
Eh? I'm simply repeating what others have said in this thread. Certainly the "status symbol" thing CANNOT be laid at my feet. Likewise the whining that apple isn't providing what THEY need. I'm reasonably happy with Apple's current line-up and see the "need" for only minimal changes.
Yes he is, I know, he used to be my boss (that was a long time ago, don't even try to speculate anything).
The "yes he is" in terms being the problem? I disagree if that's what you mean and I worked briefly for Jobs as well although I was so far down the food chain AND on the east coast so I only met him once briefly at a customer presentation.
Quote:
If that's true, why keep a product in the line-up that could be easily destroyed by a simple plain midtower desktop computer, that would cost a lot less to design and manufacture and generate more sales/margins.
The assumption is that it would generate more sales/margins. The reality could be quite different. The lack of any other high end tower maker indicates that this is not as easy as it might look.
Quote:
You... are Satan or better, the little at Satan's feet doing the dirty work for him! But someone has to do it I suppose.
Comments
As Ben points out its a modified X5000 motherboard.
There's also no "fun with numbers". Dell offers a single 2.0Ghz CPU X5000 based Precision for $1503. A price $4 less from Apple is hardly impossible.
They HAVE offered a single CPU PowerMac in the past in the $1499-$1799 price range. The analysis simply attempts to figure out what you could get at these price points by looking at what other vendors offer at these points.
Apple COULD charge more but as seen with CURRENT pricing they are very competitive with Dell on the dual CPU models.
Which would be a seperate BTO option to add memory. Or you order said memory from Crucial for hundreds less than what Apple sells them for.
This point is simply dumb. The $2499 dual 2.66 Mac Pro TODAY comes with an anemic 1GB of RAM standard.
Yes, you are trying to argue with me. Your points have been rather argumentative and you refuse to accept the reality of today. The reality of Apple pricing on the Mac Pros is that on equivalent models they ARE priced less than Dell. The historical pricing on PowerMacs with single vs dual CPUs put them in the same price range as the single CPU Dell Precisions that the Mac Pro already competes with. All Macs arguably ship with too little RAM standard anyway. The X5000 chipset can run with a single CPU.
That you can't agree to things you can easily verify by going to Intel, Dell and Apple's website is simply argumentative.
See? They ALREADY SELL THE $2,499 DUAL 2.66GHZ MAC PRO WITH IGB OF RAM. I can capitalize too. A single 2.0Ghz Mac Pro at $1,499 might cannibalize dual CPU configurations (a point I covered in the previous post) but only the dual 2.0Ghz model.
There are ways to mitigate this:
1) Eliminate the dual 2.0Ghz BTO option. Buying two $680 2.66Ghz Xeons is $1360 with a total price of $2760...about the same as just buying from Apple directly after you eBay your old part.
2) Start with a 2.66Ghz single CPU option at $1799. Again the final price for dual 2.66 is about the same the Apple price.
3) Epoxy over the second CPU slot and eliminate the ability to add a second CPU.
Even if you don't do anything the $400 price difference is partially offset by labor hours. They don't make getting to the CPU all that easy. Most companies and individuals would likely not bother. Espeically if single 2.66Ghz and single 3.0Ghz models were also offered.
I would argue for both options 1 & 2. I'm going to guess most purchasers of the dual 2.0Ghz Mac Pros are doing so to save money since the 2.66Ghz model is a much better value. Therefore the $400 cost savings of a single 2.66 Ghz model ($1799) is worth a lot more to them than the second CPU in the dual 2.0Ghz configuration. Then Apple can drop the 2.0Ghz part entirely and increase buys of the 2.66Ghz part.
I would hope they wouldn't do #3 although the DID cripple their single 1.8Ghz G5 model.
It clearly would not. Dell offers one. Apple has offer similar models in the past. There is no technical limitation to doing so. The cannibalization issue can be mitigated.
Vinea
I?m sorry, Vinea, but if you think that you can twist things around so that Apple would offer a $2200 Mac Pro with dual 2.0 GHz Xeons (the cheapest possible Mac Pro configuration) and remove ONE PART that costs them MAYBE $200 (the second processor) and then they would reduce the price by $700 because you think they should, you are DREAMING. Why not have them include the 30? screen in your $1500 price point while you are at it. Or why don?t you argue that Apple would maintain their margin in your mystical stripped $1500 Mac Pro by leaving out a $200 part and reducing the price by $700.
There are two things I would bet the farm on: Apple WILL NOT offer a single processor Mac Pro in the current form just so you can get a cheap Mac Pro and populate it even more cheaply than the current Apple BTO options AND Apple WILL NOT remove a $200 part and then offer the Mac Pro for $700 less.
You can go on and on about how you would like things to be, but I am just trying to point out reality to you. I am not defending Apple?s pricing strategies, I am only pointing out that what you want never will happen. Get a grip.
Jim
I’m sorry, Vinea, but if you think that you can twist things around so that Apple would offer a $2200 Mac Pro with dual 2.0 GHz Xeons (the cheapest possible Mac Pro configuration) and remove ONE PART that costs them MAYBE $200 (the second processor) and then they would reduce the price by $700 because you think they should, you are DREAMING.
I was about to say that Dell does it but they don't anymore...its $1674 now. So I guess we're at 2.0Ghz for $1649 if they want to stay below Dell pricing or $1699 if they don't care.
Does $200 more make you feel better? The point wasn't to do weird complex math with insufficient data but to look at what other vendors were offering and extrapolate from a known good number. Evidently Dell had a sale. Not a very well marked sale.
So the revised BTO line up is:
$1699 for single 2.0Ghz Mac Pro ($25 more than equivalent Dell
$1799 for single 2.66Ghz Mac Pro ($250 less than equivalent Dell)
$2499 for double 2.66Ghz Mac Pro ($350 less than equivalent Dell)
$3298 for double 3.0Ghz Mac Pro ($4 less than the equivalent Dell)
$3997 for double 3.0Ghz Quad Mac Pro (no Dell equivalent)
The single 2.0 is such a bad value we'll just delete it and it solves the cannibalization issues further.
If you prefer then the single CPU 2.66 option can be $1849 or $1899 but that's a little higher than where Apple historically has been for the bottom end. Either is still cheaper than Dell so fine.
The 5130 is a $316 part qty 1000. The 5150 is a $690 part qty 1000.
Dell single 2.0Ghz CPU is now 1,674.
Dell double 2.0Ghz CPU is now 2,103
Dell single 2.66Ghz CPU is now 2,044
Dell double 2.66Ghz CPU is now 2,843
Dell double 3.0Ghz CPU is now 3,303
Why not have them include the 30” screen in your $1500 price point while you are at it.
Evidently Dell was having a sale. Something that if you had bothered looking at yesterday rather than ranting and raving you may have spotted and pointed that out rather than continue to make stupid arguments like this one.
There are two things I would bet the farm on: Apple WILL NOT offer a single processor Mac Pro in the current form just so you can get a cheap Mac Pro and populate it even more cheaply than the current Apple BTO options AND Apple WILL NOT remove a $200 part and then offer the Mac Pro for $700 less.
So you'd like to ignore the 2.66 at $1799 option I suggested to play at being outraged.
I simply acknowledge that Dell was having a sale (or possibly user error...although I am 90% sure I clicked the right CPU options and none of the other CPU selections ends up at $1503), the premise was incorrect so my conclusion was also incorrect so yes, the $700 less number is too extreme at the 2.0 level unless Apple is willing to have a sale and cut margins.
However $700 less at the 2.66 level is about the cost of the 2.66 part at QTY 1000. The margins still get hit a bit but not to the same degree as for the 2.0 Ghz model.
Oh, and you don't know what Apple pays for the 5130. I bet they don't sell all THAT many.
You can go on and on about how you would like things to be, but I am just trying to point out reality to you. I am not defending Apple’s pricing strategies, I am only pointing out that what you want never will happen. Get a grip.
Jim
Get a grip yourself and argue with actual facts and references rather than simple outrage. Pointing out that my basis for analysis is flawed (Dell was having a sale) is way more effective and productive than making idiotic claims such as Apple would never sell a Mac Pro with only 1GB of RAM.
I have zero problems admitting I made a mistake. Seems that you do. This is why such an emotionally charged topic like the xMac is just so annoying to discuss*. We go round and round in circles to no real end.
Vinea
* Yes, I was/am deliberately prodding you by calling specific arguments of yours stupid or idiotic. They were/are. This topic so much beating a dead horse I have zero tolerance for that kind of stuff. Especially if I make them which occasionally I do. Here I made an honest mistake as opposed to willful ignorance so I'm not inclined to flog myself over it.
I was about to say that Dell does it but they don't anymore...its $1674 now. So I guess we're at 2.0Ghz for $1649 if they want to stay below Dell pricing or $1699 if they don't care.
Does $200 more make you feel better? The point wasn't to do weird complex math with insufficient data but to look at what other vendors were offering and extrapolate from a known good number. Evidently Dell had a sale. Not a very well marked sale.
So the revised BTO line up is:
$1699 for single 2.0Ghz Mac Pro ($25 more than equivalent Dell
$1799 for single 2.66Ghz Mac Pro ($250 less than equivalent Dell)
$2499 for double 2.66Ghz Mac Pro ($350 less than equivalent Dell)
$3298 for double 3.0Ghz Mac Pro ($4 less than the equivalent Dell)
$3997 for double 3.0Ghz Quad Mac Pro (no Dell equivalent)
The single 2.0 is such a bad value we'll just delete it and it solves the cannibalization issues further.
If you prefer then the single CPU 2.66 option can be $1849 or $1899 but that's a little higher than where Apple historically has been for the bottom end. Either is still cheaper than Dell so fine.
The 5130 is a $316 part qty 1000. The 5150 is a $690 part qty 1000.
Dell single 2.0Ghz CPU is now 1,674.
Dell double 2.0Ghz CPU is now 2,103
Dell single 2.66Ghz CPU is now 2,044
Dell double 2.66Ghz CPU is now 2,843
Dell double 3.0Ghz CPU is now 3,303
Evidently Dell was having a sale. Something that if you had bothered looking at yesterday rather than ranting and raving you may have spotted and pointed that out rather than continue to make stupid arguments like this one.
So you'd like to ignore the 2.66 at $1799 option I suggested to play at being outraged.
I simply acknowledge that Dell was having a sale (or possibly user error...although I am 90% sure I clicked the right CPU options and none of the other CPU selections ends up at $1503), the premise was incorrect so my conclusion was also incorrect so yes, the $700 less number is too extreme at the 2.0 level unless Apple is willing to have a sale and cut margins.
However $700 less at the 2.66 level is about the cost of the 2.66 part at QTY 1000. The margins still get hit a bit but not to the same degree as for the 2.0 Ghz model.
Oh, and you don't know what Apple pays for the 5130. I bet they don't sell all THAT many.
Get a grip yourself and argue with actual facts and references rather than simple outrage. Pointing out that my basis for analysis is flawed (Dell was having a sale) is way more effective and productive than making idiotic claims such as Apple would never sell a Mac Pro with only 1GB of RAM.
I have zero problems admitting I made a mistake. Seems that you do. This is why such an emotionally charged topic like the xMac is just so annoying to discuss*. We go round and round in circles to no real end.
Vinea
* Yes, I was/am deliberately prodding you by calling specific arguments of yours stupid or idiotic. They were/are. This topic so much beating a dead horse I have zero tolerance for that kind of stuff. Especially if I make them which occasionally I do. Here I made an honest mistake as opposed to willful ignorance so I'm not inclined to flog myself over it.
Vinea, this is getting tiring. I NEVER said that Apple didn?t offer a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram (one GB of ram IS the standard configuration), I said they don?t offer a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram AND with only one CPU (read more carefully). And I DID say that a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram would NOT be a configuration that would be useful. Gee, I guess you made another mistake when you concluded that I made one.
The fact of the matter is that it doesn?t matter what price Dell offers a particular configuration (on sale or not) ? within the constraint of classic economic behavior. If you want a Mac Pro, you will pay what Apple wants (or buy it second-hand). If all you care about is getting a single Xeon CPU/single GB of FB-DIMM ram BOX that doesn?t run OS X for as cheaply as possible, you will buy the Dell or build your own.
I?ll say what I said before: ?There are two things I would bet the farm on: Apple WILL NOT offer a single processor Mac Pro in the current form just so you can get a cheap Mac Pro and populate it even more cheaply than the current Apple BTO options AND Apple WILL NOT remove a $200 part and then offer the Mac Pro for $700 less.?
Please let me know as soon as the current Mac Pro shows up in the Apple store with a $700 price reduction after Apple has removed ONLY a $200 second processor. Otherwise, please don?t respond with something that has no basis in Apple?s reality. Even if you and I would like the Mac Pro to be cheaper, such a MASSIVE reduction in Apple?s margin as your $1500 Mac Pro isn?t going to happen. Why would Apple do that? Answer: They won?t.
Jim
Vinea, this is getting tiring. I NEVER said that Apple didn’t offer a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram (one GB of ram IS the standard configuration), I said they don’t offer a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram AND with only one CPU (read more carefully). And I DID say that a Mac Pro with only one GB of ram would NOT be a configuration that would be useful. Gee, I guess you made another mistake when you concluded that I made one.
You were trying to say the configuration was bad because it came with only 1GB RAM standard because "no one would ever buy one". They do. It is useful because folks pick that to minimize cost and populate with 3rd party RAM. Which is why Apple offers it.
I don't know your state of knowledge when you wrote that but it certainly is possible you were unaware that was the default configuration since the top end iMac comes with 2GB standard. Assuming that Mac Pro would as well isn't impossible. Which is why I pointed it out and you are now belatedly repeating.
Jesus. You think YOU'RE tired? Why the hell am I defending a simple little choice as picking the SAME DAMN RAM CONFIGURATION APPLE SELLS TODAY IF YOU AREN'T SIMPLY BEING ARGUMENTATIVE?
It was stupid. I called it stupid. Spin it all you like but the criticism is still dumb as rocks and a diversion away from points you couldn't address.
I’ll say what I said before: “There are two things I would bet the farm on: Apple WILL NOT offer a single processor Mac Pro in the current form just so you can get a cheap Mac Pro and populate it even more cheaply than the current Apple BTO options AND Apple WILL NOT remove a $200 part and then offer the Mac Pro for $700 less.“
It appears we agree to a point. But you have so many caveats in there that the statement itself if pointless. You don't know its a $200 part. The revised price point isn't $700 less anymore.
But since we agree you can let it go now since its tiring for both of us. Its not like you actually ever discussed anything since you continue to ignore the modifications to address your concerns/comments.
You simply want to characterize me as someone who wants a cheap mac pro...which is a real laugh since BenRothig accuses me of the exact opposite...a defender of Apple's margins and a worshipper of style over substance.
I'm describing AT MOST what I think Apple will offer. Single CPU Xeon Mac Pro. The price and exact configuration itself is flexible as long as its far enough below $2000 to make it affordable (or why bother...you can get the dual 2.0 model). There's historical precedent for a $1499-$1799 MacPro/PowerMac. There's headroom beneath Dell's pricing. There's no guarantee that Apple WILL do this but it fits their model from the last several years.
Folks that want a $700-$1200 Conroe box are the ones that wants to get cheap headless macs that are not likely to happen while Jobs is CEO. It would adversly affect iMac and Mac Pro sales, lower ASP and revenue.
Buh bye.
Vinea
As I pointed out...the Mac Pro case is equal to the top end CoolerMaster and ThermalTakes that run $300.
A slow $1500 Mac Pro with a 2.0Ghz CPU is roughly equivalent to a E4400. An E4400 with a $300 case is likely around $1200. I haven't tried to part it out but the Dell with a E4400 is $899. The low end Dell cases are like the $30-$50 cases.
That's both expensive for a computer, and cheap for a case at the same time.
Newegg:
E4400, Antec P180, Apevia ATX-CW500WP4 500W, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB, Wintec AMPX 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 800, BIOSTAR TForce TP35D2-A7 motherboard with P35 chipset, MSI GeForce 8400GS (256MB) --- under $600. I didn't stop to pick parts carefully, just went with something that came up on the first page and represented relatively new tech. These parts had two active rebates, which I didn't count. Only thing I went back and changed was my initial mobo pick, which turned out to be micro-ATX with nVidia chipset. I put in a more expensive ATX one with Intel chipset to better represent what Apple would be going with.
The quality and price level of the P180 is plenty for a consumer desktop. Apple design at that price would look amazing. A $300 workstation case is wasteful, just like the Xeons.
Having good reviews is one step for making people want to buy it. Perception is a very important aspect of the buying decision. Folks can be convinced to buy a more expensive item that is percieved as a better VALUE than a lower priced item.
A product that costs $100 more but performs worse than the exact same product that costs $100 less is a hard sell even with good branding and in this case, better software.
So you propose to fix that by making it cost a lot more like the Mac Pro?
Compare that to your $1200 xMac with the exact same hardware specifications as a $1000 Dell, HP or Gateway. Poor relative value. Bad reviews. Apple branding damaged.
Unless I'm somehow mistaken, they'd have a good case unlike virtually all their immediate competitors, quiet and trustworthy cooling, the OS, trustworthy drivers for both OS X and Windows, the remote, maybe some unexpected Apple magic.
Apple branding is already damaged every time someone comes up on a web forum and asks if Macs can (insert any simple thing here that is covered by a tower) should he switch, and gets a chorus of "no" as an answer.
So you propose to fix that by making it cost a lot more like the Mac Pro?
No, the fix is to BE a Mac Pro and therefore compared to other workstation class machines rather than desktops.
The price is whatever it ends up being with whatever processor it ends up being to remain competitive with other workstation class machines.
This fullfills the objective to provide an expandable tower at significantly less than the current $2200. What significantly means may vary but hopefully at least in the $400 range to around $1800.
A single CPU Mac Pro can do so without competing directly with Conroe based desktops made by Dell, HP, Acer, etc. Just as the iMac does not compete directly with Conroe based desktops made by Dell, HP, Acer, etc.
The fact that a Conroe box would outperform them at a lower price is a non-issue with respect to public perception of Apple computers.
There are Conroe configurations that can outperform Mac Pro models at a lower price point today for singly threaded apps, games, etc and yet the perception is that the Mac Pro is a good value because its in a different weight class but also because equivalent machines in its weight class are priced higher.
This is somewhat less true of the iMac BUT direct comparisons of the iMac are rarely made against Dell, HP, Acer towers because its not a tower. When a comparison is made there is usually some caveat that while the iMac has poor bang for the buck it is more stylish or slim or some other qualifier for why it doesn't just outright suck when you compare what you pay with what you get in terms of benchmarked performance.
This is how Apple can get away charging hundreds more on consumer machines with huge margins that runs far slower conventional tower PCs without getting hammered by the tech and mainstream press. Too much anyway. It's always an Apples to Oranges comparison.
Vinea
And that in a market where some hobbyists drop $3000 on their computer without blinking an eye. Some of that goes towards things like water cooling, expensive cases, custom paintjobs that do not put their computer any farther in benchmarks but have aesthetic or practical goals such as fun, beauty or quiet. Just like Apple's offering would. Why are the companies offering those parts, services and computers still in business when they should be getting compared to the cheapest HP has to offer, getting a ton of bad press and committing seppuku to deal with the shame?
You didn't offer any reason why the Apple strong points I talked about in the last post would fail to generate differentiation between Apple's offering and cheap builds.
Originally Posted by vinea
As I pointed out...the Mac Pro case is equal to the top end CoolerMaster and ThermalTakes that run $300.
A slow $1500 Mac Pro with a 2.0Ghz CPU is roughly equivalent to a E4400. An E4400 with a $300 case is likely around $1200. I haven't tried to part it out but the Dell with a E4400 is $899. The low end Dell cases are like the $30-$50 cases.
Are you really comparing a 2.0GHz Xeon to a E4400?
Do you know what a E4400 is?
Are you aware of the Xeon 5130 specs?
Have you been adbucted lately?
Conroe E4400 (2M L2 cache 2.00 GHz 800 MHz FSB 65nm) $133
Xeon 5130 (4M L2 cache 2.00 GHz (65W) 1333 MHz FSB 65nm) $316*
*Processor supporting Intel® Virtualization Technology
If you want to compare desktop and server/workstation cpus, shoot higher:
E6550 (4M L2 cache 2.33 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 65nm)*+
E6540 (4M L2 cache 2.33 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 65nm)*
E6700 (4M L2 cache 2.66 GHz 1066 MHz FSB 65nm)*
E6600 (4M L2 cache 2.40 GHz 1066 MHz FSB 65nm)*
E6420 (4M L2 cache 2.13 GHz 1066 MHz FSB 65nm)*
+Processor supporting Intel® Trusted Execution Technology
By the way, there's a Dell with a E6540 for $700-800 (Inspiron 531s). Stop trying to compare Dell and Apple, Dell is a mess. In fact most PC "manufacturers" don't know what to do: they are still trying to sell PCs with pentium D and 4, celeron D, new and old AMDs and newer intel core cpus, it is crazy, no wonder most of them are failing and going out of business.
It's Apple chance to come up with a simple, attractive and reasonably priced desktop and clean up the market!!!
Are you really comparing a 2.0GHz Xeon to a E4400?
Do you know what a E4400 is?
Are you aware of the Xeon 5130 specs?
Have you been adbucted lately?
Yes. Its a low end processor...and for $800 that's the Dell I found. Yes, Dell's a mess, I didn't do an exhaustive search. Yes, the E4400 has a smaller cache and slower FSB but I was erring on their side because I didn't want to deal with: "No the E6420 is MUCH faster because of the memory latency on the FB-DIMMs".
So I get pinged from the opposite direction.
By the way, there's a Dell with a E6540 for $700-800 (Inspiron 531s).
Fine. Use that. $1200 2.33Ghz C2D vs $1500 2.0Ghz Xeon. For $300 you get more ram expansion and the option for a second CPU at the cost of a slower CPU and slower RAM.
The $1500 price point is shown to be impossible at Apple's margins now anyway so the whole discussion if OBE.
Compare with a $1800 2.66Ghz Xeon. This time YOU pick the E6700 config that you want to compare. The point is that the nice case and power supply doesn't have zero value.
Whether the cost delta is worth the possibility of extra RAM or second CPU is debatable but its also not a zero value.
Vinea
bla bla bla... zero value...
I am not the one always comparing a Mac Pro or an potentiel SP Mac Pro to an "equivalent" Dell. I don't care what they offer and at what price. I just know/care about what Apple is offering and what they could offer if they choose to use a desktop platform instead of a server/workstation platform for a mythical new desktop Mac. Today, offering a SP dual-core Mac Pro would be un-ecological, even un-ethical: "we're in the market to offer the best personal computers..."
But if you really want to know what I would like to compare the xMac with, in terms of specs/price not look, go there: HP-Pavilion-Media-Center-TV-PC-M-8120-N
And I wouldn't mind paying a little more and/or have less features than that for a Mac!
Like I've already said here or elsewhere, my wining xMac team would be:
$999 barebone dual-core Conroe xMac (even the E4400 if you really want to)
$1299 entry-level quad-core Kentsfield xMac (could even be $1349 to really fit between the two 20" iMacs)
$1999 Extreme Edition (the cpu) quad-core Kensfield xMac
I'll go back to the title of the thread because that's what is important: Why do you want a minitower?
Because a minitower would use:
- a smaller enclosure/smaller power supply more adapted to what's inside the computer
- a desktop motherboard, with less features than the server/workstation one, cheaper, less power hungry
- a desktop processor (instead of two server cpus), still fast but a lot cheaper, and less power hungry
Yet all this would give me:
- more power than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- more expandability/room for internal/faster components than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- the satisfaction to buy a new (as opposed to used) computer that fits my needs and my budget
- more future-proof than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- and SteveJobs-proof®
Late november this year or at least early january next year, I really hope that the Mac Pro goes dual-quad all the way and gets 2GB RAM standard with penryn chips and at the same price points. That would make the xMac even more a necessity than it is today. The gap in the desktop line-up will then appear big as a montain (where are the quads?). And since the first mobile quads (44W) will not appear before the summer 2008 and only in the 24" iMac and maybe (maybe) the 17" MBP...
Now don't tell me that creating a new Mac will cost Apple a lot, because 1) it is not true 2) with the new iMac, they just redesigned completly 2 models:
- new enclosures (2)
- new motherboards (2) even if they use inventory chipsets
- new glossy displays (2)
- new cpus (2, 800FSB 2.0 and 2.8GHz Meroms)
- new gpus (2)
- even a new keyboard
And they lowered the prices $200-300.
R&D for a new xMac:
1 new enclosure ()
1 new motherboard (driiinnnngggggg!
- Hello Intel, wasup dog?
- Good Mr. Apple, good. What can I do for you today?
- I need G33 motherboards with only PCIe slots, a DVI port, FW400/800, a EFI ROM and no legacy PC ports please...
- Of course, of course, but won't you prefer our unreleased (secret) G33++Deluxe, it's really better than the G33 and we can deliver it to you today for the same low price as the regular G33 - customization is on us as usual...
- heu... let me check with Steve... (laughs on the background) ... Hey, Intel, Steve doesn't seem very pleased but yeah, we're gonna take the new one.
- Of course, of course, I am typing as fast as I can your order, but you know with that M$ OS and software it can be painful.
- Oh by the way, Intel, when can I get the new unreleased secret mobile chips you talked about last time, 'cause Steve doesn't want to talk only about desktops for a whole keynote again.
- Oh we're almost done, almost done (the repeating is due to the dual-core brainwash of all Intel empoyees), like for the Core Duo we'd like you to be our first mobile-penryn customer for sure.
- OK then, see you dog.)
3 new cpus (testing)
1 integrated gpu driver (design? and testing)
Release it after Leopard for even less testing.
I am not the one always comparing a Mac Pro or an potentiel SP Mac Pro to an "equivalent" Dell. I don't care what they offer and at what price. I just know/care about what Apple is offering and what they could offer if they choose to use a desktop platform instead of a server/workstation platform for a mythical new desktop Mac.
There's an ignore feature if you don't care. They COULD choose to do a desktop system. They HAVEN'T and aren't likely to.
Today, offering a SP dual-core Mac Pro would be un-ecological, even un-ethical: "we're in the market to offer the best personal computers..."
LOL. Unethical?
Like I've already said here or elsewhere, my wining xMac team would be:
$999 barebone dual-core Conroe xMac (even the E4400 if you really want to)
$1299 entry-level quad-core Kentsfield xMac (could even be $1349 to really fit between the two 20" iMacs)
$1999 Extreme Edition (the cpu) quad-core Kensfield xMac
I don't mind...whatever you like. You'll just have to write off the iMac. Now that's probably a small loss but you need to also make sure in your proposed lineup that you maintain ASP and margins. $2K for an extreme seems light but whatever. Its not happening so propose all you like.
- and SteveJobs-proof®
Heh...Steve Jobs isn't the problem. Steve Jobs is why you have an Apple today and not a Commodore or Be.
Now don't tell me that creating a new Mac will cost Apple a lot, because 1) it is not true 2) with the new iMac, they just redesigned completly 2 models:
- new enclosures (2)
- new motherboards (2) even if they use inventory chipsets
- new glossy displays (2)
- new cpus (2, 800FSB 2.0 and 2.8GHz Meroms)
- new gpus (2)
- even a new keyboard
And they lowered the prices $200-300.
Money they just flushed down the toilet if they introduce an xMac because the xMac will destroy all iMac sales.
So ain't happening this year. Probably not till SJ is gone which is hopefully a long time.
bla bla zero value pipe dream deleted
Aren't these xMac threads fun?
Vinea
The reason its $2200 is because of the second CPU. Were it BTO for a single 2.0Ghz Xeon and $1600-$1700 then it's only a little more for the expansion capabilities.
That's a 90% solution to your needs. You continually reject it because of "server parts" being "too slow".
Then you should abandon Apple until Jobs retires since you don't like status symbol computers. That's ALL Apple will make EVEN if it decided to make a Conroe based mid-tower.
You're trying to turn Apple back to a commodity company as existed when you bought your G3. A company that was one foot in the grave and fading fast.
No thanks.
Or a CPU from the Mac Pro. But one point of a headless iMac is...well removing the display. Not everyone makes Conroe or low prices a requirement. Making Conroe and low prices a requirement arguable makes it Not Apple.
Not everyone is in your "we" category. There had been multiple postings about the cube form factor long before I posted so obviously SOMEONE else in this thread cares.
You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO.
The PowerMac became the Mac Pro. I have a QuickSilver and a Mac Pro and while the Mac Pro is a bit bigger than the QuickSilver in reality the only difference between the two is that Apple used to offer a single CPU version of the QuickSilver and PowerMac G5 and doesn't yet with the Mac Pro.
The PowerMac has never really been priced for consumers.
Vinea
This has got to be the most depressing post I've seen in this thread. So much negativity.
"abandon Apple" "status symbol computers" "turn Apple back to a commodity company" "You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO." "Apple used to offer a single CPU version"
We now have two pizza boxes (the mini and the iMac) and a big empty expensive box, with nothing in between. I think most of us will agree that we need something in between.
Heh...Steve Jobs isn't the problem. Steve Jobs is why you have an Apple today and not a Commodore or Be.
Yes he is, I know, he used to be my boss (that was a long time ago, don't even try to speculate anything).
Money they just flushed down the toilet if they introduce an xMac because the xMac will destroy all iMac sales.
If that's true, why keep a product in the line-up that could be easily destroyed by a simple plain midtower desktop computer, that would cost a lot less to design and manufacture and generate more sales/margins. And that doesn't mean they have to make it ugly. Make it cute, make it powerful, price it nicely so it can really generate all those sales and profits.
So ain't happening this year. Probably not till SJ is gone which is hopefully a long time.
I can wait until next year, no problem. I mean for the xMac, not for SJ to quit (he is good with iTunes, iPods and the Mercedes/Jaguar/VW...) and I have a VW
Aren't these xMac threads fun?
Depending, who's writing. Sometimes it's fun when I see that Joe has wrote something, I always wonder how he's gonna shape its same comment again. But he surprised me yesterday, he made a longer post than usual that had more "meat"... Snoopy is also funny. Ben is like the grumpy old man, I imagine him a little overweight and with a beard (no offense Ben). You... are Satan or better, the little
I remember a time when the Macintosh came in three varieties: a PowerMac 6100, a 7100, and an 8100. The 6100 was an unexpandable pizzabox. The 8100 was a big empty ugly box that you could stuff drives and cards in. And the 7100 was priced in between, with enough slots for the average joe like me, who bought it. The offerings made sense, even though it was not Apple's heyday.
We now have two pizza boxes (the mini and the iMac) and a big empty expensive box, with nothing in between. I think most of us will agree that we need something in between.
The Mac Pro is more the successor to the 9000 series PowerMacs. The slot of the 7000 and 8000 series goes unfilled. Look, there is more than enough room for a consumer SFF and a consumer tower. A Minitower is too big for your tastes and needs and your little pizza box/Cube as you want it offers little over this iMac I'm typing on
Ben is like the grumpy old man, I imagine him a little overweight and with a beard (no offense Ben). .
Beard, no. Maybe in like 15 years when I'm 40. Goatee on occasion, but no beard. Beard doesn't quite go with the suit. As for the grumpiness I've had all in ones, I've had laptops, I've had towers, and I ever experimented with a windows PC for a while (and wished I could buy a bottle of jack at the time). Every time I learned a little bit about what works and doesn't work for me. Apple has created an operating system that is hands down far superior to windows. In fact, I find windows barely usable. However, there is also this "we know what's best for everyone and have the right to make decisions for you" arrogance that drives me up the wall. There's also a conservatism that keeps Apple in a very narrow box unwilling to risk a little and venture outside that box. I Just give the users different options and let them decide for themselves. They'll probably gain some new users in the process.
I am not the one always comparing a Mac Pro or an potentiel SP Mac Pro to an "equivalent" Dell. I don't care what they offer and at what price. I just know/care about what Apple is offering and what they could offer if they choose to use a desktop platform instead of a server/workstation platform for a mythical new desktop Mac. Today, offering a SP dual-core Mac Pro would be un-ecological, even un-ethical: "we're in the market to offer the best personal computers..."
But if you really want to know what I would like to compare the xMac with, in terms of specs/price not look, go there: HP-Pavilion-Media-Center-TV-PC-M-8120-N
And I wouldn't mind paying a little more and/or have less features than that for a Mac!
Like I've already said here or elsewhere, my wining xMac team would be:
$999 barebone dual-core Conroe xMac (even the E4400 if you really want to)
$1299 entry-level quad-core Kentsfield xMac (could even be $1349 to really fit between the two 20" iMacs)
$1999 Extreme Edition (the cpu) quad-core Kensfield xMac
I'll go back to the title of the thread because that's what is important: Why do you want a minitower?
Because a minitower would use:
- a smaller enclosure/smaller power supply more adapted to what's inside the computer
- a desktop motherboard, with less features than the server/workstation one, cheaper, less power hungry
- a desktop processor (instead of two server cpus), still fast but a lot cheaper, and less power hungry
Yet all this would give me:
- more power than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- more expandability/room for internal/faster components than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- the satisfaction to buy a new (as opposed to used) computer that fits my needs and my budget
- more future-proof than any Mac besides the Mac Pro
- and SteveJobs-proof®
Late november this year or at least early january next year, I really hope that the Mac Pro goes dual-quad all the way and gets 2GB RAM standard with penryn chips and at the same price points. That would make the xMac even more a necessity than it is today. The gap in the desktop line-up will then appear big as a montain (where are the quads?). And since the first mobile quads (44W) will not appear before the summer 2008 and only in the 24" iMac and maybe (maybe) the 17" MBP...
Now don't tell me that creating a new Mac will cost Apple a lot, because 1) it is not true 2) with the new iMac, they just redesigned completly 2 models:
- new enclosures (2)
- new motherboards (2) even if they use inventory chipsets
- new glossy displays (2)
- new cpus (2, 800FSB 2.0 and 2.8GHz Meroms)
- new gpus (2)
- even a new keyboard
And they lowered the prices $200-300.
R&D for a new xMac:
1 new enclosure ()
1 new motherboard (driiinnnngggggg!
- Hello Intel, wasup dog?
- Good Mr. Apple, good. What can I do for you today?
- I need G33 motherboards with only PCIe slots, a DVI port, FW400/800, a EFI ROM and no legacy PC ports please...
- Of course, of course, but won't you prefer our unreleased (secret) G33++Deluxe, it's really better than the G33 and we can deliver it to you today for the same low price as the regular G33 - customization is on us as usual...
replace the G33++Deluxe with the G35
and maybe a have a pci slot for things like a sound card.
The chipset has 1 x16 slot and 6 x1 links
x16 x4 with 2 x1 links for on board network chip and wifi card. firewire on pci bus.
or
x16 x1 x1 x1 with 3 x1 links for on board stuff maybe put firewire on it.
or
x16 x2 x1 with 3 x1 links for on board stuff maybe put firewire on it.
or
x16 x1 x1 with 4 x1 links for on board stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
- heu... let me check with Steve... (laughs on the background) ... Hey, Intel, Steve doesn't seem very pleased but yeah, we're gonna take the new one.
- Of course, of course, I am typing as fast as I can your order, but you know with that M$ OS and software it can be painful.
- Oh by the way, Intel, when can I get the new unreleased secret mobile chips you talked about last time, 'cause Steve doesn't want to talk only about desktops for a whole keynote again.
- Oh we're almost done, almost done (the repeating is due to the dual-core brainwash of all Intel empoyees), like for the Core Duo we'd like you to be our first mobile-penryn customer for sure.
- OK then, see you dog.)
3 new cpus (testing)
1 integrated gpu driver (design? and testing)
Release it after Leopard for even less testing.
the board will be open to the full desktop cpu line.
The intel on board video chips use the same driver set.
This has got to be the most depressing post I've seen in this thread. So much negativity.
"abandon Apple" "status symbol computers" "turn Apple back to a commodity company" "You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO." "Apple used to offer a single CPU version"
Eh? I'm simply repeating what others have said in this thread. Certainly the "status symbol" thing CANNOT be laid at my feet. Likewise the whining that apple isn't providing what THEY need. I'm reasonably happy with Apple's current line-up and see the "need" for only minimal changes.
Yes he is, I know, he used to be my boss (that was a long time ago, don't even try to speculate anything).
The "yes he is" in terms being the problem? I disagree if that's what you mean and I worked briefly for Jobs as well although I was so far down the food chain AND on the east coast so I only met him once briefly at a customer presentation.
If that's true, why keep a product in the line-up that could be easily destroyed by a simple plain midtower desktop computer, that would cost a lot less to design and manufacture and generate more sales/margins.
The assumption is that it would generate more sales/margins. The reality could be quite different. The lack of any other high end tower maker indicates that this is not as easy as it might look.
You... are Satan or better, the little
The voice of reason or at least reality.
Vinea