you don't have to upgrade each time. the beauty of mac and apple is that you still have a very capable unit. my g3 does just fine for what most families do...email, internet, iphoto etc. granted it doesn't do flash well but hey it's "old". AND my macs, OS upgrades when done have given me zero grief.....not so with MS or vista, hey not only do they have to upgrade everything in the computer to get the top "ultimate" the $$$$$ spent in time and grief when nothing is compatible. gee i'[m not aware of any of the corps i deal with that has gone vista ( in fact they install xp pro and run it instead) good luck with dell or any MS os. i love apple. i upgrade when it makes sense. for me it's timemachine.
the fact that almost every thread on every mac forum turns into "I want to buy an XMAC" should inform us to something: There is a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator.
To me it's more like there are a few hundred people on The Interwebs who believe Apple should build some kind of bargain Mac especially for them without looking at the realities of the market and the Apple business model. They will use all kinds of flawed logic to justify why there is this "huge untapped" market that Apple is ignoring, and it gets ridiculous reading it in every single thread.
To me it's more like there are a few hundred people on The Interwebs who believe Apple should build some kind of bargain Mac especially for them without looking at the realities of the market and the Apple business model. They will use all kinds of flawed logic to justify why there is this "huge untapped" market that Apple is ignoring, and it gets ridiculous reading it in every single thread.
What people are really saying is "I want Apple to release a Mac Pro level upgradable desktop, that looks good, is smaller than a Mac Pro and cheaper just because I want one".
Not at all, nice work with the straw man.
What we want is a machine that is more stripped down and more affordable than the mac pro. There are tons of machines on the PC side in the $800-1200 range (if not cheaper) that demonstrate what is possible in those price ranges if apple was just willing to make a model.
Apple can sell an iMac starting at $1199. That means they could sell the identical machine minus the monitor for $100-200 less than that. Adding an extra drive bay and open pci slot would cost very little, and would probably be completely offset by more flexibility of components by not having to cram into such a tiny form factor.
Or start with the mini. Go to a standard 3.5 inch hard drive and desktop optical drive, there's a big cost savings. Add a drive bay, pci and agp slot, and a couple more ram slots, none of those add much to the cost at all. Right there, you probably have a box you could sell at the same price as a mini but with better features.
Or even start with the Pro. Swap the processor to a dual, lower bus speed and WAY cheaper ram. That would knock hundreds off the $2499 base price. What happened to towers for $1599?
There's no reason apple's cheapest expandable box should be $2499, that's just ridiculous. If there's really no market for such a machine, then why is it such a huge segment on the PC side? Does it really make ANY sense to suggest that a tiny group who posts on the internet would be the only people interested in a mac that can use your own monitor, have a hard drive bigger than 160 gigs, and more than 2 gigs of ram? And that apple can't do something so basic for under $2499???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
No, that is not boogas' logic.
His logic is that the overall market split is about 50/50 desktop to laptop, but Apple is only selling 1/3 desktops. i.e., relative to the number of laptops they are selling, Apple aren't selling "enough" desktops (it should be 1/2, not 1/3).
It's a glass half empty/full situation.
They're either selling "not enough" desktops, or they're selling "more than enough" laptops. With apple's sales way up and increasing faster than all the other major vendors, it doesn't seem logical to put a negative spin on it.
It also ignores the fact that apple is particularly strong in the educational and consumer markets, which I'd bet are both heavy on laptops. MANY desktop sales are for businesses that just buy the cheapest model that is available, and will buy a windows machine regardless of what hardware apple offers - apple isn't going to compete in that segment regardless of what they ship, and since it is a low-profit segment, there's an argument to be made that it's not worth it for them to bother.
You can believe whatever the hell you want, it's just hilarious to watch the same old people scream how stupid Apple is over and over again regarding these phantom xMacs while Apple is increasing their profits, stock price, and market share quarter over quarter. They need to cast aside their successful business plan to satisfy a few niche users, that makes perfect sense!
To me it's more like there are a few hundred people on The Interwebs who believe Apple should build some kind of bargain Mac especially for them without looking at the realities of the market and the Apple business model. They will use all kinds of flawed logic to justify why there is this "huge untapped" market that Apple is ignoring, and it gets ridiculous reading it in every single thread.
Intel makes three kinds of processors: mobile, desktop, & server-class. You're trying to say that Apple is right to use only the outer two of those... and in doing so, you're saying that Intel, one of the most successful tech companies of all time, whose only business is making and selling CPUs, is wrong to produce a desktop-class model because high-end laptops are close enough to low-end servers??!?!?!????
Anyone who thinks this is kidding themselves. There IS a large market for this type of computer. People who say, "not among Mac users" are flawed. The reason there aren't Mac-users in the "mid-range
" desktop market is because THERE AREN'T ANY MID-RANGE DESKTOP MACS! But we "would-bes" love the OS enough to settle for ANOTHER laptop-powered AIO, over-powered MacPro, or expensive MBP.
What we want is a machine that is more stripped down and more affordable than the mac pro. There are tons of machines on the PC side in the $800-1200 range (if not cheaper) that demonstrate what is possible in those price ranges if apple was just willing to make a model.
Apple can sell an iMac starting at $1199. That means they could sell the identical machine minus the monitor for $100-200 less than that. Adding an extra drive bay and open pci slot would cost very little, and would probably be completely offset by more flexibility of components by not having to cram into such a tiny form factor.
Or start with the mini. Go to a standard 3.5 inch hard drive and desktop optical drive, there's a big cost savings. Add a drive bay, pci and agp slot, and a couple more ram slots, none of those add much to the cost at all. Right there, you probably have a box you could sell at the same price as a mini but with better features.
Or even start with the Pro. Swap the processor to a dual, lower bus speed and WAY cheaper ram. That would knock hundreds off the $2499 base price. What happened to towers for $1599?
There's no reason apple's cheapest expandable box should be $2499, that's just ridiculous. If there's really no market for such a machine, then why is it such a huge segment on the PC side? Does it really make ANY sense to suggest that a tiny group who posts on the internet would be the only people interested in a mac that can use your own monitor, have a hard drive bigger than 160 gigs, and more than 2 gigs of ram? And that apple can't do something so basic for under $2499???
It's a glass half empty/full situation.
They're either selling "not enough" desktops, or they're selling "more than enough" laptops. With apple's sales way up and increasing faster than all the other major vendors, it doesn't seem logical to put a negative spin on it.
It also ignores the fact that apple is particularly strong in the educational and consumer markets, which I'd bet are both heavy on laptops. MANY desktop sales are for businesses that just buy the cheapest model that is available, and will buy a windows machine regardless of what hardware apple offers - apple isn't going to compete in that segment regardless of what they ship, and since it is a low-profit segment, there's an argument to be made that it's not worth it for them to bother.
Sorry to ruin your buzz but to those of us not living in your RDF your logic is flawed because your positioning your version directly in competition with an iMac, and a Mac mini. You can't do that in Apples world and long time Mac users know it.
The Desktop has to start at a about $1200.00 without a display because Apple does not position computers at the same price points, or Make two computers that function in an identical capacity. The only place there is room to position a computer in Apples world is in the huge gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro.
You can believe whatever the hell you want, it's just hilarious to watch the same old people scream how stupid Apple is over and over again regarding these phantom xMacs while Apple is increasing their profits, stock price, and market share quarter over quarter. They need to cast aside their successful business plan to satisfy a few niche users, that makes perfect sense!
How the hell would adding one model "cast aside their successful business plan"? Wouldn't offering more consumer choices open up the possibility for more sales? Or are you saying with a straight face that offering another model would actually hurt their profits?
While apple is improving their situation, that doesn't mean that every decision they make is the right one. Or are you saying that they're doing everything perfectly, and there's no possible way their strategy could be improved?
You can believe whatever the hell you want, it's just hilarious to watch the same old people scream how stupid Apple is over and over again regarding these phantom xMacs while Apple is increasing their profits, stock price, and market share quarter over quarter. They need to cast aside their successful business plan to satisfy a few niche users, that makes perfect sense!
The profits and stock price have noting to do with laptop sales or desktop sales short bus. Your posts are only solidifying the description of ignorance I gave you earlier.
Sorry to ruin your buzz but to those of us not living in your RDF your logic is flawed because your positioning your version directly in competition with an iMac, and a Mac mini. You can't do that in Apples world and long time Mac users know it.
The Desktop has to start at a about $1200.00 without a display because Apple does not position computers at the same price points, or Make two computers that function in an identical capacity. The only place there is room to position a computer in Apples world is in the huge gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro.
RDF? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Sure, I know apple has never done this before. Sure, I know that chances of it are slim.
And while I see your point about price points, I simply don't agree that it's a good idea. The iMac is a nice computer. But I don't agree it's a machine that functions in the same capacity as a headless equivalent. There are people who would buy a mac in the iMac price range, but simply won't buy an all-in-one.
Apple can offer a machine for that market, or they can kiss it goodbye. Personally, I think they are being stupid and stubborn and limiting their sales by not offering a wide enough variety of hardware choices.
I just don't understand how the 2GHz Mac Mini (or the iMac) is underpowered for the average user?
ok, so the onboard graphics in the Mini won't support the latest 3D games. If you're a gamer, you're not looking at a Mac anyways.
You do video editing you say? ok, then get a Mac Pro if you're doing it seriously. If you're just a hobbyist, then the Mini or the iMac still work very well.
My wife does professional graphic design on her Mini and has no problems.
Heck, the latest Mini has the same specs as my 1st gen MBP which I do serious software development on (aside from the fact that I've upgraded to 2GB of RAM).
I just have a hard time coming up with a use-case where the new Minis/iMacs fail to be powerful enough, and a higher performance model is required for the average consumer.
Actually the biggest issue with both the Macbook and the Mini is the GPU. It's not that they won't support games, they can't even support all iLife app functions. iLife are consumer, not pro apps at the very least these systems should support every function in every iLife application.
Keynote is a perfect example. Apple has always been behind when it comes to pairing their systems with decent GPU's and the correct amount of ram to match the system. iMac perfect example, there isn't any reason on earth why that system should come standard with 2gigs of ram.
this isn't a five person company, i'm sure there are analysts figuring out the % marketshare that would want a lower-end apple tower. however, i don't see Apple as a lower-end ANYTHING company.
As for all of this "mini with expansion, imac without a monitor", remember the cube - it might be the cause for fear of producing a mid-range desktop. Even though i loved my cube, it was a business failure.
lastly, nobody posting on this, or any other site would be happy with what was actually offered from Apple for $1000 - $1500 in a tower. all you do is bitch that it doesn't have this or that they went with that, or that Dell puts another 512 ram or 80 gigs of hard drive in the same price point [even with a cheapo enclosure, cheapo keyboard and mouse]
How the hell would adding one model "cast aside their successful business plan"? Wouldn't offering more consumer choices open up the possibility for more sales? Or are you saying with a straight face that offering another model would actually hurt their profits?
Hm, let's see. People are already bitching Apple has spread themselves too thin with the iPhone platform and surrounding infrastructure for that making hardware refreshes less frequent and hindering Leopard development. Now people want them to introduce another product line that uses desktop parts when they have ZERO other products that use desktop parts. Mac Mini, iMac, MacBook line, AppleTV = laptop parts, Mac Pro and XServer = server parts, correct me if I'm wrong. So they would need to devote another set of resources to procure the desktop parts (and won't have the volume to get good prices for a single line), engineer and design this xMac, advertise it, and support it. This would all cost plenty of dough, and there would certainly be a chance it could hurt their bottom line if the whole thing was a bust! Pretty simple to me. The opportunity costs here could certainly be used elsewhere.
Quote:
While apple is improving their situation, that doesn't mean that every decision they make is the right one. Or are you saying that they're doing everything perfectly, and there's no possible way their strategy could be improved?
Of course not. They took a chance with the iPhone which to me is a much smarter BUSINESS DECISION as the cell market is MUCH larger (and growing) compared to the stagnant or shrinking desktop market. I think they would be better served using their resources trying to build that platform rather then start anew in a stale desktop market.
Quote:
The profits and stock price have noting to do with laptop sales or desktop sales short bus. Your posts are only solidifying the description of ignorance I gave you earlier.
Nice. Childish name calling makes you a superior Interweb poster. They fact that you actually just said that laptop sales have no correlation to Apple's stock price and P&L statement pretty much speaks for itself. Have you ever run or been involved in the management of a business of any kind? Just curious.
the fact that almost every thread on every mac forum turns into "I want to buy an XMAC" should inform us to something: There is a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator.
Nah, it just means that the same people, likely the vocal minority, keeps coming back and are spouting off THEIR wants, not the wants of the consumers in general.
Think about it. They do have these people called market researchers working at Apple who are on top of what the Joe public is wanting. And their conclusion for the past several years has been that, NO, there isn't "a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator". Simple as that.
The iMac, Mac mini, and Mac Pro are niche products?
Admit it guys, YOU are the minority.
Oh, and people who are complaining that Apple selling more laptops than desktops. PUHLEASE!!
The only important thing for Apple is the overall market share, where they are seeing tremendous growth. It doesn't matter if it's coming from more laptop sales than desktop sales, that's where the market is heading, and especially, that's where the Apple/Mac market is heading.
There are definitely good reasons behind the unbalance there, too. For example, there probably are more incentives for people looking for a new laptop to migrate from Windows to Macs. I know countless students around at my university who have recently switched or are saying "My next laptop is going to be a Mac.
Some of the reasons behind that are, for example, how quickly Mac laptops wake up from sleep, and the power of being able to have a mobile Mac AND PC (Windows, Linux, etc.) environment all in one package, etc.
So unless you show me that the soaring laptop sales are at the expense of tanking desktop sales, you don't have a case. And if I remember the numbers, iMac shipping numbers have been fantastic, and I don't remember the Mac Pro and Mac mini doing any worse that they have in the past.
this isn't a five person company, i'm sure there are analysts figuring out the % marketshare that would want a lower-end apple tower. however, i don't see Apple as a lower-end ANYTHING company.
What about the mini?
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
As for all of this "mini with expansion, imac without a monitor", remember the cube - it might be the cause for fear of producing a mid-range desktop. Even though i loved my cube, it was a business failure.
What people are asking for is completely different from the cube, which failed because it was a feature set and price point that nobody wanted. It was almost as expensive as the tower, but with far fewer features. It was a very limited box with slick design at a very high price. And if there's a model comparable to the cube, it's probably the mini, which proved that the design of the cube wasn't bad, it was just vastly overpriced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
lastly, nobody posting on this, or any other site would be happy with what was actually offered from Apple for $1000 - $1500 in a tower.
Wrong. If they offered something of comparable bang for buck as the imacs, I'd be extremely happy and would likely buy one fairly quickly. Sure, you'd see complaining, but there is complaining about every product apple releases (just as there is complaining about every product everyone releases). But there would be many people who would be very happy with it.
I guess I'm no one then, because I want a desktop but Apple doesn't have one...workstation? yep. glorified upright laptop? yep.....desktop nope.
They've got 3 desktops, spanning a large price range. Just because none of them are quite what you want, that doesn't negate their existence. Even if the model you have yourself set on might fill an important niche, arguing something patently untrue doesn't exactly strengthen your position, does it?
What I would really like is a .Mac "Gold" account, where I pay a yearly fee, including all the usual .Mac features, but also receive free updates to OSX.
Hm, let's see. People are already bitching Apple has spread themselves too thin with the iPhone platform and surrounding infrastructure for that making hardware refreshes less frequent and hindering Leopard development. Now people want them to introduce another product line that uses desktop parts when they have ZERO other products that use desktop parts.
You clearly have no conception of PC hardware development. A midtower would be the absolute easiest possible product apple could develop. There are tons of reference mobos from intel, the vast majority of the design work has been done already. I think the main intel desktop cpus are even socket compatible with the ones in minis and imacs, so that's not even that different from what they have already.
It could be the least risky new product apple has ever shipped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretvampire
Of course not. They took a chance with the iPhone which to me is a much smarter BUSINESS DECISION as the cell market is MUCH larger (and growing) compared to the stagnant or shrinking desktop market. I think they would be better served using their resources trying to build that platform rather then start anew in a stale desktop market.
I'm not sure why you think it's a zero sum game. Do you really think apple is in a position where they have to choose between the iPhone and a new computer model? The smart business decision is to do both, ship the iPhone and also optimize the desktop line. And while desktop sales are growing less than laptop sales, it's still a huge market which is still growing, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawhead
Think about it. They do have these people called market researchers working at Apple who are on top of what the Joe public is wanting. And their conclusion for the past several years has been that, NO, there isn't "a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator". Simple as that.
You don't know that. The way apple runs, there's a good chance that they are aware that there is demand, but stubbornly refuse to offer the product anyway. If you've followed the company at all you should know that Steve Jobs has a long history of decisions like that, he doesn't make decisions based on market research. And if the public really doesn't want such a machine, why do so many sell on the PC side?
His logic is that the overall market split is about 50/50 desktop to laptop, but Apple is only selling 1/3 desktops. i.e., relative to the number of laptops they are selling, Apple aren't selling "enough" desktops (it should be 1/2, not 1/3).
There are two ways to look at this.
One is that the desktop line is inferior, so Apple's sales overall are not what they should be, as their portable sales are right, but desktop sales are below where they should be.
Or two, desktop sales are fine (they just moved up 30%, I believe) for a good product line, but Apple's customers are moving to laptops more quickly because of all these college students who primarily buy portables, and who are a large percentage of Apple's sales.
Comments
the fact that almost every thread on every mac forum turns into "I want to buy an XMAC" should inform us to something: There is a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator.
To me it's more like there are a few hundred people on The Interwebs who believe Apple should build some kind of bargain Mac especially for them without looking at the realities of the market and the Apple business model. They will use all kinds of flawed logic to justify why there is this "huge untapped" market that Apple is ignoring, and it gets ridiculous reading it in every single thread.
Look everyone! Look how bad our desktop lineup is! Compared to everyone else, almost no one wants to buy Apple desktops, isn't that great?!
That's exactly what Apple and Steve Jobs does not seem to understand. They are living in an AIO delusion.
To me it's more like there are a few hundred people on The Interwebs who believe Apple should build some kind of bargain Mac especially for them without looking at the realities of the market and the Apple business model. They will use all kinds of flawed logic to justify why there is this "huge untapped" market that Apple is ignoring, and it gets ridiculous reading it in every single thread.
Now that's what I call ignorance.
What people are really saying is "I want Apple to release a Mac Pro level upgradable desktop, that looks good, is smaller than a Mac Pro and cheaper just because I want one".
Not at all, nice work with the straw man.
What we want is a machine that is more stripped down and more affordable than the mac pro. There are tons of machines on the PC side in the $800-1200 range (if not cheaper) that demonstrate what is possible in those price ranges if apple was just willing to make a model.
Apple can sell an iMac starting at $1199. That means they could sell the identical machine minus the monitor for $100-200 less than that. Adding an extra drive bay and open pci slot would cost very little, and would probably be completely offset by more flexibility of components by not having to cram into such a tiny form factor.
Or start with the mini. Go to a standard 3.5 inch hard drive and desktop optical drive, there's a big cost savings. Add a drive bay, pci and agp slot, and a couple more ram slots, none of those add much to the cost at all. Right there, you probably have a box you could sell at the same price as a mini but with better features.
Or even start with the Pro. Swap the processor to a dual, lower bus speed and WAY cheaper ram. That would knock hundreds off the $2499 base price. What happened to towers for $1599?
There's no reason apple's cheapest expandable box should be $2499, that's just ridiculous. If there's really no market for such a machine, then why is it such a huge segment on the PC side? Does it really make ANY sense to suggest that a tiny group who posts on the internet would be the only people interested in a mac that can use your own monitor, have a hard drive bigger than 160 gigs, and more than 2 gigs of ram? And that apple can't do something so basic for under $2499???
No, that is not boogas' logic.
His logic is that the overall market split is about 50/50 desktop to laptop, but Apple is only selling 1/3 desktops. i.e., relative to the number of laptops they are selling, Apple aren't selling "enough" desktops (it should be 1/2, not 1/3).
It's a glass half empty/full situation.
They're either selling "not enough" desktops, or they're selling "more than enough" laptops. With apple's sales way up and increasing faster than all the other major vendors, it doesn't seem logical to put a negative spin on it.
It also ignores the fact that apple is particularly strong in the educational and consumer markets, which I'd bet are both heavy on laptops. MANY desktop sales are for businesses that just buy the cheapest model that is available, and will buy a windows machine regardless of what hardware apple offers - apple isn't going to compete in that segment regardless of what they ship, and since it is a low-profit segment, there's an argument to be made that it's not worth it for them to bother.
Now that's what I call ignorance.
You can believe whatever the hell you want, it's just hilarious to watch the same old people scream how stupid Apple is over and over again regarding these phantom xMacs while Apple is increasing their profits, stock price, and market share quarter over quarter. They need to cast aside their successful business plan to satisfy a few niche users, that makes perfect sense!
To me it's more like there are a few hundred people on The Interwebs who believe Apple should build some kind of bargain Mac especially for them without looking at the realities of the market and the Apple business model. They will use all kinds of flawed logic to justify why there is this "huge untapped" market that Apple is ignoring, and it gets ridiculous reading it in every single thread.
Intel makes three kinds of processors: mobile, desktop, & server-class. You're trying to say that Apple is right to use only the outer two of those... and in doing so, you're saying that Intel, one of the most successful tech companies of all time, whose only business is making and selling CPUs, is wrong to produce a desktop-class model because high-end laptops are close enough to low-end servers??!?!?!????
Anyone who thinks this is kidding themselves. There IS a large market for this type of computer. People who say, "not among Mac users" are flawed. The reason there aren't Mac-users in the "mid-range
" desktop market is because THERE AREN'T ANY MID-RANGE DESKTOP MACS! But we "would-bes" love the OS enough to settle for ANOTHER laptop-powered AIO, over-powered MacPro, or expensive MBP.
Wake up and smell the market.
-Clive
Not at all, nice work with the straw man.
What we want is a machine that is more stripped down and more affordable than the mac pro. There are tons of machines on the PC side in the $800-1200 range (if not cheaper) that demonstrate what is possible in those price ranges if apple was just willing to make a model.
Apple can sell an iMac starting at $1199. That means they could sell the identical machine minus the monitor for $100-200 less than that. Adding an extra drive bay and open pci slot would cost very little, and would probably be completely offset by more flexibility of components by not having to cram into such a tiny form factor.
Or start with the mini. Go to a standard 3.5 inch hard drive and desktop optical drive, there's a big cost savings. Add a drive bay, pci and agp slot, and a couple more ram slots, none of those add much to the cost at all. Right there, you probably have a box you could sell at the same price as a mini but with better features.
Or even start with the Pro. Swap the processor to a dual, lower bus speed and WAY cheaper ram. That would knock hundreds off the $2499 base price. What happened to towers for $1599?
There's no reason apple's cheapest expandable box should be $2499, that's just ridiculous. If there's really no market for such a machine, then why is it such a huge segment on the PC side? Does it really make ANY sense to suggest that a tiny group who posts on the internet would be the only people interested in a mac that can use your own monitor, have a hard drive bigger than 160 gigs, and more than 2 gigs of ram? And that apple can't do something so basic for under $2499???
It's a glass half empty/full situation.
They're either selling "not enough" desktops, or they're selling "more than enough" laptops. With apple's sales way up and increasing faster than all the other major vendors, it doesn't seem logical to put a negative spin on it.
It also ignores the fact that apple is particularly strong in the educational and consumer markets, which I'd bet are both heavy on laptops. MANY desktop sales are for businesses that just buy the cheapest model that is available, and will buy a windows machine regardless of what hardware apple offers - apple isn't going to compete in that segment regardless of what they ship, and since it is a low-profit segment, there's an argument to be made that it's not worth it for them to bother.
Sorry to ruin your buzz but to those of us not living in your RDF your logic is flawed because your positioning your version directly in competition with an iMac, and a Mac mini. You can't do that in Apples world and long time Mac users know it.
The Desktop has to start at a about $1200.00 without a display because Apple does not position computers at the same price points, or Make two computers that function in an identical capacity. The only place there is room to position a computer in Apples world is in the huge gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro.
You can believe whatever the hell you want, it's just hilarious to watch the same old people scream how stupid Apple is over and over again regarding these phantom xMacs while Apple is increasing their profits, stock price, and market share quarter over quarter. They need to cast aside their successful business plan to satisfy a few niche users, that makes perfect sense!
How the hell would adding one model "cast aside their successful business plan"? Wouldn't offering more consumer choices open up the possibility for more sales? Or are you saying with a straight face that offering another model would actually hurt their profits?
While apple is improving their situation, that doesn't mean that every decision they make is the right one. Or are you saying that they're doing everything perfectly, and there's no possible way their strategy could be improved?
You can believe whatever the hell you want, it's just hilarious to watch the same old people scream how stupid Apple is over and over again regarding these phantom xMacs while Apple is increasing their profits, stock price, and market share quarter over quarter. They need to cast aside their successful business plan to satisfy a few niche users, that makes perfect sense!
The profits and stock price have noting to do with laptop sales or desktop sales short bus. Your posts are only solidifying the description of ignorance I gave you earlier.
Sorry to ruin your buzz but to those of us not living in your RDF your logic is flawed because your positioning your version directly in competition with an iMac, and a Mac mini. You can't do that in Apples world and long time Mac users know it.
The Desktop has to start at a about $1200.00 without a display because Apple does not position computers at the same price points, or Make two computers that function in an identical capacity. The only place there is room to position a computer in Apples world is in the huge gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro.
RDF? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Sure, I know apple has never done this before. Sure, I know that chances of it are slim.
And while I see your point about price points, I simply don't agree that it's a good idea. The iMac is a nice computer. But I don't agree it's a machine that functions in the same capacity as a headless equivalent. There are people who would buy a mac in the iMac price range, but simply won't buy an all-in-one.
Apple can offer a machine for that market, or they can kiss it goodbye. Personally, I think they are being stupid and stubborn and limiting their sales by not offering a wide enough variety of hardware choices.
I just don't understand how the 2GHz Mac Mini (or the iMac) is underpowered for the average user?
ok, so the onboard graphics in the Mini won't support the latest 3D games. If you're a gamer, you're not looking at a Mac anyways.
You do video editing you say? ok, then get a Mac Pro if you're doing it seriously. If you're just a hobbyist, then the Mini or the iMac still work very well.
My wife does professional graphic design on her Mini and has no problems.
Heck, the latest Mini has the same specs as my 1st gen MBP which I do serious software development on (aside from the fact that I've upgraded to 2GB of RAM).
I just have a hard time coming up with a use-case where the new Minis/iMacs fail to be powerful enough, and a higher performance model is required for the average consumer.
Actually the biggest issue with both the Macbook and the Mini is the GPU. It's not that they won't support games, they can't even support all iLife app functions. iLife are consumer, not pro apps at the very least these systems should support every function in every iLife application.
Keynote is a perfect example. Apple has always been behind when it comes to pairing their systems with decent GPU's and the correct amount of ram to match the system. iMac perfect example, there isn't any reason on earth why that system should come standard with 2gigs of ram.
As for all of this "mini with expansion, imac without a monitor", remember the cube - it might be the cause for fear of producing a mid-range desktop. Even though i loved my cube, it was a business failure.
lastly, nobody posting on this, or any other site would be happy with what was actually offered from Apple for $1000 - $1500 in a tower. all you do is bitch that it doesn't have this or that they went with that, or that Dell puts another 512 ram or 80 gigs of hard drive in the same price point [even with a cheapo enclosure, cheapo keyboard and mouse]
How the hell would adding one model "cast aside their successful business plan"? Wouldn't offering more consumer choices open up the possibility for more sales? Or are you saying with a straight face that offering another model would actually hurt their profits?
Hm, let's see. People are already bitching Apple has spread themselves too thin with the iPhone platform and surrounding infrastructure for that making hardware refreshes less frequent and hindering Leopard development. Now people want them to introduce another product line that uses desktop parts when they have ZERO other products that use desktop parts. Mac Mini, iMac, MacBook line, AppleTV = laptop parts, Mac Pro and XServer = server parts, correct me if I'm wrong. So they would need to devote another set of resources to procure the desktop parts (and won't have the volume to get good prices for a single line), engineer and design this xMac, advertise it, and support it. This would all cost plenty of dough, and there would certainly be a chance it could hurt their bottom line if the whole thing was a bust! Pretty simple to me. The opportunity costs here could certainly be used elsewhere.
While apple is improving their situation, that doesn't mean that every decision they make is the right one. Or are you saying that they're doing everything perfectly, and there's no possible way their strategy could be improved?
Of course not. They took a chance with the iPhone which to me is a much smarter BUSINESS DECISION as the cell market is MUCH larger (and growing) compared to the stagnant or shrinking desktop market. I think they would be better served using their resources trying to build that platform rather then start anew in a stale desktop market.
The profits and stock price have noting to do with laptop sales or desktop sales short bus. Your posts are only solidifying the description of ignorance I gave you earlier.
Nice. Childish name calling makes you a superior Interweb poster. They fact that you actually just said that laptop sales have no correlation to Apple's stock price and P&L statement pretty much speaks for itself. Have you ever run or been involved in the management of a business of any kind? Just curious.
the fact that almost every thread on every mac forum turns into "I want to buy an XMAC" should inform us to something: There is a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator.
Nah, it just means that the same people, likely the vocal minority, keeps coming back and are spouting off THEIR wants, not the wants of the consumers in general.
Think about it. They do have these people called market researchers working at Apple who are on top of what the Joe public is wanting. And their conclusion for the past several years has been that, NO, there isn't "a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator". Simple as that.
The iMac, Mac mini, and Mac Pro are niche products?
Admit it guys, YOU are the minority.
Oh, and people who are complaining that Apple selling more laptops than desktops. PUHLEASE!!
The only important thing for Apple is the overall market share, where they are seeing tremendous growth. It doesn't matter if it's coming from more laptop sales than desktop sales, that's where the market is heading, and especially, that's where the Apple/Mac market is heading.
There are definitely good reasons behind the unbalance there, too. For example, there probably are more incentives for people looking for a new laptop to migrate from Windows to Macs. I know countless students around at my university who have recently switched or are saying "My next laptop is going to be a Mac.
Some of the reasons behind that are, for example, how quickly Mac laptops wake up from sleep, and the power of being able to have a mobile Mac AND PC (Windows, Linux, etc.) environment all in one package, etc.
So unless you show me that the soaring laptop sales are at the expense of tanking desktop sales, you don't have a case. And if I remember the numbers, iMac shipping numbers have been fantastic, and I don't remember the Mac Pro and Mac mini doing any worse that they have in the past.
this isn't a five person company, i'm sure there are analysts figuring out the % marketshare that would want a lower-end apple tower. however, i don't see Apple as a lower-end ANYTHING company.
What about the mini?
As for all of this "mini with expansion, imac without a monitor", remember the cube - it might be the cause for fear of producing a mid-range desktop. Even though i loved my cube, it was a business failure.
What people are asking for is completely different from the cube, which failed because it was a feature set and price point that nobody wanted. It was almost as expensive as the tower, but with far fewer features. It was a very limited box with slick design at a very high price. And if there's a model comparable to the cube, it's probably the mini, which proved that the design of the cube wasn't bad, it was just vastly overpriced.
lastly, nobody posting on this, or any other site would be happy with what was actually offered from Apple for $1000 - $1500 in a tower.
Wrong. If they offered something of comparable bang for buck as the imacs, I'd be extremely happy and would likely buy one fairly quickly. Sure, you'd see complaining, but there is complaining about every product apple releases (just as there is complaining about every product everyone releases). But there would be many people who would be very happy with it.
I guess I'm no one then, because I want a desktop but Apple doesn't have one...workstation? yep. glorified upright laptop? yep.....desktop nope.
They've got 3 desktops, spanning a large price range. Just because none of them are quite what you want, that doesn't negate their existence. Even if the model you have yourself set on might fill an important niche, arguing something patently untrue doesn't exactly strengthen your position, does it?
Hm, let's see. People are already bitching Apple has spread themselves too thin with the iPhone platform and surrounding infrastructure for that making hardware refreshes less frequent and hindering Leopard development. Now people want them to introduce another product line that uses desktop parts when they have ZERO other products that use desktop parts.
You clearly have no conception of PC hardware development. A midtower would be the absolute easiest possible product apple could develop. There are tons of reference mobos from intel, the vast majority of the design work has been done already. I think the main intel desktop cpus are even socket compatible with the ones in minis and imacs, so that's not even that different from what they have already.
It could be the least risky new product apple has ever shipped.
Of course not. They took a chance with the iPhone which to me is a much smarter BUSINESS DECISION as the cell market is MUCH larger (and growing) compared to the stagnant or shrinking desktop market. I think they would be better served using their resources trying to build that platform rather then start anew in a stale desktop market.
I'm not sure why you think it's a zero sum game. Do you really think apple is in a position where they have to choose between the iPhone and a new computer model? The smart business decision is to do both, ship the iPhone and also optimize the desktop line. And while desktop sales are growing less than laptop sales, it's still a huge market which is still growing, isn't it?
Think about it. They do have these people called market researchers working at Apple who are on top of what the Joe public is wanting. And their conclusion for the past several years has been that, NO, there isn't "a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator". Simple as that.
You don't know that. The way apple runs, there's a good chance that they are aware that there is demand, but stubbornly refuse to offer the product anyway. If you've followed the company at all you should know that Steve Jobs has a long history of decisions like that, he doesn't make decisions based on market research. And if the public really doesn't want such a machine, why do so many sell on the PC side?
No, that is not boogas' logic.
His logic is that the overall market split is about 50/50 desktop to laptop, but Apple is only selling 1/3 desktops. i.e., relative to the number of laptops they are selling, Apple aren't selling "enough" desktops (it should be 1/2, not 1/3).
There are two ways to look at this.
One is that the desktop line is inferior, so Apple's sales overall are not what they should be, as their portable sales are right, but desktop sales are below where they should be.
Or two, desktop sales are fine (they just moved up 30%, I believe) for a good product line, but Apple's customers are moving to laptops more quickly because of all these college students who primarily buy portables, and who are a large percentage of Apple's sales.
Pick your poison.