Apple to introduce more affordable Macs, sources say

13468915

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 293
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foxy View Post


    Uh-oh.



    When Apple has tried this in the past, they've always done it without compromising their ultra high margins...



    You do realize that Apple's gross margins are lower than RiM and MS, and I would suspect lower than Dell and HP's comparable machines where they try to make a solid buck. It's only the cheap machines that the vendors have razor thin margins that require pre-installed crapware to be added so they can make a buck. I don't see or want Apple getting into that game as both a stockholder and as a customer.
  • Reply 102 of 293
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post


    me and a few others here thought that the loss last month might do it combined with the new MSFT ads, however, remember that Apple is painted into a corner by themselves. Many know the apple profit margin can be from 80% to 400% (at least what I have read online) with the Mac Pro actually being the fairest of them all price wise, however, also note that it uses PREMIUM EEC RAM as well as higher end CPU's, Apple could have used CHEAPER MEMORY and CHEAPER CPU and had a machine that is faster, then it's present offerings, again, this is by Apple design.



    The mac pro is about $1000+ over priced with system at $1000-$1200 with x2 the ram and much better video.
  • Reply 103 of 293
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    The mac pro is about $1000+ over priced with system at $1000-$1200 with x2 the ram and much better video.



    You must be on crack.



    We've already gone throught this. Lenovo and Dell announced Xeon systems and much to even my surprise they were anything close to be a grand cheaper. Try again.
  • Reply 104 of 293
    cu10cu10 Posts: 294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    As a stockholder I always worry about companies making less net profit per unit.



    Not unless the company sells more units.



    50% marketshare, no less.
  • Reply 105 of 293
    foxyfoxy Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You do realize that Apple's gross margins are lower than RiM and MS



    MS makes software, not hardware. Of course MS has higher margins.
    Quote:

    and I would suspect lower than Dell and HP's comparable machines where they try to make a solid buck.



    In 2005, Dell's gross margin was 18% and Apple's was 36%. Dells net profit was 6%, Apple's was 9% (I don't know what Apple did with the 27% that disappeared along the way but for starters, developing OS X isn't free).



    If you look at a high-end professional line Dell like the Precision, a Mac with identical specs costs much more. Plus, the Dell Precision includes 3Y CompleteCare with on-site repairs. Apple charges extra for 3Y AppleCare and it still doesn't include on-site repairs. So they're clearly hoarding money in an anachronistic manner, and at some point they're gonna grow tired of their 3.32% worldwide marketshare and do something drastic to make it grow. If the stockholders don't like it, too bad.
  • Reply 106 of 293
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CU10 View Post


    Not unless the company sells more units.



    50% marketshare, no less.



    More units is only viable if your net profits are greater. Then you have to look at sustainably, if you lower prices for a stronger dollar and weak economy, you can get yourself in trouble when those reverse. It's a tricky balance, but one that Apple has exceeded at over the last decade.
  • Reply 107 of 293
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Apple has always been conservative



    Which is why you won't see them make a big push into gaming nor have they

    invested heavily into Enterprise. Both areas are notoriously hard to make a buck.
  • Reply 108 of 293
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    More units is only viable if your net profits are greater. Then you have to look at sustainably, if you lower prices for a stronger dollar and weak economy, you can get yourself in trouble when those reverse. It's a tricky balance, but one that Apple has exceeded at over the last decade.



    Perhaps CU10 was thinking of the time-tested phrase, "That's OK, they'll make it up in volume!"
  • Reply 109 of 293
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    More units is only viable if your net profits are greater. Then you have to look at sustainably, if you lower prices for a stronger dollar and weak economy, you can get yourself in trouble when those reverse. It's a tricky balance, but one that Apple has exceeded at over the last decade.



    They could lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume.



    EDIT: Echo... echo... echo!
  • Reply 110 of 293
    Good. The base white Macbook should start around $699, not $999. If that means it gets a 1.6GHz processor instead of 2GHz and only a gig of RAM, so be it.
  • Reply 111 of 293
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,988member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post


    I disagree with the cell phone comment. Most people that I know who have the iPhone love the "iPod Touch" portion of the device. As a phone, they say its a horrible device. Most of it is to blame on carriers. All of them have faults, big glaring faults.



    "The iPhone is an amazing phone, given you don't need a phone!" (Common joke at work)



    Okay, most people I know love the iPhone as a phone too. I'm not blaming Apple for what AT&T's network does. AT&T has been great me for and all my friends that have it. That's not saying service wherever you may be (I'm in San Francisco) is horrible.



    I agree with you they all have their faults and advantages. But I have friends on other networks (Sprint, Verizon) that think their service sucks too.



    Either way, both of us are right. No one is wrong here.
  • Reply 112 of 293
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justflybob View Post


    Perhaps CU10 was thinking of the time-tested phrase, "That's OK, they'll make it up in volume!"



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    They could lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume.



    EDIT: Echo... echo... echo!



    That does seem to be the business rationale of so many.
  • Reply 113 of 293
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    Good. The base white Macbook should start around $699, not $999. If that means it gets a 1.6GHz processor instead of 2GHz and only a gig of RAM, so be it.



    It'd have to have old graphics too. Something like Intel X3100 graphics. I think the $599-699 range is perfect for developing a Tablet MID. The difficult part is the software. It has to be more functional than a phone OS but not quite as involved as a desktop/laptop OS
  • Reply 114 of 293
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That does seem to be the business rationale of so many.



    Then they can try it for themselves and see how it works -- just don't expect anyone else to adopt the theory.



    Really, I keep hearing all these armchair CEOs telling us how "Apple could make so much more money if only..." Get back to me when you've got $30 billion in the bank. A few flying pigs might enhance believability.
  • Reply 115 of 293
    rptrpt Posts: 175member
    Just an example related to the price of PC vs Mac based on me just getting a new PC in my job:



    I just got a HP Elitebook 2530, my background is that over the past 20 years I have had 13 Macs and this is my 10th PC based on total of myself, household and job. Some PCs I have had have been cheap crap, other have been a quality product like the Elitebook appears to be (ask me in a year and i will now), but how does it compare to the Macbook (3 of them of different model in my household)



    Macbook/Elitebook: 2.0/1.6 GHz processor, 160/80 GB HD, 2/2 GB RAM



    Dimesions: Mac: 325 x 227 x 25 mm, HP: 282 X 237 x 35 mm, Weight: Mac: 2276 g, HP: 2126 g



    Explanation: These are my measurements, it appears that HP forgot to include the 6 cell battery in the dimensions (6 and 3 cell are identical at their website as far as dimensions and weigh are concerned) and neither included the mains unit, where the Mac unit scores better in dimensions and weight. As far as thickness is concerned the HP is tapered (max 35 mm, min 29 with pads) so I used the average (it is specified to around 25 mm !)



    LCD: The Mac display is SUPERIOR, the HP display simply does not belong to a premium PC.



    Of course the HP has a 10 inch screen, and have a selling point of being a small light notebook, but the limitation in my briefcase is basically volume not weight (within reason, and this is) and having a 13 inch is always an advantage, and the volume of the Mac (not counting the smaller power) is about 80% of the PC!



    Then to the point: List MSRP: Mac: USD 1 299, HP: USD 1 749



    Well, this is only a small example, but it illustrates that there is no simple solution to wether there is a Mac tax or not, and I sincerely hope that we will not see anything resembling a CHEAP Mac like the 600 USD HP in the Microsoft commercial on TV. Still I would not mind seeing Apple keep on developing good products and still survive at a slightly lower margin.
  • Reply 116 of 293
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Get back to me when you've got $30 billion in the bank. A few flying pigs might enhance believability.



    Swine flu is airborne*. Does that count?





    * It can be spread by droplet contact from coughing and sneezing, but it can't remain active in the air for long periods.
  • Reply 117 of 293
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Swine flu is airborne*. Does that count?



    No, but I won't squeal on you.
  • Reply 118 of 293
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Just give me a Headless Mac. I don't want the iMac to get "cheaper" in quality.



    I'll buy my own Display while not destroying the margin for Apple selling a headless Mid-tower.
  • Reply 119 of 293
    hiimamachiimamac Posts: 584member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    You must be on crack.



    We've already gone throught this. Lenovo and Dell announced Xeon systems and much to even my surprise they were anything close to be a grand cheaper. Try again.



    As everyone who knows me knows, I think Apple is overpriced, that said I get most of my Macs from Apple friends and get around 25=35% off, depending on unit, refresh or end of life (normally the best deal, EOL (end of life)), however, I have done enough research to show that a PC built close to a MAC PRO comes out to the same if not more. This doesn't mean it's NOT overpriced as the PC manufacture and Apple have decent margins on them.



    My point was Apple could have easily built a 4 and 8 core i7 system with great DDR (non ECC) and you would have a machine that if you built retail would cost $800 (i7 Machine), so actual manufacturing cost would be about $450, instead, Apple chooses higher end so they can have a higher profit margin. In other words, they could have built an i7 machine at $450 (our cost would be $800 to build, retail), and sell it for $1200.



    With the Macbook (about $250 to make) and AIR (I can't and won't go there), these machines are somewhat overpriced, thing is, I don't know how they will release something cheaper (which on paper is very easy to do and still be of good quality, remember, Macbook not that expensive to make, especially with Unibody), but because of these two items, I don't know how they come out with a cheaper machine unless they add newer 4 core CPU's to the MACBOOK and MACBOOK pro and start pricing laptops based on cores.



    In the end, the consumer wins and Apple has not paid attention to the PC user for a long time, it's all been iPhone, iPhone, iPhone.
  • Reply 120 of 293
    cu10cu10 Posts: 294member
    Psystar is toast!
Sign In or Register to comment.