Yes, I did say non-extreme. I am assuming that they'll produce reasonably priced non-extreme quad cores in the near future (1st Q '09?). Like I said, there is definitely a market out there for a Mac that uses a separate monitor that's not a Mac Pro level computer. A reasonably fast and reasonably affordable one would be a home run. Of course, it has to be much cheaper than an equally fast iMac, but it has to have enough performance that would-be buyers don't overlook it like they currently do the Mini. Just a thought since someone mentioned the Mini...
We'll definitely see Quad-core notebooks in 2009. But I don't think we'll see a hedless Mac between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. A previous thread on AI today showed that PC OEM sales of desktops are down slightly over this time last year, while Apple is up by about 50%. I'm sure a good portion of that is the momentum of OS X itself, but I think that the average consumer is just fine with the iMac's all-in-one setup. I don't foresee the elusive headless Mac that people want from Apple until gaming becomes more important to the platform... and I don't see that happening while Jobs is CEO.
Sounds more like Nehalem to me , but wait, Nehalem will be releasing next year, hmm and by the time Nehalem release, Intel is going to announce a new chipset which will make Nehalem look like crap again.
We'll definitely see Quad-core notebooks in 2009. But I don't think we'll see a hedless Mac between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. A previous thread on AI today showed that PC OEM sales of desktops are down slightly over this time last year, while Apple is up by about 50%. I'm sure a good portion of that is the momentum of OS X itself, but I think that the average consumer is just fine with the iMac's all-in-one setup. I don't foresee the elusive headless Mac that people want from Apple until gaming becomes more important to the platform... and I don't see that happening while Jobs is CEO.
But these numbers don't include the mass purchasing made by industry and government, which is at least 40% of all computer purchasing, possibly more.
Sounds more like Nehalem to me , but wait, Nehalem will be releasing next year, hmm and by the time Nehalem release, Intel is going to announce a new chipset which will make Nehalem look like crap again.
Intel is killing AMD.
Nehalem is this year. This year!
This has been stated by Intel over and again. just a few days ago!
bleh...dont tell me such things. I was just putting it into my head that as soon as they pop a 128GB SSD into the MacBook Air I would throw down the cash for one....now you gone and done it!
This has been stated by Intel over and again. just a few days ago!
He's probably referring to the fact that ONLY desktop/workstation/server Nehalem chips will be launched this year in Q4. Unless I missed a recent announcement, Nehalem laptop processors will not be out until Q1 2009.
On another note, I too think Apple should definitely put out a headless mini-tower and toss the Mini altogether. It's just stupid of them to try to shoe-horn customers into their existing selection.
Think of a relatively normal home user that likes to edit photos and occasionally make home movies and has a couple of kids that like to play games. They currently are using a 1-4 year old Dell with Windows XP and they want to switch to a Mac since they liked using their friends [insert Mac model].
They don't need a powerhouse gaming machine or workstation, but they will use it to manage and edit their photos, home movies, make webpages, play games, etc.
They would also like to have the ability to upgrade the RAM and harddrive in the future, because they don't want to have to purchase a new computer again for the next 3-5 years.
They would like to spend around $1000 or less and they already have a nice 19" flat panel display that they wish to keep using.
Here are their options:
1) Purchase an iMac, which has unnecessary, slower, and more expensive laptop parts, in addition to the huge expense of an unwanted screen.
2) Purchase a Mac Mini, which again uses slower and more expensive laptop components, is only available with crap integrated graphics, only have small harddrives, etc.
3) Purchase a Mac Pro, which is way out of their range and total overkill.
I'm sure there is an enormous market of people who face a similar situation. Many of them that can't move a bit on price probably end up buying an iMac, but many probably don't end up buying anything from Apple and instead go back to PC land.
I think it's stupid for Apple to not replace the Mac Mini with a mini-tower desktop that lands in between the Mini and the Imac for pricing. Like $799 - $999. They can use desktop parts which will significantly reduce costs while boosting performance and harddrive capacity, use discrete graphics cards, and allow it to be RAM and harddrive upgradeable. Throw it in a nice looking aluminum case, and you have a winner.
Core throttling is a part of the chips microcode. It does it on its own. The OS is responsible for other power saving measures, and Apple seems to have that down pretty well. There's only so much that can be done.
correct. Which us why I mentioned the future of chips going vertical instead of horizontal. A better job could be done saving power on quad core and up processors. My G5 had the ability to work at a slower clock speed to save power. My intel machines don't have this. I know it is Intels fault but regardless, future chips down the road will have better options for saving mega power and better physical designs to shorten pathways. The OS will have a greater role in this as well I feel but only time will tell. Its not like OSX is singlehandedly saving power. Right now, it relies almost soley on the CPU to do that for it.
He's probably referring to the fact that ONLY desktop/workstation/server Nehalem chips will be launched this year in Q4. Unless I missed a recent announcement, Nehalem laptop processors will not be out until Q1 2009.
I sure hope so! I'm really getting tired of the next year bit at this point though. It may even be here sooner.
Quote:
On another note, I too think Apple should definitely put out a headless mini-tower and toss the Mini altogether. It's just stupid of them to try to shoe-horn customers into their existing selection.
Think of a relatively normal home user that likes to edit photos and occasionally make home movies and has a couple of kids that like to play games. They currently are using a 1-4 year old Dell with Windows XP and they want to switch to a Mac since they liked using their friends [insert Mac model].
They don't need a powerhouse gaming machine or workstation, but they will use it to manage and edit their photos, home movies, make webpages, play games, etc.
They would also like to have the ability to upgrade the RAM and harddrive in the future, because they don't want to have to purchase a new computer again for the next 3-5 years.
They would like to spend around $1000 or less and they already have a nice 19" flat panel display that they wish to keep using.
Here are their options:
1) Purchase an iMac, which has unnecessary, slower, and more expensive laptop parts, in addition to the huge expense of an unwanted screen.
2) Purchase a Mac Mini, which again uses slower and more expensive laptop components, is only available with crap integrated graphics, only have small harddrives, etc.
3) Purchase a Mac Pro, which is way out of their range and total overkill.
I'm sure there is an enormous market of people who face a similar situation. Many of them that can't move a bit on price probably end up buying an iMac, but many probably don't end up buying anything from Apple and instead go back to PC land.
I think it's stupid for Apple to not replace the Mac Mini with a mini-tower desktop that lands in between the Mini and the Imac for pricing. Like $799 - $999. They can use desktop parts which will significantly reduce costs while boosting performance and harddrive capacity, use discrete graphics cards, and allow it to be RAM and harddrive upgradeable. Throw it in a nice looking aluminum case, and you have a winner.
My MBP is from Jun 2006, so I'll be in the market for one around the end of next year. A quad core 2.5-3.0 GHz, 8 GB RAM with a bigger 7200 RPM disk will suit me very nicely, and seems like a sensible upgrade from my MBP (dual core 2.0 GHz, 2 GB, 200 GB 7200 rpm).
Note in the diary to check them out next August-September...
We'll definitely see Quad-core notebooks in 2009. But I don't think I don't foresee the elusive headless Mac that people want from Apple until gaming becomes more important to the platform... and I don't see that happening while Jobs is CEO.
Whether we get to see it or not, you just made my point. People want it. The demand is there. Where there is demand, hopefully Apple will be smart enough to fill that demand. They have a very good position to take a nice bite out of Redmond right now and they should seize it in any way they can. The time is ripe.
I think it's stupid for Apple to not replace the Mac Mini with a mini-tower desktop that lands in between the Mini and the Imac for pricing. Like $799 - $999. They can use desktop parts which will significantly reduce costs while boosting performance and harddrive capacity, use discrete graphics cards, and allow it to be RAM and harddrive upgradeable. Throw it in a nice looking aluminum case, and you have a winner.
Why won't they do this??
It reminds me of the days of the Performas. I think they feel as if they had too many products, it will be confusing to consumers and more expensive for them to maintain. However, replacing the Mini wouldn't be an extra product, and they could/should keep it to one offering with a few options.
The average PC buyer can get some pretty serious hardware for $1000. That's what they're used to - the Sunday ad in Best Buy or Circuit City... This is why Mac's have the reputation of being so expensive. They build them out of expensive parts! A Mini replacement that allows users to keep existing hardware and do some upgrading for a reasonable price would probably end up causing a mass exodus from the Redmond based PC.
Whether we get to see it or not, you just made my point. People want it. The demand is there. Where there is demand, hopefully Apple will be smart enough to fill that demand. They have a very good position to take a nice bite out of Redmond right now and they should seize it in any way they can. The time is ripe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24
It reminds me of the days of the Performas. I think they feel as if they had too many products, it will be confusing to consumers and more expensive for them to maintain. However, replacing the Mini wouldn't be an extra product, and they could/should keep it to one offering with a few options.
The average PC buyer can get some pretty serious hardware for $1000. That's what they're used to - the Sunday ad in Best Buy or Circuit City... This is why Mac's have the reputation of being so expensive. They build them out of expensive parts! A Mini replacement that allows users to keep existing hardware and do some upgrading for a reasonable price would probably end up causing a mass exodus from the Redmond based PC.
I agree with both of you, Apple has a GREAT advantage right now in the market.
Vista isn't popular and PC makers haven't really been able to develop many nice-looking PCs or some other tactic to pull users from Apple. Apple is like sitting high on this mountain, and that may not last forever.
I understand the concerns of having a simple product line, but we are talking about a GAPING hole!! The majority of home computer users are used to buying computers in a certain fashion, which is buying a headless desktop with or without a monitor, and getting the best performance/price value they can. Although many users don't know anything about specific technical details, they will compare them to find the best value. I find it incredible Apple wouldn't take advantage of this, and offer a cheaper desktop. !!!!!!!!
Vista isn't popular and PC makers haven't really been able to develop many nice-looking PCs or some other tactic to pull users from Apple. Apple is like sitting high on this mountain, and that may not last forever.
Well, even back before the first iMac, Apple's products still looked much better than the generic PC's. I don't think that will end anytime soon, as Apple has always had an eye for being aesthetically pleasing. They've just turned things up a few notches since Jobs' return.
Quote:
I understand the concerns of having a simple product line, but we are talking about a GAPING hole!! The majority of home computer users are used to buying computers in a certain fashion, which is buying a headless desktop with or without a monitor, and getting the best performance/price value they can. Although many users don't know anything about specific technical details, they will compare them to find the best value. I find it incredible Apple wouldn't take advantage of this, and offer a cheaper desktop. !!!!!!!!
Consumer's lack of knowledge of anything technical is what held AMD back. They had superior processors, yet the only thing average consumers looked at was MHz. Too bad...
Most buyers simply do not seem to be able to justify the current prices of iMacs because they compare the specs to average mid tower PC's. With the iMac using much more expensive laptop parts, it's comparing apples and oranges and they just don't see it. Apple could never pull off such a sleek design using parts bin PC parts, and competitive (if you call it that) products like the Gateway One are either similar pricing or even more expensive for what you get. However, that goes straight over the average consumer's head.
Apple needs to seize the moment and go for the jugular!
Another way of looking at it is that they could put out a very low margin model, into a shrinking market segment (laptop sales growth is 5x that of desktops), require their customers to look at other vendors shops, and open up a support nightmare.
Since it's not in their interest to have their customers buy from other people, the "Apple Deal" will be a low margin box, with an Apple Cinema Display - which likely costs more than the computer. For people that just want to get a computer and go home, this could be a deal breaker (PC World becomes a better choice that the Apple Store).
The support becomes a nightmare, as home user can now mess with their systems, changing video cards and adding all sorts of unsupported things (I'm assuming people don't tinker so much with Mac Pros as they're used mainly for business and under Applecare). For the home xMac, Apple either takes the reputational hit of not supporting all these tinkerers (who will bleat all over the forums, of course), or the financial hit of supporting them. Look at Apple's line - other than the Mac Pro, they're all hard to tinker with, making them cheaper to support (for Apple and consumers).
I think it plays to Apple's favour that iMac's aren't generic minitowers - they're more expensive, but it's really not possible for consumers to make an apples-to-Apples comparison with a PC minitower as the iMac is so different.
Do I agree there's a demand, and for some people this box would be perfect? Yes. Do I think it's the right business decision not to go anywhere near that market? Also yes.
And now I feel bad, for participating in the xMac hijacking of yet *another* thread...
Apple's laptop sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 64%, by revenue up 67%
Apple's Desktop (mostly iMac) sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 55%, by revenue up 68%
Overall Laptop market sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 20%, by revenue up 11%
Overall Desktop market sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit down by 5%, by revenue down 2%
Apple has 14% of the market by units, 25% by revenue.
To my mind, launching a low-margin PC-like desktop into these markets wouldn't be a good plan.
Whereas against the backdrop of laptops overtaking desktops and being a growing market something like the Air doesn't seem like such a gamble after all.
Apple's laptop sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 64%, by revenue up 67%
Apple's Desktop (mostly iMac) sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 55%, by revenue up 68%
Overall Laptop market sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 20%, by revenue up 11%
Overall Desktop market sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit down by 5%, by revenue down 2%
Apple has 14% of the market by units, 25% by revenue.
To my mind, launching a low-margin PC-like desktop into these markets wouldn't be a good plan.
Whereas against the backdrop of laptops overtaking desktops and being a growing market something like the Air doesn't seem like such a gamble after all.
Bizarrely noone suggested an xMac would help in that thread... ;-)
Cheers,
Martin.
Hold your horses. While those numbers are indeed good news, there are ONLY for the february month, ONLY for the US and ONLY for retail... That doesn't mean that Apple has 14% market share overall, even in the US.
Intel's mobile quad, has nothing to do with the xMac. For Apple, it will just be another very expensive option for the 24" iMac and, if it pleases Apple, for the 20" iMac too.
If you had a clue about what the xMac is about you wouldn't have bring it to this thread about a very expensive quad-core cpu, even more expensive than the Xeon cpus in the Mac Pro.
IMO, the xMac is not about making a low-margins computer, or even a low-cost computer, it's about using the best technology available to make powerful yet non-workstation type computers. Desktops parts are less expensive than mobile ones (even in the quantity Apple buys, one example: this mobile 2.53GHz quad-core cpu will cost $1,038, a desktop 2.50GHz quad-core cpu costs $266. With the $750 difference, Apple could buy all the remaining components to make a computer and more...
What we can learn for the last two quarters of Apple, is that desktops are not dead yet, since Apple's desktops are responsible for the increase in Mac sales more than the notebooks (10% more in Q3 and 20% more in Q4, sequencially, where the notebooks had a 0% increase in number of sales in the last quarter).
The MacBook Air is also an example of adding a model to a successful lineup without affecting sales of existing products (as far as we know). While the desktop market and the notebook markets are indeed different, that doesn't prevent something similar to happen in the desktop market. The fact is, PC manufacturers are adding more form factors (mini-like or iMac-like) to a stagnant market anyway... and the desktop Mac segment is not stagnant at all.
Consumer's lack of knowledge of anything technical is what held AMD back. They had superior processors, yet the only thing average consumers looked at was MHz. Too bad...
For most of AMD's life, their processors lagged Intel's. Yes, they had some wizzbang designs, but so what?
The problem with AMD over time, is the same problem they have been having the past two years. They have a really lousy process technology. They always have, even with IBM's help.
Most of those wonderful processors AMD would announce, well before production, would either not reach production, or would be produced a year after their intended debut. By that time, Intel would have passed them by, and they would have to sell the chips a cheap replacements.
AMD did have a few successes, but prior to Intel getting cocky during the early 2000's, they didn't have many. AMD didn't succeed when Intel introduced Prescott, Intel failed. That's very different.
Once Intel realized they couldn't rely on their superior process technology alone, they made an about face, and AMD is again being left in the dust, perhaps permanently this time.
Quote:
Most buyers simply do not seem to be able to justify the current prices of iMacs because they compare the specs to average mid tower PC's. With the iMac using much more expensive laptop parts, it's comparing apples and oranges and they just don't see it. Apple could never pull off such a sleek design using parts bin PC parts, and competitive (if you call it that) products like the Gateway One are either similar pricing or even more expensive for what you get. However, that goes straight over the average consumer's head.
Apple needs to seize the moment and go for the jugular!
That's partly true, but Apple's designs in general are also contributing to the overall cost. In addition, Apple refuses to sell products (except, perhaps, songs movies, and Tv shows) that doesn't return a good level of profit, whereas most PC manufacturers have a mix of expensive commercial and industrial products co-mingling with cheap, only partly profitable, consumer machines.
That's apple's biggest issue with their desktop, using laptop parts which raises the price (and sometimes limits performance) for little benefit.
I have to disagree here, for its Mini and iMac range the so called laptop processor are ideal. The directly deal with the excessive consumption of energy in the USA by computers. Each of these machines are ideal for people that are conscious of their energy usage and yet need a system that is turned on most of the time. As Intels laptop chips migrate farther and farther away from the high performance chips th savings become more significant.
I'd love to see Apple introduce a desktop machine that in total uses less than 20 watts or power. We are not quite there yet but I believe it is not impossible. Assemble the right class of machine and all of ones computing needs could be solar powered.
Comments
Yes, I did say non-extreme. I am assuming that they'll produce reasonably priced non-extreme quad cores in the near future (1st Q '09?). Like I said, there is definitely a market out there for a Mac that uses a separate monitor that's not a Mac Pro level computer. A reasonably fast and reasonably affordable one would be a home run. Of course, it has to be much cheaper than an equally fast iMac, but it has to have enough performance that would-be buyers don't overlook it like they currently do the Mini. Just a thought since someone mentioned the Mini...
We'll definitely see Quad-core notebooks in 2009. But I don't think we'll see a hedless Mac between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. A previous thread on AI today showed that PC OEM sales of desktops are down slightly over this time last year, while Apple is up by about 50%. I'm sure a good portion of that is the momentum of OS X itself, but I think that the average consumer is just fine with the iMac's all-in-one setup. I don't foresee the elusive headless Mac that people want from Apple until gaming becomes more important to the platform... and I don't see that happening while Jobs is CEO.
Intel is killing AMD.
We'll definitely see Quad-core notebooks in 2009. But I don't think we'll see a hedless Mac between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. A previous thread on AI today showed that PC OEM sales of desktops are down slightly over this time last year, while Apple is up by about 50%. I'm sure a good portion of that is the momentum of OS X itself, but I think that the average consumer is just fine with the iMac's all-in-one setup. I don't foresee the elusive headless Mac that people want from Apple until gaming becomes more important to the platform... and I don't see that happening while Jobs is CEO.
But these numbers don't include the mass purchasing made by industry and government, which is at least 40% of all computer purchasing, possibly more.
Sounds more like Nehalem to me
Intel is killing AMD.
Nehalem is this year. This year!
This has been stated by Intel over and again. just a few days ago!
Nehalem is this year. This year!
This has been stated by Intel over and again. just a few days ago!
He's probably referring to the fact that ONLY desktop/workstation/server Nehalem chips will be launched this year in Q4. Unless I missed a recent announcement, Nehalem laptop processors will not be out until Q1 2009.
On another note, I too think Apple should definitely put out a headless mini-tower and toss the Mini altogether. It's just stupid of them to try to shoe-horn customers into their existing selection.
Think of a relatively normal home user that likes to edit photos and occasionally make home movies and has a couple of kids that like to play games. They currently are using a 1-4 year old Dell with Windows XP and they want to switch to a Mac since they liked using their friends [insert Mac model].
They don't need a powerhouse gaming machine or workstation, but they will use it to manage and edit their photos, home movies, make webpages, play games, etc.
They would also like to have the ability to upgrade the RAM and harddrive in the future, because they don't want to have to purchase a new computer again for the next 3-5 years.
They would like to spend around $1000 or less and they already have a nice 19" flat panel display that they wish to keep using.
Here are their options:
1) Purchase an iMac, which has unnecessary, slower, and more expensive laptop parts, in addition to the huge expense of an unwanted screen.
2) Purchase a Mac Mini, which again uses slower and more expensive laptop components, is only available with crap integrated graphics, only have small harddrives, etc.
3) Purchase a Mac Pro, which is way out of their range and total overkill.
I'm sure there is an enormous market of people who face a similar situation. Many of them that can't move a bit on price probably end up buying an iMac, but many probably don't end up buying anything from Apple and instead go back to PC land.
I think it's stupid for Apple to not replace the Mac Mini with a mini-tower desktop that lands in between the Mini and the Imac for pricing. Like $799 - $999. They can use desktop parts which will significantly reduce costs while boosting performance and harddrive capacity, use discrete graphics cards, and allow it to be RAM and harddrive upgradeable. Throw it in a nice looking aluminum case, and you have a winner.
Why won't they do this??
Core throttling is a part of the chips microcode. It does it on its own. The OS is responsible for other power saving measures, and Apple seems to have that down pretty well. There's only so much that can be done.
correct. Which us why I mentioned the future of chips going vertical instead of horizontal. A better job could be done saving power on quad core and up processors. My G5 had the ability to work at a slower clock speed to save power. My intel machines don't have this. I know it is Intels fault but regardless, future chips down the road will have better options for saving mega power and better physical designs to shorten pathways. The OS will have a greater role in this as well I feel but only time will tell. Its not like OSX is singlehandedly saving power. Right now, it relies almost soley on the CPU to do that for it.
He's probably referring to the fact that ONLY desktop/workstation/server Nehalem chips will be launched this year in Q4. Unless I missed a recent announcement, Nehalem laptop processors will not be out until Q1 2009.
I sure hope so! I'm really getting tired of the next year bit at this point though. It may even be here sooner.
On another note, I too think Apple should definitely put out a headless mini-tower and toss the Mini altogether. It's just stupid of them to try to shoe-horn customers into their existing selection.
Think of a relatively normal home user that likes to edit photos and occasionally make home movies and has a couple of kids that like to play games. They currently are using a 1-4 year old Dell with Windows XP and they want to switch to a Mac since they liked using their friends [insert Mac model].
They don't need a powerhouse gaming machine or workstation, but they will use it to manage and edit their photos, home movies, make webpages, play games, etc.
They would also like to have the ability to upgrade the RAM and harddrive in the future, because they don't want to have to purchase a new computer again for the next 3-5 years.
They would like to spend around $1000 or less and they already have a nice 19" flat panel display that they wish to keep using.
Here are their options:
1) Purchase an iMac, which has unnecessary, slower, and more expensive laptop parts, in addition to the huge expense of an unwanted screen.
2) Purchase a Mac Mini, which again uses slower and more expensive laptop components, is only available with crap integrated graphics, only have small harddrives, etc.
3) Purchase a Mac Pro, which is way out of their range and total overkill.
I'm sure there is an enormous market of people who face a similar situation. Many of them that can't move a bit on price probably end up buying an iMac, but many probably don't end up buying anything from Apple and instead go back to PC land.
I think it's stupid for Apple to not replace the Mac Mini with a mini-tower desktop that lands in between the Mini and the Imac for pricing. Like $799 - $999. They can use desktop parts which will significantly reduce costs while boosting performance and harddrive capacity, use discrete graphics cards, and allow it to be RAM and harddrive upgradeable. Throw it in a nice looking aluminum case, and you have a winner.
Why won't they do this??
Because they don't agree that it's stupid.
My MBP is from Jun 2006, so I'll be in the market for one around the end of next year. A quad core 2.5-3.0 GHz, 8 GB RAM with a bigger 7200 RPM disk will suit me very nicely, and seems like a sensible upgrade from my MBP (dual core 2.0 GHz, 2 GB, 200 GB 7200 rpm).
Note in the diary to check them out next August-September...
We'll definitely see Quad-core notebooks in 2009. But I don't think I don't foresee the elusive headless Mac that people want from Apple until gaming becomes more important to the platform... and I don't see that happening while Jobs is CEO.
Whether we get to see it or not, you just made my point. People want it. The demand is there. Where there is demand, hopefully Apple will be smart enough to fill that demand. They have a very good position to take a nice bite out of Redmond right now and they should seize it in any way they can. The time is ripe.
He's probably referring to the fact that ONLY
I think it's stupid for Apple to not replace the Mac Mini with a mini-tower desktop that lands in between the Mini and the Imac for pricing. Like $799 - $999. They can use desktop parts which will significantly reduce costs while boosting performance and harddrive capacity, use discrete graphics cards, and allow it to be RAM and harddrive upgradeable. Throw it in a nice looking aluminum case, and you have a winner.
Why won't they do this??
It reminds me of the days of the Performas. I think they feel as if they had too many products, it will be confusing to consumers and more expensive for them to maintain. However, replacing the Mini wouldn't be an extra product, and they could/should keep it to one offering with a few options.
The average PC buyer can get some pretty serious hardware for $1000. That's what they're used to - the Sunday ad in Best Buy or Circuit City... This is why Mac's have the reputation of being so expensive. They build them out of expensive parts! A Mini replacement that allows users to keep existing hardware and do some upgrading for a reasonable price would probably end up causing a mass exodus from the Redmond based PC.
Whether we get to see it or not, you just made my point. People want it. The demand is there. Where there is demand, hopefully Apple will be smart enough to fill that demand. They have a very good position to take a nice bite out of Redmond right now and they should seize it in any way they can. The time is ripe.
It reminds me of the days of the Performas. I think they feel as if they had too many products, it will be confusing to consumers and more expensive for them to maintain. However, replacing the Mini wouldn't be an extra product, and they could/should keep it to one offering with a few options.
The average PC buyer can get some pretty serious hardware for $1000. That's what they're used to - the Sunday ad in Best Buy or Circuit City... This is why Mac's have the reputation of being so expensive. They build them out of expensive parts! A Mini replacement that allows users to keep existing hardware and do some upgrading for a reasonable price would probably end up causing a mass exodus from the Redmond based PC.
I agree with both of you, Apple has a GREAT advantage right now in the market.
Vista isn't popular and PC makers haven't really been able to develop many nice-looking PCs or some other tactic to pull users from Apple. Apple is like sitting high on this mountain, and that may not last forever.
I understand the concerns of having a simple product line, but we are talking about a GAPING hole!! The majority of home computer users are used to buying computers in a certain fashion, which is buying a headless desktop with or without a monitor, and getting the best performance/price value they can. Although many users don't know anything about specific technical details, they will compare them to find the best value. I find it incredible Apple wouldn't take advantage of this, and offer a cheaper desktop. !!!!!!!!
Vista isn't popular and PC makers haven't really been able to develop many nice-looking PCs or some other tactic to pull users from Apple. Apple is like sitting high on this mountain, and that may not last forever.
Well, even back before the first iMac, Apple's products still looked much better than the generic PC's. I don't think that will end anytime soon, as Apple has always had an eye for being aesthetically pleasing. They've just turned things up a few notches since Jobs' return.
I understand the concerns of having a simple product line, but we are talking about a GAPING hole!! The majority of home computer users are used to buying computers in a certain fashion, which is buying a headless desktop with or without a monitor, and getting the best performance/price value they can. Although many users don't know anything about specific technical details, they will compare them to find the best value. I find it incredible Apple wouldn't take advantage of this, and offer a cheaper desktop. !!!!!!!!
Consumer's lack of knowledge of anything technical is what held AMD back. They had superior processors, yet the only thing average consumers looked at was MHz. Too bad...
Most buyers simply do not seem to be able to justify the current prices of iMacs because they compare the specs to average mid tower PC's. With the iMac using much more expensive laptop parts, it's comparing apples and oranges and they just don't see it. Apple could never pull off such a sleek design using parts bin PC parts, and competitive (if you call it that) products like the Gateway One are either similar pricing or even more expensive for what you get. However, that goes straight over the average consumer's head.
Apple needs to seize the moment and go for the jugular!
Since it's not in their interest to have their customers buy from other people, the "Apple Deal" will be a low margin box, with an Apple Cinema Display - which likely costs more than the computer. For people that just want to get a computer and go home, this could be a deal breaker (PC World becomes a better choice that the Apple Store).
The support becomes a nightmare, as home user can now mess with their systems, changing video cards and adding all sorts of unsupported things (I'm assuming people don't tinker so much with Mac Pros as they're used mainly for business and under Applecare). For the home xMac, Apple either takes the reputational hit of not supporting all these tinkerers (who will bleat all over the forums, of course), or the financial hit of supporting them. Look at Apple's line - other than the Mac Pro, they're all hard to tinker with, making them cheaper to support (for Apple and consumers).
I think it plays to Apple's favour that iMac's aren't generic minitowers - they're more expensive, but it's really not possible for consumers to make an apples-to-Apples comparison with a PC minitower as the iMac is so different.
Do I agree there's a demand, and for some people this box would be perfect? Yes. Do I think it's the right business decision not to go anywhere near that market? Also yes.
And now I feel bad, for participating in the xMac hijacking of yet *another* thread...
All the best,
Martin.
Apple's laptop sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 64%, by revenue up 67%
Apple's Desktop (mostly iMac) sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 55%, by revenue up 68%
Overall Laptop market sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 20%, by revenue up 11%
Overall Desktop market sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit down by 5%, by revenue down 2%
Apple has 14% of the market by units, 25% by revenue.
To my mind, launching a low-margin PC-like desktop into these markets wouldn't be a good plan.
Whereas against the backdrop of laptops overtaking desktops and being a growing market something like the Air doesn't seem like such a gamble after all.
Just found the AI article and thread (AI was first) http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._february.html
Bizarrely noone suggested an xMac would help in that thread... ;-)
Cheers,
Martin.
Wow, that was timely: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/03...ail_sales_feb/
Apple's laptop sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 64%, by revenue up 67%
Apple's Desktop (mostly iMac) sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 55%, by revenue up 68%
Overall Laptop market sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit up by 20%, by revenue up 11%
Overall Desktop market sales growth (since Feb '07) by unit down by 5%, by revenue down 2%
Apple has 14% of the market by units, 25% by revenue.
To my mind, launching a low-margin PC-like desktop into these markets wouldn't be a good plan.
Whereas against the backdrop of laptops overtaking desktops and being a growing market something like the Air doesn't seem like such a gamble after all.
Just found the AI article and thread (AI was first) http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._february.html
Bizarrely noone suggested an xMac would help in that thread... ;-)
Cheers,
Martin.
Hold your horses. While those numbers are indeed good news, there are ONLY for the february month, ONLY for the US and ONLY for retail... That doesn't mean that Apple has 14% market share overall, even in the US.
Intel's mobile quad, has nothing to do with the xMac. For Apple, it will just be another very expensive option for the 24" iMac and, if it pleases Apple, for the 20" iMac too.
If you had a clue about what the xMac is about you wouldn't have bring it to this thread about a very expensive quad-core cpu, even more expensive than the Xeon cpus in the Mac Pro.
IMO, the xMac is not about making a low-margins computer, or even a low-cost computer, it's about using the best technology available to make powerful yet non-workstation type computers. Desktops parts are less expensive than mobile ones (even in the quantity Apple buys, one example: this mobile 2.53GHz quad-core cpu will cost $1,038, a desktop 2.50GHz quad-core cpu costs $266. With the $750 difference, Apple could buy all the remaining components to make a computer and more...
What we can learn for the last two quarters of Apple, is that desktops are not dead yet, since Apple's desktops are responsible for the increase in Mac sales more than the notebooks (10% more in Q3 and 20% more in Q4, sequencially, where the notebooks had a 0% increase in number of sales in the last quarter).
The MacBook Air is also an example of adding a model to a successful lineup without affecting sales of existing products (as far as we know). While the desktop market and the notebook markets are indeed different, that doesn't prevent something similar to happen in the desktop market. The fact is, PC manufacturers are adding more form factors (mini-like or iMac-like) to a stagnant market anyway... and the desktop Mac segment is not stagnant at all.
Consumer's lack of knowledge of anything technical is what held AMD back. They had superior processors, yet the only thing average consumers looked at was MHz. Too bad...
For most of AMD's life, their processors lagged Intel's. Yes, they had some wizzbang designs, but so what?
The problem with AMD over time, is the same problem they have been having the past two years. They have a really lousy process technology. They always have, even with IBM's help.
Most of those wonderful processors AMD would announce, well before production, would either not reach production, or would be produced a year after their intended debut. By that time, Intel would have passed them by, and they would have to sell the chips a cheap replacements.
AMD did have a few successes, but prior to Intel getting cocky during the early 2000's, they didn't have many. AMD didn't succeed when Intel introduced Prescott, Intel failed. That's very different.
Once Intel realized they couldn't rely on their superior process technology alone, they made an about face, and AMD is again being left in the dust, perhaps permanently this time.
Most buyers simply do not seem to be able to justify the current prices of iMacs because they compare the specs to average mid tower PC's. With the iMac using much more expensive laptop parts, it's comparing apples and oranges and they just don't see it. Apple could never pull off such a sleek design using parts bin PC parts, and competitive (if you call it that) products like the Gateway One are either similar pricing or even more expensive for what you get. However, that goes straight over the average consumer's head.
Apple needs to seize the moment and go for the jugular!
That's partly true, but Apple's designs in general are also contributing to the overall cost. In addition, Apple refuses to sell products (except, perhaps, songs movies, and Tv shows) that doesn't return a good level of profit, whereas most PC manufacturers have a mix of expensive commercial and industrial products co-mingling with cheap, only partly profitable, consumer machines.
That's apple's biggest issue with their desktop, using laptop parts which raises the price (and sometimes limits performance) for little benefit.
I have to disagree here, for its Mini and iMac range the so called laptop processor are ideal. The directly deal with the excessive consumption of energy in the USA by computers. Each of these machines are ideal for people that are conscious of their energy usage and yet need a system that is turned on most of the time. As Intels laptop chips migrate farther and farther away from the high performance chips th savings become more significant.
I'd love to see Apple introduce a desktop machine that in total uses less than 20 watts or power. We are not quite there yet but I believe it is not impossible. Assemble the right class of machine and all of ones computing needs could be solar powered.
Dave